GM Working on Feasible Electric Car

WindBourne writes "While Ford wants to simply offer cosmetic changes to automobiles interiors and exteriors, General Motors has finally gotten the message about electric autos. They are about to introduce the Chevy Volt, a plug-in hybrid which gets 40 Miles on a charge, but has a generator that can keep the auto going up to 640 miles range. From a styling POV, it is not a tesla, but it is also not a focus or a pinto. From the Rocky article: 'GM did not release cost estimates but said they recognize the Volt's price will have to be competitive. Company Vice Chairman Robert Lutz said in a statement that more than half of Americans live less than 20 miles from their workplace and could go to work and back on a single charge.'"

Comments

The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platform

[daveschroeder]

Also coming from GM in model year 2008 is the full hybrid GMT900 truck platform [1, 2, . This encompasses the Chevy Tahoe and Suburban, the GMC Yukon and Yukon XL, and the Cadillac Escalade and Escalade ESV, among others. The hybrid uses the GM/DaimlerChrysler Advanced Hybrid System 2.

The hybrids will feature:

- 5.3L FlexFuel Vortec V8 (able to run using E85, a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline)
- Active Fuel Management (AFM)/Displacement on Demand (DOD), disabling cylinders as needed for cruising
- Two 30kW electric motors inside of the same physical space as the normal automatic transmission
- A continuously variable automatic transmission
- Conventional 110VAC power outlets on board
- Hybrid system derived from the advanced system on already in use on GM's Allison transit buses

This advanced hybrid system, while not plug-in, will be offered on all model year 2008 GM full size SUVs, as well as pickups and fleet vehicles. The expected fuel economy gain is 30% over today's figures on the gasoline/FlexFuel-only AFM variant, approaching 30mpg for city driving. That's a damned good improvement. And when used with FlexFuel, they're using less fossil fuels - even including the fully burdened fossil fuel costs of ethanol - than Prius and Civic hybrid drivers, in addition to contributing to lower overall greenhouse gas emissions. As the process efficiency increases over the next few years, these numbers will improve.

Whether or not one likes or dislikes SUVs, or thinks people should be able to be told what types of vehicles they should or shouldn't be driving, or think subjective judgments can be simplistically made about what other people "need" or don't need, it's still an excellent step forward. While the Volt is very interesting (conspiracy theorists: think of some way the Volt is really still a GM plot to "keep electric vehicles down" or to assist big oil) and using centralized power generation and leveraging the existing electric grid and production capacity is a necessary step to the future, the full hybrid SUVs will be one of the big things that people buy in the short term, not to mention being one of the major things - if not the thing - that may make or break GM in the next decade.

What is GM doing?

[Salvance]

So how can Tesla, a startup company with little manufacturing and car experience relative to GM, build an electric car that can make it 200 miles on a charge, while GM can only build one that makes it 40? Come on GM, put a bigger Li-Ion battery in the thing and create a car that works for commuters.

Sure, the Volt is moving in the right direction, but it looks wacky and won't meet many people's expectations. Still, if it was under $25K, I'd consider one.

Re:What is GM doing?

[ctid]

I think the tesla was built on a Lotus Esprit (or was it Elise?) chassis. Those are very small and light cars, at least in petrol form. There is a CNN article about this car (which incidentally calls it a "concept") and the pictures suggest something rather large and heavy. I don't know if this apparent difference in size accounts for the difference in range.

Re:What is GM doing?

[ArcherB]

So how can Tesla, a startup company with little manufacturing and car experience relative to GM, build an electric car that can make it 200 miles on a charge, while GM can only build one that makes it 40? Come on GM, put a bigger Li-Ion battery in the thing and create a car that works for commuters.

Keep in mind that the Tesla does not have to worry about lugging a heavy internal combustion engine around either. If you want to drive more than 200 miles in a Tesla, you have to carry around the portable charge and recharge it for three hours, assuming you can find a place that will let you plug in. The gasoline powered internal combustion engine may reduce the efficiency of the car, but it allows for the car to drive cross country, only stopping to refill (and pee), which takes about 15 minutes ever 400 miles or so.

Re:What is GM doing?

[Animats]

So how can Tesla, a startup company with little manufacturing and car experience relative to GM, build an electric car that can make it 200 miles on a charge

The Tesla's sticker price of $92,500 makes it possible.

We're making progress, though. The only real remaining problem with high performance electric cars is battery cost. The necessary energy density is available if you pay enough.

Re:What is GM doing?

[maxume]

The battery alone in the Tesla is going to cost something like $25000. GM is just as constrained as the rest of us, they don't have a secret supply of magic. And it is only suitable as a daily driver anyway, 250 miles, wait 3.5 hours isn't my idea of a fun trip.

Re:What is GM doing?

[tfiedler]

Because Tesla is building a car that only the superwealthy can afford.

GM is building a car for regular people so compromises must be made. It's basic economic opportunity cost stuff, really, which you should have learned in college.

Re:What is GM doing?

[jadavis]

If you want to drive more than 200 miles in a Tesla, you have to carry around the portable charge and recharge it for three hours

A small percentage of the miles I drive take place during a day in which I travel more than 200 miles. If the tesla were cheaper, I could have two cars: a cheap internal combustion car to make long trips, and a tesla to do most of my driving. We don't need one car to serve all purposes for all people.

Re:What is GM doing?

[MDMurphy]

Actually the range for the Volt is 600 miles, not 40 due to the generator. The build cost for that is more reasonable than 5x the batteries, and allows for longer trips. It looks like a smart idea. The electric portion of the car can be generic, while the generator could be gas, diesel, biodiesel, hydrogen or fuel cell. I doubt GM's plan is to sell the car for $100K

Going longer on batteries is nice, but not everyone would agree that going a big further per charge is worth it if it reduces the ability for actual long distance driving. Some people have resorted to pulling trailers with generators for "pure" electric cars for long trips, so this is a much tidier solution. A car only useful for short trips would work for some people, but one that can directly replace an existing car where you don't have to worry about where the next charging location is will have much greater appeal.

Re:What is GM doing?

[radtea]

Still, if it was under $25K, I'd consider one.

My first thought was, "I want one!" Then I saw the pictures...

Re:What is GM doing?

[kfg]

So how can Tesla, a startup company with little manufacturing and car experience relative to GM, build an electric car that can make it 200 miles on a charge, while GM can only build one that makes it 40?

By not putting in a gasoline powered generator; freeing up that space and weight for more batteries.

The article says that GM will not call this car a hybrid, but anyone who has ever read any of my previous posts on this issue will know that this car is nearly exactly what I've been harping about in my criticisms of cars like the Prius. This car is what a hybrid really is; before the marketing people started playing around with the term. Not a multi-drive car, but an electric drive car powered from a gasoline/deisel generator.

Thus the difference between this car and the Tesla is that the Tesla is an electric car and the Chevy is a hybrid.

Don't look at it as a car that will only go 40 miles before you have to plug it in again or add gasoline. That's really the wrong end of the telescope. Look at it as a car that will still go 40 miles after the gasoline is gone. The battery pack is cache, not main memory.

KFG

Re:What is GM doing?

[evilviper]

Keep in mind that the Tesla does not have to worry about lugging a heavy internal combustion engine around either.

An I.C.E. is not heavy... I have a 2KW generator that probably weighs 20 pounds. It's a large engine, plus alternator, radiator, transmission, axle, fan, etc., which causes so much weight.

Throw a single-piston electric generator in the trunk of your Tesla motors vehicle, and it will, at the very least, extend the range significantly. With a more expensive, higher power generator, you could drive indefinitely, without all the significant added weight of current-style (parallel) hybrids.

Re:What is GM doing?

[shmlco]

"This car is what a hybrid really is; ... Not a multi-drive car, but an electric drive car powered from a gasoline/deisel generator."

I think you're picking nits and besides, from my perspective those other cars ARE hybrids. The Volt is an electric car... that just happens to carry around it's own backup generator.

Re:What is GM doing?

[WindBourne]

Tesla is a pure electric in a lightweight 2 seater with a range of 200 Miles at around 100K.

GM's is a sedan with 40 mile range electric/~600 Miles electric/gas. For the vast majority of Americans (and probably the world), 40 miles is a great radius with more than 500 being used rarely.

The only thing that GM appears to have wrong, is that they need to be using a lightweight engine like the radmax. That engine would allow them to have even better mileage.

Re:What is GM doing?

[Rew190]

Sure, but the Tesla is also a real sports car that goes 0 - 60 in four seconds, and that's reflected in the tag. The vast majority of us don't need anything near that level of performance.

Re:What is GM doing?

[kfg]

I think you're picking nits. . .

No. I am speaking of fundamental and critical differences.

. . .from my perspective those other cars ARE hybrids. . .

I am speaking from the perspective of a designer of electric and hybrid cars; who has some knowledge of the history of the things back into the 19th century.

They are not true hybrids. They are multi-drive source. There is a huge difference, but I might need to sit you down with a pile of drawings/models to make it clear.

The Volt is an electric car... that just happens to carry around it's own backup generator.

You are not quite there, but you have just come damned close to the actual definition of the Combustion/Electric hybrid car.

The Combustion/Hybrid is one that burns fuel to operate a heat engine, but uses the heat engine to turn a generator, not the wheels. The heat engine of a true hyrid is not connected to the drive train at all. The electric motor alone is. Since even when operating as an electric it relies on the burning of fuel as its primary energy source there is no need for the combustion motor to provide drive.

This has, dare I say it, "paradigm shifting" implications. I've covered most of them in years past. I've been extremely ill the past few days; at deaths door and shit, I wasn't even supposed to be here today and I just don't have the energy right now to tread over old ground on a serious technical subject.

So I'm afraid I'm just going to state it as fact and abandon.

KFG

Re:What is GM doing?

[Anonymous Coward]

An I.C.E. is not heavy... I have a 2KW generator that probably weighs 20 pounds.

I think you underestimate the amount of power needed to move a car.

And the fact that it'd be illegal to put that engine in a car, as it would violate all kinds of emissions and safety standards.

Throw a single-piston electric generator in the trunk of your Tesla motors vehicle, and it will, at the very least, extend the range significantly.

No. Your ~2HP motor is only a few percent of the power needed to move at highway speeds, and will only extend the range a few percent (unless you count running the motor all night, but then you might as well use the grid). Being able to go 206 miles instead of 200 miles is not going to make anyone happy.

There are two possibilities here -- either the entire auto industry is in some conspiracy not to sell cars, and are therefore ignoring your brilliant idea of making a mass-market commuter car by filling the tiny trunk of a $100,000 sports car with an underpowered generator, gas tank, catalytic converter, cooling system, exhaust system, and so on. Or just maybe, automotive engineering is hard, and there are a lot of constraints to be reconciled. If it's the former, feel free to start your own car company and drive the big boys out of business.

Re:What is GM doing?

[devnullkac]

One other item to consider when you've got a plug-in hybrid where 90+% of the trips don't need any gas at all: gasoline won't last forever in the tank. It can turn into sludge after a few months, and even additives won't make it last more than a year or so. Maybe not a problem for this vehicle, but something to be addressed if energy sources like batteries or hydrogen don't get good enough to replace the gastank entirely in next few decades.

Re:What is GM doing?

[NoMaster]

Just to put things into a perspective most (car-conscious) people will be more familiar with : 2kW = ~2.7 horsepower.

Not a lot in the big scheme of things - for example, it's a tiny fraction of the HP in a Prius' petrol engine (~75HP) - even when you don't take into account conversion inefficiencies & storage losses.

In other words: you'll need a lot bigger engine than that.

Re:What is GM doing?

[JWSmythe]

    I can still feel the pain of moving my generators around. I have a 5Kw and a 5.5Kw. One is emergency for the house, and the other is for a bus/rv conversion.

    It took 3 of us to lift one of them into the back of the bus (city bus, in the area that usually has a black panel over it on the back). If I recall correctly, it was about 150 pounds.

    I don't know if their notation was wrong or not, but either they're running a .5Kw generator, or a 50Kw generator. I'd suspect the later. The more output, the heavier the generator part is going to be. The motor side is fairly light in comparison.

Re:What is GM doing?

[Ironsides]

I'd also add that this car does what Diesel Trains have been doing since they replaced coal. Diesel trains use Diesel to generate electricity to power electric motors. You're right, this is exactly what we've been waiting for and what I've told people is necessary to replace the current generation of cars.

Also, now that the drive train has been disconnected from the engine, we can move on to any type of fuel we want for the generator.

Re:What is GM doing?

[Ironsides]

So how can Tesla, a startup company with little manufacturing and car experience relative to GM, build an electric car that can make it 200 miles on a charge, while GM can only build one that makes it 40?

Tesla with little manufacturing and car experience? HA! The guy in charge of Tesla is having Lotus build the cars. Additionaly, he kept hiring so many engineers from Lotus that they forced him to sign a contract saying he would stop doing that or they would refuse to manufacture the car.

Re:What is GM doing?

[topham]

I don't know about you, but I don't drive 400Km / Day. (250 Miles / Day) except when vacationing.

Very few people put that kind of milage on a car on a consistent basis.

Re:What is GM doing?

[Anonymous Coward]

The electric cars that go 200 miles on a charge have exotic materials such as titanium alloys, carbon fiber, and Lithium Ion (which only last a couple years). They are also two seater only.

Re:What is GM doing?

[xs650]

It's not the same at all. Diesel trains don't use batteries to drive the train. They don't move under power unless being driven by their engines.

When you scale down a diesel electric train system to automotive size, it sucks hind tit compared to other types of transmissions.

Re:What is GM doing?

[cas2000]

A small percentage of the miles I drive take place during a day in which I travel more than 200 miles. If the tesla were cheaper, I could have two cars: a cheap internal combustion car to make long trips, and a tesla to do most of my driving. We don't need one car to serve all purposes for all people.

alternatively, buy a small electric car for day-to-day driving and hire a bigger car when you need it for long trips.

that would work out many thousands of dollars/year cheaper than the repayments on a vehicle that sits idle in the driveway most of the year.

and if you planned ahead and put aside (in a separate savings account) the same amount that you *would* have paid on the loan repayments for the second car, you'd have thousands in the bank at the end of the year - more than enough to pay for the hire-car AND the holiday itself, especially if you get a train/bus/plane instead of a long drive and hired the car locally when you get to your destination (depends - the long road trip through scenic countryside may be part of the point of the holiday).

Re:What is GM doing?

[drwho]

Thanks for mentioning the Radmax! I was going to do so. It's a next-generation rotary, for those of who who haven't checked the link, that promises to solve a lot of problems with the Wankel engine and has a very high power to weight ratio. I'd like to see how well some other combustion improvements, such as the Atkinson cycle and the addition of small amounts of hydrogen into the combustion chamber. I'd also like to see how well this engine design would do when adapted to multi-fuel use, i.e. gasoline, diesel, kerosene, straight vegetable oil, or an alcohol.

Re:What is GM doing?

[Anonymous Coward]

The EV-1 had a longer range(55-95 miles) than the "volt", even with it's shitty first-gen batteries...with second-gen batteries, it could do 75-150 miles on a single charge...the battery technology exists now, and it existed when GM killed the EV-1 project. GM's blowing smoke up our asses..

Re:What is GM doing?

[Aqua OS X]

The thing is, most people don't drive over 200 very often. I used to have a 100 mile roundtrip commute, and I will NEVER subject myself to such torture again.

Considering we live in a world where household's have multiple cars, plane flights are cheeper then driving, and a rental car for vacation isn't a crazy concept, a 100-200 mile EV would be incredibly practical for many people.

If Detroit would make them look decent, and market the thing properly, people would buy them. They've yet to do that. I'm so sick of concept cars.

Re:What is GM doing?

[WindBourne]

I did not submit that one. But it really should be. All in all, that one combined with a generator may be ideal for these plug-ins. In particular, a lightweight generator system may allow for bigger NiMetal batteries, for at least the first round of a plug-ins.

Re:What is GM doing?

[evilviper]

it's a tiny fraction of the HP in a Prius' petrol engine (~75HP) - even when you don't take into account conversion inefficiencies & storage losses.

Quite the opposite. You NEED to take conversion efficiency into account.

Cars need so much horsepower specifically because engines do a poor job of covering the range of loads needed to directly drive wheels (as opposed to driving a generator). Use the batteries to service the peak loads, and a very small engine would be acceptable.

For specifics, let's see what AC propulsion has to say:

"For efficient, small-to-medium
size EVs, RXT output of 15 to 25 kW is nec-essary to provide comfortable freeway cruising."
http://www.acpropulsion.com/PDF%20files/Low_Emiss_ Range_Ext.pdf

So, my aforementioned 2KW generator won't extend the trip indefinitely, but it will extend it by approximately 10% at non-stop freeway speeds, depending on the vehicle, and even further if you drive below 75MPH for any leg of your trip, or allow it to charge your car while stopped.

Re:What is GM doing?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the tesla were cheaper, I could have two cars:

That's wonderful for you, sparky. But I can't afford two car payments, plus insurance for both, tires, maintenance, where to store them, ...

We don't need one car to serve all purposes for all people.

Let them eat cake, eh?

Re:What is GM doing?

[willy_me]

If you look closely at the photos from the links, you'll see that some include gasoline engines with others use fuel cells. So essentially, the people at GM are thinking the same way you are...

Willy

Re:What is GM doing?

[Darth]

The Tesla is built on a Lotus Elise. The Esprit was discontinued in 2004.

Re:What is GM doing?

[NormalVisual]

Even if the Tesla were only $10K, it'd still take quite a long time to justify the purchase financially (in the US, anyway). It's rather the same reason that I didn't buy my truck with a diesel engine - the diesel certainly gets better mileage, but it would take so long for the fuel savings to match the initial cost of the more expensive engine that it's just not worth it.

Re:What is GM doing?

[hitchhikerjim]

No, the Tesla is built from the ground up.

The stylings were done by the people who did the stylings fo the Lotus Elise. And Tesla hired the Lotus factory to build the Teslas. But it's its own car. ...and it's a legit question. Tesla is starting with a low production $100k car because that's all they can afford to do at first. If they had the ability to ramp up production like GM does, they could jump right to the $30k mark IMHO.

Re:What is GM doing?

[maxume]

I don't. I probably rarely do 250 miles in a week. I am, however, greedy and self centered, so it is going to be very difficult to get me to pay more for a car that works worse. At the moment, $10,000 buys a fairly shiny used vehicle.

Re:What is GM doing?

[jcr]

Use the batteries to service the peak loads, and a very small engine would be acceptable.

Which is of course, the whole point of a hybrid. The engine can be sized for the average power needed, which is far less than the peak.

-jcr

Re:What is GM doing?

[NoMaster]

Leaving aside the fact that the EV crowd are somewhat notorious for overstating their gains and understating their losses, and just going by your quote and figures, 2kW still only equates to a fraction of what is needed. Rough back-of-the-envelope calculations show that 10% seems to be a bit on the generous side, but I'll let it stand - after all, it still shows that 2kW is, as I said, a small fraction of what is needed.

Cars need so much horsepower specifically because engines do a poor job of covering the range of loads

Presumably you're meaning "petrol" engines here, but it applies nearly equally to electric motors. Yes, electric motors have a much flatter provided power curve - but their efficiency isn't flat (many people seem to conflate the two). Unlike petrol engines, electric motors have maximum power draw when their torque is at maximum i.e. starting from 0RPM. Theoretically, minimum power draw is at maximum RPM, but physics and design practicalities work against that, so it's actually shifted down towards the middle of the RPM range. Stop-start traffic kills the overall efficiency of electric systems far more than anything else, and far more than you seem to estimate - 60%~80% reduction in overall range during stop-start city driving is the figure I see from the EV people locally.

(There are potential ways around this - keeping the electric motor running during "stops" at its maximally efficient RPM & using flywheel gearboxes for energy storage is one I know has been investigated. Unfortunately, doing that tends to more than negate the overall gain from using a smaller HP motor with high starting torque.)

I'll concede the gain from running the pony engine whilst sitting during the day; I didn't factor that in. But in that case the real solution is still to use the (slightly) higher efficiency and (definitely) cleaner AC supply to recharge.

(Don't get me wrong - we need EVs, and we need them now . There is no magical total "one size fits all" replacement solution on the horizon (at least, not one that is as efficient an energy store as petrol), and every little bit helps - so waiting for that mythical solution is paramount to deliberate ignorance. But lets not be blind to the practicalities...)

Re:What is GM doing?

[jadavis]

But I can't afford two car payments

I think you took what I said a little too literally. I was merely trying to illustrate that the cost is the primary barrier to the usefulness of the tesla for many people, and the range is just fine.

Re:What is GM doing?

[arminw]

....Sure, but the Tesla is also a real sports car that goes 0 - 60 in four seconds........

So will my Honda Accord Hybrid. The v6 engine together with the electric motor can really make that car zip away from a standstill. However I can almost buy three of them for the price one of the above. I get 30-33 mpg and it is a comfortable car that seats four or if need be five.

Re:What is GM doing?

[smicker]

Your honda accord hybrid does not do 0-60 in four seconds.

Re:What is GM doing?

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

They are not true hybrids. They are multi-drive source. There is a huge difference, but I might need to sit you down with a pile of drawings/models to make it clear.

There are "huge" differences that you don't care to enumerate? I suppose we should just trust you.

So I'm afraid I'm just going to state it as fact and abandon.

Good for you. Of course, those of us who live in the real world understand that there is more than one type of hybrid.

You are thinking of a series hybrid vehicle - engine drives generator, wheels are powered by electrical power.

There is also such a thing as a series-parallel hybrid. This is what the Prius and other HSD vehicles are.

The Prius can operate in series mode (and, in fact, for reverse, it can only operate in series mode) with the ICE running MG1 and MG2 turning the wheels. It can also operate in parallel mode, with the ICE contributing some power directly to the wheels and some power to MG1 to produce electricity to operate MG2 and other accessories.

Perhaps you have failed to realize that the definition of "hybrid" may have changed since the 19th century with advances in technology.

Series hybrids aren't common in passenger vehicles because they aren't very efficient. It's much better to take power from the ICE directly to the wheels at cruising speeds, where the ICE is operating at maximum efficency already and electrical operation will only waste energy. It's also better to use electric power for acceleration because the engine operates inefficiently at low speeds.

HSD can operate in multiple modes, including electric only, ICE -> electric -> drive (reverse), battery -> electric -> drive ("stealth" mode), ICE -> electric -> drive + ICE -> drive (normal operation), ICE -> electric -> battery (battery charging), and drive -> electric -> battery (regen). It can also operate in combinations of these modes - such as charging the HV battery while powering MG2 for additional torque.

The point is, HSD always uses the electric motors to drive the wheels, unlike, say, Chevy's Silverado "hybrid". The ICE can fire all it wants, but without MG1 or MG2 the vehicle is going nowhere.

You're being pedantic and arrogant, and you're wrong.

Re:What is GM doing?

[technomancerX]

You're full of crap. the 0-60 time on the 2006 Accord Hybrid is ~6.7 seconds.

Re:What is GM doing?

[redcane]

OR have an electric for day-to-day stuff, and hitch up a trailer with a generator for long trips. Thus avoiding carrying the weight of a petrol engine when it isn't necesary.

Re:What is GM doing?

[kfg]

. . .advances in technology.

There's this thing they've come up with to handle the switching logic that's been a Godsend. They call it a "microprocessor." It's amazing the number of springs, gears, pullies and mechcanical relays that little thing can replace.

Couldn't make my series-parallel hybrids without 'em.

KFG

Re:What is GM doing?

[rebelcool]

Actually electric motors are just far more torquey than IC engines are.

It will not be unusual for 0-60 in 4 second times on modest vehicles that are electric powered. The difficult part is range.

In fact, I would not be surprised if future electric vehicles are electronically limited in their torque production, as a matter of safety. People will launch themselves too far too fast...

Re:What is GM doing?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is also the need to run the engine periodically just to both make sure its working and to ensure that parts stay lubricated. This is likely dealt with by the on-board engine management system. Popular opinion notwithstanding, the engineers building these things aren't dumb.

I'll be first in line to buy this style of vehicle. Its about time they build them.

Re:What is GM doing?

[hb253]

AFAIK, Tesla has not actually delivered any customer cars but they've taken people's money on deposit. At this point, it's still vaporware. If/when they do deliver some cars, I look forward to automotive magazine reviews - especially Car and Driver.

Re:What is GM doing?

[squeegee_boy]

>>It's not the same at all. Diesel trains don't use batteries to drive the train

Well, MOST of them don't. Some do.

Re:What is GM doing?

[evilviper]

Leaving aside the fact that the EV crowd are somewhat notorious for overstating their gains and understating their losses,

You can't really accuse the AC Propulsion guys of that, since they've built and repeatedly demonstrated all their tech, including this one.

60%~80% reduction in overall range during stop-start city driving is the figure I see from the EV people locally.

That's NOT because electric motors are ineffecient at certain speeds (like engines). That's because stopping and accelerating are INHERENTLY wasteful of energy, no matter the form.

An electric vehicle wastes less, thanks to regenerative braking, but there are still significant losses converting motion to electricity, storing it in batteries, then converting it back into motion again.

To get only a 20% reduction in effeciency in stop and go driving is spectacular.

But in that case the real solution is still to use the (slightly) higher efficiency and (definitely) cleaner AC supply to recharge.

Only if you're near an accessible power outlet. I don't think most rest stops are going to be keen on maintaining charging stations.

Re:What is GM doing?

[neildiamond]

Tesla doesn't use batteries. He's A/C not D/C!

Re:What is GM doing?

[evilviper]

Which is of course, the whole point of a hybrid. The engine can be sized for the average power needed

Current hybrids don't really have it covered, though. They have electric motors that only operate up to a maximum of 30-40mph, meaning your engine needs to be able to handle the entire load for any acceleration you do, once you've reached those speeds. It allows them to use cheaper electric motors, but makes for underperforming cars on the freeway.

Re:What is GM doing?

[An Onerous Coward]

Don't look at it as a car that will only go 40 miles before you have to plug it in again or add gasoline. That's really the wrong end of the telescope. Look at it as a car that will still go 40 miles after the gasoline is gone. The battery pack is cache, not main memory.

I think you should be pointing the telescope back the other way. The Volt wouldn't be at all consequential if the batteries just gave you an excuse to ignore the Need Gas light on your dash for a few dozen more miles. The advantages to electric cars arise from the ability to get most of your driving miles without using any gas at all. According to this (note source) getting your driving power off the grid is about five to ten times more energy efficient than getting it from an internal combustion engine.

Re:What is GM doing?

[zippthorne]

If the car has regenerative braking, the weight should not significantly affect its efficiency.

Re:What is GM doing?

[kfg]

The advantages to electric cars arise from the ability to get most of your driving miles without using any gas at all.

No. The advantages to electric cars arise from the fact that they are driven by electric motors. Electric motors are wonderful. I love the bejeezus out of them.

The Volt wouldn't be at all consequential if . . .

It could only go 40 miles before stopping. That was the question that brought me in here, remember? Why can the Tesla go 200 miles on a charge when the might of GM can only get 40?

The answer is because the Tesla is an electric that runs entirely on batteries and the Volt is not. The Volt, no matter what GM chooses to call it for marketing reasons, is a hybrid with a 40 mile battery pack. If you ripped out the combustion motor and its ancillaries and replaced it with more batteries the Volt would get 200 miles on a charge as well.

Tesla did not "outdesign" GM. GM chose, rightly or wrongly isn't part of the issue, to make a rather different sort of car.

But if your drive is never more than 40 miles total, yes, it operates as a battery powered electric that has the disadvantage of having to drag along a worthless combustion engine for the ride. 40 mile electrics are already "common." Hell, they were common in the 1970s.

20 years ago GM drove an electric car 2000 miles across Australia without gas or mains power. They have a clue.

But they also have marketing. As you say, "note source" when they make claims. Look at the thing and see what it is; not at the press release and what the press release says it is.

They lie.

It's got an electric motor with batteries and a gasoline engine with generator. It's a hybrid. With a range of "until the gasoline runs out."

KFG

Re:What is GM doing?

[kfg]

Also, now that the drive train has been disconnected from the engine, we can move on to any type of fuel we want for the generator.

Now if I could only remember where I put my Mr. Fusion.

KFG

Re:What is GM doing?

[kfg]

When you scale down a diesel electric train system to automotive size. . .

Why would you do anything as daft as that?

KFG

Re:What is GM doing?

[kfg]

"So I'm afraid I'm just going to state it as fact and abandon."

Or let me rephrase it this way:

Extreme discomfort is leading me to be a bit wooley headed and cranky, which is leading me to be a bit arrogant and wrong, so I'd better just shut the fuck up now.

KFG

Re:What is GM doing?

[powerlord]

Yeah, but just imagine NASCAR in 2020 :)

Replace the Fuel Tanks with batteries and the pit-stops will become "which team can change the tires and the battery packs fastest" :) ... Of course, without the roar of the engines, they might need to add small sonic ducts to the front bumper to create the doppler effect that most fans will expect. As an added bonus, the drivers can use the sound of the air passing through the sonic ducts to help "Feel" how the car is doing.

Re:What is GM doing?

[brian.howard]

Sure, but the Tesla is also a real sports car that goes 0 - 60 in four seconds, and that's reflected in the tag. The vast majority of us don't need anything near that level of performance. Keep in mind the reason the tesla is a sports car is because it helps justify the high price. The tesla only has ~240hp which normally would not make for much of a sports car, however, they have contracted with lotus and the car is based on the lotus elise which is smaller than mazda miata and makes heavy use of aluminum and carbon fiber to keep the weight to less than 2000lbs. The elise which normally comes with a 190hp motor runs 0-60 of around 4.5 seconds or so. The point is the only reason the car is sporty at all is it's extreme light weight frame and small size, make the car something you would want to drive around on a daily basis and you lose the performance aspect. They could have made an electric sedan (and in fact I believe it is in the works) but at $100,000 and only 240hp with a curb weight slightly higher than your average sedan doesn't make a very compelling buy does it?

Re:What is GM doing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can still feel the pain of moving my generators around. I have a 5Kw and a 5.5Kw.

        It took 3 of us to lift one of them into the back of the bus (city bus, in the area that usually has a black panel over it on the back). If I recall correctly, it was about 150 pounds.

150lbs and it took three people to lift it into the back of a bus??? I think at least two of you need to work out more!

I suggest hauling 90lb concrete sacks from the truck into the barn, two at a time. That is, two sacks per person, not two people per sack! Or perhaps start with a smaller generator, say the generac 4000XL, and each of you carry it chest high in and out of the garage.

And I thought I was in bad shape... No I KNOW I'm in bad shape, but still...

Re:What is GM doing?

[JWSmythe]

    Hehe.

    Go stand immediately behind a city bus. Well, while it's not in traffic.

    Mine is a GMC RTS. It's over 6' from the ground to the bottom of the air handler area (which we're using for the generator). Two guys lifted from the ground, and I pulled it into the compartment. I had to do it one-handed, so I could hold onto the bracing in that compartment, so I didn't come tumbling out. :) ... and the cement I've been buying comes in 60 pound bags, that I've been carrying from the truck, around to the back of my house. 2 at a time. I did 3, but the flex of the bag made my fingers hurt by the time I got all the way around. :)

A little question

[CapitalT]

Will it be killed?.... Again?

20 miles from work?

[sczimme]

Company Vice Chairman Robert Lutz said in a statement that more than half of Americans live less than 20 miles from their workplace.

Is this actually true? I would like to ask Mr. Lutz for a cite or three to back this assertion.

Re:20 miles from work?

[daveschroeder]

Company Vice Chairman Robert Lutz said in a statement that more than half of Americans live less than 20 miles from their workplace.

Is this actually true? I would like to ask Mr. Lutz for a cite or three to back this assertion.

Is this really that hard to believe? It seems reasonable that more than "half" of Americans live less than 20 miles from work.

The US Census Journey to Work: 2000 notes that "average travel time to work was about 26 minutes in 2000." This means that unless people are driving faster than an average of 46 miles an hour for their entire work commutes, which I find unlikely, Americans are, on average not going farther than 20 miles. Granted, this still would be an average, but other data in this publication, while all focused on times and not distances, would appear to support the claim that a good chunk of Americans are fairly close to work. Also, given the average radii of suburban areas around city centers, and the massive growth of office parks around the outside of cities, it's not at all surprising to me that "over half" of Americans live within 20 miles of work. Out of curiosity, why did this strike you as so surprising or unbelievable?

Re:20 miles from work?

[Qzukk]

Is this actually true? I would like to ask Mr. Lutz for a cite or three to back this assertion.

It seems reasonable at first blush, after all, unless you just LOVE sitting in your car idling down the freeway for hours a day, you probably want to live somewhere close to work. The average distance from home to work in Los Angeles is 8.2 miles (pdf), which includes claims that this is "consistent" with census data (except that it looks like the Census doesn't report distance, they report travel time) and compares with other metropolitan areas. This (another pdf) says that the average first job for people going off welfare is 6.5 miles away. This PDF claims that work causes people to drive an average of 12 miles per day. This site says that over 1/3 of workers in the 100 largest cities drive more than 10 miles to work.

Re:20 miles from work?

[JAFSlashdotter]

Company Vice Chairman Robert Lutz said in a statement that more than half of Americans live less than 20 miles from their workplace. Is this actually true? I would like to ask Mr. Lutz for a cite or three to back this assertion.

The US DOT seems to say the average commute in the US is about 12 miles. Of course, since this is statistics, even if I understood correctly what they said the average is (i.e. the mean), that isn't really an answer to the question. Sorry, best I got. :)

Re:20 miles from work?

[StikyPad]

It may be true, but there are still some problems, such as:

• Stop and go traffic
• Errands
• Diminishing battery capacity over time, especially for those who live in the last 25% of the range
• Detours
• Carpooling
• Anyone else have to drive to lunch?

Granted, these limitations are offset by the presence of an ICE, but for most people, I think it will be used as more of a hybrid than a pure electric car.

Also, what's with the 8 second 0-60? I thought electric cars were supposed to accelerate like the devil.

Oh yeah, pictures.

Re:20 miles from work?

[Anonymous Coward]

It certainly sounds true, but does that make it any better?

Americans get most of their electricity from power plants that burn coal. Unless these cars come with really big solar panels for you to install on your house, you're still going to be polluting a lot. It's just moved further from the consumer (eew don't get that nasty exhaust near my Starbucks latte!), so we don't have to think as much about the consequences of our actions. Yay!

This isn't GM being environmentally responsible. This is GM diversifying. When the middle east is unstable, oil prices go up. When oil prices go up, people buy more hybrids (regardless of whether they save money or not). When people buy more hybrids, GM loses money. This may also be environmentally friendly (though it's not clear to me that coal would be that much better), but that's not why they're doing it.

Re:20 miles from work?

[Kreigaffe]

it takes me about 26 minutes to get to work...

however, I live 27 miles away. Nothing like blazing down the highway at break-neck speeds in the morning.

Re:20 miles from work?

[smchris]

Or: it could be true -- but are they potential customers? I'm sure there are plenty of people in Manhattan, Chicago, and San Francisco who live within 20 miles of work and take the subway, bus or el either by preference or because they can't afford _any_ car. And I know tons of people who have moved 50 miles out of the central city of our metro for land prices and drive in. I thought the low price of gas by international first world standards was still encouraging sprawl.

Re:20 miles from work?

[BitchKapoor]

A lot of people who work in downtown Chicago ride the Metra trains into town from the suburbs, so they're only actually driving from their house to the station. Because Metra operates in a hub-and-spoke model, it's one of the few commuter rail systems which is self-sustaining and I think actually profitable. NYC has a far more comprehensive subway station, so even if you live in a different borough or one of the suburbs, you can commute to Manhattan without driving anywhere near 20 miles each way (yes, people living in Brooklyn may not need a car at all, but people living in say New Jersey still do).

Re:20 miles from work?

[AJWM]

Stop and go traffic

This is not a problem with electric cars the way it is with combustion engines. When the car is stopped, so is the motor, so there's no battery drain (beyond radio, etc). With regenerative braking you can even apply some of the energy you lost in stopping to getting you moving again.

Re:20 miles from work?

[AlexCV]

The problems you cite:

Stop and go traffic -- Electric motors don't consume electricity unless they are moving the car. Only the accessories would use up electricity. The brakes would actually feed back into the battery so not a major worry. Fuel usage per unit of time would be drastically lower then a conventional car which has to maintain minimum idle speed and still burn fixed amount of gas per revolution. The ICE is designed to "charge the battery fully while maintaining a cruise control speed of 70mph", given the vehicle is stationnary full recharge would probably be 20 minutes or less, net decrease on fuel consumption to recharge the battery pack since the ICE operates at a constant 1800 rpm and so fuel consumption is only affected by temperature/humidity.

Errands -- Short distances is precisely where hybrids shine.

Diminishing battery capacity over time -- This is dependant on battery technology employed. It looks like GM is using Li-Ion batteries. Real world usage will show what can be expected here. Good point however.

Detours -- I don't see the issue. If the detour causes the commute to go above the 40 miles (or whatever effective range the specific driving conditions dictate) the ICE kicks in. Not a major issue beyond a drop in usable power (from a peak of 136kW to a possible low of 71kW at full discharge.)

Carpooling -- Sure, more weight increases energy consumption but it decreases the number of vehicle on the road correspondingly. The car likely weighs around 2000-2500lbs to begin with so if 4 adults bump the car to 2800-3300lbs energy economy will suffer. Not anymore or any less then a gasoline vehicle given equivalent passenger load. On the freeway this will likely not be very significant. In stop and go traffic, the energy cost of starting will be higher. However electrical motors always produce peak torque at all RPMs so they would actually be more efficient then comparable gasoline vehicle.

Anyone else have to drive to lunch? -- So? When the battery are low, the ICE kicks in. Effective range is suppowsed to be over 600 miles on one 13 gallons tank on the highway.

As for acceleration, a given maximum power output (136kW here) will only accelerate a car of a given mass at a certain rate. For this car it appears to take 8 seconds to reach 60 mph. A 136kW gas engine would take a bit more time because of the power loss to the transmission and because peak power output is only at optimal RPM and not constant through the entire power range of the engine.

Re:20 miles from work?

[arminw]

.....you're still going to be polluting a lot. It's just moved further from the consumer .......

There are still advantages to this. First, powerplants can be located where fewer poeple have to breathe the pollutants. Second cleaning up one powerplant is a lot easier, more effective and more efficient than millions of cars. Third, we have lots of coal. That means not sending our money overseas, where a significant fraction is used to finance terrorists. If the industrialized world switched from oil to other energy sources, solar, nuclear, and coal, the terrorists would be starved for money. Bush could have used the huge amounts of money which war costs for sponsoring alternative energy research. Depriving terrorists of money would be avery effective way to limit their ability to do their thing.

Re:20 miles from work?

[StikyPad]

Yeah, being stopped doesn't use any energy, but accelerating does. Also the specs say nothing of regenerative braking.

battery cost

[gravesb]

The reported cost of the batteries is $10,000 for a car slightly smaller than a Prius. I wonder what they will have to sacrifice to make a car that is price competitive with Toyota's and Honda's offerings. Regardless, I am rooting for them. It would be nice to see an American car company innovating in such a dramatic manner.

Re:battery cost

[Sureshot324]

The majority of power generated in the US comes from fossil fuels. So to power an electric car, you will convert the chemical energy in fossil fuel into electric energy in a power plant, send it over thousands of miles of power lines, doing several voltage conversions along the way, convert it back into chemical energy in your cars battery, back into electric energy as it goes to the engine, and then finally into mechanical energy moving the car. This is MUCH less efficient than just converting the chemical energy directly of fossil fuel into mechanical energy in your car's internal combustion engine. In every conversion to different type of energy you lose something. Until we can eliminate our dependence on fossil fuel to generate power, electric cars are actually worse for the environment than gasoline cars.

Re:battery cost

[Yvan256]

It may not be the best solution for the USA, but still, you do have to admit it should be easier to filter all the pollution at power plants than in millions of cars.

Here in Quebec and Ontario, with all our hydro-electricity, electric cars really would be "clean cars" (or at least incredibly more clean than fossil fuel cars).

Re:battery cost

[kfg]

. . .you do have to admit it should be easier to filter all the pollution at power plants than in millions of cars.

"Should," perhaps. Will, no. The handful of power plants have millions of lawyers; politicians; economic interests protecting them from regulatory intrusion.

The millions of cars have squat all.

Don't believe me? The last time your car failed an inspection point, did you spend your money to bring the car into compliance, or did you hire a lawyer to fight it?

KFG

Re:battery cost

[kfg]

. . .to power an electric car, you will convert the chemical energy in fossil fuel into electric energy in a power plant, send it over thousands of miles of power lines, doing several voltage conversions along the way, convert it back into chemical energy in your cars battery, back into electric energy as it goes to the engine, and then finally into mechanical energy moving the car.

This car does something interesting. It converts chemical energy in fossil fuel and sends it a few feet to the electric motor.

KFG

Re:battery cost

[NFNNMIDATA]

Actually I'd still say it's more efficient since internal combustion engines only convert a fraction (like 20%) of the energy in the fuel to anything besides heat. But even if you are correct on that, isn't it easier to change out the energy provider at the top of the pyramid, and also optimize the entire system (power sources & power consumers), if you have a single interface at the consumer level?

Re:battery cost

[ctr2sprt]

Until we can eliminate our dependence on fossil fuel to generate power, electric cars are actually worse for the environment than gasoline cars.

True enough, or at least it may be, when all's considered. The advantage of electric cars, though, is that you can change how the power is generated without having to change all the cars. Right now, most of the power would probably come from coal or nuclear, but five or ten years from now it may come from someplace else (solar, wind, something new maybe). You wouldn't have to change the design of your cars at all, since as long as they get AC at the right voltage they're happy. Obviously you need to change the power plants themselves to take advantage of new technology, but it's easier to change a few thousand power plants than a few hundred million cars. It's also, of course, easier to add new anti-pollution technology to a few thousand smokestacks than a few hundred million tailpipes. Cheaper too, and I suspect more efficient since most power plants are better-maintained than most cars.

Re:battery cost

[jeff4747]

Until we can eliminate our dependence on fossil fuel to generate power, electric cars are actually worse for the environment than gasoline cars.

And one major step towards that goal is to get our cars to stop burning fossil fuels. If I waved a magic wand and suddenly all cars were plug-in hybrids, there'd still be tons of pollution and we'd use tons of fossil fuels to power them. But those millions of electric cars don't give a damn how the electricity is generated.

So if we ever work out fusion power, or build more fission plants, or wind plants, or solar plants, or geothermal plants, or tidal plants, or whatever 'clean' power plants, these electric cars will immediately start using that clean power. (Not to mention a non-trivial portion of electric power in the US already comes from 'clean' power plants)

Contrast that with keeping gasoline engines until these other power generation methods have taken over. Not only will we pollute now, but we'll also have decades of conversion from gasoline cars to electric cars. It's better to start converting our cars now. Electricity generation will get there on it's own.

If you want to really lead the way on this subject, you can install a solar array in your yard, and plug your car into it.

Re:battery cost

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

I've actually spoken to the folks at Tesla and they are projecting their replacement battery packs (due for replacement at 5 years or 125k miles) at approximately US$10,000. That is in a car that is going to be delivered to consumers this summer and that does 0-60 in 4 seconds (obviously a lot more oomph than your average grocery getter). If they can build them for 10 grand and make a profit on such a small production run, GM *ought* to be able to use its economies of scale to lower that number. However, given how poorly GM has been run in recent years, perhaps that isn't in the cards.

Cheers,

Re:battery cost

[Ironsides]

Actually I'd still say it's more efficient since internal combustion engines only convert a fraction (like 20%) of the energy in the fuel to anything besides heat.

Just remember this. That is with the standard gasoline engine in cars that have to run with variable loads and RPMs. When you basically fix the max load and run at a constant RPM in a generator (what we have here), you can make the engine much more efficient.

Re:battery cost

[contrapunctus]

The majority of power generated in the US comes from fossil fuels. So to power an electric car, you will convert the chemical energy in fossil fuel into electric energy in a power plant, send it over thousands of miles of power lines, doing several voltage conversions along the way, convert it back into chemical energy in your cars battery, back into electric energy as it goes to the engine, and then finally into mechanical energy moving the car. This is MUCH less efficient than just converting the chemical energy directly of fossil fuel into mechanical energy in your car's internal combustion engine. In every conversion to different type of energy you lose something. Until we can eliminate our dependence on fossil fuel to generate power, electric cars are actually worse for the environment than gasoline cars. A few months ago I signed up with my utility company to have all my electricity come from renewable sources (www.alliantenergy.com/secondnature). In this case if I get a car like this then it's using renewable sources for energy. It costs a little more but it's worth it for me to know that I'm making less of an impact on the earth.

Re:battery cost

[mc6809e]

So to power an electric car, you will convert the chemical energy in fossil fuel into electric energy in a power plant, send it over thousands of miles of power lines, doing several voltage conversions along the way, convert it back into chemical energy in your cars battery, back into electric energy as it goes to the engine, and then finally into mechanical energy moving the car. This is MUCH less efficient than just converting the chemical energy directly of fossil fuel into mechanical energy in your car's internal combustion engine.

Your mistake is in assuming that the specific method of converting chemical energy to mechanical energy doesn't matter, but it does.

Powerplants don't use inefficient internal combustion engines to power generators. They often use more efficient gas turbines with much greater efficiencies. So even after all the energy loss in transmission, you still get more usable energy left over.

The specifics vary, but a gasoline IC engine might be 25% efficient while a coal-fired power plant is generally over 33% efficient with the newest designs up to 48% efficient.

Re:battery cost

[Nethead]

Hey Yvan 1/4k: We have hydro here in the US too! At least in the more livable parts ;)

Joe "can see Victoria BC on a clear day" Hamelin

Re:battery cost

[hb253]

• $10,000? chump change, right? I don't know about you, but I keep my cars for more than 125,000 miles. I'm not so sure I'd want to plunk down $10K on a car with that many miles on it.
• 0-60 in 4 seconds? How many runs from 0-60 before the batteries die out? 1, 2 or 3?
• what happens to battery capacity in winter when you need to run the heater, wipers, and lights at night?

The Tesla is a cute idea, but electrics are a pipe dream until they can approximates maybe 80% of the functionality of an internal combustion or hybrid car.

Re:battery cost

[WilliamSChips]

Nope, not here. Here the power is nuclear.

A little answer

[daveschroeder]

Who Ignored the Facts About the Electric Car?

GM's EV1 -- Who Killed Common Sense?

Re:A little answer

[evilviper]

Who Ignored the Facts About the Electric Car?

Everything he has to say was fully debunked by the movie. He has nothing more than the tired old "waiting list" spin to offer.

GM's EV1 -- Who Killed Common Sense?

He is a complete and total idiot, spouting lots of completely factually incorrect assumptions. He doesn't xplain his methodology for the cost of ownership numbers he makes up on the spot, yet he accuses the documentary of playing fast and loose with the facts?

Plenty of straw men, and more trolling in general.

Re:A little answer

[suffe]

Who keeps the metric system down?

Re:A little answer

[vistic]

From your link:

• GM spent more than $1 billion developing the EV1 including significant sums on marketing and incentives to develop a mass market for it.
• Only 800 vehicles were leased during a four-year period.
• No other major automotive manufacturer is producing a pure electric vehicle for use on public roads and highways.
• A waiting list of 5,000 only generated 50 people willing to follow through to a lease.
• Because of low demand for the EV1, parts suppliers quit making replacement parts making future repair and safety of the vehicles difficult to nearly impossible.

The issues about demand were answered clearly in the film. GM sabotaged their own marketing efforts, and even when people wanted one, they couldn't get one. It's as if they were trying their hardest to make people not want one. Just watch the movie, this is all answered.

As for the fact that no other manufacturer is producing a pure electric vehicle... well... isn't that just sad? I don't see how this contradicts anything said in the film though or how it furthers any point the author was trying to make.

Re:A little answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to go, FUD Whore.

I invite all you to watch Who Killed the Electric Car. http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectricca r/

Re:A little answer

[zzatz]

... isn't that just sad?

No, it's a sign that physics trumps politics. Battery-powered electric cars don't make sense for nearly all uses of automobiles. The limited range is acceptable for fork lifts and golf carts, but not for family transportation. Practical cars need to be able to be refueled in minutes.

Hybrids make sense now. They reduce the use of fossil fuels, which battery-powered cars do not; the electricity to charge the batteries comes mostly from fossil fuels. Hybrids also provide a great development platform for future fuel-cell technology.

We've largely solved the autombile pollution problem, and it was done through incremental improvements. Solving the fossil fuel problem will also happen as a series of incremental improvements. A scientific breakthrough in electricity storage would be nice, but breakthroughs are not predictable, and it's foolish to depend on them when you can reach the same goal through steady improvement of known engineering.

The EV1 was GM's response to a piece of political grandstanding. I'd rather have real reductions in the use of fossil fuels than the diversion of resources towards satisfying some politican's need for grand gestures. Sure, GM blundered, but even if GM had been perfect, the goal of the program was still pure folly.

Re:A little answer

[vistic]

Battery powered electric cars with large enough batteries may not be practical for family vacations but they make perfect sense for most of the driving that most people in most urban areas do daily. Driving to the supermarket, drop the kids off at school, go to work, etc. I would have no problem driving my car to school, coming back home, and charging it back up overnight. That could cut my gas expenses down to zero. Imagine if all others who an electric car would be practical for, actually had one. It's one of those things like where you hear "if everyone turned off the lights when they're not in the room" or "use compact fluorescent bulbs" or "put a brick in the toilet tank" etc. You know that your contribution doesn't make a huge difference, but if others join the impact is gigantic. Of course, the impact of cutting down gas consumption is WAY greater than the impact of most of the other small energy saving ideas you usually hear.

But the sad thing is that right now electric cars aren't even an OPTION. I can't go buy an electric car even if I want one.

As for automobile pollution being "largely solved"... what planet are you living on? As far as I'm aware the improvements pretty much stopped after the 70s were over. Not because there wasn't more progress to be made, but because we stopped pushing the auto industry to innovate more in this area. Of course... look at the profits of the oil companies. Hard to believe they can't buy just a little bit of political influence with that kind of spare change on hand, isn't it?

Re:A little answer

[MtViewGuy]

I think what killed the EV-1 came down to the fact the car was just too impractical due to the 7-8 hour charge times and the very limited 60 to 80 range of the vehicle on a full charge.

However, with MIT working on nanotechnology-based supercapacitors, we could see a dramatic reduction in the size of the battery pack combined with extremely fast recharging times, which may finally make an all-electric car as a replacement for a car powered by an internal combustion engine truly practical. The potential by 2013 of an electric car about the size of a Honda Fit powered by a supercapacitor battery pack the same size as the gas tank that can go up to 500 km (310 miles) on a single charge and recharge the whole battery pack from an external source in under five minutes excites quite a lot of auto manufacturers.

Re:A little answer

[zzatz]

"I can't go buy an electric car even if I want one."

There's a simple reason for that, and it doesn't involve conspiracies. The global auto manufacturing capacity exceeds demand by a sizable margin, creating cut-throat competition. That's why there have been so many mergers and plant closings. There are local exceptions, such as China, but China isn't willing to absorb production from the rest of the world. Manufacturers will build anything that they can sell at a profit.

Someone would make the car you want if they could. Maybe not GM or Ford, but someone. There is a market for a practical electric car, and it would be built and sold. If it could. But what you want is an illusion; real electric cars aren't very practical, and the market for what CAN be built is vanishingly small.

A tiny number of people driving battery-powered cars would have almost no impact on oil consumption. Reducing consumption in the kinds of vehicles that people actually buy would have an impact.

The technical problem of air pollution from automobiles is solved. Your lack of awareness notwithstanding, emissions controls have improved a tremendous amount since the '70s. The exhaust from today's ultra-low emission vehicles may be cleaner than ambient air in the most polluted cities. I don't think you understand how low emissions levels can be, and are where required. Such southern California, where I live, and which has driven emissions technologies to the point where new cars are no longer stand out as the main problem. Further reductions in SoCal atmospheric hydrocarbon levels have required limiting emissions from paint, charcoal lighter fluid, and lawn mowers. Pollution from engines on ships, locomotives, and off-road equipment remain to be addressed. Yes, cars depend on foreign oil, produce greenhouse gases, and pose a major land use problem. But emissions (hydrocarbons and NOx) are controlled quite well.

The political problem of pollution from automobiles remains. Even in SoCal, cars which pollute can stay on the road once the owner has spent a certain amount attempting to repair the problem. One car may pollute as much as a 100 new cars. Cutting emissions of the already clean cars won't help. Getting the dirty cars of the road will. Eastern states are finally imposing tighter limits, as is Europe. But most of the US requires no more than the Fedral standard, and most of the world has no limits on pollution at all.

Yes, oil company profits are outrageous. Big oil outright owns the Bush administration and much of Congress. ADM and the farm lobby wrote the national ethanol policy. I don't like it, and have done my part to vote the rascals out. But I don't need a complicated conspiracy to explain what simple economics does, which is that real electric cars cost too much and deliver too little. I don't like watching my neighbors buy pickup trucks and SUVs, but they do. Higher gas prices may change that, and I'd support higher gas taxes to push that direction harder. But my neighbors do drive trucks and SUVs, and I recognize that reducing oil consumption of what *most* people drive will have a bigger impact than any fringe market electric car.

Re:A little answer

[Curmudgeonlyoldbloke]

I've seen it, but it's hardly a piece of balanced journalism. That's not to say that comments from GM's press office are to be taken at face value either, but fighting half-truths with more half-truths doesn't make things any better.

If you want to buy an electric car or a hybrid, buy one. Tell people about how wonderful it is - maybe they'll buy one too. If enough people do that, car companies such as GM are more likely to keep making them. GM's business is to make money, not cars - if the EV1 was profitable for the company* it would have continued making them.

* That's to ignore the political (Zero-emission mandate / CARB) side to the story of course - if you want things to happen there you need to vote at the ballot box rather than with your $$$ at a car dealership.

Re:A little answer

[julesh]

As for the fact that no other manufacturer is producing a pure electric vehicle... well... isn't that just sad?

It's also completely wrong. Peugeot-Citroen produce the Peugeot 106 Electric for general road use.

Re:A little answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Add this to your list:

Electric car killer?
Don't blame GM, Toyota exec says
Detroit Free Press 12/20/06
by Mark Phelan
(c) Copyright 2006 Detroit Free Press. All Rights Reserved.

It's the kind of thing you hear over dinner every week in Detroit, but it comes as a surprise when a top executive with Toyota leans across the table to make the point.

"The movie 'Who Killed the Electric Car?' was terribly one-sided," Ernest Bastien, Toyota Motor Sales vice president for vehicle operations, said intensely. "It was not balanced at all."

We were talking in Charlotte, N.C., a couple of weeks ago. I was there to drive Toyota's new 2007 Tundra pickup, and the change in topic was completely unexpected.

If it's not surprising enough to hear Toyota defending GM, try this on for size: The film's director pretty much agrees.

"We let Toyota off the hook for how they subverted the program" to sell electric cars because GM had a higher profile, director Chris Paine told me over the phone Sunday.

The automakers, of course, don't think they subverted anything.

GM's Saturn EV1 electric car and Toyota's RAV4-EV electric SUV failed for the same reason -- customers didn't want them -- said Bastien, who was point man for Toyota's short-lived effort to sell the RAV4-EV in California.

GM delivered about 800 EV1s to customers from 1996 through 2000, while Toyota delivered 342 RAV4-EVs in 2002-03.

The film, which suggested GM sabotaged a promising technology that could reduce fuel consumption and pollution, caused a furor when it was released earlier this year.

The movie also intentionally ignored Toyota's experience to make its case, Bastien said.

"We shared all our experience with the RAV4-EV," but the filmmakers intentionally omitted it, he said.

He said the movie's suggestion that GM "chose not to make money on a car people wanted to buy in California" is ridiculous.

"They spent a huge amount of money advertising that car in California," Bastien said. "People wouldn't buy them."

Toyota did everything it could to attract buyers to the RAV4-EV, too. It subsidized the price, so customers paid $279 a month -- the same price as the company's hit Prius hybrid. The price included an expensive home charging station.

Toyota used the same savvy Internet-intensive marketing model that fueled the Prius craze. It even gave its dealers a sweetheart deal so they could make twice as much selling a RAV4-EV as a Prius.

To no avail. Toyota sold about 300 RAV4-EVs in 2002, compared with 20,119 Priuses. Buyers waited in line for the hybrid. They avoided the electric car like it was a downed power line and Toyota, like GM, pulled the plug on the project.

"Customers are not willing to compromise on things they need," Bastien said. "They need cruising range. They don't want to worry about running out of fuel, and they don't want to wait five hours to recharge. The movie didn't give any consideration to that fact."

Filmmaker Paine bought a RAV4-EV, but he's not buying Toyota's explanation.

"I don't agree that they made a good-faith effort to sell the car," he said. "Their priority was the Prius. The EV1 and RAV4-EV were never properly marketed.

"Toyota was no better than GM."

Which brings us back to the original question: Why was the movie so much harder on GM?

It made a better target.

"GM handled it so poorly," Paine said.

His crew filmed protesters outside Toyota's offices, but the company's security guards came out and gave them bottled water and Toyota key chains.

GM, Paine said, turned the water sprinklers on protesters. GM insists they were timed sprinklers, and the protesters just happened to be there at the wrong moment.

Whatever the case, the GM footage was more dramatic, entertaining video. It made it into the movie. Toyota wound up on the cutting-room floor."I don't want to say that we picked on GM," Paine said. "The EV1 was the iconic electric vehicle. That's wh

Re:A little answer

[Scudsucker]

No, it's a sign that physics trumps politics. Battery-powered electric cars don't make sense for nearly all uses of automobiles. The limited range is acceptable for fork lifts and golf carts, but not for family transportation. Practical cars need to be able to be refueled in minutes.

Bullshit. The vast majority of commutes happen within the EV1's range. If it doesn't meet your needs, then don't fucking buy one. Nobody tells Harley Davidson to close up shop because you can't take your four kids to school on a motorcycle, or that Toyota has to drop the Civic line because you can't put a couch in the back.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[drewzhrodague]

Yah, that's great and all, but after reading the specs on a Prius, or even a generic Honda, it is clear that automakers are only interested in their own profits.

Where are the turbine/electric hybrids? Why are we still dealing with pistons?

Dammit

[KrunZ]

I read the headline as "GM Working on Feasible Eclectic Car"

WTF is the point, though?

[Gordonjcp]

A car that can only go 40 miles on a charge is nearly useless. Oh, you can run the generator - great, but it pisses through fuel. A whole whopping 71bhp from its one litre engine at *fifty miles per gallon* - wow! Do you have really tiny gallons there, or really long miles, or both? Most European cars have electric window motors more powerful than that.

Buy a diesel. Save yourself a lot of pain and expense.

Re:WTF is the point, though?

[ctid]

Do you have really tiny gallons there, or really long miles, or both?

They have tiny gallons! One US gallon = 0.833 Imperial gallons.

Re:WTF is the point, though?

[tfiedler]

RTFA. Gasoline motor drives electric generator which is what moves the car. This is NO different than how locomotives work today. All trains are moved with electric motors, each engine being essentially a large power generation station on wheels. It's actually rather efficient.

Re:WTF is the point, though?

[Anonymous Coward]

As was said before, many people live very close to their workplace and won't go more than 40 miles in a day. For instance, I live in a New York City suburb (along with millions of other people) and only have to drive ~11 miles to work (both ways = ~22 miles) each day... in this case I could drive as much as I would need to without burning any gasoline and, if the electricity comes from a nuclear power plant like Indian Point, I would not contribute at all to foreign oil addiction/greenhouse emissions... so I don't think it's quite as useless as you say...

Re:WTF is the point, though?

[kramer]

How is a completely electric ride to and from work that half of all Americans can take advantage of useless?

I know about 90% of my driving would be completely electric with a plug-in hybrid like this.

Re:WTF is the point, though?

[Ritchie70]

I drive ten miles each way to work. Sometimes I drive a mile or two out of the way in one direction or the other to stop by a store or pick up my step-son, but if it's a firm 40 miles per charge, including sitting outdoors in Chicago winter weather for 8 hours in the middle, it'd suit me fine.

Re:WTF is the point, though?

[bogidu]

What does it matter how small the engine is if it's only being used as a generator and the electric system is pushing power to the wheels? It could be a 3.5hp Briggs and Stratton for keeping the batteries charged as long as we still get the REAL motor doing the work.

fwiw - I own a 2000 TDI. All-time high 810 miles on 15.5 Gallons of diesel. As much as I love my Jetta, I would gladly trade if for something that is a bit cleaner not only to the environment but to the mechanic to work on as well. soot sucks. (provided I didn't lose any of that nice torquey feel)

Re:WTF is the point, though?

[Gordonjcp]

Yes, I read that. The car still only returns 50mph at best when running off the generator, which is frankly pathetic for a car that size.

Re:WTF is the point, though?

[Gordonjcp]

It could be a 3.5hp Briggs and Stratton for keeping the batteries charged as long as we still get the REAL motor doing the work.

Yes, except with a 3.5bhp engine you'll only get around 2.5kW worth of generator - so you get the same amount of motive force (yes, ok, there's regenerative braking, so that's an oversimplification).

I would gladly trade if for something that is a bit cleaner not only to the environment but to the mechanic to work on as well. soot sucks.

Diesels are incredibly simple to work on, even modern common-rail diesels. The only reason you're getting soot is because diesel fuel in the US is terribly dirty. Start pushing for cleaner diesel, and you'll get all the power and emissions advantages that we almost take for granted. The other reason you might get soot is if your fuelling is set too high or your air filter is clogged - you need to clean it *way* more often than you'd think, if you're not used to diesels.

Oh, and your fuel economy figures suggest 52mp(us)g or a little over 62mp(i)g. That's pretty bloody good for a Jetta. The best I've had was 85mp(i)g from a Citroën AX 1.5D, at an average speed of 75mph. That was pretty exceptional, though.

Re:WTF is the point, though?

[BenjyD]

Isn't it unfair to directly compare diesel MPG values with cars running on petrol, because diesel is denser? Isn't grammes CO2 per km is a fairer measure?

Re:WTF is the point, though?

[toddestan]

A car that can only go 40 miles on a charge is nearly useless. Oh, you can run the generator - great, but it pisses through fuel. A whole whopping 71bhp from its one litre engine at *fifty miles per gallon* - wow! Do you have really tiny gallons there, or really long miles, or both? Most European cars have electric window motors more powerful than that.

Buy a diesel. Save yourself a lot of pain and expense.

At 40 miles per charge, I could drive it to work, run short errands during lunch, and still only have to charge it every other day. I have considered doing something like the various electric conversions I have seen people do (which give a 20-40 mile range, typically), but doing so would pretty much require me to keep a gasoline vehicle around for weekend driving and longer trips. The cost of having two vehicles, and the associated insurance, licensing, etc. would pretty much eat up the savings from going electric for my commute.

However, if GM is going to make an electric vehicle that can get me to work on the battery, but still allow me to make longer trips with a gasoline generator, its definently something worth looking into.

Re:WTF is the point, though?

[hb253]

Actually, Joules/km (or BTU/mile) would be the best comparison of all.

Re:WTF is the point, though?

[loshwomp]

Gasoline motor drives electric generator which is what moves the car. This is NO different than how locomotives work today.

This arrangement is called a "series" hybrid. AC Propulsion has a proof-of-concept VW Jetta that works this way. Diesel-electric locomotives work this way, but have no onboard storage, and thus dump their braking energy as heat (think LARGE resistor packs) instead of reclaiming it.

In the showroom in 5 years... maybe.

[lancejjj]

General Motors has finally gotten the message about electric autos. They are about to introduce the Chevy Volt, a plug-in hybrid From the article:

GM officials stressed that development of the battery pack is critical to the concept vehicle reaching showrooms, and the technology likely won't be available until 2010 or 2012.

So it's due in 3 to 5 years - assuming GM doesn't change its commitment to the project, and that the battery pack development goes as well as it's hoped to.

Re:In the showroom in 5 years... maybe.

[UbuntuDupe]

So it's due in 3 to 5 years

And GM will be bankrupt in 10-15 years. You can't last long when you have a huge, non-productive expense (defined benefit pension and health care) that your competitors don't.

Re:In the showroom in 5 years... maybe.

[Knuckles]

You can't last long when you have a huge, non-productive expense (defined benefit pension and health care) that your competitors don't.

Hooray for capitalism.

Re:In the showroom in 5 years... maybe.

[Yvan256]

You mean like Xbox, Xbox 360 and everything else that has Microsoft written on it that's not Windows and Office?

Making money by selling gas-hungry cars and trucks is over. Vehicule manufacturers can only sell low-cost, efficient, clean cars and trucks from now on. GM is willing to change, but Ford isn't. I'm betting GM has better chances of still being here in 10-15 years than Ford or Dodge.

Re:In the showroom in 5 years... maybe.

[whatnever]

From yahoo news article

The push to develop environmentally friendly cars is also an attempt by GM to distance itself from its close association with gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles, a reputation executives say has hampered its sales in some markets.

So, it looks like a half-hearted PR move to just sell more mid and small sized cars by changing their image an eco-friendly car company. If they really wanted to do this for real, they could have brought back the ev1 today vs an announcement for a car several years in the future.

It actually makes sense

[jamesl]

Use the battery (charged off the grid) for "around town" and gas up to go over the river and through the woods to Granny's house.

Is electric really better?

[rbf2000]

These car companies seem to think that electric cars are the way to go. A lot of people like them because they are cleaner and cause less pollution. However, a lot of electricity is made by burning coal, which is not exactly a clean process. Also, transporting electricity is extremely inefficient. Depending on the length of the cable run, up to 50% of the electricity is lost, which means that even more coal has to be burned to compensate for that. Also, electricity is not stored very efficiently, either.

I don't know which is actually more efficient, burning fuel at the point of use, or creating electricity, transporting it over power lines, and then storing it on a battery, but I know that the actual benefit is not nearly as much as the perceived benefit.

Hybrid cars are a better idea, IMO, but I think I'll stick with regular gas until they come up with something like a hydrogen powered car.

Re:Is electric really better?

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't about less pollution but about less reliance on oil companies and not having to pay 4$ per gallon of gasoline. If electricity from the outlet is cheaper than gas from the gas station I know which one I want to use.

Re:Is electric really better?

[Martin Blank]

Depending on the length of the cable run, up to 50% of the electricity is lost

Not even close.

Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995 [2], and in the UK at 7.4% in 1998. [3]

Re:Is electric really better?

[MysticOne]

Larger, centralized electricity production is more efficient than having tons of little internal combustion engines running around. On top of that, it's much easier to control pollution at a power plant than it is on all those cars on the road. As I understand it electric cars themselves should be more efficient (fewer moving parts and such, in some designs they can do away with a transmission altogether). Also, we can burn less coal and gasoline, and process less uranium, if more of the power production systems move to renewable sources (solar, wind, hydro-electric).

On top of that, hydrogen is not an energy source. Hydrogen is an energy storage/transmission medium. You have to get hydrogen from something first, and at the moment, I think many producers of hydrogen get it from fossil fuels. So you'd end up with similar problems unless the grid switched to mostly renewable sources. However, I still think it's better than having all those individual little gasoline engines.

Re:Is electric really better?

[sphealey]

> However, a lot of electricity is made by burning
> coal, which is not exactly a clean process.

Currently true. Although burning coal can be made relatively clean, it is extremely difficult to stop the CO2 emissions which are now thought to be the worst "pollutant".

However, keep in mind that as various fossil fuels disappear or grow exceedingly expensive, we will be forced to turn more and more to electricity. And there are many ways besides fossil fuels to generate electricity. Solar, wind, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion(?), tidal, etc.

Cars being charged up at night by otherwise-idle wind turbines would not be a bad thing.

Now, if energy for mobility grows so scarce and expensive that it is impossible to continue using personal vehicles the entire economy of the United States will collapse, so there won't be much for us to discuss here[1]. But if we can carry off a transition to vehicles fueled with renewables this is one step in that process.

I understand the problems with the batteries, but one additional problem that GM has is that they create too damn many concept cars and never get them on the road. They have been working on fuel cells since about 1970 for Gaia's sake. They should get a few thousand of these on the road in 2008 regardless of the weight and profitability so they can get some darned _experience_ with building and operating them. Not wait for the mythical super-battery.

sPh

[1] Yes, I am aware that through the 1940s we had a much less car-dependent US. With what we have done to the housing stock and job locations in the last 30 years however it _will not_ be possible to go back to anything like that way of life in less than 50 more years. Sorry.

Re:Is electric really better?

[B1]

Electricity generation via fossil fuels may generate pollution, but consider:

• The centralized power plant can be specially tuned to run at a constant speed with optimum efficiency, since the workload is very different from that faced by an automotive engine (e.g. stop/go traffic).
• By running constantly, the centralized powerplant is able to avoid the emissions generated at engine startup, when the catalytic converter hasn't heated up yet
• A central power plant is likely to be much better maintained than most car engines. That also goes for the emissions control equipment. Fluid leaks are more likely to be properly contained and addressed promptly.
• The centralized power plant does not *have* to be driven by fossil fuels. Nuclear power is very viable. Localized solar panels may become an option too, as price / performance improves
• Don't forget to consider the fuel used to truck gasoline to your local gas station, as well as the resulting emissions from that truck.

Re:Is electric really better?

[jamesl]

I think I'll stick with regular gas until they come up with something like a hydrogen powered car.
And just where do you think the hydrogen is going to come from? Steam reforming from methane (a fossile fuel) or electrolysis which uses electricity.

Re:Is electric really better?

[Yvan256]

However, in the USA, a lot of electricity is made by burning coal, which is not exactly a clean process.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Is electric really better?

[Anonymous Coward]

How many variables do you want to take into consideration?

Electric cars do have far fewer moving parts and fewer subsystems to worry about; not even the most staunch opponent of EVs will argue that. So how much do you save (from an environmental standpoint) if there are no oil changes? Or no liquid cooling system? Or the cost of manufacturing a multi-speed transmission (as most EVs don't need one)? Can the batteries be recycled at the end of their life? What's the environmental cost of their manufacture and life cycle? This is actually one of the many arguments against hybrids, as they incorporate all the complexities of two rather different technologies, totally negating Occam's Razor.

My point is simply that this has never been a simple discussion and that either "side" can simply increase the resolution of detail of what goes into an electric or gasoline car to refine [sic] their arguments, ad nauseum.

I'm still fond of the debate, of course. I hail from the pro-EV camp.

Re:Is electric really better?

[shmlco]

We use a lot more power during the daytime, and as demand deceases during the night much of the spare capacity available is wasted. Might as well put it to use, plus power plants are more efficient when run to produce a constant flow of power.

"I don't know which is actually more efficient..."

Precisely.

Re:Is electric really better?

[spyinnzus]

Another large factor is that emissions standards can be enacted immediately on power plants, as can new emission-reducing technology.

Re:Is electric really better?

[radixvir]

Also, we can burn less coal and gasoline, and process less uranium, if more of the power production systems move to renewable sources (solar, wind, hydro-electric)

I just saw someone on TV same the same thing and I wanted to mention that the best solution would to keep the nuclear power, but using a better process than is currently in use. Here is why we won't be able to switch entirely to those types you mentioned:

• Hydro: well first off you need a large moving water source. In order to build a dam, you will be changing the ecosystem that is currently in place. You may need to divert the river, possibly greatly changing the ecosystem it supports currently. You will also be creating a large reservoir right in front of the dam.
• Wind: Loud, ugly, possibly changing the climate and environment around them. Same problem as nuclear - no one wants them in sight
• Solar: I like it. However, currently power output isn't enough. That might change in the future, but of course you will still need the sun to power these. Sorry, Seattle.

The future I would like to see still includes nuclear power; just with more modern processing and recycling. My wish is people who claim to be environmentalists, would simply do some research and then perhaps they wouldn't be so afraid of the technology.

Re:Is electric really better?

[NoMaster]

Unfortunately, it's true for most of the rest of the western world - indeed, most of the rest of the world - as well.

Despite all the hydro in e.g. Canada & China, nuclear in e.g. the US & Europe, & natural gas in e.g. Africa & the subcontinent, burning coal is the primary source of electrical energy in the world today by a large margin.

Re:Is electric really better?

[suv4x4]

Larger, centralized electricity production is more efficient than having tons of little internal combustion engines running around. On top of that, it's much easier to control pollution at a power plant than it is on all those cars on the road.

You're wrong though. Yes, centrally *producing* the electricity may be easier to control, but then you'll have a massive problem on your hands trying to transport this electricity to the client, and you'll also have charge decay over time.

Even the best ever batteries have decaying charge over time, you have to agree than once you hermetically pack a liter of hydrogen it stays a liter of hydrogen even after 10 years. I wanna see a battery holding 100% of its charge for that long.

It's all about what the generators do. If they are designed to be ecological and use special filters and collect waste in special bags (for example) that can be passed for processing, then you'll have a lot more efficient infrastructure for transport.

Re:Is electric really better?

[snilloc]

Slow down there cowboy.

UK electricity generation by fuel: Nat Gas 38.7%, Coal 33.6% (source)
Total world electric generation by fuel: Coal 39.8%, Nat Gas 19.6% , Hyrdo 16.1%, Nuke 15.7%, Oil 6.7% (source)

Nations with high reliance on coal for electric generation (2005 unless stated): Poland 92%, South Africa 92% (2004), Australia 79% (or 85+%), China 78% (2004), Israel 75% (2004), Kazakhstan 70% (2004), India 69% (2004), Morocco 67% (2004), Czech Republic 61%, Greece 59%, USA 50%, Germany 49%

Re:Is electric really better?

[Anonymous Coward]

> There, fixed that for you.

And you were a dick about it. Congratulations.

Re:Is electric really better?

[snilloc]

oops, first link (UK data) should be here.

Re:Is electric really better?

[Anonymous Coward]

Larger, centralized electricity production is more efficient than having tons of little internal combustion engines running around.

You sure about that? Then why aren't we doing it right now? A lot of energy is lost on the way from the power plant to your living room receptacle.

Re:Is electric really better?

[Penguinoflight]

GM is a american company, and they mostly sell cars to people who aren't smart enough to find a good import car.

Re:Is electric really better?

[Kjella]

"However, in the USA, a lot of electricity is made by burning coal, which is not exactly a clean process."

There, fixed that for you.

And the rest of the world? I can tell you about my country - we're less than 5 million people. We live in a long, thin and very rocky country with a coastline that lasts forever and the Atlantic giving plenty rain and wind. We should by all rights be the posterboy of renewable energy, delivering huge surpluses to Europe. Truth is, despite all the hydro plants we're not even self-sufficient on renewable energy. It's oil and gas and imported coal-based power that's covering the rest.

World energy production by source: Oil 40%, natural gas 22.5%, coal 23.3%, hydroelectric 7.0%, nuclear 6.5%, biomass and other 0.7%.
Source: United States Energy and World Energy Production and Consumption Statistics

Then again, staying on oil is a dead duck. You want to know the future? Then look at this graph of The world's oil production has peaked, quite simply. We have peaked. By 2020 most of our oil reserves are gone. Doesn't matter if the price is 50$/barrel or 500$/barrel, because there's no more to be had.

Re:Is electric really better?

[Slithe]

From what I blog posting (buried in the comments section), 60-75% of the power generated in the U.S. is lost because of power line impedance heating. I am surprised that nobody has suggested replacing the centuries-old power lines with superconducting ones. It would be an insane upfront cost, but it would probably pay for itself within five years.

Re:Is electric really better?

[bmajik]

Everything you say (which is great) can most effectively be summed up as:

"Electricity is a more flexible and efficient conduit for the creation, transit, and expenditure of energy than gasoline"

There's only one way to make Gas: suck oil out of the ground and distill it.

There are lots of ways to make electricity. The more we need to make, the better we'll get at making it.

E85 (better yet, E100) also has the same advantages over gasoline - Ethanol is a more intrinsically simple substance than gasoline. While some of the current mechanisms for making E100 suck, not all of them do, and the field of research is in its infancy.

Same for hygrodgen and the HCE - today, an end to end story for hydrogen vehicles is expensive and weird. But we know we can't run out of it, and there are lots of ways to make it.

Re:Is electric really better?

[I'll Provide The War]

http://www.calcars.org/vehicles.html#2

The "well-to-wheel" emissions of electric vehicles are lower than those from gasoline internal combustion vehicles. California Air Resources Board studies show that battery electric vehicles emit at least 67% lower greenhouse gases than gasoline cars -- even more assuming renewables. A PHEV with only a 20-mile all-electric range is 62% lower (see printed page 95 in the 2004 study).

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/grnhsgas/isor.pdf

Nationally, two government studies have found PHEVs would result in large reductions even on the national grid (50% coal). The GREET 1.6 model in 2001 by the DOE's Argonne National Lab estimates hybrids reduce greenhouse gases by 22%, and plug-in hybrids by 36% (see table 2). An Argonne researcher reached consensus with researchers from other national labs, universities, the Air Resources Board, automakers, utilities and AD Little to estimate in July 2002 that PHEVs using nighttime power reduce greenhouse gases by 46 to 61 percent. This is summarized in slide 11 at the November 2003 presentation by EPRI. For more in the media on this, see also the May 2, 2005 followup to the April 11 Business Week story.

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/153.pdf

 

I know that the actual benefit is not nearly as much as the perceived benefit. How do you know that? Have you conducted detailed studies that contradict those from two Department of Energy labs, 4 universities, and the Air Resource Board?

Re:Is electric really better?

[Nessak]

There isn't one type of energy source that is the solution -- it is a little of everything. Small wind turbines that can be installed on top of buildings, on roofs, and in backyards will go a long way. Even if all it can do is cover the "base" electric need for most homes (the power a house needs when people are not home), this will be a major help. Solar cells on roofs and buildings will help too, more so now that the tech is starting to get better. Even if backyard generation could provide %15 of needed power, it would be a huge improvement. And most houses could stand to save a considerable amount by basic and cheap conservation. (New appliances, low power bulbs, better insulation, etc.) For large scale production, nuclear seems to be best of the worst. But in the future we need to think about how to get our power form as many sources as possible -- both on a large and micro scale.

Re:Is electric really better?

[JPriest]

By 2020 most of our oil reserves are gone

So, you are saying that the new cars people are buying today for $40,000 each are all going to be parked along the sides of the roads with no gas in only 13 years? Somehow I highly doubt that estimate is very accurate.

Re:Is electric really better?

[Anonymous Coward]

The links about oil production having peaked, are interesting, but the graph on Wikipedia doesn't mention the three greatest reserves of oil: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq.

Re:Is electric really better?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK. My lament about nuclear is the unavoidable waste that is generated. If you bury it really really really deep (tens of kilometers), then fine, its out of the ecosphere and not going to come back any millennium soon. I like the solar idea, but the panels need to be more efficient to really be useful. If they could convert even 30% of the light hitting them into electricity, I would have a roof full of them tomorrow. 5% is too low to be economically viable. Diesel electric cars? Sure! Oil seeds and grains (bio-diesels) are a good replacement for diesel. Solar panels on the roof of the care are as useful as panels on the house (too inefficient yet to be practical), but some power is better than no power, so integrating them into roofs of modern cars is still not a bad idea. For a few hundred dollars more, I would pay for it. The extra benefit of burying radioactive waste deep is that after you seal a site up (forever), you can run pipes a few thousand feet away that carry water from the surface. The heat from the waste can be used to heat water (like an in-ground nuclear reactor), as natural geothermal heat is from natural nuclear decay anyway.

Re:Is electric really better?

[naasking]

Wind: Loud, ugly, possibly changing the climate and environment around them. Same problem as nuclear - no one wants them in sight

Offshore wind farms are growing in "popularity" for this very reason (and because winds are stronger out at sea).

As for changing the climate, here's a thought:

1. Global warming is increasing the average kinetic energy circulating in the climate
2. Greater kinetic energy results in stronger winds
3. Wind turbine farms slow down winds by converting a percentage of their kinetic energy into electrical energy

Conclusion: offshore wind turbine farms could help us reduce violent climate fluctuations resulting from global warming by converting ambient climate kinetic energy into electrical energy.

You heard it here first. ;-)

Re:Is electric really better?

[KevinIsOwn]

Actually, we do do it right now. Do you get electricity for your house from a generator or do you get it from a power company?

Re:Is electric really better?

[dbIII]

I wanted to mention that the best solution would to keep the nuclear power, but using a better process than is currently in use

Good point - actually doing some R&D would help. India spends far more money on research into nuclear power technology than the USA. There are idiots in the USA that just want to build big taxpayer subsidised 1950's style white elephants instead pushing a nuclear agenda.

Re:Is electric really better?

[Martin Blank]

First of all, you should provide your sources for such an outrageous claim. I've already mentioned that in the US, the losses are around the 7% mark.

Secondly, superconducting power lines would be impractical due to the fact that room temperature superconductors don't exist. You can't do a wide-scale deployment of something that isn't available.

Finally, the electric companies amortize infrastructure over decades. If it was a five-year payback, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

Re:Is electric really better?

[dlanod]

I definitely agree with hydro in this day and age, the environmental damage of dams tend not to be worth the benefits, but your summary of wind power stations makes me wonder if you've actually visited one or are just repeating the common perception of them? We have one with 20 turbines (the largest in Australia) an hour's drive from my home and every time I've visited there you can only hear a dull swoshing noise that tends to be drowned out by the wind. Comparing this to a coal or other power station and the change is massive. Ugly is debatable as well, but that's more personal aesthetics (I think they are quite an impressive sight).

Re:Is electric really better?

[Martin Blank]

You need to go to more auto shows. Every major car company kicks out a bunch of concepts every year. They're used to test concepts (hence the moniker) to see how they work together, and to gauge customer reaction. It's an extreme rarity that concept cars make it to the production lines, the Dodge Viper being one of these very rare occurrences.

Re:Is electric really better?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hydroelectric does have some problems, but there have been great strides made using what are essentially submarine wind turbines in the areas of high flow rate, as well as floating pontoons that use the power of waves to generate electricity. There's better was of getting electricity out of water than building a damn.

Off shore wind turbines can be places a few miles off of our largest cities and provide cheap, reliable power and only be visible by people on ships passing by. Also, I've never heard of any complaints regarding noise from wind power plants and I happen to find them quite attractive.

I'm an environmentalist and I'm not afraid of nuclear power, but I think that it would be better used for space exploration since we have so many different kinds of energy that can be harnessed terrestrially. Also, I think that the total cost of nuclear power is significantly higher than any other method because of the level of industry required to make the fuel and dispose of it and the end of the life cycle. To put it another way: Why have a nuclear reactor in your backyard when we have a perfectly good one sixty million miles away?

Finally, I think the greatest improvement we can make in our current energy infrastructure is to improve the power grid to make it easier for states like Kansas and Arizona and New York to sell their renewable electricity, generated by wind, solar and tidal power respectively, to places that need it. We have enough renewable energy resources in this country to provide enough power for the foreseeable future, even with electric cars, but without the ability to move it reliably to where it's needed investment money won't be available to start these projects.

Re:Is electric really better?

[sphealey]

> You need to go to more auto shows.

I have been going to auto shows since 1972, actually. I am not necessarily talking about "dream cars" that you see at the CAS here, although that game too became a joke somewhere around 1988. I mean "Car of the Future" prototypes where the future for GM and Ford is 15 years away - and has been since 1960.

GM has literally been promising fuel cell technology "in 15 years" since 1970. Meanwhile Toyota brings out a most-likely-unprofitable first generation Prius, sells it for 4 years, bring out a most-likely-breakeven second generation Prius, sells it for 4 years, brings out a probably-small-profit third generation Prius, sells it for 4 years...

sPh

The myth of the electric car

[HappySqurriel]

For the longest time I have been told that the myth of the electric car was that it was a more environmentaly sound automobile than a gasoline powered automobile; that with the comination of how much energy was wasted in charging the battery and with how most energy comes from coal, natural gas or oil power plants the electric car produced far more polution than a gasoline car. I don't know if this is true anymore ( there have been massive improvements in battery technology over the past couple of decades ) but it is worth investigating to see whether it is still true. Personally, I suspect that less polution would be produced if everyone "down-sized" their car to better suit their needs ( SUV -> Minivan -> Wagon -> Full Sized -> Mid Size -> Compact -> Sub-Compact -> Smart Car -> Scooter -> Bicycle ) and used public transit where possible rather than if everyone switched to electric cars.

I admit I could be wrong though.

Re:The myth of the electric car

[SuperStretchy]

Yeah but just think how much CO2 would be produced with all those people huffing and puffing on those bicycles.

Re:The myth of the electric car

[Incadenza]

Personally, I suspect that less polution would be produced if everyone "down-sized" their car to better suit their needs ( SUV -> Minivan -> Wagon -> Full Sized -> Mid Size -> Compact -> Sub-Compact -> Smart Car -> Scooter -> Bicycle )

If that is sorted on pollution, then the scooter should be at the point where 'Mid Size' is. Scooters and mopeds do not use a lot of fuel, but they do not combust very well as well, and have no filtering whatsoever. They emit a lot of NOx and fine dust.

Re:The myth of the electric car

[westlake]

Minivan -> Wagon -> Full Sized -> Mid Size -> Compact -> Sub-Compact -> Smart Car -> Scooter -> Bicycle ) and used public transit where possible rather than if everyone switched to electric cars.

The bike and scooter aren't for winter commutes in Minneapolis or Buffalo.

Public transit can be successful when population densities and usage approach those of a major city.

But the inadequate and awkwardly routed suburban services we see are used (and subsidized for use) almost exclusively by the poor, the elderly, the sick and disabled.

The twenty minute commute becomes a two hour marathon run because of the need to service isolated nursing homes, group homes, outpatient clinics, hospitals, senior centers and the like.

Re:The myth of the electric car

[Anonymous Coward]

The real point of the electric car is not less pollution...

It's that it doesn't need oil to run.

Re:The myth of the electric car

[YrWrstNtmr]

Yeah but just think how much CO2 would be produced with all those people huffing and puffing on those bicycles.

Not THAT much more. You're breathing anyway, right?

Re:The myth of the electric car

[Anonymous Coward]

The best part is when the power grid, which is close to peak capacity several times a year (okay, above in some regions) gets overwhelmed with folks plugging in their cars.

Re:The myth of the electric car

[timmarhy]

people who poo poo the electric car are always morons who don't understand even the basics of electric motors or how the cars work. in a nut shell, electric motors are 98% efficent, compared to about 30% for THE best combustion engines. the generation of the power at power plants is also many times more effiecent then if you were to try do it with your own combustion engine, so the argument that your having to burn fossil fuels anyway doesn't hold up (not to mention you don't need fossil fuels to make electricity). the only downside to electrical cars right now is replacment of batteries, which requires the disposal of toxic chemicals, which can be mostly recycled into new batteries anyway.

Chevy Volt?! This was a SAAB last year

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.trollhattansaab.net/archives/2006/04/di d_gm_screw_sa.html
http://www.trollhattansaab.net/archives/2006/04/th e_smoking_gun.html
http://autoweb.drive.com.au/cms/A_106337/newsartic le.html

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[Anonymous Coward]

The expected fuel economy gain is 30%

How much is the expected price increase?

Batteries? What?

[Yvan256]

How about using those new "supercapacitors" we've heard about a few months ago? They should lower the cost and recharge time quite a bit.

Re:Batteries? What?

[goaty_the_flying_sho]

Some friends of mine made an electric bike using ultracaps... definitely the way to go. They can handle so much current that they're perfect for regenerative breaking, plus they have insanely high capacitance for their size.

You will see electric vehicles using them.

Re:Batteries? What?

[Yvan256]

Any plans/schematics/links? What parts did he use? Did he start with an existing electric bike and simply removed the batteries and installed a supercapacitor instead?

Details please!

Re:Batteries? What?

[MtViewGuy]

Actually, nanotech-based supercapacitors offer the potential for tremendous amounts of electric power storage in a surprisingly small package, combined with the potential of charging the whole unit in a few minutes instead of 7-8 hours for a standard NiMH battery pack used by current pure-electric cars. This could lead to a true electric car with as much range as 310 miles that only needs 4-5 minutes to do a full recharge, obseleting internal combustion engines for passenger cars.

Re:Batteries? What?

[goaty_the_flying_sho]

Electronics project while at school. I think they'll eventually be published in Circuit Cellar, but I'll see if they're putting together a website or something like that.

It was all designed by them except for the physical motor. It would use lithium ion batteries for general use, but switched in the ultracaps for stopping and starting because the batteries couldn't take the current.

Re:Batteries? What?

[julesh]

This could lead to a true electric car with as much range as 310 miles that only needs 4-5 minutes to do a full recharge, obseleting internal combustion engines for passenger cars.

Assuming that somehow you can find some method of safely supplying the car with 120v at approximately 5,000 amps for those 5 minutes (giving a total of 50KWh, approximately enough for 5 hours driving [i.e. 300 miles @ 60MPH] with an average consumption of 10KW) without vapourising the charging circuit.

Re:Batteries? What?

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

Thats easy, you just retune your flux capacitor to they Mr. Fissions output, and use Isolated chasis transfer cunductors.

It will be

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/18/ap/busin ess/mainD8IASIGO1.shtml

The above link is an example of the serious work being done to make coal power environmentally friendly. The plant in the article won't even emit CO2. Modern coal plants (which are already very efficient), nuclear, hydro and wind power make an electric car much friendlier to the environment than gas. Of course the batteries are a bit ugly but , if such cars become common, they will be efficiently recycled.

Re:It will be

[Chode2235]

There are other environmental effects besides CO2 emmisions that need to be considered. For instance, while coal may be clean, it comes from mountain top removal mining (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal) , which is highly destructive. We may have a lot of coal here in the US, but we may level the Apalachain mountains to get to it. We really need to look beyond coal as a viable solution even if it doesn't directly release CO2 into the air.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[daveschroeder]

Don't know yet, but given that the 2007 North American International Auto Show is this week, we might be hearing more. And given that these will all be available for model year 2008, which will occur mid to late calendar year 2007, we'll have to hear something about price pretty soon. GM knows it has to be cost-competitive. And, frankly, buyers need to know that spending a little more up front will be better for everything from the environment, to fossil fuel foreign policy, to their pocketbooks. But even though compact fluorescents are provably less expensive over their lifetime than incandescents, it's still tough to convince people to change.

Scott Adams on this concept car

[Tumbarumba]

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/20 07/01/concept_car.html

Styling

[hey]

I hate the styling. It looks very paranoid and macho -- which might be the point?
Hey, GM, why not make all your vehicles cars plugin-hybrids?!

Re:Styling

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate the styling. It looks very paranoid and macho -- which might be the point?
Hey, GM, why not make all your vehicles cars plugin-hybrids?!

What do you suppose would be the consequences of one of the largest car companies in the world producing every vehicle as a plugin-hybrid when large portions of North America (and the world) already have problems producing enough electricity to suit current usage levels?

If this became a popular decision, and other companies followed suit, wouldn't that mean that Black-outs would be ensured to occur at the worst possible times?

Why do environmentalists bitch about the rest of the world not understanding the consequences of their decisions, yet they have no understanding of the consequences of their decisions?

Re:Styling

[dave420]

It is being sold in the US, so "paranoid and macho" might be spot-on :-P

Scott Adams wins

[jcarkeys]

He beat Slashdot to this one with The Dilbert Blog

Hydrogen is the way to go

[forgotmynameagain]

They should go with the hydrogen cars, we'll have a few Pintos at first but after that it will be fine. It's possible to make hydrogen(H) with water(H2O).

Re:Hydrogen is the way to go

[Anonymous Coward]

It's possible to make hydrogen(H) with water(H2O).

Well don't keep us all in suspense - what's the other thing? It's possible to 'make' hydrogen with water and ...?

I can't wait to find out. I bet this solves all our energy needs.

Re:Hydrogen is the way to go

[forgotmynameagain]

Right now, the water need to be electrolysed to make hydrogen but I'm sure there are another ways to make hydrogen from water. Electrolysis is okay thought.

Re:Hydrogen is the way to go

[slashjunkie]

H20 is already the result of combusting hydrogen and oxygen. Energy is given off during the combustion, and the new molecule forms at a more stable state. If you liken it to burning wood, water is essentially the "ash" left after the fire has gone out. Do you think ash has a lot of energy in it?

To extract H2 from H20 (using electrolysis) takes energy - more energy than you'll reap when you burn the H2 again (unless you're using "free" energy like solar power to do the cracking).

One of the major hurdles of hydrogen fuel is that there is no cost-effective way of producing it yet, which is no surprise, since it is very rare to find it on Earth in elemental form. Sure, hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, but Earth's atmosphere is only about 1ppm hydrogen.

Re:Hydrogen is the way to go

[WindBourne]

A number of engineers have shown that any H2 system will always be less efficient than the electrical system that we currently have. The funny thing is that so many continue to ignore the evidence and will push H2 systems. Oh well. I say thank God that the majority of the world is free enterprise. True competition will root out the attempts by the Feds to push us on another monopolized system.

Gee, Think Zonk hates Fords?

[ColdCoffee]

You couldn't tell, could you? For Christ's sake Zonk, TRY to be SOMEWHAT objective! I'm no Ford fanboy, but I've found them to be a bit more reliable than Chevrolet, and every bit as innovative as any other car company.

Just start building EV-1's again.

[dpbsmith]

GM, just start building EV-1's again. Stop with this "always four years away" nonsense. Just get started. You already have a feasible, marketable car. Just start building it and marketing it.

The EV-1's were by all accounts practical, peppy, fun to drive, reliable, the lease terms were affordable, and when the leases expired the lessees wanted to buy them, and they had a waiting list a mile long of people who wanted them.

The R&D has already been amortized. What's this fixation with needing a 400-mile range? Sure, plenty of people do. Don't try to sell them an electric car. Sell electric cars to the people who don't. Duh. Sell convertibles to the people who want convertibles, sell trucks to the people who want trucks, and sell EV-1's to the people who want EV-1's.

Just get started. Get the things on the market. Get the charging stations in place. Sell cars with an 80-mile range this year, then two years from now bring out models with improved batteries and a 120-mile range, or whatever.

Re:Just start building EV-1's again.

[jeff4747]

he EV-1's were by all accounts practical, peppy, fun to drive, reliable

...and were only practical in relatively mild climates.

The EV-1 was nice, but it used lead-acid batteries. They don't work very well at cold temperatures, as those of us in colder climates know well when trying to start our cars. Heck, I ran into trouble trying to use Li-ion-battery-powered tools that sat in a 14-to-35 degree F garage for a couple days, and I'm only in Colorado. Folks in North Dakota have to drive too.

Re:Just start building EV-1's again.

[NixieBunny]

The batteries could be replaced with more modern ones, now that Li-ion and NiMH are readily available. Remember, the EV1 was designed about 15 years ago, so its technology was quaint by today's cellphone-driven technology standards.

My wife recently talked me into buying a Prius, and it's a fine car that can be converted without much work to run on batteries exclusively. However, it's such a gas-sipper that it's not economically feasible to do so - it would cost 50,000 miles worth of gas ($3K) to convert to electric use. And that with a whopping 40 mile range!

Re:Just start building EV-1's again.

[evilviper]

lead-acid batteries. They don't work very well at cold temperatures, as those of us in colder climates know well when trying to start our cars.

Lead-acid batteries do provide lower power at extremely cold temperatures. HOWEVER, they are not the biggest issue in starting your car in cold weather. The cold, thickening oil is the cause of the majority of the resistance, and your shrinking engine block doesn't help. Switching to thinner oil in the winter (ie. 5W-30) makes a huge difference.

Besides that:

Lead acid batteries in an electric car won't be affected as much. Your car battery is only needed to start your car, which it either can or can't, when it's cold.

An electric car, OTOH, will always be able to start moving, no matter how cold the batteries, as it has so many more of them, with so much more capacity. Then, as the car begins moving, the chemical reaction as power is drawn from the batteries will result in the batteries HEATING UP naturally. It may be counter intuitive, but your electric car will have more and more power as you continue driving it.

In addition, it is quite easy to put insulation around batteries in an electric car, very much unlike a normal vehicle, and installing even a small, low power electric heater under the batteries could entirely eliminate the issue.

Re:Just start building EV-1's again.

[Nethead]

Every /. nerd should downlo^H^H^H^H^H^H rent "Who Killed the Electric Car" (trailer.) This documents what happened when GM actually made decent EV.

Re:Just start building EV-1's again.

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife and I both had 1999 EV-1s. They used NiMh batteries; we regular drove those cars 135 miles and came home
with range to spare. Cold was better for the NiMh; if anything, the problem with the battery system in that car was
it was designed with the Lead-Acid batteries in mind and it was difficult to properly and efficiently extract the
heat from the NiMh. The 1997 EV-1s used Lead-Acid batteries, and inferior ones at that. The Panasonics that
they put into them later had a range up around 100-110.

Re:Just start building EV-1's again.

[wiredlogic]

There was a second generation EV1 that used NiMH batteries. I don't think they were as extensively distributed as under the original leasing program. I have seen one locally, probably owing to a nearby Delphi plant.

Re:Just start building EV-1's again.

[charlieo88]

...trouble trying to use Li-ion-battery-powered tools that sat in a 14-to-35 degree F garage for a couple days, and I'm only in Colorado. Folks in North Dakota have to drive too.

Yeah, that's why they make dog sleds.

But seriously, you say Colorado like the rest of us should be held hostage by the fact that you chose to live in a place with an intemperate climate. Plenty of places never get close to the 35 degree issue. There are 4 million people in Colorado and 17 million in Florida where it RARELY dips below 40.

Hell, Broward County has almost three times the population of North Dakota alone.

Re:Just start building EV-1's again.

[dbIII]

EV-1's again. .... You already have a feasible, marketable car.

It wasn't. There are a lot of conspiracy theories but bad management, high costs and rushing it out before it was really worth doing were the problem. They cost a fortune to make and current components are a lot better than anything available back then.

Re:Just start building EV-1's again.

[Anonymous Coward]

This just makes sense. Why GM killed the EV-1, I will never understand.

Just get started. Get the things on the market. Get the charging stations in place. Sell cars with an 80-mile range this year, then two years from now bring out models with improved batteries and a 120-mile range, or whatever.

You hit the nail right on the head. "It's the batteries stupid." ;)

The trickle down from creating an electric vehicle market seems obvious to me. My guess is: there must not be enough of a profit motive (at the top corporate level) to change things up. Nevermind it's disruptive technology in the first degree, which could only revitalize GM as a whole.

0) sell EV's (as you mentioned)
1) Decide on a *standard* GM EV battery form-factor, and patent it (this is key).
2) R&D new battery tech (already doing this), patent as needed.
3) R&D new EV models
4) sell batteries as an ongoing market via dealerships and Mr. Goodwrench service locations.

This is where GM could really shine. As most battery tech falls short of the expected lifetime of any car, replacment mid-life is a real concern - it's not a special case, so why not fold it into the business model?

A standard EV battery means that old and new car alike can just pull into the service bay, get a new batt and be on the way. It could also drive costs down for everyone involved, due to mass production and such - now that's a win. Then R&D for better batteries becomes less of a problem since the costs are now lowered due to mass production for batteries across *all* GM EV models, and the EV's in the showroom look more attractive since people can drive them after 3 years w/o fear of the replacement battery costing more than the bluebook value of the car.

Of course GM could be less than philanthropical in this model and instead charge just a shade under the value of your 3-year-old car for a new battery. With no possibility for generic batteries to become available due to patents on various form-factors (w/o standardization and govn't interference), it's quite possible for all this to give "planned replacement" an entirely new meaning.

Re:Just start building EV-1's again.

[jeff4747]

Plenty of places never get close to the 35 degree issue. There are 4 million people in Colorado and 17 million in Florida where it RARELY dips below 40.

Car makers aren't going to throw away the market for their cars in the northern 1/2 to 2/3rds of the US. Plus, they'd get all sorts of crap from people who took their "warm-weather-only" car on a ski trip.

Re:Just start building EV-1's again.

[jeff4747]

Switching to thinner oil in the winter (ie. 5W-30) makes a huge difference.

Already done. The oil in my truck is the recommended oil for down to about -40 degrees F.

An electric car, OTOH, will always be able to start moving

Yes, starting isn't an issue with an electric car. Range is. Since the lead-acid batteries can't put out as much power in cold weather, the range on a lead-acid battery car plummets in cold weather, which is why the EV-1 was only leased in CA and AZ.

Re:Just start building EV-1's again.

[evilviper]

Since the lead-acid batteries can't put out as much power in cold weather, the range on a lead-acid battery car plummets in cold weather,

If you'd read the REST of my post, you'd see why you're wrong.

Re:Just start building EV-1's again.

[jeff4747]

If you'd read the REST of my post, you'd see why you're wrong.

While your heating up concept is nice in theory, it doesn't generate enough heat to make up for the low ambient temperature. The battery will go up maybe 10 degrees or so, then the cold air will keep it from getting any hotter. Especially when you're talking about city driving because there will be nearly zero drain on the battery when the car is stopped.

Hence, the lead-acid EV-1s were only available in southern CA and AZ. They did not offer them in the other states in the southern 1/3rd of the country because they can get too cold (ie. FL can get hard freezes in winter)

Re:Just start building EV-1's again.

[evilviper]

The battery will go up maybe 10 degrees or so, then the cold air will keep it from getting any hotter.

The heating is internal, not external, so outside tempuratures have quite a difficult job (passively) cooling them (quickly).

Hence, the lead-acid EV-1s were only available in southern CA and AZ.

They were offered in California because of CARB regulations. In fact, if not for CARB regulations, they wouldn't have been designed, developed, or leased at all.

I can't exactly say why they were offered in Arizona at all, but I can say they did a really half-assed effort, with (IIRC) only one single dealership in the state offering them, and I believe it was just over the California border. Perhaps it was a scheme to avoid paying higher California taxes on some of the vehicles?

They did not offer them in the other states in the southern 1/3rd of the country because they can get too cold (ie. FL can get hard freezes in winter)

Doesn't even pass the laugh test.

The northern 1/3rd of Arizona gets well below freezing in the winter (record: -40F).

They were sold all over California, not just the mild climate areas near the Pacific Ocean. Significant portions of California are sub-arctic and get about as cold as anywhere else in the country (record: -45F).

The climate in California and Arizona is no better than Nevada, New Mexico, Louisiana, Mississippi, and pretty much the entire rest of the southern half of the USA.

The climate in Florida is FAR warmer than California or Arizona. Florida's statewide RECORD low tempurature in recorded history was -2F degrees. That's an unbelivably high lower limit.

So, please shut up, or educate yourself before spouting off again.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[Anonymous Coward]

Turbines don't exactly produce much power at low RPMs...

ford?

[csimicah]

While Ford wants to simply offer cosmetic changes to automobiles interiors and exteriors

Ford is showing a 65mpg diesel hybrid - with supplemental solar power, no less. I'm not sure why 50mpg hybrids from GM are a revelation but a 65mpg diesel hybrid from Ford is "cosmetic", but there you go.
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID= /20060104/FREE/60103014/1115

Re:ford?

[nonsequitor]

That car looks awesome. I wonder how it handles or if it will ever hit a showroom floor. Also doesn't this allow Ford to make SUV's which guzzle more gas even if it never makes it to mass production? Since this will raise the average mpg of their entire fleet.

Re:ford?

[KillerBob]

I'm just waiting for one of those doors to be opened at 120km/h on the highway... they don't call 'em suicide doors for nothing. :)

Re:ford?

[evilviper]

I'm not sure why 50mpg hybrids from GM are a revelation but a 65mpg diesel hybrid from Ford is "cosmetic",

Because the 50mpg hybrid is actually in development, while the 65mpg hybrid is a pure fantasy to try and boost falling stock prices.

Re:ford?

[moosesocks]

It should be noted that virtually all diesel engines are significantly more efficent than their gasoline counterparts. I'm pretty sure VW used to have some tiny diesels that could do 50+ mpg.

We have the technology to make insanely efficent cars. Why we don't is completely beyond me.

Re:ford?

[Tablizer]

Ford is showing a 65mpg diesel hybrid - with supplemental solar power

Does anyone know about how much solar panelling will add the to RPG of a smallish car? Assume California spring sun in a parking lot for 8.5 hours.

Re:ford?

[julesh]

Does anyone know about how much solar panelling will add the to RPG of a smallish car? Assume California spring sun in a parking lot for 8.5 hours.

Depending on the size and efficiency of the panel, you'll get anywhere between 100 and 300 watts, I'd guess. Taking a midrange 200 watts, that's 1.7KWh. This will be realised into actual driving power at an efficiency of around 60%, giving about 1KWh of drive. Using US units, petrol has an energy density of 33KWh per gallon, of which approximately 30% may be realised in actual use. So this will save approximately 0.1 gallon per day.

The new green pintos...

[Anonymous Coward]

...will still occcasionally burn the occupants alive, but a sophisticated emmissions system will only release water vapor with a hint of pork.

Nothing quite like a million cars recharging....

[duh_lime]

... to push the California power grid six feet under during the summer. This will guarantee year-round brownouts, blackouts, and other power problems. Of course, that means plenty of "repair work" for IT staff.

When they talk about electric/hybrid cars with more nuclear power plants nationwide, *then* we'll have a plan. Otherwise, it's trading one problem for another.

Rest assured, California is not the only state with barely enough power-generation capacity. This could be "just the ticket" to justify hugely higher electric rates nationwide. Has anyone quantified the "recharging load" on the grid? Many people would have to recharge at work during the day to make it back home in the evening. Not all recharging could occur at night. Don't get me wrong. I think it's the right direction. But, the whole system needs to be planned and made to happen. Not just the cars.

Read the fine print - it's about CAFE standards

[gelfling]

GM says in no uncertain terms that the batteries to make the Volt a viable car, do not in fact exist.

No, you should disabuse yourselves of the fiction that Detroit has any interest in electric cars. They do it at all because of a wrinkle in the Federal CAFE law which allows them to factor in these experimental cars into their CAFE standards. This way they can continue to build more 11mpg land arks. In fact that's what Detroit is doing - they're building evermore large trucks and SUVs. Some, like Ford are leaving the minivan market altogether and are scaling back car production in favor of trucks and SUV's. Why? Because the margin on them is too fat to ignore.

Re:Read the fine print - it's about CAFE standards

[Anonymous Coward]

"No, you should disabuse yourselves of the fiction that Detroit has any interest in electric cars. They do it at all because of a wrinkle in the Federal CAFE law which allows them to factor in these experimental cars into their CAFE standards. This way they can continue to build more 11mpg land arks. In fact that's what Detroit is doing - they're building evermore large trucks and SUVs. Some, like Ford are leaving the minivan market altogether and are scaling back car production in favor of trucks and SUV's. Why? Because the margin on them is too fat to ignore."

The margins are meaningless when people have stopped buying them.

Lots are full of new SUV's. All kinds of sales strategies are being used to try and get rid of them. There goes the fat margins.

Re:Read the fine print - it's about CAFE standards

[gelfling]

The Detroit car companies have laid off 10s of thousands of employees and closed plants that used to make low margin vehicles. They're betting that the market for humongo vehicles will return.

EV1

[JBERLIN]

I agree with dpbsmith. The ev1s were so much cheaper to run and didnt require nearly as many replacement parts as most gas cars do. And all this stuff about hydrogen cars is garbage because if you have done research you know that hydrogen is no better than gas because of the amount of energy needed to produce it and the small mpg achievable with it.

Re:EV1

[forgotmynameagain]

What is needed is hydrogen stations around the country that produce their own hydrogen. Electrolyse water with electricity or wind or solar energy. GE said they invented something called Noryl to lower the cost of hydrogen production to hundreds of dollars per kilowatt. I don't see where the problem is other than the big Oiled ppl don't want us to talk about it.

Re:EV1

[despisethesun]

And all this stuff about hydrogen cars is garbage because if you have done research you know that hydrogen is no better than gas because of the amount of energy needed to produce it and the small mpg achievable with it.

Which is different from the energy needed to charge an electric car in what way?

Don't be silly

[Tim]

"The expected fuel economy gain is 30% over today's figures on the gasoline/FlexFuel-only AFM variant, approaching 30mpg for city driving. That's a damned good improvement. And when used with FlexFuel, they're using less fossil fuels - even including the fully burdened fossil fuel costs of ethanol - than Prius and Civic hybrid drivers, in addition to contributing to lower overall greenhouse gas emissions."

Uh, yeah....until Honda introduces an E85-capable hybrid. Then, SUVs will continue be the least fuel-efficient vehicles on the market.

No matter how you look at this, GM is shining a turd.

"Whether or not one likes or dislikes SUVs, or thinks people should be able to be told what types of vehicles they should or shouldn't be driving, or think subjective judgments can be simplistically made about what other people "need" or don't need, it's still an excellent step forward."

I'll grant that this is an important technological step forward, but I don't grant the greater implication: most people don't need to drive trucks. And no matter how many technoogical improvements are made to make light trucks more fuel-efficent, they'll still be less efficient than a smaller, lighter automobile with the same technology. It isn't a matter of "subjective judgment" -- it's a matter of physics.

(And not incidentally: we don't need to "tell" people what they "need" to drive. We can tax them based on the size and/or fuel-efficiency of their vehicle, and, like true conservatives, we'll "let the market work.")

Re:Don't be silly

[Eivind]

Sure you could, in principle. In practice the personal car is close enough to a holy cow in American politics that any suggestions of in any way limiting the God-Given-Rigth to drive 3MPG super-SUVs alone to work is akin to political suicide.

In much of Europe we've got this kind of thing for a long while already. For example, in Norway you pay taxes on a new vehicle according to weigth, engine-volume and horsepower (though it's recently been suggested to replace this with CO2-emmision/km). In Germany you pay a yearly "road-tax" that is scaled by the volume of your engine and the emission-class of the vehicle. (i.e. a car that pollutes less will pay a lower tax)

Re:Don't be silly

[MindStalker]

Actually there is long term gain from this though. The people willing to spend extra money on these SUVs (and people are willing to spend a lot on SUVs). Will help support the development on these technologies. Realistically you simply are going to have to wait for the technology to mature before you see them in smaller cars more often. There are many rumors that the Prius actually cost more to produce than it sells for. You won't find many manufactures willing to do this atleast not in the more popular models. More and more SUVs are starting to have features like Hybrid drives and cylindar management simply because people will pay for them.

Re:Don't be silly

[shmlco]

"And not incidentally: we don't need to "tell" people what they "need" to drive. We can tax them based on the size and/or fuel-efficiency of their vehicle, and, like true conservatives, we'll "let the market work.""

Isn't governmental taxation and regulation interference in "the market"?

Re:Don't be silly

[Anonymous Coward]

Europe has also had a long tradition of screwing the individual for what the ruling elite consider best for society, aka the elite.

Re:Don't be silly

[ClamIAm]

Isn't governmental taxation and regulation interference in "the market"?

I'm guessing you already know this, but this is totally the wrong thing to post on Slashdot. Hopefully if I write a moderate reply, the trolls won't bite as hard...

Anyway, I wanted to say that The Free Market(tm) is kind of a mythical entity. Some people and political groups scream about it (and how holy it is), but I would argue that there's really no agreement as to a single definition of it.

Some people claim a market is "free" when it exists within a government that is extremely laissez-faire (think "libertarians"). Personally, I find their arguments interesting and sometimes convincing, but I usually come away with the feeling that their ideals are rather utopian. The tl;dr version of my thinking here is that with or without regulation, "the market" will always be subject to corruption and collusion. For an interesting take on this, I suggest reading Max Barry's novel "Jennifer Government", in which deregulation is the norm and the government itself has been privatized. I really enjoyed it.

Re:Don't be silly

[Dare nMc]

most people don't need to drive trucks. And no matter how many technoogical improvements are made to make light trucks more fuel-efficent, they'll still be less efficient than a smaller, lighter automobile with the same technology.

It would be better for the environment to own one big Truck/SUV. Than it would be to own a smaller truck, and a electric car.
IE it is currently cheaper (thus more resource conservative) and better for the global environment... to drive your truck to work every day, than to leave it sit, and have a second electric car just for commuting.

I do have a suggestion though. I think electric drive trailers would be the answer. IE I need a truck to haul things on a regular basis. If I could pull a trailer that hauled 2000#'s with a small car, then I could own a single 4 door car. I Think that would be very do-able with the proper software, and all-wheel electric drive trailer with battery power. IE it could maximize the power of the pulling vehicle, and always brake/accel in a manner that the handling of the towing car was stable, generating electricity for that up hill haul...

Essentially it would be a autonomous vehicle with a power link to the tow vehicle.

A tow car would have to be different than todays cars, better cooling system, etc; to be able to produce over 100 hp continuously, instead of the 30 hp (max 1 minute of 250hp) they do now.

Re:Don't be silly

[JWSmythe]

    You've made a great argument for people riding motorcycles. The majority of cars on the road only have one person in them, and they're just commuting. Why do you need to drag a 4 seat 3000+ pound car around at 25mpg, when you can use a 1 (or 2) seat 600 pound motorcycle at 50mpg?

Re:Don't be silly

[Ironsides]

Why do you need to drag a 4 seat 3000+ pound car around at 25mpg, when you can use a 1 (or 2) seat 600 pound motorcycle at 50mpg?

Ummm... I've been looking at a lot of motorcycles. The vast majority get only 25mph from what I have seen. This includes Hondas and Harleys. Only two of three models that I have seen get 50mpg. I've heard this is due to the smaller engine being less efficient than that larger car engine.

Re:Don't be silly

[YrWrstNtmr]

I'll grant that this is an important technological step forward, but I don't grant the greater implication: most people don't need to drive trucks.

This is true. However, a lot of people want to drive 'trucks'. And on a further note, a lot of these 'trucks' are merely modern day station wagons. Not a lot of 'truck' in it.

We can tax them based on the size and/or fuel-efficiency of their vehicle

We already do that. Owners of less fuel efficient cars buy more gas, and pay more tax.

Re:Don't be silly

[Firethorn]

Don't forget there's also the question of 'Who has the most to gain?'. If you think about it a moment, you realize that SUVs, being larger vehicles than a car, stand to save a larger amount of gasoline than a small car. Going from 12mpg to 30 mpg will save more gasoline than 30 to 40 mpg. The larger vehicle also has more space to put the necessary equipment because many of the parts will be about the same size whether it's in a Honda civic or Ford Escape. Oh, and electric motors tend to be more efficient the larger they are, so you can gain a few percentage points there. Add in the systems end up costing less as a percentage of the cost of the vehicle as a whole, and I wonder why they didn't come out with hybrid SUVs sooner.

Basically, it actually makes more sense to put hybrid systems into SUV's than compact cars. It's part of the reason that locomotives have been effectivly hybrids for years(major reason is the elimination of the transmission, of course).

Re:Don't be silly

[drwho]

Regarding taxes on trucks / SUVs. This is a silly idea.First of all, there are many people that do need trucks for one reason or another. For instance, hauling firewood doesn't work to well in your Prius. Or carpooling - supposedly a great thing - how many people can you fit in a Prius?

Another thing that irritates me is that there is not enough attention paid to the rural population's transportation needs. The rural population tends to have less income, yet has to travel longer distances in order to do shopping, go to the doctor, etc. and often for work. They often need the benefits that a real SUV is supposed to offer, including 4WD, larger wheels, etc because driving conditions can get really bad.

Rural people don't need to waste gas, but do need different vehicles than are often considered 'environmentally correct'. For instance, the Subaru Brat was a bit hit in Northern New England when it was introduced because it provided an inexpensive 4WD pickup with great gas mileage. We need more of these types of vehicles. Not just commuter cars.

Note: I don't even own a car. I am not defending any choice I have made.

Re:Don't be silly

[Reality Master 101]

Why do you need to drag a 4 seat 3000+ pound car around at 25mpg, when you can use a 1 (or 2) seat 600 pound motorcycle at 50mpg?

Because motorcycles are utterly impractical for anything other than joy riding in nice weather?

Re:Don't be silly

[Leynos]

Yeah, I'm sure the ruling elite love overtaxing their eight litre Jaguars.

Re:Don't be silly

[o2sd]

"And not incidentally: we don't need to "tell" people what they "need" to drive. We can tax them based on the size and/or fuel-efficiency of their vehicle, and, like true conservatives, we'll "let the market work.""

Isn't governmental taxation and regulation interference in "the market"?


No it is not, as long as the taxation is a fixed percentage. All markets are regulated. There is a great economist myth that there exists an unregulated market somewhere. Markets need to be regulated so that people with guns don't come and 'distort the market' by paying for their goods with a promise not to kill you.

In our modern markets, pollution (and greenhouse gases) is a cost of business that is not borne by the manufacturer of the product. It is borne by everyone in range of the outputs of their defective products, whether or not they are a market participant. This is a market distortion that allows the manufacturers of these defective products to profit at someone else's expense. Taxation of fuel would correct this market distortion, and would force the consumer to pay for the use of their defective product, whose hidden costs are currently paid for by someone (everyone) else.

That this is not self-evident is a great testament to both the stupidity of humanity, and the spectacular achievements of right-wing propaganda.

Re:Don't be silly

[Anonymous Coward]

In much of Europe we've got this kind of thing for a long while already. For example, in Norway you pay taxes on a new vehicle according to weigth, engine-volume and horsepower (though it's recently been suggested to replace this with CO2-emmision/km). In Germany you pay a yearly "road-tax" that is scaled by the volume of your engine and the emission-class of the vehicle. (i.e. a car that pollutes less will pay a lower tax)

Why go to all that effort? There is a cost in administering a tax (keeping track of weight, engine volume, power, etc). Why not have a simple high tax on fuel, and let the market take care of the rest? Oh, then you would have all these bureaucrats out of work - can't have that.

A simple fuel tax also prevents tax evasion: Europe being what it is, people would create shell corporations to register cars in low-tax countries and drive them in high-tax countries.

Re:Don't be silly

[Slithe]

Anyway, I wanted to say that The Free Market(tm) is kind of a mythical entity. Some people and political groups scream about it (and how holy it is), but I would argue that there's really no agreement as to a single definition of it. The people who do that (and I have been one of them from time to time) usually do so because they do not trust a government to make the best decisions. A market, to me, is the set of all mutually beneficial transactions among two or more entities. Any regulator cannot see all the motives behind all parties for all transactions, so it cannot wisely force the market to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

The tl;dr version of my thinking here is that with or without regulation, "the market" will always be subject to corruption and collusion. My thinking is here is that the regulator, the government, will always be subject to corruption and collusion. The best definition of a government is a monopoly (or near monopoly) on the use of force within a given region. To libertarians, it seems stupid to have an entity that is simultaneously extremely powerful and extremely susceptible to corruption. I think the underlying argument for libertarianism is that people should be free to live their lives the way they choose.

Re:Don't be silly

[NormalVisual]

Why not have a simple high tax on fuel, and let the market take care of the rest?

Because 1) having government interfere in such a manner is not "letting the market take care of it", and 2) you'll end up increasing the costs of goods in general.

Re:Don't be silly

[zxnos]

that is interesting. when i was in my teens i drove a '71 bmw sport bike and it routinely got 45 mpg. 450lb bike with a flat 750cc engine. it cruised good at 75 and would top out about 100mph. i got the bike when i was 14 and it dropped a valve seat at 19 so i gave it to my dad and he fixed it, then sold it. anyway...

i am curious about what bikes you are looking at. the mpg ratings listed here are considerably better than 25. it lists '06 1200cc harley sportsters that get 45 mpg. the 1200cc bmws get as high as 65mpg.

as an aside, i used to drive that bike to the sturgis motorcycle rally. grisled harely riders would come over to check the bike out. in my experience bikers dont care what you ride. and girls dont care much either. they either think a bike is sexy, dangerous or both.

wear a helmet.

Re:Don't be silly

[timmarhy]

actually, the government already DOES have a huge tax on fuel it's called EXCISE you dipstick, and here in AU it's 70c out of the $1.20 we pay per litre for fuel as it is. god i hate the tax and spend attitude.

Re:Don't be silly

[El Torico]

Because motorcycles are utterly impractical for anything other than joy riding in nice weather?

You have a limited view of how motorcycles are used. Not everyone who has a motorcycle rides their shiny new Harley on weekends in the summer. Small displacement motorcycles (including scooters and auto-rickshaws) are used in hundreds of countries for daily transportation. Don't confuse "comfortable" with "practical".

Re:Don't be silly

[Anonymous Coward]

most people don't need to drive trucks

And most people don't need a boat, and most people don't need a snowmobile trailer, and most people don't need a camper. What's you point? You gonna pull these things with a Prius? (okay, I'll admit the snowmobile trailer could be pulled by a lesser vehicle, but my V6 Saturn Vue struggles on my boat, though it works)

I also don't understand why SUVs get such a bad rap. My 2005 Saturn Vue gets about the same gas mileage as the Mitsubishi car it replaced, and is only a couple of gallons worse than my wife's Oldsmobile. Furthermore, people usually rip on SUVs but say nothing about trucks (except in this thread). I guarantee my Vue gets better millage that my friend's Chevy Avalanche. I don't think SUVs are the problem... I think huge, hulking vehicles are the problem (but even then, sometimes you need one. You're not going to see a Ford Escape Green Line converted to a concrete mixer/hauler).

And if it doesn't make sense, you must acquit.

Re:Don't be silly

[TheGavster]

Taxing based on arbitrary parameters is not "letting the free market work". Letting the free market work would be saying that an Escalade takes more gas for a normal usage pattern than a Cavalier, and thus has a higher operating cost. The added utility of the larger vehicle must be greater than the delta in fuel consumption, or people wouldn't be driving them.

Re:Don't be silly

[icedivr]

In addition, a straight fuel tax would be regressive in that it would penalize people who CAN'T afford purchasing a new hybrid vehicle, as well as those who can but DON'T.

Re:Don't be silly

[Original Replica]

Farmers and Ranchers and Contractors need pickups, fine. Most everyone else needs to either move into town, or accept that as the car culture in America changes, there will be a higher price for the comparative solitude of rural life. Sprawl is a luxury, with quickly rising costs.

Re:Don't be silly

[dal20402]

Another thing that irritates me is that there is not enough attention paid to the rural population's transportation needs. The rural population tends to have less income, yet has to travel longer distances in order to do shopping, go to the doctor, etc. and often for work. They often need the benefits that a real SUV is supposed to offer, including 4WD, larger wheels, etc because driving conditions can get really bad.

The rural population can pay their own way. I'm sick of paying enormous tax subsidies to fund their cute little lifestyle, through farm programs, expensive rural infrastructure, pork, and direct social assistance. If they don't have enough income to stay in the country using their own resources, let them find a better source of income or move to town.

The idea of letting people drive whatever they want, no matter the consequences, is stupid. This is a straightforward tragedy of the commons problem -- the damage our Ford Excursions cause is not to any one of us but to our environment. Econ 101 will tell you that the market acting alone cannot solve this problem; some kind of intervention is required.

We should raise the fuel tax to whatever level is necessary to ensure that people only use what they need. If this means most cars hold 2 people, weigh 1500 lbs., and top out at 85 mph, that's fine with me. (More likely, it will inspire the large-scale use of better technology; there's no reason something with the interior volume of an Explorer needs to weigh almost 5000 pounds and slurp down a gallon of fuel every 15 miles.) If that means life in the country becomes enormously expensive, that's fine too. I am a driving enthusiast and love fast cars, but our gluttonous fuel use and greenhouse emissions are going to kill us, and we are not going to stop it through our transactions as individual consumers.

Re:Don't be silly

[TheGavster]

No it is not, as long as the taxation is a fixed percentage.

A fixed percentage of what exactly? You bought a 2-ton car! You owe us 5 pounds 6 ounces!

Markets need to be regulated so that people with guns don't come and 'distort the market' by paying for their goods with a promise not to kill you.

The protection of private property is not regulation, it's what government is *supposed* to spend most of their time doing.

Your true argument about negative externalities (which would be better served standing alone) is the crux of the issue. How do you decide how to ensure that the true cost of a product is paid, and where does the money go? My personaly opinion is a flat tax per gallon of gas, based on the pollution produced per gallon (obviously you shouldn't be paying as much on a cleaner blend), and the money should be converted to cash and burned (if you spend it on something, you might change the tax later to support that something and distort the gasoline market)

Re:Don't be silly

[arminw]

......In Germany you pay a yearly "road-tax" that is scaled by the volume of your engine......

Indeed they do and this is the stupidest way to tax any vehicle ever invented. That's why German trucks go up hills on the Autobahn at 20 km/hr while the other cars pass in the next lane at 120. How do they tax all electric cars, which have zero engine volume?

All taxes should be according to ability to pay, not some arbitrary characteristic of the engine. Tax the current value of the car, like they do in the US. If someone can afford to pay for an expensive car, they can afford the tax. Taxes should be for raising money, not social engineering.

Re:Don't be silly

[Anonymous Coward]

Because 1) having government interfere in such a manner is not "letting the market take care of it",

I didn't say let the market take care of it, I said let the market take care of it after you put a high tax on fuel. Transport companies like to save money, and they spend a lot on fuel, so they have an enormous incentive to use fuel-efficient trucks and not waste fuel.

you'll end up increasing the costs of goods in general.

And do you think taxing vehicles on weight, engine-volume and horsepower doesn't increase the cost of goods? Do you think employing bureaucrats to track and enforce the rules costs nothing?

A fuel tax is simple & efficient: if you drive a lot, you pay a lot more; if you drive an fuel hog, you pay a lot more.

Re:Don't be silly

[evilviper]

Basically, it actually makes more sense to put hybrid systems into SUV's than compact cars. It's part of the reason that locomotives have been effectivly hybrids for years

Umm, no. Locomotives don't do any stop & go driving, don't have a large battery pack, can't go an inch without the diesel engine running, etc.

(major reason is the elimination of the transmission, of course).

That, and the ability to hook multiple locomotives together for more power, are the ONLY reasons, AFAIK.

Dynamic braking is a nice plus, though.

Re:Don't be silly

[Ironsides]

Interesting. I could have sworn I got the 25 figure from the manufacturers site (I can't even find an MPG on honda's site now). Thanks for this one. I especially like the figures on the ones that get 70+MPG.

A quick question. Do you have any info on triycles(?) I've been wondering about getting a motor cycle but I'm not that sure about my balance (among a few other things). So, I was thinking a triycle might be better. Any thoughts? Any ideas on who even sells them? Thanks for anything you can provide.

Re:Don't be silly

[arminw]

......people should be free to live their lives the way they choose.......

That's great until one person's life style and wishes conflict with another's desires in any given area. Before there were governments and in the animal kingdom, the strongest or the one with the sharpest claws gets their way. Governments at least end to mitigate this problem somewhat by making rules and enforcing these evenly for most people most of the time.

Re:Don't be silly

[dal20402]

a lot of these 'trucks' are merely modern day station wagons.

That's how they're used, but not how they're built. An old-style station wagon carries a weight premium of a couple hundred pounds, max, over its sedan counterpart.

On today's SUVs, the best case is a car-based crossover, which adds a larger and higher body, bigger wheels and tires and the reinforced suspension componentry necessary to handle them, (usually) an all-wheel-drive system, and the structure necessary for a third seat: generally at least 500 pounds. The worst case is an old-style truck-based SUV, which weighs at least 1000 pounds more than a car of similar size. Some car-based SUVs are in between these two extremes.

I think the problem most people have with SUVs (and today's big pickups) is not just their size or how they're used, it's the wastefulness that leads to their being so heavy and thirsty.

Re:Don't be silly

[bnenning]

In addition, a straight fuel tax would be regressive

So is taxing by weight or miles. You can always cut other taxes or have transfer programs to compensate.

it would penalize people who CAN'T afford purchasing a new hybrid vehicle, as well as those who can but DON'T.

That's exactly the point. A tax on gas corrects the negative externalities of pollution and dependence on terrorist-infested hellholes. It's *supposed* to encourage people to change their behavior by making them pay the true costs of their choices. Note that taxing by weight or mileage doesn't do this; driving a hybrid 20,000 miles is more harmful than driving an SUV 3,000 miles, and thus should be taxed more.

Re:Don't be silly

[Firethorn]

The version of my thinking here is that with or without regulation, "the market" will always be subject to corruption and collusion.

Have you ever paid attention to government? Some days I think that government exists to pull the corrupt in. The government is the biggest source of corruption going.

In the business world there are at least some controls against corruption, as a business that gets too corrupt ends up out of business.

Re:Don't be silly

[AJWM]

We can tax them based on the size and/or fuel-efficiency of their vehicle, and, [...] "let the market work."

Taxes are not market forces, they are a form of government interference with market forces.

As you probably well know, but you don't want to let the facts get in the way of your rhetoric.

Re:Don't be silly

[dal20402]

Actually, stop and go is the best case for hybrids. Reciprocating engines are most efficient when they can be designed to work at fixed rpm. Starting from a stop in your car or diesel truck is very inefficient. It is much more efficient to use an electric motor for the initial start. Electric motors make max torque at 0 rpm and love low-speed operation.

When I drove transit in Seattle, I was lucky enough to drive their new New Flyer diesel-electric hybrid articulated buses. Because the big diesel didn't have to yank the bus away from a start, the buses were more fuel-efficient and much, much quieter. The lack of transmission made them unbelievably smooth. They were also the quickest transit buses I've ever driven despite being heavy 60-footers. The dynamic brakes made for a low-effort brake pedal, very smooth stops, and almost no brake wear. A full hybrid powertrain, while expensive, is absolutely ideal for urban transit buses -- which see more stop-and-go operation than any other vehicles. Fast, quiet, smooth, and fuel-efficient.

Re:Don't be silly

[rossifer]

I've been looking at a lot of motorcycles. The vast majority get only 25mph from what I have seen. This includes Hondas and Harleys.

I call bullshit.

I've been riding motorcycles for 12 years and I've never owned or personally seen a motorcycle that got worse than 35mpg. Most bikes for the US market get somewhere in the range of 40-45mpg. So, either you're doing a horrible job of reading motorcycle specs or you're some sort of incompetent big-oil astroturfer. Your assertion might be true if you limit your search to highly modified huge touring cruisers or racebikes driven by ham-fisted idiots, but even then...

(numbers are from the manufacturer's website, motorcycle.com, or my own personal experience).

All Harley Davidson Sportster 883's are rated 50-55mpg. There are a lot of models in there.
Sportster 1200's models are rated 40-50mpg depending on the exact model.
Evolution engine models are rated right around 40mpg, a smooth hand on the throttle will keep you around 43mpg (personal experience).
Most of the Buell line up (highly modified Sportster 1200 engine) is rated around 45mpg.
600cc Hondas will get better than 40mpg, up to 45mpg depending on how you ride (personal experience). This includes 600f4i, 600rr, and 599.
The Honda Goldwing 1500 is rated at 42mpg. The one I personally know of routinely gets 45mpg. This is a huge luxury tourer.
My wife's Honda Rebel 250 gets 60-65mpg depending on which roads she takes on her commute.
The Suzuki DL-650 is rated at 55mpg and will get almost 60mpg (personal experience).
Suzuki DL-1000 is rated at 45mpg.
Suzuki Hayabusa 1300 is rated at 35mpg and is able to do 200+ mph off the showroom floor. This is the most ridiculously overpowered sportbike on the market.

You should also visit India or anywhere in southeast Asia, where the motorcycles are 80-150cc and the scooters are 50cc. Most of those motorcycles handily exceed 100mpg. The scooters approach 200mpg. In order to achieve these mileage numbers, keeping an average speed at or below 45km/h and shutting off the engine at stoplights becomes important.

The only motorcycle I've heard of that might do as badly as 25mpg is the Boss Hoss. But then they strapped a small-block chevy V8 into a motorcycle as some symbol of excess, so what do you expect.

Only two of three models that I have seen get 50mpg. I've heard this is due to the smaller engine being less efficient than that larger car engine.

Ummmm, yeah. That's why all of the new high-efficiency vehicles are using huge displacement V8's. Don't know what you're smoking, but (1) motorcycles get substantially better mileage than anything but non-diesel cars and (2) it's fundamentally due to the smaller quantity of air/fuel mixture burned per mile. Which directly equates to geared displacement. Small engines can be just as efficient per cc as large engines, and ultimately, having the smallest displacement ticking over per mile results in the highest efficiency.

The only actual efficency argument for cars and against motorcycles is that the aerodynamics of a well designed car can trounce the aerodynamics of the best designed motorcycles. So at high speeds, cars begin to catch up to bikes on the efficiency curve. However, for 99.9% of day-to-day driving, the speeds are low enough that the motorcycle mass advantage is much more important than the car's aerodynamic advantage (somewhere around 100-120mph a 600cc sportbike may have the same mileage as a sports car at the same speed). As a result of this reality, I spend about $4 a week on gasoline while being able to pull away from 95% of the cars on the road. My wife spends about $2.50 a week on gasoline and can pull away from 75% of the cars on the road.

Please choose to inform yourself before continuing this conversation.

Ross

Re:Don't be silly

[jcr]

The engine efficiency is a big part of it. Another huge part is the very poor aerodynamics of a typical motorcycle, compared to a modern car.

-jcr

Re:Don't be silly

[dlbowm]

I do somewhat doubt this. I drive a 929cc Honda CBR, which is by no means designed for fuel efficiency. I commute 25 miles daily on this, and get an average of 35-38 MPG (depends largely on the tire pressure and temperature). If I do solid highway driving I get very close to 50 MPG. And for the person who suggested that motorcycles are impractical and only for joyriding, I find that silly. I use this thing daily for Silicon Valley commuting and have for the last 6 years. It cuts my commute time to about 1/3 by giving me HOV access and occasional lane splitting, costs $10K for a very high performance, fun vehicle, and gets top notch gas mileage to boot! Sounds practical to me.

Re:Don't be silly

[bnenning]

Taxes should be for raising money, not social engineering.

Depends on what you mean by "social engineering". My definition of it is trying to change people's behavior because you think it's good for them, like raising taxes on cigarettes. I oppose these taxes as well. But gas is different; it should be taxed not because it's bad for the buyer, but because it's bad for everyone else who has to pay for the increased pollution and dependence on unstable nations. That's why I'm an unofficial member of the Pigou Club.

(As an aside, one might try to argue that cigarette taxes compensate society because smokers tend to have higher medical bills that are often picked up by taxpayers. While this is true, they also die earlier which ends up being a net savings due to lower lifetime costs).

Re:Don't be silly

[Nethead]

Agreed, Doctor. A light pickup with a small 4 cylinder engine actually gets decent mileage. My '89 Ranger 2WD with the 2.3l engine still gets about 23MPG (when not loaded with firewood.) I'm five miles to the nearest services (except espresso, this is the Northwest after all ;) so mileage very is important to me. What pisses me off is that one can not buy a DIESEL light pickup in the US. Ford, et al, sell them in South Africa and Oz but not here. I would sure love to get on the biodiesel wagon but I'm not moving to a full sized diesel pickup (my dick isn't that small.)

Re:Don't be silly

[drwho]

Your shunning of the rural population is noted. I think you're being way too dismissive of their value to you as a suburban or urban person. Agricultural subsidies are ugly, but a necessity. While urban infrastructure is much more expensive per mile, there are many more miles of infrastructure in rural areas. However, rural infrastructure is necessary for getting agricultural products to the cities, and also for getting between cities.

I can tell you that many rural people are tired of paying subsidies for big cities: The huge construction projects like The Big Dig, expensive anti-crime programs to fight violence which is hardly a problem in most rural areas, and a host of other problems.

It's funny that you call their lifestyle 'cute'. I suppose for some retirees, second-home owners, and gentleman farmers it is cute. But the vast majority of them are hard working, honest and reasonably intelligent people.

Re:Don't be silly

[Rich0]

For the record, I believe in free markets whenever possible.

And yes, arbitrary taxes are certainly make the market less free.

And yes, the way people talk about taxing SUVs to death is bordering on imposing arbitrary taxes.

However, I would support higher taxes on fuel - but for a very economical reason - externalities.

Right now the cost of fuel is subsidized by US military spending in the middle east, environmental cleanup spending, and health care spending associated with pollution. These make fossil fuels seem artificially cheap compared to their true cost to society, so the market is dysfunctional.

The costs of all these things should be factored into a gasoline tax (with similar penalties on other fuels as appropriate). Then we should stop bashing SUV-drivers - let them spend their money how they will. The market will very efficiently select for the most efficient modes of transportation in light of their true costs to society - which will probably not be SUVs.

Environmentalists will no longer be forced to subsidize wars in the middle east. With taxes set appropriately we can also afford to send soldiers into battle with proper armor, and with half-decent benefits for those who retire or fall in the line of duty. And maybe the need to send soldiers overseas will disappear quickly if oil demand drops.

Free markets don't generally work well when there are externalities. They should rightly be turned into taxes. However, we shouldn't regulate things out of existence - we should aim only to have costs reflect the true total cost to society of any product.

Re:Don't be silly

[Weh]

that's a strange system you have indeed but the alternatives you are proposing don't sound much better to me. The system that makes sense to me is taxing based on wear caused to the road/environment. Therefore taxing according to the weight of the vehicle makes much sense since a heavier car will cause more wear to the road. (off course you can always find expceptions to which the system doesn't make sense)

Re:Don't be silly

[GreenEnvy22]

Agreed, I have used my Zx-6R (600cc sportbike) for commuting to work (40 miles each way), and it gets excellent mileage, probably 35-40mpg. If it were not for our Canadian winters, I'd be riding it year round.

Re:Don't be silly

[LMariachi]

It would be better for the environment to own one big Truck/SUV. Than it would be to own a smaller truck, and a electric car. IE it is currently cheaper (thus more resource conservative) and better for the global environment... to drive your truck to work every day, than to leave it sit, and have a second electric car just for commuting.

What resources does a vehicle use when it's sitting in a garage with the engine off? Or are you just talking about the resources used to build the thing, in which case where are your numbers? Is the production cost of a small electric car greater than the savings vs. a big truck over its lifetime? Of course the answer will be different depending on how often the truck is needed, but there's a break-even point somewhere on that graph.

As an aside, in my city there are at least two "car-share" programs for people who have occasional need of a car but not often enough to warrant buying their own and not infrequently enough for normal car rental to make economic sense. The idea is that you pay a monthly membership fee for access to a fleet of vehicles kept parked in certain lots all over the city, then a small amount per hour/mile travelled. (from citycarshare.org: $10/mo + $4/hr + 44/mi) This model would make sense with trucks for suburban people who need to sometimes haul stuff. Everyone gets access to a truck when they need it, and there are far fewer empty trucks on the road.

Re:Don't be silly

[chaoticgeek]

But would the person who lives longer and does not smoke be in better health and require less medical care in theory? Thus you would save on the medical bills for that person because they don't smoke. Granted this is all theory because I've seen smokers live to 90 and non smokers die at 30.

Re:Don't be silly

[SuperQ]

Just to nit-pick, if you read the article you linked, they do have transmissions just like the prius.. both the electric and piston drives are used to drive the bus.

I rode a hybrid bus in Minneapolis a few times.. Like you said, because they don't need as large a diesel engine, they are MUCH quieter. Almost as quiet as the electric only buses in San Francisco.

Re:Don't be silly

[LMariachi]

Or carpooling - supposedly a great thing - how many people can you fit in a Prius?

More than in the cab of an F-150.

Re:Don't be silly

[nathanh]

Going from 12mpg to 30 mpg will save more gasoline than 30 to 40 mpg.

These trucks won't improve from 12mpg to 30mpg. They'll improve from 12mpg to 15mpg. Your comparison is fundamentally broken because you've used an unrealistic 200% improvement for the truck and a 30% improvement for the lighter car.

Re:Don't be silly

[linzeal]

Try living in a place that snows, motorcycles are next to useless in snow.

Re:Don't be silly

[redcane]

Why aren't you going to tow a camper, a boat or a snowmobile with a prius? My family never had any problems towing an 8ft trailer full of firewood, and our boat with our 82 model 1800cc subaru and 90's model 2L Camry. I have no reason to believe a new prius is any less powerful as that camry, and I think its likely to be better at towing due to an electric motor making torque at 0 rpm. Also we managed to tow a 1500kg Panel van 300 kms with that 2 litre Camry. Granted it wasn't quick up the hills under this load, but nor did it need to be. I can't see that all but a handful of people need to tow bigger loads than that on a regular basis, and thus for most people, it's practicle to hire a truck on the occasions it is needed.

Re:Don't be silly

[bnenning]

But would the person who lives longer and does not smoke be in better health and require less medical care in theory?

Yes and no. The smoker is more likely to get lung cancer at 60, with large medical expenses and death as a common result. The nonsmoker will have fewer expenses at 60, but may live 30 more years and have more of an opportunity to have even more expensive conditions, plus they'll receive more Social Security and other government payments. From the New England Journal of Medicine: "If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs."

(Apropos to my sig, this is yet another reason to cure aging; the economic benefits alone would be enormous).

Re:Don't be silly

[ClamIAm]

as a business that gets too corrupt ends up out of business

Oh, I didn't realize there was some measurement of corruption where if you go over 100 Carnegies or so your offices and upper management start self-combusting. Thanks for clearing that up.

Re:Don't be silly

[mrchaotica]

Just to nit-pick, if you read the article you linked, they do have transmissions just like the prius.. both the electric and piston drives are used to drive the bus.

Like he said, no transmission -- the Prius doesn't have one either. What it has is a planetary gearset, which, although it still "transmits" the power, is really a different kind of thing than a traditional "transmission."

Re:Don't be silly

[coredog64]

(And not incidentally: we don't need to "tell" people what they "need" to drive. We can tax them based on the size and/or fuel-efficiency of their vehicle, and, like true conservatives, we'll "let the market work.")

Well, we tried that (see Corporate Average Fuel Economy) and the resulting law, written as it was by special interests, put us in the boat we're in today regarding SUVs.

Before you run off and blame "The Big 3" as the worst offenders in that group of special interests, make sure you check out the totally byzantine structure of fleets that the unions demanded...

Re:Don't be silly

[ClamIAm]

I think the underlying argument for libertarianism is that people should be free to live their lives the way they choose.

Ah, I get it. So when someone decides to live their life killing as many people as possible, we should just respect that because that's their choice. Or if a group of businesses decide to collude to prevent competition, we should just let them do it. Sounds like a fun world.

Re:Don't be silly

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Sydney and don't drive anywhere, I ride bikes and use the public transport. I must say that my life would be much better with cars of the road, as would most people's in the end. So that's just tough luck, cunt.

Re:Don't be silly

[zxnos]

these guys manufacture them. though, i think most are conversions from motorcycles.

it is my understanding that trikes are not necessarily easier to ride. if you can ride a bicycle you can ride a motorcycle. once you start moving physics takes over. it is hard to put a bike down. a smaller bike, like one that gets 70+, will be easier to control when you start and stop. this is due to the lighter weight. i strongly suggest taking a course in riding a bike before you buy one. i think most are two days over a weekend.

not to scare you but... ...some accident trends for motorcycles to look out for. my dad has been hit twice and still rides. his old helmets dont look so hot, but his head is still on. i, knock on wood, never have been in an accident.

Re:Don't be silly

[Dare nMc]

What resources does a vehicle use when it's sitting in a garage with the engine off? Or are you just talking about the resources used to build the thing, in which case where are your numbers?

http://www.ilea.org/lcas/macleanlave1998.html
sites a Carnegie mellon study showing energy required to build a car is about double the lifetime fuel useage from driving it. but it just makes sense, everything in the cost of the car required energy to mine, energy to refine, energy to shape, energy to transport, with the discounts the manufactures get on the cost for their energy, I would have guessed a real number in the ball park of ($cost of vehicle new / 3) = #gallons of equivilent energy used to completely build.

basically the big cost is opertunity cost, essentually a unused car is equivilent to having a 3000-5000 gallons of fuel setting in your garage, but it can never be converted to any other use while setting their. So americans households having 2.5 cars just getting rid of that 0.5 car would release 10 years worth of car driving energy, that is wasted sitting, assuming getting those cars out would reduce production, with a excess of cars then available.

You should also count all the other wasted resources also, the extra insurance (IE you have to protect that car from theft/damage, and the garage cost, the cost of the extra property consumed setting) I'll admit newer cars do last setting much better than old, thanks to better metal, and plastics that don't degrade. but I still have problem whenever I wake a sitting vehicle, gas spoils, gaskets rot, tires are ruined, if their not well protected/card for.
Which kinda points to the reason to not lock up a car in it's prime, a newer one in 10 years likely cost less resources to build, less resources to run, so locking up a car is a loss their also. (ya ya I like the look of classic cars too...)

at least two "car-share" programs for people who have occasional need of a car

I like that idea, A pain for weekend campers, ie convienince lost, but were going to have to sacrifice eventually.
I found it a pain that it is much more difficult to rent a truck, than a car (at least near me).

Re:Don't be silly

[MightyYar]

You can also mitigate the impact of the fuel tax on lower income individuals by subsidizing public transit.

Not that I'm a big fan of artificially raising the fuel taxes to change behavior, but the idea is not without merit.

Re:Don't be silly

[Mr. Arbusto]

I didn't say let the market take care of it, I said let the market take care of it after you put a high tax on fuel. Transport companies like to save money, and they spend a lot on fuel, so they have an enormous incentive to use fuel-efficient trucks and not waste fuel.

This Market thing that was eluded to earlier would already take care of fuel. It is already in their interest to increase the fuel economy of their fleets. Right now, there it is at a place where it is tolerable and profitable. Later on, when the market for fuel increases (if which is probably will on its own because it there is scarcity) the market will react and change things around. Introducing higher tax when the market doesn't create it adds burden on everyone, especially doing it to something with so much power in the economy. Not to mention the political issues of the federal government increasing the tax further.

It may also be useful to note that while our friends in Europe have been striving for fuel efficentcy, US regulators have been focused much more on emissions. Than overall fuel economy.

  so they have an enormous incentive to use fuel-efficient trucks and not waste fuel.

I just wanted to reiterate, this incentive already exists.

And do you think taxing vehicles on weight, engine-volume and horsepower doesn't increase the cost of goods? Do you think employing bureaucrats to track and enforce the rules costs nothing?

Introducing yet another tax for yet another reason sounds silly from everyone. Vehicles are already taxed when they are serviced, purchased, fueled and in some places, used. Any tax introduced increases overhead as well as political pressures on the government to use their new revenue.

A fuel tax is simple & efficient: if you drive a lot, you pay a lot more; if you drive an fuel hog, you pay a lot more.

Yes it is fairly simple but federal taxes are rarley efficient. The point was if you do drive a lot, I.E. Move stuff. It increases the cost transfer fuel by rail to the truck and the truck to your shelf. Increasing the costs at every step along that line would increase the costs of every sector in the economy.

Also, as a political side note, taxes like that are very progressive and tend to only take large percentages of income from people in lower tax brackets.

Re:Don't be silly

[Dare nMc]

Why not have a simple high tax on fuel, and let the market take care of the rest?

I am all for a energy tax, but I fear a fuel tax would promote wasting energy else where. IE you may buy new vehicles that wasted more energy building the new car than they would have ever wasted driving their old car. Or perhaps air travel is less energy efficient, but if it has less tax... Or perhaps they'll choose a bio-diesiel fuel that costs more resources/damage than the non bio-fuel. Also things like over building a city infrustructure because the oil used to build that is not as taxxed. Also you may save more fuel reducing heating costs in your house, but the tax forced you to spend all your money on a new car first.

So if your tax is to save fuel, you need to Tax all oil imports, and all imports that used oil to be produced (other wise you just move the production out of your country.)

All of a sudden it is not a simple un-avoidable tax.

Re:Don't be silly

[that this is not und]

Most everyone else needs to either move into town,

Yes, but the cost of the black government vans that you're apparently eager to use to make everyone 'move into town' has to be added to the equation.

Quit prescribing other people's behavior. It makes you look ugly.

Re:Don't be silly

[that this is not und]

The idea of letting people drive whatever they want, no matter the consequences, is stupid.

The idea of not letting people drive whatever they want (within reason) is rather chilling. Are you gonna call in United Nations troops to enforce these rules you seem to find appealing?

Re:Don't be silly

[that this is not und]

It must just be an Oil Company Conspiracy that I don't see any trailer hitches on all those Priuses, then...

Re:Don't be silly

[Dare nMc]

actually GE has advertised their testing of adding a train car clear full of batteries, to locomotives. They still have varying speedlimits, so they slow and speed-up quite a bit. also whenever they go over hills, etc they brake then accell in close succession

That, and the ability to hook multiple locomotives together for more power, are the ONLY reasons, AFAIK.

Actually the best benefits (allthough it is tranny related) is the high precision control, IE every wheel on the train is powered, and any-slip on any wheel can be conter-acted in mSec timing. that would be a royal pain with mechanical linkages. same reason it works to link locos, they can share control with electric easier for the same reasons.

Their is the whole thing of running the engine at it's most efficient speed continuously. the whole electric motors and 0 speed torque is crap. The electro motors we use for propulision have a 50:1 gearing reduction and less climbing abilty than the 30:1 reduction in gear 1 of the equivilent mechanical Diesiel tranny. also electro motors are incredibly in-efficient at stall, and will overheat/burnout quickly if used their for long (but they do have good torque their, without the required slippage of a mechanical link.) The huge torque pay-off is the ability to run a huge gear reduction, and the very wide torque range of electric allows you to do that at a fixed reduction.

Re:Don't be silly

[dal20402]

No, I want to tax the bejesus out of people who choose to harm society as a whole by driving wasteful vehicles. The market has no mechanism to correct their excesses, so we need to find another way to make them pay the costs associated with their behavior.

Re:Don't be silly

[evilviper]

Actually, stop and go is the best case for hybrids.

And what part of "Locomotives don't do any stop & go driving" could possibly have made you think I was saying otherwise?

Re:Don't be silly

[Snorpus]

Another big reason for diesel locomotives is that in MU operation, only one engineer is needed for two, three, four, etc. locomotives, whereas with steam locomotives, an engineer and a fireman was needed in each cab.

Re:Don't be silly

[scottv67]

The vast majority get only 25mpg from what I have seen. This includes Hondas and Harleys.

Hmmm.... I could swear that my Honda VTX 1800C is closer to 35mpg. And I don't treat her gentle when I'm out riding. There are always two or three WOT launches from a stoplight in every tank of gas to own either a twenty-something driving a Rustang or a dude on a Hardley. I've talked with some of my Goldwing-owning Honda brothers and their mileage numbers are a lot higher than my VTX (even though they have more total cubes than I do).

I've never talked mpg with a Harley guy. That'd be the very last thing a Harley owner would notice or care about. Their attention (and pocketbooks) are usually focused on "how loud" and "how shiny".

Re:Don't be silly

[Snorpus]

Let's see... if all us rural folk move to the big city, will the corn, wheat, and (especially) the cattle and the hogs gonna just wander their way to your neighborhood supermarket? Is the coal going to march from Wyoming to those generating plants in the east and south, so you can run your air conditioning? Are the trees going to split themselves into nice 2x4s and just show up at the urban jobsite?

I daresay that in the event of a really severe energy shortage, those of us out here in "flyover country" will likely fare much better than the city folk, hybrid vehicles or not.

Re:Don't be silly

[TClevenger]

Actually the best benefits (allthough it is tranny related) is the high precision control, IE every wheel on the train is powered, and any-slip on any wheel can be conter-acted in mSec timing. that would be a royal pain with mechanical linkages. same reason it works to link locos, they can share control with electric easier for the same reasons.

Actually each axle is powered by an electric motor rather than each wheel; there are also some locomotives where not all axles are powered.

Their is the whole thing of running the engine at it's most efficient speed continuously. the whole electric motors and 0 speed torque is crap.

Wrong. Electric motors put out their maximum torque at stall (0 RPM.)

Locomotives use electric motors because they can produce high torque at stall without a slipping linkage, they can operate in series/parallel to provide more torque at low RPMs and more horsepower at high RPMs, they provide dynamic braking to assist the mechanical braking and they operate at equal efficiency in either direction.

Re:Don't be silly

[TClevenger]

Ford had a diesel and turbodiesel option in their first few years of Ranger production. 31 mpg combined. I wish they'd start making them again.

Re:Don't be silly

[Tablizer]

Taxes should be for raising money, not social engineering.

Taxes are used for incentives all the time. I don't expect that to change. Remember when politicians complained that married couples were taxed more than single and that it would encourage out-of-wedlock hanky panky and thus changed it? And we have the R&D tax breaks to encourage companies to spend more on research.

Re:Don't be silly

[TClevenger]

Regarding taxes on trucks / SUVs. This is a silly idea.First of all, there are many people that do need trucks for one reason or another. For instance, hauling firewood doesn't work to well in your Prius.

So you haul firewood 7 days a week?

Or carpooling - supposedly a great thing - how many people can you fit in a Prius?

At least one more than you can seat on a bench seat in a pickup.

The rural population tends to have less income, yet has to travel longer distances in order to do shopping, go to the doctor, etc. and often for work. They often need the benefits that a real SUV is supposed to offer, including 4WD, larger wheels, etc because driving conditions can get really bad.

This isn't about the 5% of the population who needs a truck for their job. It's about the people clogging the freeways commuting solo in giant vehicles that get 13 mpg.

If these people can afford a $40,000 SUV, they can also afford a $11,000 Fit, Yaris or Kia to commute 5 days a week. And maybe that $40,000 SUV will retain its value for a bit longer.

Re:Don't be silly

[TClevenger]

This totally misses the point. That second car in the garage doesn't just fall apart. If you commute in a more efficient car 5 days a week (be it an EV, a Fit, Yaris, hybrid or even a used Kia), you're lengthening the life of that expensive truck or SUV. Owning two cars just means you'll drive twice as long before having to replace one.

Re:Don't be silly

[arivanov]

Japan's solution is even better - there you pay taxes according to all the factors you have mentioned and size. So smaller cars get extra tax breaks.

As far as the subject of the article is concerned - looking at the oversize "erectile disfunction compensator" tires and overall styling I am not surprised that this typical GM POS gets only 40miles per charge. It is a typical hybrid allright - once you have taken all factors into account you usually spend more money and damage the environment more compared to a modern small family car or supermini. In fact the math does not come up right even for mid-size family cars and MPVs. If you compare an average hybrid which is usually designed for the US market with a EU spec MPV or large hatch like the Altea or the Scenic the loss per-year (fuel+maintenance+depreciation or estimated return on base cost) will be much more for the hybrid.

In fact the car manufacturers can make a plenty of contribution to the environment for much less money.

For example - nearly every car nowdays has an alarm. As a result the car has a discharge cycle every time you lock it and leave it locked. This leads to average battery life dropping down from 5 years to 3-3.5. On top of that the car also has to recharge what the alarm has eaten every time it starts. It does not seem to be a lot, but it adds up and can be compensated to a large extent with a trivial trickle charger built-in into the roof (or roof window). Costs under 10$ extra manufacturing costs. Saves more then 300$ in petrol + battery replacement costs over the car lifetime. That is besides the environmental damage from recycling lead. By the way, the idea is not new. Mercedes had this on at least some models a while ago.

Re:Don't be silly

[arivanov]

trivial trickle charger - solar of course (I am in the process of rigging this on all cars in the household after changing the batteries last month due to the alarms eating them).

Re:Don't be silly

[Eivind]

For example - nearly every car nowdays has an alarm.

Maybe in the USA -- not here in Norway. Car theft is rare enough that it simply doesn't make any sense to have an alarm, the alarm would cost substantially more than you'd save on insurance-premiums over the useful lifespan of the car.

Very expensive cars do have alarms, but 95% of normal everyday cars don't.

Re:Don't be silly

[Eivind]

Taxes is one way of compensating externalities.

One of the ways a free market is inefficient is that it fails to consider factors that are external to the ones involved in the trade.

For example, if I sell you something for a price such that the sale benefits both of us, the sale will happen even if there's external people who are harmed (more than our profits) from the sale.

Pollution is a classical externality. The *cost* of the extra pollution is carried by everyone in your community (and to some degree, everyone on earth) but the benefits (mobility, comfort, penis-compensation) are yours alone.

It's sorta like SPAM. It happens because it gives a profit to the *spammers* -- despite the fact that overall its a huge resource-drain. Give one person $10K profit. Give a *million* people $1 loss -- and absent any way for the million to demand compensation from the one the spam will happen.

Thus, it makes perfect sense to tax behaviour that has negative externalities.

Re:Don't be silly

[An Onerous Coward]

You sound like you're saying that once fuel costs more than nothing, the price doesn't matter. That sounds absurd on its surface, but it's the only conclusion to be drawn from your insistence that a tax is unnecessary, since "incentives already exist." The simple fact is, the higher the tax on fuel, the greater the incentive for fuel efficiency.

Since it's unlikely that you're actually trying to argue otherwise, then maybe you're arguing that the free market is already achieving optimal fuel usage patterns. This is false for several reasons:

1) The current market doesn't account for the effects of usage on global warming. Those who extract, refine, distribute, and burn all that fuel are not the ones who will be paying the costs associated with climate change. They don't call climate change "the greatest market failure the world has ever seen" for nothing.

2) The current market for fuel is heavily subsidized by our government. I'm not talking about direct oil industry subsidies (though they do exist). I'm specifically thinking about the way our addiction to oil fuels and distorts our foreign policy. 9/11 (and the incredibly expensive wars that followed it) would never have happened had our country not been so heavily involved in the Middle East these last few decades, and a great part of that involvement was due to the oil resources of that region.

3) The market doesn't want to believe that oil (or any resource, for that matter) is finite. This is especially true for the oil industry, which would be greatly hurt if people were to believe en masse that they couldn't expect cheap gasoline for the forseeable future. Car manufacturers mostly go along with this, because they don't want to change the way they do business, and it doesn't hurt them if their customers are left holding the bag in a few years when gas hits $5/gallon.

If we preemptively increase the price of gasoline, it will generate far more demand for aggressive fuel-efficiency technology than currently exists. I believe such a measure is necessary to ensure an early (and smoother) transition away from an oil-based economy.

You also criticize the idea of taxes in general. Of course it would cost money to administer, but taxes can be designed for low administrative overhead. For example, a tax scheme that required individuals to report their annual mileage (broken down into taxable and tax-exempt usage) would require a huge administrative infrastructure. One that simply requires gas stations to cut a check based on the number of gallons sold would require far less. Sticking to the "a tax is a tax is a tax is an abomination" mantra simply leads to crappy policy.

Yes, a tax on fuel is going to have wide ramifications on the economy, generally making goods and services more expensive. I don't object to that fact, because I believe that such a tax would be a corrective measure, counterbalancing the artificial cheapness of fuel that exists when we allow fuel users to pass much of the cost of fuel use (climate change, for example) onto third parties.

My response to your "fuel tax == regressive tax" argument is threefold.

1) Fuel use patterns are more nuanced than the equation suggests. Wealthier people are more able to buy fuel-efficient cars, but are also able to live in the suburbs and take more elaborate vacations. Very poor people are more likely to use mass transit.

2) The regressiveness of the tax could be (imperfectly) counterbalanced by simply increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit. Such an action would require almost no additional administrative overhead. It could also be countered by a tax rebate. The tax could even be made revenue-neutral, by passing back as much money as is collected.

3) Since when have conservative free-market ideologues ever cared about the poor?

Regarding #3: please try not to become a cynical misanthrope like myself. It just isn't healthy.

Re:Don't be silly

[robogun]

FYI, two stroke bikes get horrid mileage. I have a 500cc dirtbike that gets maybe 10mpg. Admittedly, it might have something to do with the way I ride.

Re:Don't be silly

[rossifer]

Because motorcycles are utterly impractical for anything other than joy riding in nice weather?

I commute on my motorcycle unless there's pouring down rain or ice on the streets. A forecast of rain won't stop me, though a forecast of thunderstorms might. A good suit (Aerostitch Roadcrafter) goes a long way to making a ride comfortable even when it's not that comfortable out.

Ultimately, I spend $4/week on gasoline and get to work in 15-20 minutes instead of $15/week and 30-40 minutes in the car. That's a lot of both time and money saved. People who only ride when the sun's out are poseurs. I still wave at them, but I'm laughing while I wave.

Regards,
Ross

Re:Don't be silly

[SenseiLeNoir]

Not all Jaguars are eight litre gas guzzling monsters!

I have a Jaguar X-Type (2.2l Diesel), and that is a surprisingly economical car, and I pay LESS road tax than smaller petrol cars (In UK you are taxed according to emissions, and this car has very low emissions for its class)

Economy is great. I can cruise at 60mph, and get about 58mpg, 70mph and get 52mpg (or 60mph in the slipstream of a lorry and get nearly 80mpg).

Power, for a 2.2l engine is surprising. on paper, it may not look much, but with a 0-60 in 8.5sec, which is respectable, it actually feels more spirited in action.

The point to be made, you can have style, and economy and reasonable speed.

Re:Don't be silly

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. Electric motors put out their maximum torque at stall (0 RPM.)

Doesn't really matter, once you break stall torque, your in a relatively low torque range of the motor. We use the same controls/motors as Trains, their at about 75% of peek torque at stall, immediatly drop to about 50%, then build back to peek torque.

got a reference to a motor that is better?

my first google search showed locked rotor torque as 70 to 75% of the peak torque, the big issue is controlling/limiting startup current to avoid damage, so ya a electric motor made of super conducters would have near infininite starting torque, but I havent heard of them being made available for vehicles.

Re:Don't be silly

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no such thing as an 8-litre Jag. British ministers currently have to choose between a Diesel Jaguar XJ (pretty efficient) and a Toyota Prius. Of course, the US doesn't get all the amazing Diesel powered cars we have in Europe because your fuel is too cheap for fuel economy to matter to you.

Re:Don't be silly

[arminw]

....Therefore taxing according to the weight .......

In the US cars are usually taxed by value. Since the expensive cars and SUVs are also generally heavier, the tax is also by weight, though indirectly.

Re:Don't be silly

[virg_mattes]

> This totally misses the point. That second car in the garage doesn't just fall apart.

His point is that, to some extent, that second car does indeed "fall apart" (cars left sitting for long periods do tend to deteriorate unless effort is expended to prevent it), and on top of that the part you failed to address is that the standing cost of a second vehicle is not zero. You actually have to buy or finance the second vehicle to start, you can't insure a vehicle "only when you drive it", and you need to keep it somewhere which is a bite for some folks in terms of garage or driveway space. At the extreme, in an urban center you'd need to pay a rather exhorbitant parking cost to have two vehicles (and that's not just in a major city, there are plenty of people who use on-the-street parking for whom mass transit isn't an option for commuting).

Virg

Re:Don't be silly

[Anonymous Coward]

Corn, wheat, and soy can be grown by robots in large automated greenhouses. The rest of that nasty shit you can keep. (We shouldn't be eating it anyway) I live in the city and grow 60% of my own food on my porch and in my backyard. I use very little electricity and could go completely without. (coal will be a moot point once we get those whiney little greens into modern nuclear) I'd also prefer a house that's not made out of pine, and plan on building my own passive solar berm.

So you're pretty useless to me.

Re:Don't be silly

[rtechie]

Another thing that irritates me is that there is not enough attention paid to the rural population's transportation needs. The rural population tends to have less income, yet has to travel longer distances in order to do shopping, go to the doctor, etc. and often for work.

So our civilization should cater to a small minority rather than the vast majority of the population? There ARE costs associated with living out in the sticks. Rent is a lot cheaper. Utilities may be cheaper. Taxes may be lower. But you might have to haul your own garbage, or grade your own road, or etc. Having to pay more for your vehicle is simply part of that. If you don't like it, move to the city.

Rural people don't need to waste gas, but do need different vehicles than are often considered 'environmentally correct'. For instance, the Subaru Brat was a bit hit in Northern New England when it was introduced because it provided an inexpensive 4WD pickup with great gas mileage.

It *IS* indeed possible to make 4WD vehicles that are fuel effiecent. For example, Subaru Outbacks are popular with the mountain folk up there. Of course they're lighter and flimisier than the trucks and can't handle really tough terrain.

Re:Don't be silly

[dal20402]

if all us rural folk move to the big city, will the corn, wheat, and (especially) the cattle and the hogs gonna just wander their way to your neighborhood supermarket?

Of course not. The market will ensure that you have the incentive to keep selling us corn, wheat, cattle, hogs, coal, timber, or whatever else. I applaud your participation in the market, and certainly appreciate what all those products do for everyone. To be totally clear, all I want to do is stop subsidizing your living costs, in the full understanding that I might possibly pay somewhat more for those products. Rural living, while necessary, is more environmentally destructive than urban living. We shouldn't artificially encourage it, which we do now through wealth transfers from urban to rural residents, enabled by a power structure distorted in favor of rural interests.

Re:Don't be silly

[Mr. Arbusto]

1) The current market doesn't account for the effects of usage on global warming. Those who extract, refine, distribute, and burn all that fuel are not the ones who will be paying the costs associated with climate change. They don't call climate change "the greatest market failure the world has ever seen" for nothing.
The argument that global warming is man made and has a globally negative effect is something I do not have the ability to argue. However, why is it considered a forgone conclusion that climate change is bad.

2) The current market for fuel is heavily subsidized by our government. I'm not talking about direct oil industry subsidies (though they do exist). I'm specifically thinking about the way our addiction to oil fuels and distorts our foreign policy. 9/11 (and the incredibly expensive wars that followed it) would never have happened had our country not been so heavily involved in the Middle East these last few decades, and a great part of that involvement was due to the oil resources of that region.
So remove direct subsidize (especially on an industry so mature and vertical). I'd concede that the true cost of oil is obscured, especially here in the US. I was going to say "Are you saying that extreme religious views were created and carried out by market for oil?" Then I realized, the answer is "Yes, the market for oil has allowed a Saudi Arabian incubator to grow and harvest these views."
However, the market is already starting to adjust volatile oil conditions by using additives like ethanol (I live in Iowa, I'm already seeing the Ethanol equivalent of Enron being born) and creating cars (thought I think GMs is vaporware) that have increased fuel economy.

3) The market doesn't want to believe that oil (or any resource, for that matter) is finite. This is especially true for the oil industry, which would be greatly hurt if people were to believe en masse that they couldn't expect cheap gasoline for the forseeable future. Car manufacturers mostly go along with this, because they don't want to change the way they do business, and it doesn't hurt them if their customers are left holding the bag in a few years when gas hits $5/gallon.

Isn't increasing the cost of gasoline what is being advocated to beginning with? Oil is a finite resource. Oil is scarce. Hence oil has a market, with fluctuating prices. As oil becomes scarce, prices rise all on their own and they don't need to be coerced with even more taxes.

If we preemptively increase the price of gasoline, it will generate far more demand for aggressive fuel-efficiency technology than currently exists. I believe such a measure is necessary to ensure an early (and smoother) transition away from an oil-based economy.
Are you seeing a sudden collapse of the oil market? If not, the market would already do what you're suggesting when it needed to as prices rise all on their own. Unless the big G steps in somewhere else.

You also criticize the idea of taxes in general.
Yes.

Yes, a tax on fuel is going to have wide ramifications on the economy, generally making goods and services more expensive. I don't object to that fact, because I believe that such a tax would be a corrective measure, counterbalancing the artificial cheapness of fuel that exists when we allow fuel users to pass much of the cost of fuel use (climate change, for example) onto third parties.

More with climate change being man made and negative again. I'm also not saying that either is true or false, but assuming we are the cause and it is as a hole negative is interesting.

1) Fuel use patterns are more nuanced than the equation suggests. Wealthier people are more able to buy fuel-efficient cars, but are also able to live in the suburbs and take more elaborate vacations. Very poor people are more likely to use mass transit.
While not an Iowian my whole life, there has been no city I've lived in that had public transportation that didn't take 45 minutes to get to work

Re:Don't be silly

[ibi]

And don't forget

4) SUV's are very effective

* at terrorizing other drivers to drive SUV's
* and killing pedestrians and bicyclists

So there's another large externality associated with them (on the order of 1k dead per year - sort of a constant Iraq war going on at home)

Re:Don't be silly

[Anonymous Coward]

And the fact that as a dirt bike it is not geared for long distances but for acceleration.

A Suzuki RGV250 or Aprillia RS250 (same engine) does 28-35mpg depending on riding style and that is one quick bike

Even my 23 year old gpz900r does >35mpg around town, up to about 50mpg on a 70mph motorway cruise. A 900cc fireblade is very efficient at touring speeds, up to 65mpg according to my mate.

Re:Don't be silly

[itof500]

The parking lot of Perkins in Duluth MN is 1/3 Subaru Legacy/Foresters for just this reason. Economical, practical, reliable.

Duke out

Re:Don't be silly

[UbuntuDupe]

1) So build machines plant trees to act as carbon sinks. Fund this by charging each CO2 producer, including people who burn wood, in proportion to emissions. No one wants this, because everyone would laugh at how little they'd be paying. And the purpose of environmentalism was never to save the environment but to shut down "big business".

2) There are no subsidies for oil producers. The alleged impact on foreign policy says more about the policy makers than about the impact of oil. Fact: Singapore, Switzerland, China, Japan, South Africa, and India manage to import Middle Eastern oil without putting troops there. The cost of troops is not a true cost of getting the oil. If anything, a military presence impedes the flow of oil.

3) What a crock. Markets efficiently allocate goods intertemporally as well. It's called a "futures market". Look it up. Markets don't "believe" oil is infinite; prices already reflect current knowledge of just how finite oil is. If you really believe in that Peak Oil crap, go long on oil.

Re:Don't be silly

[dal20402]

I rode a hybrid bus in Minneapolis a few times.. Like you said, because they don't need as large a diesel engine, they are MUCH quieter. Almost as quiet as the electric only buses in San Francisco.

Actually, the interesting part with our buses is that the diesel engine is the same one that powers non-hybrid variants of the same coaches (a 330-hp Cat C9). It just spends so little time under heavy load that it doesn't have to make nearly as much noise.

Metro's decision to buy hybrid and non-hybrid buses with the exact same engine also provides an unusually good basis for comparison, since most other full hybrids do use a different motor from their normal equivalents. The hybrid buses get about 20% better gas mileage, but the biggest difference is in performance. Despite being a couple thousand pounds heavier (compared to about a 30,000 lb. baseline weight) the hybrid is *dramatically* faster, stops quicker with less brake heating or wear, and (thanks to no jerky shifts) feels much smoother. Engine wear is also reduced.

When the bus makes a full-throttle start from a dead stop, the loudest noise is the tires on the drive axle gripping the tarmac. You can slightly hear the electric motor whine; the diesel continues idling. Around 5 mph, the engine moves to high idle. At 15-20, the engine starts taking over from the electric motor and begins to sound more like normal -- but the electric motor still lends substantial help until about 40 mph, and so you spend less time at full throttle with its attendant noise. The result is that the bus never feels like it's under stress, despite performing better than any other 60-footer in the fleet, including our old M11-powered New Flyer D60s that you can hear across town when they leave a bus stop. I found the buses had a psychological effect on me when I drove them: since they felt more relaxed, and since I was almost always on time thanks to the great performance, I felt relaxed too.

Of course, this being bureaucracy, the hybrids are not being used on the routes that could benefit from them the most. For anyone who knows Seattle, it's insane that they're being used on freeway routes but not on the 5, the 358, or (most egregiously) the 48.

One last interesting note is that our initial hybrid prototype was powered by a Cummins ISM (the updated M11), not the Cat. Despite having the same horsepower rating the Cummins is a bigger, torquier engine. That bus was so quick it was scary; you could surprise cars. Unfortunately, Cummins did not meet 2004 emissions standards in time for us to use the ISM, so we had to switch to the C9.

Re:Don't be silly

[Slithe]

Ah, I get it. So when someone decides to live their life killing as many people as possible, we should just respect that because that's their choice. Libertarians think that people (and society) can be (and should be) responsible for defending themselves; technology does not yet allow police to be everywhere at once to defend everybody. Plus, do you really think a government will prevent this kind of thing? Nobody has stopped Bush from killing 600,000 Iraqis. Governments have killed far more people than lone deranged lunatics could ever dream of killing.

Or if a group of businesses decide to collude to prevent competition, we should just let them do it. Sounds like a fun world. Libertarians think the above point is more important.

Re:Don't be silly

[Anonymous Coward]

how many people can you fit in a Prius?

More than in the cab of an F-150.

You're right. The F-150 is kind of like a teenage truck (still immature, not yet fully grown). For the carpool commute you really need to start with nothing less than the F-250 superduty with supercab or crewcab.

You'll want the 6.8L triton V-10 with automatic transmission for the stop and go commute, but if you get open-road time then the 6.0L powerstroke turbo-diesel is a better choice.

Pick the F-350 if you have to haul the B.S. coming from greenie fascists like those posting under this article. Sounds like a buncha smurfs with food poisoning...

mutter, grumble...

Re:Don't be silly

[An Onerous Coward]

I'll grant that there will be winners and losers in any climate change. But let me lay out my reasons for believing that the losers will greatly outnumber the winners.

First, it is expected that global warming will tend to make storms more energetic. That means more money spent on prevention and repair of storm damage.

Next, it is expected that rising oceans and other effects of climate change could create hundreds of millions of refugees, which will lead to all manner of suffering and political instability.

Finally, an unpredictable, changing climate is bad for an economy in its own right. Take an example from my own back yard: The Salt Lake Valley has billions of dollars invested in its ski resorts and related tourism. Hell, we spent billions just on the 2002 Winter Olympics, in the hopes of making this a destination. Now there is a very real fear inside the local industry that global warming could turn our area into a third-rate destination, and even put the resorts out of business. That loss could have effects on the wider economy by making Salt Lake City a less attractive place to live. Even if global warming somehow also increases snowpack in Aspen, Colorado, the billions invested in Utah resorts will still be wasted, and not everyone who gained expertise here will want to move.

There are vast swaths of the economy that depend heavily on climate, and it is much less risky to invest when you know that the climate fundamentals aren't going to change out from under you. If it turns out that the world needs to abandon its breadbasket in the U.S. midwest in favor of building up a new one in Siberia, that means hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure that needs to be built to take advantage of the new conditions. Adjustments within the free market never come without costs, and these ones will be ginormous.

Re:Don't be silly

[ClamIAm]

So you speak for all Libertarians(tm)? I didn't think so.

God, you utopian Free Marketards are so fucking sad. Your hilariously inconsistent ideology presents numerous opportunities for trolling, yet you're all so fucking stupid that it's impossible to do so. I really hope the Free(tm) State(r) Project(c) succeeds, because then all you morons will shoot each other over minor quibbles and the world will be rid of you.

Re:Don't be silly

[Slithe]

Since you didn't bother to refute my assertions and instead started trolling, I will assume that you conceded victory to my argument and me. I will humbly accept your admission of my victory.

Re:Don't be silly

[Firethorn]

Which is why they don't put batteries in them.

Still, I wonder sometimes if it might be worth it to put a socket system on them and a big extension cord system so you can provide line power to them when they're accellerating out of the yard. Say for the first kilometer. They still wouldn't be up to full speed, but you could probably save quite a few gallons of diesel.

Re:Don't be silly

[Firethorn]

I'll admit, I pulled the numbers out of the air.

The ford escape is rated 23 mpg city, the hybrid at 36.

43.5 - 27.8

That's a 13 mpg improvement. Over a thousand miles you'll save 15.7 gallons, on average.

The honda civic is 30mpg vs 49. It'll save you 'only' 12.9 gallons over a thosand miles.

There, real world numbers. Not 100% accurate, at least until the new milage tests are published, but should be similar.

Re:Don't be silly

[Firethorn]

No, it's called a business with too much corruption can't compete with a business without it. The whole business goes under.

Re:Don't be silly

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, my 4 stroke (450) gets about 30 mpg but the guy is right about india and bikes in general...those little 125 Kawasaki (street) get around 65 mpg iirc

Re:Don't be silly

[An Onerous Coward]

1) So build machines plant trees to act as carbon sinks. Fund this by charging each CO2 producer, including people who burn wood, in proportion to emissions. No one wants this, because everyone would laugh at how little they'd be paying. And the purpose of environmentalism was never to save the environment but to shut down "big business".

I'm not dignifying this with a response.

2) There are no subsidies for oil producers. The alleged impact on foreign policy says more about the policy makers than about the impact of oil. Fact: Singapore, Switzerland, China, Japan, South Africa, and India manage to import Middle Eastern oil without putting troops there. The cost of troops is not a true cost of getting the oil. If anything, a military presence impedes the flow of oil.

There are tons of direct subsidies, which are well documented, so saying "there are no subsidies for oil producers" is wrong.

Our Middle East policy has always been about two things: oil and Israel. We liberated Kuwait in 1991, which had nothing to do with "freedom on the march", and everything to do with keeping oil supplies stable. I mean, seriously, had it been any two oil-poor African countries, would we have done more than file a complaint with the U.N.? I think not.

In 2003, as the Bush administration was telling us what a jolly grand war we'd be having, one of their main arguments was that it could be done cheaply; Iraqi oil revenues would finance both liberation and reconstruction. (Just as an aside, we shouldn't forget that we were the ones who destroyed Iraq's infrastructure, then placed an embargo so that they couldn't rebuild, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths in the process.)

I don't know the particulars of how all the other countries you mention conduct their international affairs, but they probably get their oil the old-fashioned way: by asking for it, and offering some sort of goods and services in return. I've never heard of Switzerland supporting a coup inside another country to forestall the nationalization of oil resources, at any rate. I'll agree that in the long run, American policies make the oil supply less stable, but as I argue down below, business interests can be very myopic.

3) What a crock. Markets efficiently allocate goods intertemporally as well. It's called a "futures market". Look it up. Markets don't "believe" oil is infinite; prices already reflect current knowledge of just how finite oil is. If you really believe in that Peak Oil crap, go long on oil.

I'll set aside the fact that I only said the oil industry wanted to believe in infinity, not the market as a whole.

Your arguments run up against what I consider one of the biggest flaws of the current markets: betting against something is much, much harder than betting in favor of something. For example, if I believe that the stock market as a whole is overvalued, how do I invest so as to take advantage of that fact? The financial tools just don't exist. But if I believe the stock market will keep going up, I'll just buy into an index fund.

Now tell me, how would I "short oil?" Shorting only works for timing short-term market fluctuations. When you're talking about long-term trends (on the order of decades), there is no way to short oil directly. The best I can come up with is investing in companies devoted to green technologies (which, by the way, I already do). The idea of taking out an oil contract for twenty years down the road is a bit brain-straining.

The markets are fundamentally, structurally designed to be optimistic. Even with the pessimistic financial tools that currently exist (selling short), they are seldom used, awkward (akin to trying to profit off a stock's increase, but being required to sell it at a specific date), and generally regarded as unsportsmanlike. And let's not even talk about the many ways that entrenched businesses try to buy government protection of the status quo rather than adjust to changing conditions.

Re:Don't be silly

[Scudsucker]

Have you ever paid attention to government? Some days I think that government exists to pull the corrupt in. The government is the biggest source of corruption going.

Huh, I didn't know Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, Haliburton and Union Carbine were government agencies.

Re:Don't be silly

[UbuntuDupe]

I'm not dignifying this with a response.

That's too bad. Because I just explained to you why environmentalists are more interested in shutting down "big business" than simply assessing them their true quotal share of the costs.

There are tons of direct subsidies, which are well documented, so saying "there are no subsidies for oil producers" is wrong.

I could refute it line by line, but I know you probably haven't bothered to seriously read the stuff in that link yourself. You can hurl links at me all day long and I'll spend 20x as much time refuting them, only for you to move on to the next link. Nevertheless, it's the same crock: 1) The "tax subsidy" is simply because the oil industry has unusual structuring of capital expenses; any other industry with the same kinds of projects would be treated the same way. 2) Roads are a subsidy to transportation, *irresepective* of the fuel source of that transportation, and therefore cannot be counted as an oil subsidy; and they're are already paid for through taxes. Yes, there's a shortfall; this is due to expenditures on underused roads. 3) The sales tax bit is flat out wrong. The federal tax alone is more than the typical state sales tax.

Our Middle East policy has always been about two things: oil and Israel. ...

Completely non-responsive to the point I made. From the fact that leaders *believe* a Middle Eastern presence secures access to oil, it does not follow that they are correct or that it is necessary. Imagine that -- government officials being in error!

In 2003, as the Bush administration was telling us what a jolly grand war we'd be having, one of their main arguments was that it could be done cheaply; Iraqi oil revenues would finance both liberation and reconstruction. (Just as an aside, we shouldn't forget that we were the ones who destroyed Iraq's infrastructure, then placed an embargo so that they couldn't rebuild, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths in the process.)

Your parenthetical refutes your point. The oil revenues would just cover the cost of war. So where's the net gain in oil?

I don't know the particulars of how all the other countries you mention conduct their international affairs, but they probably get their oil the old-fashioned way: by asking for it, and offering some sort of goods and services in return.

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING! You're exactly right: you can get all the oil you want from these places simply by paying the market rate. Hence, no troops necessary. Hence, troops are not a true cost of getting oil. Hence, not having troop costs embedded in the price of oil is not a subsidy.

I'll set aside the fact that I only said the oil industry wanted to believe in infinity, not the market as a whole.

You said, "The market doesn't want to believe that oil (or any resource, for that matter) is finite." In fairness, I knew you had no clue what you were talking about, so I'll just look past that one.

Your arguments run up against what I consider one of the biggest flaws of the current markets: betting against something is much, much harder than betting in favor of something. For example, if I believe that the stock market as a whole is overvalued, how do I invest so as to take advantage of that fact? The financial tools just don't exist. But if I believe the stock market will keep going up, I'll just buy into an index fund.

Now tell me, how would I "short oil?"

Are you not listening? I told you to go LONG on oil. (See sig.) You can do that simply by buying an energy sector index fund. (You are familiar with those, right? Since after all, you'd never spout off on a topic like this without being informed.) Since you seriously know what you're talking about and seriously believe that current market prices do not accurately reflect the future scarcity of oil, then when this unanticipated oil shortage happens and oil becomes a really hot commodity, the value

Re:Don't be silly

[ClamIAm]

Wait, what? I thought your original replies to me were just trolls. You were serious?!

Re:Don't be silly

[ClamIAm]

I'd like to learn more about this. Do you have any links that deal with this specific phenomenon in the context in which you are talking about?

Re:Don't be silly

[An Onerous Coward]

>>> I'm not dignifying this with a response.

>> That's too bad. Because I just explained to you why environmentalists are more interested in shutting down "big business" than simply assessing them their true quotal share of the costs.

No, you didn't explain why. You simply asserted that they were, proposed a plan which basically reflects the Kyoto Protocol (which environmentalists generally support), and claimed that because environmentalists don't support such a plan (when in fact most do) that they must only be interested in shutting down big business.

>> I could refute it line by line, but I know you probably haven't bothered to seriously read the stuff in that link yourself. You can hurl links at me all day long and I'll spend 20x as much time refuting them, only for you to move on to the next link. Nevertheless, it's the same crock: 1) The "tax subsidy" is simply because the oil industry has unusual structuring of capital expenses; any other industry with the same kinds of projects would be treated the same way. 2) Roads are a subsidy to transportation, *irresepective* of the fuel source of that transportation, and therefore cannot be counted as an oil subsidy; and they're are already paid for through taxes. Yes, there's a shortfall; this is due to expenditures on underused roads. 3) The sales tax bit is flat out wrong. The federal tax alone is more than the typical state sales tax.

1) is just handwaving about how the oil industry is special, in a way that is too complex for a buffoon like me to understand. If these record profits must not be taxed because of the sheer capital investment needed to maintain oil production, that's a damned good sign that the industry as a whole needs to be abandoned as soon as possible. 2) is a load of crap, since more than 99% of the vehicles on the road consume gasoline alone. The fact that our public policies generally support lots of road-building rather than reliance on mass transit does increase demand for oil, and hence is properly seen as a subsidy to the oil industry. 3) The federal tax is specifically earmarked towards building and maintaining roads, which support the oil industry. States charge their own sales taxes on gasoline (which go into the general fund), but these are typically far lower than sales taxes on other goods and services. Nowhere is the oil industry charged for deaths and illnesses related to air pollution caused by their products (one estimate puts that subsidy at around $10B/year for the Los Angeles area alone). Nor is it being charged for the damage done by the CO2 put into the atmosphere. When these things start happening, I'll believe that the oil industry isn't getting special treatment.

>>> DING DING DING DING DING DING DING! You're exactly right: you can get all the oil you want from these places simply by paying the market rate. Hence, no troops necessary. Hence, troops are not a true cost of getting oil. Hence, not having troop costs embedded in the price of oil is not a subsidy.

Dude, the U.S. learned their lesson in the 1970's, when the OPEC countries exercised their independence and soveriegnty in 1973. They decided to stop selling to Israel and its allies. Our Sacred Economy went into a tailspin. But while most of them reacted by pursuing meaningful energy independence,

Also, you can try to paint the oil industry as the hapless recipient of misguided and unrequested public assistance, but I think the oil companies are begging for us to continue our military meddling in the Middle East. When Iran nationalized the oil industry in the 1950s, the CIA helped overthrow prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh, exchanging him for a shah that would give its oil industry back to BP. Obviously, the nationalization (with no compensation) was cutting deeply into oil profits, and I doubt that the oil industry would just sit back and take it, when they had the ear of a country with a hug

Re:Don't be silly

[Firethorn]

Enron is the latest big example, though it ended up surviving.

Re:Don't be silly

[ClamIAm]

I didn't ask for an example. I asked for an explanation of the theory.

Re:Don't be silly

[o2sd]

My personaly opinion is a flat tax per gallon of gas, based on the pollution produced per gallon (obviously you shouldn't be paying as much on a cleaner blend), and the money should be converted to cash and burned

Agreed with one minor adjustment. The tax should be converted into Oxygen. (The byproduct of that process would be some kind of biomass, probably hardwood)

Re:Don't be silly

[Firethorn]

Simple enough. And no, I don't have any links.

A business with corruption doesn't run as efficiently as one without corruption. A corrupt business will have to worry about government investigations/convictions/fines, as well as the money it's corrupt officials funnel out of it, either into their or their crony's pockets.

It gets too bad the company can go under.

Personally, I think that we should see a lot more convictions with prison terms for CEOs and Execs who abuse their offices, as well as stockholders who pay a little more attention to what the company officers are doing.

Re:Don't be silly

[ClamIAm]

And no, I don't have any links.

That's what I thought.

Re:Don't be silly

[Firethorn]

It's called 'take an economics class' or 'read an economics textbook'.

Re:Don't be silly

[ClamIAm]

LOL. You just can't accept the fact that your ideology is such a pipe dream...

It would almost be cute, if it weren't so sad.

Re:ford? Solar Power...

[duh_lime]

... for nothing more than the headlights and taillights. Be still my heart. I think they've solved the gas crisis.

Needs Batteries

[scdeimos]

Concept car this, concept car that, get back to us when it's about to roll off the production floor in maybe 2010 or 2012. The article also has this to say:

But the Volt is limited by battery technology and GM has no date for it to be available to the public.
...
GM officials stressed that development of the battery pack is critical to the concept vehicle reaching showrooms, and the technology likely won't be available until 2010 or 2012.

Guys, I hear Sony make hi-tech batteries. Smokin!

Re:Needs Batteries

[Bloater]

They need batteries that last longer than five years (without losing much of their capacity). That currently means A123 or AltairNano batteries. The delay is the time to prove their capacity retention over that delay period.

Coal powered cars

[Anonymous Coward]

0-60 in 8.5s, reasonable range, doesn't look like a Pacer. Cool car. I want one, if it doesn't cost $90K.

Now, just to be sure, you greenys aren't going to flip out when we have to build the power plants necessary to make this work for more than 0.002% of the driving public that aren't Hollywood bigshots, right?

Didn't think so.

Re:Coal powered cars

[toddestan]

Even if we have to run from coal-fired plants, it will still be cleaner than millions of little fossil fuel burning engines running around everywhere in various states of repair. If we can run them from something else (nuclear, wind, solar, ???) it will be even better.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[MindStalker]

They don't have to. The idea is you have a turbine that can be switched on or off to charge the batteries. This turbine is in no way hooked to the drive train. The car then runs purly in electrical mode all the time. The turbine can be run at peak efficiency.

And yes running all electric this way is actually very efficient, several modders have disconnected the drive train on their prius and showed gas miliage improvements.

Apparently a German company are also doing this...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and the car will be called a Voltswagen ! Likewise it won't be an American built Telsa either !

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are the turbine/electric hybrids?

The best thing about such a vehicle is that you could pretend that you're Batman every time you start your car: "Batteries to Power! Turbines to Speed!"

What a joke.

[pkulak]

"GM officials stressed that development of the battery pack is critical to the concept vehicle reaching showrooms, and the technology likely won't be available until 2010 or 2012."

Call me when I can BUY one. Saying something will be ready in half a decade is just a slap in the face.

They must be buying Hot Wheels!

[LibertineR]

Gotta be the case, because I know of no other feasible electric cars. Can someone fix the title?

Yes you can...

[r_jensen11]

...as long as your leasing department is large enough. But then again, GM is having the idiotic idea of selling off their only profitable, and quite profitable as it is, department for the sake of "jump-starting" the company again. Unfortunately, all I see is a horde of H4's on the horizon....

Re:Yes you can...

[Anonymous Coward]

GM is having the idiotic idea of selling off their only profitable, and quite profitable as it is, department for the sake of "jump-starting" the company again. A quick google finds http://divisionoflabour.com/archives/001828.php which suggests that you're talking about GM selling GMAC.

It's part of the fundamentals of stock economics. A conglomerate is always worth less than its parts. A quick thought experiment explains this. Assume that there are a hundred shares of stock in each of GM and GMAC. Currently, GM owns all hundred shares of GMAC. If GM goes bankrupt, its shareholders lose their investment in GM and their investment in GMAC. Now, if GM spins off GMAC to its own shareholders such that they own one share of GMAC for every share of GM, bankruptcy by GM only loses them their shares of GM; they keep their shares of GMAC.

GMAC is worth more to investors if the weight of GM is taken off GMAC's ankle. Thus, it makes more sense to sell off the profitable division now. At worst, GM goes out of business a few years earlier. At best, they use the infusion of cash to retool the company. If GM did not do this on its own now, some corporate raider would do it for them. Hughes Electronics, the Electro-Motive Division, and GMAC are all worth more on the market than with GM. If GM wants to make a comeback, they need to do so in their core business. Relying on a profitable subsidiary to support the whole business is not sustainable. Particularly when the subsidiary's profits are at risk due to the instability of the parent.

GMAC's profit model is based on reloaning money for the purpose of buying cars. If their borrowing costs climb because GM could go bankrupt and take them down, they will stop being profitable.

20 miles!

[wall0159]

I reckon it's amazing that 50% of Americans live more than 20 miles from work. That's a damn long way, and means they must spend a lot of time commuting.

My ideal distance would be about 7 - 10 miles - makes for a nice bike ride here in Australia ;-) ...whatever does it for you, I guess...

Re:20 miles!

[Anonymous Coward]

My ideal distance would be about 7 - 10 miles - makes for a nice bike ride here in Australia ;-) ...whatever does it for you, I guess...

Sadly it's not just Americans. I live in Auckland (over the ditch from Oz, in case you've forgotten!) and I live nearly 30kms (a fraction under 20 miles) from work. 45 minute commute each way though, which isn't too bad.

Would love to live a mere 15kms from work, but house prices being what they are that close to the CBD makes it unviable...

Re:20 miles!

[mdfst13]

My sweet spot would be 1.5 miles from work, a little over half an hour's walk. The ideal would be to live uphill from work. That way, I have an easy down hill walk to work. The uphill part would be on the homeward leg, when I'm motivated and not worried about coworkers holding their noses to avoid smelling my sweat.

Re:jesus

[WilliamSChips]

Well, duh. Everybody who's seen Dogma knows that.

Sorry, but...

[Crash McBang]

... I'm not buying one of these until they've killed it at least three more times.

Then I'll know they're serious!

to the critics of this GM-Volt

[FudRucker]

hey, it is not perfect. but it is a good start and the sooner we cut our dependence on fossil fuels the better, if not completely weened of fossil fuels then hopefully greatly lower our dependence...

maybe even give the US consumer the power to tell oil imports "no thanks" we have enough domestic oil, and make giant corps like Exxon sweat...

Not yet, folks.

[FunkeyMonk]

From TFA

GM officials stressed that development of the battery pack is critical to the concept vehicle reaching showrooms, and the technology likely won't be available until 2010 or 2012.

Call me in 3 to 5 years.

Offset to the generators

[Twillerror]

As has been stated many times over a plug-in car just offset the polution to our power generators...which are already overloaded.

I think what we really need to ask ourselves is if we need a 300 hp beast when we go to the grocery store. Pistons that automatically shut down when not need. A solar panel that might get you a few miles on the way home by charging a battery during the day.

I was down in Dallas for work back in the summer. Everyone drove, but everyone also parked outdoors. The sun light was intense and it was hot as heck. All the grass was burnt. Solar panels on the top of the cars and on the burnt lawns ( dust circles ) would have been enough to save quite a bit of gas over the weekend.

If you live in a windy area could we not have little mini generators on your car when it is parked? Even if a full day of wind only provided 2 minutes of driving electricty is it not worth it?

If we are going electric until we can figure out the hydrogen thing ( if ever ) we need to be more creative on how we charge them. Just plugging in the car won't solve the problem.

Re:Offset to the generators

[TeknoHog]

Large, centralized power generation is usually more efficient than "mini generators".

Secondly, the main advantage of petroleum is energy density, while it is terrible when it comes to sustainability and environmental concerns. With centralized power generation you can make choices on other bases besides energy density, and focus more on the other factors.

Re:Offset to the generators

[kimvette]

I think what we really need to ask ourselves is if we need a 300 hp beast when we go to the grocery store.

Give me at least 100 more. I need to shave 5 to 10 seconds off the grocery trip.

Re:Offset to the generators

[julesh]

As has been stated many times over a plug-in car just offset the polution to our power generators

Yes, but:

1. EVs use less total power per mile driven. This one (as you'd know if you'd RTFA) is capable of generating its own power with a small onboard generator. No drain on the grid at all when you use that.
2. Large scale generators are (a) more efficient and (b) produce less pollution per unit of fuel than the combustion engine in a traditional vehicle.
3. There are alternative electricity production methods that don't rely on burning fossil fuels.
4. Power generation stations are typically in out-of-town areas that aren't struggling to cope with large scale polution already. Moving the polution there helps make the cities where larger numbers of people live more pleasant environments.

These factors combined make EVs substantially more environmentally sound: they use less resources, produce less pollution, and the pollution they do produce is less problematic.

Where are the all-electrics?

[sfontain]

I love that we're finally getting to true electrics rather than hybrids. I still don't like that every car anyone plans on making still has something that burns fuel, though, be it an engine in the drivetrain or only a charging generator.

What I would be quite interested in, though, is be an small, comfortable, ultra-lightweight rolling chassis with a battery but without a generator that could go 40 miles on a charge. If it had moderate heat and air conditioning, along with a radio, and it wasn't so obscenely overpriced just because it's electric, I would be utterly thrilled. To me, this seems entirely commercially viable for $5,000-$10,000, and it could reduce emissions immensely for those of us with very short commutes. Way fewer parts, far less mass to move, easier to maneuver. Aside from the obvious safety concerns (I wouldn't want to get rammed by an Escalade in one of these), this sort of commuter car would be heaven.

I know these exist, but I wish they were as available as, say, Ford Escape hybrids.

Not this again...

[StarvingSE]

If the automakers (American and foreign) really wanted to produce electricity powered vehicles, they can. GM proved his with the EV1. See wikipedia article on the documentary.. The fact is that the oil companies lobby both the auto companies and government to kill anything that might reduce their profits. We won't seriously be getting into electric cars until the oil derricks start making gurgling sounds and oil prices really skyrocket.

But

[Anonymous Coward]

If people see you driving one, they'll think you're gay!

nice link

[binford2k]

What's the point of linking to an ugly fuzzy pixelated scanned newspaper photo when the Chevy site has a beautiful photo and lots of information about the car?

http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/index.jsp

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[jeff4747]

Where are the turbine/electric hybrids? Why are we still dealing with pistons?

You can't put an effective muffler on a turbine engine. Most drivers would be unwilling to wear hearing protection to drive to their local Safeway. Plus, the vehicle would violate many city's noise ordinances.

It's not like the hybrid concept is really all that new. Diesel locomotives have been "hybrids" for decades. So has "super-sized" construction equipment, like those gigantic dump trucks. They all use piston engines. If turbines were practical in a vehicle, they'd already be in use.

Educate yourselves!

[Zobeid]

It has indeed been stated many times over that a plug-in car just offsets the pollution to our power generators -- and always so stated by people who are too lazy to do even the smallest bit of research into the subject before they spout off their uninformed opinions.

A little research would reveal that all-electric cars are much more energy efficient than gasoline-powered cars. A little research would show that grid electricity produces much less CO2 emissions per mile traveled than gasoline (on average, as it does depend on factors like the source of the electricity). A little research would show that hardly any electricity in the USA is generated from burning petroleum, so these cars could help us get away from dependence on foreign oil. A little research would also reveal that our "already overloaded" electrical grid has enough spare capacity during off-peak hours (at night) to recharge tens of millions of electrical cars without any need to expand its capacity.

But instead of doing a little research, we get people offering goofy schemes like something from junior high school science projects -- solar panels or little wind turbines on top of your car! Such gadgets are unlikely to even offset the energy cost of hauling them around.

Re:ford? Solar Power...

[shmlco]

Solar power for headlights and taillights. Solar power for headlights and taillights. Hmmm. Isn't there usually a lack of solar power available when the headlights are needed?

Somebody has to say it

[smcdow]

... but has a generator that can keep the auto going up to 640 miles range.

640 miles ought to be enough for anybody. No one will need more than 637 miles for a personal vehicle.

Scott Adams should stick to cartoons.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because he clearly doesn't know much about anything else. If every company in the world stopped building proof of concept products and stopped doing research into better products, where would we be?

easy

[oohshiny]

So how can Tesla, a startup company with little manufacturing and car experience relative to GM, build an electric car that can [...]

Easy: their cars start at $93k.

There is lots of fun and innovative stuff you can do in areas such as cars, homes, computers, furniture, sports equipment, etc., once you abandon the mass market and once you stop worrying about giving people better bang-for-the-buck than they can get with existing technologies.

The hard part is not innovating, it's coming up with innovation that delivers better bang-for-the-buck.

Re:Nothing quite like a million cars recharging...

[shmlco]

"Rest assured, California is not the only state with barely enough power-generation capacity..." ...at maximum load, which occurs during the day during business hours. Which is not the dead of night and way off-peak when most of these cars would be charging. Several companines have discussed timers and/or remote control switches such that the power company could "schedule" your recharge such that your car isn't on the grid at the same time with everyone else's.

And with a "Volt" type solution you don't need to recharge at work to make it home, assuming you live that far away. That's what the "hybrid" part is for.

But I do agree that people need to consider the whole system... and spend more than 60 seconds considering potential solutions before rejecting the entire concept.

I have

[gerf]

I've mentioned the same thing in previous Slashdot posts. Of course, other posts got modded up by talking about monkey poo and being funny instead of me. Welcome to /. I suppose.

On part, at least, I call bull

[stomv]

And when used with FlexFuel, [GM full size SUVs are] using less fossil fuels - even including the fully burdened fossil fuel costs of ethanol - than Prius and Civic hybrid drivers, in addition to contributing to lower overall greenhouse gas emissions.

I really doubt it. Why?
  * Prius and Civic hybrids get 55 and 50 MPG combined, respectively. The 2007 Yukon XL 1500 2WD gets 15/21 gas, 12/16 ethanol. The 2007 Suburban 1500 2WD gets 15/21 gas, 12/16 ethanol. Even give 'em 30% gain and they're nowhere near Prius and Civic.
  * As for the petroleum content of American made ethanol: given that petroleum is used all over the refining process (from fertilizer to transportation), and given that a gallon of gasoline has 124,000 BTU of energy but the net gain in a gallon of ethanol is a mere 20,000 to 40,000 BTU you get to use 6 gallons of E100 for the fossil fuel cost of 3 to 5 gallons of E0 (gasoline). Let's use the 40,000 BTU number: by using ethanol you can use 4 gallons at the "carbon gasoline cost" of 3 gallons of gas.

So, lets do the math: 30% fuel efficiency gain on 15/21 (we'll pretend that we should be working off of their gasoline and not ethanol numbers) gets us to 19.5/27.3. But, don't forget about the "4 for the cost of 3" -- so the carbon release would be equivalent to a car that gets 26/36.4. Now, sure this is back of the envelope, but I've been really generous -- giving the full 30% on the gasoline numbers (not the ethanol numbers), and giving the very highest estimate for BTU increase.

We're still at 26/36.4 mpg for the GM SUVs vs 50 or 55 mpg for the Civic and Prius hybrids. You're still off by a factor of 2, sport.

I hope this isn't more GM vaporware. I hope this stuff works, and sells. I hope ethanol improvements increase that 40,000 BTU gain. I hope the 30% efficiency gains are just the beginning.

But even with those gains, (telecommute / walk / bike) > (bus / train / subway / carpool) > (high mpg) > (mid mpg) > (SUV) in terms of mpg, roughly speaking.

Re:On part, at least, I call bull

[Anonymous Coward]

I am shocked, simply shocked, by your suggestion this might be vapor ware. You GM/Ford hating lefties have been saying that every year or two for the last two human generations. For shame! I myself have seen these real cars at GM campus recruiting dog shows. In the 1980's! And my dad in the 1960's! How can you doubt release is immanent?

CAFE? No thank you, I'm not hungry.

Re:On part, at least, I call bull

[Anonymous Coward]

We're still at 26/36.4 mpg for the GM SUVs vs 50 or 55 mpg for the Civic and Prius hybrids. You're still off by a factor of 2, sport.

You're the sport: The hybrid Prius in practice doesn't get anywhere near the claimed mileage (sis owns one). If a GM SUV could be made to get middling-30's MPG, it would match the hybrid Prius in "real life." Don't take this as a negative though; being a hell of a lot lighter there's plenty of room in the Prii and its vehicle class for improvement.

Re:On part, at least, I call bull

[Elladan]

My girlfriend has a Prius. She generally gets about 50mpg. It can go as low as 45 in bad weather.

Re:On part, at least, I call bull

[Bo'Bob'O]

Firstly, improving the gas millage of low millage vehicles actually saves far more gas and saves far more on emissions output in the big picture then minor gains in high millage vehicles. Yes, I hate seeing people driving cars 10 times heaver then what they need them for, especially here in Southern California where it's usually so totally unnecessary. There are people and companies however who DO need heavy vehicles, to haul and tow. I for one won't mind seeing the reduction of those inefficient, dirty, noisy pull start generators, either.

Re:On part, at least, I call bull

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but of that 26/36.4, only 15% is gasoline. So that's up to 242mpg of gasoline (with ethanol making up the balance).

Then again, all the Prius and Civic really need to be able to use E85 is larger fuel injectors, a knock sensor, and an ecu reflash.

Re:On part, at least, I call bull

[wkitchen]

I for one won't mind seeing the reduction of those inefficient, dirty, noisy pull start generators, either.

Umm... What exactly are you suggesting? That we use gas/electric hybrid systems to power portable generators?

Perhaps I misunderstood.

Re:On part, at least, I call bull

[MaWeiTao]

Prius and Civic hybrids get 55 and 50 MPG combined, respectively.

That's nice, expect that both of those cars have been publicized to get mileage in the 40s, at best. I know people who own the Prius who confirm those stories. I'm not looking to absolve the US automakers of any wrongdoing. Their excessive focus on SUVs is inexcusable. But stupid consumers have an unhealthy obsession with those things. Even in Europe the things are starting to be popular. My problem is with the attitude that hybrids are somehow going to save the world.

Having driven the Prius I've found that the engine comes on far too often. The only way to have the electric motor motivate the car on it's own is to accelerate slowly or coast at speeds slow enough to aggravate most drivers.

Hybrids are a fad more than anything. If people truly cared about economy they'd be demanding the sorts of economy cars available in Europe with 1 and 1.2 liter engines which truly get 50mpg, or better yet, small displacement diesels which get well above 60mpg. Americans, however, see cars as too much of a status symbol so we get stuck with cars like the Fit or the Yaris which despite being small don't get mileage above 40mpg because they're equipped with unnecessarily large engines.

And let's not forget about how polluting the batteries themselves are both during manufacture and especially during disposal. And those batteries aren't expected to last 100,000 miles which means in a few short years people are gonig to be facing a bill of at least $5000 to replace them; the batteries alone cost that much and who knows how much more labor will be. To put that in perspective rebuilding an engine shouldn't cost more than $2000 and there are virtually no cars on the road today that would need a rebuild at 150,000 miles let alone 100,000. I suppose those who switch cars every couple of years will never experience the problem, but the rest of us who do hold onto our cars or buy used will be forced to deal with these problems.

Hybrids are a fad, nothing more. Automakers are simply jumping on the bandwagon because so far it seems to be an easy way to make money. It's an overly complicated system just to achieve minimal fuel savings. You could get an economy car in the early 90s with as good mileage as a hybrid today. It didn't have the power output of a contemporary car, but when you're concerned about fuel consumption who the hell cares?

I hope there are some automakers out there who sidestep the nonsense and work on truly innovative. The GM Volt seems cool, but I hate to admit that I don't have high hopes given who's promising to build it. Not because of that documentary which was a bit biased anyway, but because GM has a history of making promises to build some publicity and then not following through with it.

Re:On part, at least, I call bull

[BendingSpoons]

Prius and Civic hybrids get 55 and 50 MPG combined, respectively. I wish. I have an '06 Civic hybrid, and drive about 100 miles a day. About 80 of those miles are on a toll highway with no traffic, where I'm cruising at 67 mph. (Any faster, my fuel efficiency decreases drastically; any slower, I'm a danger to other drivers by slowing down traffic.) Over the past 8 months, I've never, ever averaged more than 47.2 mpg over 100 miles - and that's optimal conditions. Good weather, no additional weight, very few stops for lights, staying at a consistently low speed with little accelerating, etc. (I'm also a fuel-efficient driver - no slamming on the gas pedal the second the light turns green, that sort of thing.)

Anything outside of those optimal conditions, and my highway miles are in the low 40s. If I'm doing mostly city driving, I'm usually between 37-40 mpg. (I realize the Civic isn't as efficient as the Prius for city driving; unlike the Prius, the Civic never runs on solely the electric engine. But I just couldn't bring myself to drive a car as ugly as the Prius.)

Don't get me wrong - I love my hybrid, and am generally pleased with the mpg I get. But those EPA estimates are pretty bogus.

Re:On part, at least, I call bull

[lizrd]

One of the target markets for these trucks is construction contractors. Typically these type of workers would drive a full size truck or SUV to carry their tools and materials. They would then use a gasoline generator to power their electric tools at the work site. The 120V outlets provided in these trucks should be able to replace the noisy and polluting pullstart generator with the hybrid drive system already present in the truck. As a result they can use the emissions controlled relatively efficient gasoline engine in the truck to power those tools.

Re:On part, at least, I call bull

[ryanov]

The Prius' battery is supposed to last the life of the car. As far as I know, it is also somewhat guaranteed... so... really, what are you talking about?

Re:On part, at least, I call bull

[wkitchen]

Ah, I understand now. Thanks. Yes, that would be an advantage.

Re:On part, at least, I call bull

[Chandon Seldon]

Plug-in hybrids are really nice from a cost / efficiency / environmental perspective. The hybrid cars we're seeing now have marginal to negative cost/benefit advantages, but that's not the point as far as I'm concerned - the point is getting the hybrid engine technology and battery technology into mass production so that plug-in hybrids are easier in a couple years.

If Toyota produced a plug in Prius *today*, they could charge $25,000 for a car that got ~50 mpg *and* didn't use gas at all for the first ~10 miles every day (you can call the electricity free and not be too far off). That's really nice, but it'll still take years to pay off compared to a cheap compact car. The thing is, with all these hybrids in production, battery production will get cheaper. That means that a 2012 plug-in Prius might cost $16,000. At that price, it's a strict win.

On the other hand, the real future of cars is in diesel engines - *possibly* diesel hybrid engines. Oh well, the USA will probably catch up in 10 or 15 years.

Re:On part, at least, I call bull

[Chandon Seldon]

Any car is going to run lower than spec in real world USA highway driving, because people setting the spec have to pretend that highway driving is 55 mph. That doesn't change the fact that if you get numbers for two cars through the same test procedure those numbers can be compared.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[NormalVisual]

Something the parent poster may have been getting at is that turbines tend to be rather loud at speed, have to dump a lot of waste heat, and having parts spinning around a thousand times per second in your car may prove to be a safety issue. That's not to say that a workable turbine design couldn't be done, just that there are some formidable engineering challenges to be met.

Plug-in charging can be more expensive

[fluffy99]

Gas at $2.50 a gallon is about 7 cents/kWh and if we ballpark the engine efficiency at 60% that's 11.6 cent/kWh. Wall charging is probably 90% efficient so if your live in an area where electricity is 12.8 cent/kWh or higher (Manhattan for example) it would be cheaper and more convenient to simply stop at the gas station. I do like the simplicity of the design. Going to electric drive only should eliminate a lot of weight. It's not clear if it's a single motor and convention axles or a motor at each wheel. A smaller motor at each wheel or axle allows some flexibility with multi-wheel drive, abs, traction control, etc. It's also a given that the car will likely be a dog. They claim 236 ft-lbs as some great number, but that doesn't mean much unless you can state an rpm or true HP rating.

Re:Plug-in charging can be more expensive

[matt21811]

"if we ballpark the engine efficiency at 60%" Way off i'm affraid. Try 20%. The best super large marine oil engines get 50%. The best diesel car engines get 30% but only at a fixed RPM, which cars never do.

Re:Plug-in charging can be more expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical gasoline engines are about 25% efficient. Some of the better ones are able to squeeze out another 3 or 4 percent.

Re:Plug-in charging can be more expensive

[fluffy99]

Looks like you may be a bit off too. Argonne labs tested the Prius engine at a peak 34% conversion efficiency at 13 HP, despite the Toyota literature claiming 60% which I quoted. Besides, the Volt engine will likely be a fixed rpm, very tuned engine. I also looked into the charger too, and 85-90% is a more realistic figure for the currents involved. Still, in some areas with expensive electricity, plugging in will be more expensive. Especially if gas stays the same or keeps declining (It's $2.13/gal here at the moment versus the $2.50 I used).

Re:Plug-in charging can be more expensive

[matt21811]

Thanks for pointing out the Argonne labs data. Its interesting doing the calculations but I think grid based electricity still wins for short commuters.
A few extra ideas I have thought of that may affect the calculations.
If the engine is running at fixed rpm then it will have to be charging the battery when the car isn't accelerating introducing the same charging inefficiency as the grid for at least part of the time.
I live in Australia where off peak electricity is as little as 4 US cents per KWHr. Off peak pricing has a large impact. Given a 40% efficient engine petrol would have to be beter than $1.00 a gallon to compete in Australia.
I'm doubtful that petrol will get cheaper in the medium term. But I can always hope.

Re:Plug-in charging can be more expensive

[The Master Control P]

Gas prices decline? You should have been in the north-west last October. Prices start at $2.60+, decline linearly to $2.25 on election day, and literally the day after started going up again (Now hovering around $2.60). Since this isn't an election year, I fully anticipate being assraped for $3.00 this summer.

About time..

[MoOsEb0y]

GM needs these out last year. All the benefits of an EV with none of the trade-offs. Even if it only gets 40 miles to a charge now, better chemistry for batteries is always down the pike. Ship these with intelligent chargers that can be programmed only to go off at off-peak hours and you've got yourself a winner.

Support the future.

[BRUTICUS]

If you give a sh!t about the environment, do us all a favor and BUY one of these cars. Support any car company that is willing to take this step and help rid us of the oil/gas/global warming dilemma.

Bottom line efficiency and costs.

[twitter]

This is MUCH less efficient than just converting the chemical energy directly of fossil fuel into mechanical energy in your car's internal combustion engine. In every conversion to different type of energy you lose something.

Yet the vehicle is supposed to get 50 MPG, when using gasoline. This is much better than the average vehicle because the gasoline engine will run at nothing but it's most efficient speed. If they use regenerative breaking, you get back a lot of the energy you used to get up to speed. Unless they are lying about their milage, again, this is an improvement.

Oh yeah, if the electric company's 40 miles worth of electricity cost you less than the price 0.8 galons of gas, you use that. They get close to all of the possible energy out of their fuel because they also run at constant speeds and can condense the exhaust with regenerative pre-heaters. Try that trick with your car and you will find yourself driving a truck, most of which is devoted to moving itself. Despite the losses of transmission, it could be cheaper, especially when you factor in the cheaper nuclear generation that utilities can offer. Either way, being able to chose your fuel source based on cost is better than what you have now.

Internal combustion is simple, lightweight and cheap. Sooner or later, it will be cheaper and lighter to carry around batteries.

0 - 60 in four milliseconds?

[d00b]

What the hell? Isn't all this eletric-car stuff about running at light speed?

Re:Nothing quite like a million cars recharging...

[matt21811]

"Has anyone quantified the "recharging load" on the grid?"

Yes they have. If you recharge the cars during off peak the grid does not need upgrading until 40% of all vehicles are plug in electric. Given that about half the population is within "no recharge at work" range this seems a pretty good fit.

In my country, the turnover of vehicles is less than 8% a year. If the US is similar then even if every new whicle was plug in electric we'd have 5 years to get some upgrades going. Of course every new vehicle wont be plug in electric, they are only most suitable for the 50% of the people that live within 20 miles of work. So now we have a decade to get our act together.

Wait, why the Ford bashing?

[jo7hs2]

Okay, sure, GM is making another electric car they'll cancel. Why the Ford bashing? The Escape hybrid was a HUGE step for a company that rarely re-designs drivetrain platforms. Just look at how little the mechanics of the Crown Victoria have changed, or the more than a decade long run of the 3.0L Vulcan (Taurus, etc...) engine. Furthermore, it isn't like they are sitting on their hands. They've introduced several new models, some of which are finally starting to show the reliability Ford drivers deserve. It's fine to tout GM's electric car experiment, but why jump on Ford for no reason?

Re:Wait, why the Ford bashing?

[WindBourne]

The Escape hybrid simply rebrands Toyota's drivetrain. There was nothing developed by Ford.

As it is, GM and Ford have been pushing diesels cars and selling fewer and fewer (that is the reason why they are losing money). They are in the same mode that they were in back in the 70's. BTW, GM has a similar problem . They have played with their research and cars.

If GM really goes forward with this in 1-2 years (the article is pessimstic about though), then I believe that they will bring their company back from the same grave that Ford and GM are in.

Re:Wait, why the Ford bashing?

[jo7hs2]

Yes, I know, but it was still a big deal for Ford, if you look at their usual pace of engine changes. Plus, that still doesn't explain why an article about a GM electric car needed a headline bashing Ford. Personally, I'd be thrilled if Ford would introduce a diesel Focus, Five Hundred, or Fusion, but I doubt it would ever happen because of the lack of public knowledge about diesel, and the emissions controls that are strangling new diesel cars in the US. And I don't think plug-in hybrids will be a huge deal, not because the pollution is going somewhere else, but because people will find simply fueling the vehicle easier, and will (despite saving gas money) probably freak about their electric bills.

Re:Wait, why the Ford bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Escape hybrid simply rebrands Toyota's drivetrain. There was nothing developed by Ford. That is completely false. I am a Ford employee. Ford CROSS-licensed patents with Toyota because the hybrid technologies are similar. I don't know why people keep spreading this rumor.

Re:Wait, why the Ford bashing?

[jo7hs2]

Here's a decent answer to the question:

"Is Ford using the Toyota hybrid system?:

Although the Ford hybrid system is very similar to Toyota's, Toyota is not directly supplying any components to Ford. Toyota and Ford have entered into a licensing agreement allowing Ford to use technology that had been patented by Toyota. Toyota welcomes the introduction of the Escape hybrid and Ford's effort to demonstrate and gain acceptance of this important environmental technology."
- About.com (http://trucks.about.com/od/hybridcar/a/toyota_hyb rids.htm)

Looks like Ford was forced to license the technology from Toyota because it was dangerously close to something Toyota had already patented.

Re:Wait, why the Ford bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only problem I see with the Volt is that GM has to stay in business long enough to actually build it!

Re:Wait, why the Ford bashing?

[spoonyfork]

You should do more research before posting regurgitated untruths about Ford (and GM). You come across as quite irresponsible and foolish. Regardless of your agenda, you don't have to undeservedly push Ford down to bring GM up... unless you are grooming for an automotive/environment editor position at FoxNews? Or are a GM shill, paid or otherwise?

Re:Wait, why the Ford bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Leave ' em alone...us Ford fans know what's up. GM is the MSFT of the automotive industry. No amount of pathetic Ford bashing will redeem the evil empire in our eyes. GM can fake new technology all they want (or just buy it from some small company and rebrand it), while Ford will continue to innovate in the real world.

The future is AC, not DC

[kurt555gs]

I have been looking at several articles to see if GM followed the modern path of AC motors ala Toyota, and not the obsolete cumbersome DC motors of the past. ( Yes this includes computer controlled brushless DC systems ).

Toyota and ABB of Sweden really have taken the first step in the future of transportation making a 500 volt integrated Variable Frequency Drive ( VFD ) to an AC drive motor.

This 1st step was really only scratching the surface and in the future you will see 400hz and above AC motors where the VFD's DC bus is excited by batteries.

Tesla experimented with many frequencies and found 60hz right for the 1890's bearings and engineering technologies.

Jet aircraft starter motors are usually 400hz AC multi pole motors. These are very light and have tremendous torque.

As computer controls become faster in processing speed, and the IGBT transistors can be switched faster VFD's and AC motors of 400, 600, 1200hz will bring more power and lower weight than ever imagined.

The limiting factor is the processing speed of the VFD cpu's in order to do sensor less torque vector calculations, then fire off the IGBT transistors.

I hope that one of the major VFD makers will have some engineer playing games on a CELL based console and have the brilliant idea that this would solve the intense calculation requirements needed.

If Toshiba ( major VFD maker ) and Nintendo ever merge, this will be the beginning of the electric era and the sunset of the internal combustion time on earth.

Think of the possibilities.

Cheers

Re:The future is AC, not DC

[sycodon]

I don't know. If GM does a VFD and the IGBT can't keep up with the CELL and AC, then DC is SOL.

MOD FUN JAL wLOA.

Re:The future is AC, not DC

[MtViewGuy]

Great ideas, but you still need to find a practical, light portable source of electric power.

Enter the nanotube-based supercapacitor MIT is currently developing. Once it reaches practical production (probably by 2013), you can essentially reduce the size of the battery pack to essentially the same space occupied by the fuel tank of a car powered by an internal combustion engine. Supercapacitors offer one huge advantage over NiMH and Li-On batteries, namely needing only a few minutes to completely recharge the battery pack, and also can withstand vastly more recharge cycles than NiMH/Li-On batteries. Combine this battery breakthrough with the VFD electric motors you mentioned and regenerative braking and the potential of a four-passenger car about the size of a Honda Fit using a very small battery pack going up to 500 km (310 miles) on a single charge and recharging times under five minutes sounds no longer far-fetched.

Re:The future is AC, not DC

[swillden]

Combine this battery breakthrough with the VFD electric motors you mentioned and regenerative braking and the potential of a four-passenger car about the size of a Honda Fit using a very small battery pack going up to 500 km (310 miles) on a single charge and recharging times under five minutes sounds no longer far-fetched.

All but the five-minute recharge time. Even if the battery can take it that fast, run the numbers on what kind of amperage you'd have to push even at high voltages to move that much juice that quickly, and it quickly becomes clear that you'd better have superconducting connectors and transport lines as well as supercapacitors for batteries.

Re:The future is AC, not DC

[kurt555gs]

The Prius is an off the shelf ABB VFD with a 60hz motor right now. I was just saying that in the future, faster processors will lead to faster torque calculations and higher frequencies in AC electric motors.

Cheers

Re:The future is AC, not DC

[PinkyGigglebrain]

Thanks for the info. I'm hoping to convert my car to electic soon and was thinking of a simple DC system. Now I think I'll give AC a good look.

Thanks again.

UGLY beyond belief

[quixote9]

I'm an electric car fanatic. I'd be riding around in a golf cart if I could get a DMV sticker that would let me on the roads. And yet this thing is so-o-o ugly, the only thing worse out there is a HUmmer. Idiots.

Great - Update the Prius - no time to wait for GM!

[Anonymous Coward]

Current Plug-In Prius gets 100 MPG.

Now - I would like to see:

2008 Toyota Prius with All Wheel Drive,
60 Mile Electric Only Range.
800 Mile Electric / Gas Range.
A Plug - to plug it into 110 AC at night, when I want to.
(or plug into my backyard solar array/wind mill - sold by Toyota as an optional power source).
Solar Panel built into the top roof - cars tend to sit all day in a parking lot - might as well get some power while you wait.
(or the new *transparent* solar panel built into top/trunk/hood(bonnet) of the car - clear to the eye but still efficiently collects energy, without blocking your beautiful paint job).

For 90 % of the people driving back and forth to work (under 30 miles) - such a car would generate Zero pollution.
For 1+ hour commuters ( Texas, California, every place else!) - the extended range would help avoid refueling delays.

GM talks about it. Toyota does it (did it) will do it. (Go Honda too!)

Why does Japan Consistently KICK ASS while GM plays catch up?
gm pwnd by jpn ! LOL!

Re:Nothing quite like a million cars recharging...

[jeff4747]

This will guarantee year-round brownouts, blackouts, and other power problems.

Most likely, these cars will be plugged in at night, when power needs are currently lower. We're not likely to see parking lots retrofitted with hundreds of power outlets.

When they talk about electric/hybrid cars with more nuclear power plants nationwide, *then* we'll have a plan. Otherwise, it's trading one problem for another.

The power generation "problem" will not be "solved" on it's own. There's no reason to spend the money. No new large power plants will be built until the power company can make back their investment in a reasonable time, which requires a large boost in demand. Which requires something like electric cars.

Re:Nothing quite like a million cars recharging...

[DerekLyons]

Nothing quite like a million cars recharging to push the California power grid six feet under during the summer. This will guarantee year-round brownouts, blackouts, and other power problems.

99.99% of California's electric problems could be cured if people learned to live without, or at least minimize, the use of air conditioners. I was in LA back in Sept, and I swear every place was cooled to 72 degrees - needlessly.
 
That being said; I think the OP has it right - nightly recharging of large numbers of electric cars is a load the national power grid is unlikely to be able to handle.

Hmm, looks like the Stonecutters are slacking off

[Eternal Vigilance]

And I really thought this was going to be Steve Guttenberg's year, too.


Has anyone ever seen a good analysis of the long-term eco-effects of disposing of all those batteries when the electric cars start to get recycled?

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[jeff4747]

If turbines were practical in a vehicle, they'd already be in use.

I should have said, "If turbines were practical in a locomotive or giant dump truck, they'd already be in use."

nuclear... what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite the losses of transmission, it could be cheaper, especially when you factor in the cheaper nuclear generation that utilities can offer.

OK, what? Are you cutting and pasting from somewhere or something? This makes no sense whatsoever.

SUVs are still square

[Anonymous Coward]

What you are describing is great for those that almost want a RV.

Yes, I know, some people have a "need" to drive their square around.

But most people drive those stylish squarish minivans around, for no particular reason.
Or they think they will be safer...in a rollover ??

Re:Nothing quite like a million cars recharging...

[Kreigaffe]

Awesome, so you're saying that my own personal vehicle will start behaving more like public transportation?

Count me out. What I like about having a car is the fact that I can, at any time, with no warning, grab my keys and go somewhere. If I have to worry about having plugged my car in BUT IT NOT HAVING BEEN CHARGING DURING THAT TIME, well, that just.. sucks.

Also, having such a limited range means that for those that drive NEARLY the limit round-trip to work, there's no extra charge left if they, say, have to swing by the store on the way home, or leave early on account of children, or even drive out and go somewhere for lunch.
That, coupled with the excessive amount of time it takes to charge?

3 hours to 'fuel up' for 40 miles, or I can pump 16 gallons of gas into my car in maybe 10 minutes and that'll take me 500 miles.

The most sensible solution...

[CptPicard]

... would of course be some form of mass transportation, but for some reason this seems to be too Socialist a solution for most Americans to swallow.. ;)

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are the turbine/electric hybrids? Why are we still dealing with pistons?

Because turbines are loud and get very hot for efficiency. Not the best things for family vehicles.

yes, but road subsidies are also interference

[GodWasAnAlien]

Perhaps you are not aware, but the main cost of driving is subsidized by the government.
If your taxes did not pay for roads, but this was paid for by the drivers (perhaps by a gas use fee), then you probably pay something comparable to $10/gallon.

If we had pay the true cost of driving on an pay-per-use basis, trains and other mass transportation would become more attractive.

And perhaps other vehicles, like flying cars ?, could enter the market.

But when the government effectively only subsidizes one transportation system, you end up with an environment for a natural monopoly and the market stagnates.

For example, 100 years ago, there were electric cars, and Model-T's got 25 MPG.
Look how far we have come.

Re:yes, but road subsidies are also interference

[arminw]

...If your taxes did not pay for roads, but this was paid for by the drivers (perhaps by a gas use fee), then you probably pay something comparable to $10/gallon......

Simply not true for most US states. In the US, gas and vehicle taxes are reserved for vehicle and transportation related uses, mostly roads. Virtually no general tax money is used for highways. In Europe, the motorists are one of their governments main cash cows and the taxes collected from gasoline and vehicle taxes get used for all government related expenses, including roads. That is why fuel costs almost double of what it costs in the US. After all much of the fuel used on both sides of the Atlantic comes from the same Arab holes in the ground.

Re:yes, but road subsidies are also interference

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you are not aware, but fuel is taxed, and these taxes are [purportedly] used to pay for road maintenance.

As a point of reference, in Michigan, this tax comes to ~$0.62/gallon, or approximately 30% of the price of the fuel. Every time that I fill up the tank on my 1997 Dodge Ram, I am paying ~$17 towards the building , maintenance, and repair of roads.

If we stick with the state of Michigan, in the USA, we have approximately 6.4 MILLION people between the ages of 18 and 65. Assuming that these people are all licensed drivers, and that they drive an average of only 16 miles/day, 5 days/week, in vehicles which get an average of 20 mpg, then we are talking about more than $817 MILLION dollars/year for Michigan, alone, from fuel taxes. That's an extremely conservative estimate, and it does not even begin to consider e.g. commercial traffic, joy-rides, &c. (16 miles/day? I drove ~556 miles this past weekend.)
Sticking with Michigan, the Department of Transportation has a budget of ~$3.1 Billion dollars. That's not exactly a huge leap from the extremely conservative estimate above.
In short, your $10/gal figure is absurd.

Re:yes, but road subsidies are also interference

[sethawoolley]

This analysis agrees with your parent post and does a full cost accounting:

http://www.igreens.org.uk/great_road_transport_sub sidy.htm

Try harder next time, armchair economist.

another chevette?

[baomike]

The've done it before, they can do it again.

It is NOT fully electric

[CompotatoJ]

The car can be fully recharged by plugging it in to a 110-volt outlet for about six hours, and the gasoline engine can get about 50 miles per gallon when producing electricity to run the car, GM said.

GM is working on cars that will be able to run on both gas and electricity. It will not be fully electric.

Why is this bad?
Gasoline engines are much more complicated than electric engines. They require much more parts. Fully electric cars are much lighter and can get better mileage. The engine on the Tesla Roadster weighs 70 pounds! Plus, you do not have to depend on gasoline.

I don't know about you, but I want a Tesla Roadster. It is a fully electric plug-in car capable of going 250 miles on a single charge and 0-60 mph in 4 seconds. Ok, so it does cost upwards of 100 grand, but it is still awesome.

Re:It is NOT fully electric

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about you, but I want a Tesla Roadster.

Pretty cool, but for a car with a base price of $92K, it strikes me very funny the way they nickel-and-dime you with a $100 charge to add Bluetooth cell phone integration. WTF is that about? Just throw it the fuck in, fer chrissakes!

Re:It is NOT fully electric

[that this is not und]

I'll counter you with anecdotal evidence:

I have a 230gpm (gallons per minute) pump that I use to pump water off my land, through about 200 feet of flat 2" discharge hose. It uses a 5.5 horsepower gasoline motor. I grow tired of having to fill the tank up with gas after every 1:45 of running time and I looked into what it would cost to get the same pump with an electric motor. The company that makes the pump also makes a model with the same pump but an electric motor instead. The gasoline model costs about $275. The electric model costs about $900.

I'd love to have the electric model. But I can't afford it.

Re:It is NOT fully electric

[dingDaShan]

The GM car has a GENERATOR ONBOARD. This means that it can run as long as it has fuel for the generator. The generator spins at optimum efficiency. Fully electric cars would be great, but the GM car would use the existing infrastructure and increase the fuel efficiency of vehicles. One step at a time. For a nice graphic of how it would work go to the detroit free press website. http://cmsimg.freep.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site= C4&Date=20070107&Category=BUSINESS03&ArtNo=7010706 29&Ref=AR&Profile=1014

Charge Time and extended range

[Anti_Climax]

They mentioned that more than half of americans live within 20 miles of their work, and the article indicated they were looking at 6 hours charge time on a 110V circuit. So anyone that lived under 20 miles from work could get there and back on a single charge. However, with a 6 hour charge time one could potentially: charge overnight, Drive about 40 miles to work, charge for 3-4 hours, maybe even disconnect and grab lunch, charge for another 3-4 hours and be topped off for the drive home.

This of course is reliant on that type of usage not being counter to what is healthy for their battery system and your employer's willingness to let you pull 15kWh (depending one where you are I believe that's $2 or less of electricity a day) off their system while you're working. Though I have to say the latter would be a pretty likely benefit for a few employers to offer, especially if it means a tax write-off.

But who can trust GM now?

[jbn-o]

I'll seriously consider buying a 100% electric car because my driving needs match what an electric car can deliver. But I'll have a hard time trusting GM to deliver an electric car that isn't just another scam to respond to the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?".

Ralph Nader says what you're saying—GM has a long history of saying that advanced cars like these are coming real soon now (including making show cars) but GM rarely delivers. With the death of the EV1 (which GM never marketed well, both in quality and quantity of advertising), GM was one of the forces that killed what looked to be a practical electric car.

Now it will be hard for people to take the "Volt" seriously because GM has a strong history of being untrustworthy, and a car is too serious of an investment to be frivolous with. GM could always: lease the Volt which allows them to take the Volt fleet back at any time (like they did the EV1 fleet), put out a car that doesn't compete well with gas-powered cars (and then cynically use this as "evidence" that the public doesn't want electric cars), and distribute the Volt from very few dealers (making the car harder to get).

If Honda made an all-electric car, I'd seriously consider that too. The Tesla cars are too expensive for my budget.

Re:But who can trust GM now?

[fireslack]

GM stopped selling the EV1 because no one was buying them. They took them all back after their leases were up because they could not possibly train technicians all over the country to service them. I don't suppose anyone remembers the ill-fated Rav4-EV? Even Toyota thinks that "Who Killed the Electic Car?" was overly critical of GM. Anyone care to take a few swings at eco-friendly Toyota for doing the same as GM? Gotta love good old anti-American car biases.

Note: link is to forum at gminsidenews.com. he original article was from the Detroit Free Press, but has been moved or taken down.

Re:But who can trust GM now?

[daviddennis]

You know, one might find it ironic that the maker of "Who killed the electric car?" made enough money off the film to
buy a Tesla. I guess the electric car lives, now :-).

D

Relevant extract, since I believe LA Times articles are behind a registration screen:

Even Chris Paine, director of this summer's sleeper-hit doc "Who Killed the Electric Car?" ponied up. "I don't even own my house," says Paine, who is a familiar figure driving his Toyota RAV4 EV around Santa Monica.

"Now I'll have a $100,000 car in the driveway," he says. "I wouldn't ordinarily own a car like that -- that's so, you know, look-at-me -- but I figure if I was going to talk the talk, I should walk the walk.

Re:But who can trust GM now?

[jbn-o]

People can't buy what they don't know about and people can't buy what's only available to them for lease.

Neither GM nor Toyota advertised their EVs like they do their gas-based vehicles—national advertisements featuring attractive people having a good time championing the benefits of the electric car. The remaining GM EV1 fleet could have been sold to the people waiting outside the lot who were keeping an eye on where those cars were going. Some of them had been EV1 lessors and knew what the practical limitations on service were. Parts descriptions could have been licensed to a series of third parties for maintenance. It seems more likely that the electric car market profiled in "Who Killed the Electric Car?" was taken away from lessors so as to not provide an ongoing reminder to consumers of what twice was and what is possible.

Why should anyone think that Toyota is above the same oil-based interests GM is? Of course they'll say the focus on GM was too harsh; they don't want the same focus on them for doing to their EV RAV4 lessors what GM did to EV1 lessors. When the major automakers control the market (as they apparently do here), they'll do what they can to retain dominance. No darkroom collusion is necessary, just multiple semi-independent groups of people reaching comparable conclusions about how to maintain the lucrative status quo while convincing people away from something new that would require a shift in business model; in other words, what the oil lobbyist spokesman said (roughly) "It was a mistake that ought not be repeated".

Re:But who can trust GM now?

[fireslack]

You obviously have no idea how the auto industry works. It is highly regulated and developing a car from scratch takes years. Cars like the EV1, closer to a decade. Auto makers are require by law to service vehicles for x number of years. GM did what was in its own best interest. If they had never made the EV1, we wouldn't be having this conversation. At least they did something. Its no their fault nobody signed up. Why do you think Honda, DCX, Nissan, or no one else has made an electric car? Or does that just not fit into your conspiracy theory? Tesla?? Oooh, a $100,000 roadster. I bet all the old EV1 owners are lined up to buy that. Vote with your wallet. Buy a Mazda, at least they didn't kill any electric cars.

Re:But who can trust GM now?

[jbn-o]

I agree with you that GM did what is in its own (short-term) interests: cynically develop and then take away their electric cars from the market. Other manufacturers have made electric cars, but they're not terribly practical.

But the most interesting part of your post has to do with "voting with your wallet" because that phrase (common amongst those who believe the myth that the marketplace is fair arena for competition) suggests the very democratic control that is absent from dealing with private tyrannies (aka corporations). If we had democratic control over what GM produced, we might not have chosen to sink billions into SUVs most people don't need and gas cars that don't compete well with what other automakers provide. We might have chosen practical, reliable, and cost-effective electric cars.

Re:But who can trust GM now?

[fireslack]

When GM can make $6,000-$10,000 profit on every SUV sold, why wouldn't they make them? Its not like they forced anyone to buy them. If people were so concerned about the enviornment and foreign oil, they could just as easliy bought a (cheaper) more fuel efficient vehicles like a minivans, wagons and mid-size sedans and GM would have poured all their money into developing those becasue that is what people will buy. I like people who believe the myth that corporations are out there to do you a favor or save the universe. They exist to make money and do so soley buy selling things people want.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[ameoba]

...not to mention that every mechanic in the country would have to learn how to work on a fundamentally different type of power plant.

Zonk is a dickhead.

[dwalsh]

From a styling POV, it is not a tesla, but it is also not a focus or a pinto.

Did he just list the Focus with the Pinto? Americans have no taste in cars.

Re:Zonk is a dickhead.

[neuro.slug]

Yeah, I hear the Pinto's pretty pissed off.

Re:Zonk is a dickhead.

[that this is not und]

I have absolutely zero, zippo, no 'taste' in cars. I live in a region of the United States, however, where many, many people fret and fluster and obsess about how their car looks. They're dickheads with power washers. You fit in that category, too, I take it?

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[o2sd]

If turbines were practical in a vehicle, they'd already be in use.

So those turbo diesel trucks don't really have a turbine in them then?

GM awards Lithium Ion battery contracts

[chiph]

This press release is for the Saturn Vue Green Line, but the battery technology will be interchangable, of course. Looks they might be available at the end of 2007, not 2010.
Chip H.

DETROIT - General Motors Corp. today announced it has awarded advanced battery development contracts to two suppliers to design and test lithium-ion batteries for use in the Saturn Vue Green Line plug-in hybrid SUV.

One contract has been awarded to Johnson Controls - Saft Advanced Power Solutions, LLC, a joint venture between Tier 1 automotive supplier Johnson Controls and Saft. Another agreement was signed with Cobasys, in partnership with A123Systems. Cobasys, based in Orion, Mich., is a joint venture between Chevron Technology Ventures LLC, a subsidiary of Chevron Corp., and Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. A123Systems, based in Watertown, Mass., is a leading manufacturer of high power lithium-ion batteries.

According to Denise Gray, GM's newly appointed director of hybrid energy storage systems, the companies will be challenged to prove the durability, reliability and potential cost at mass volumes of their technology.

"Thanks to critical relationships with the U.S. government, collaborative research with Ford and DaimlerChrysler under the United States Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC), significant progress has been made in battery research," said Gray. "But a lot of testing and development is still needed. Together, with our suppliers, we intend to address the issues relating to thermal management, storage capacity, recharge times, driving range and cost reduction."

The two test batteries, one from Cobasys - A123Systems and the other from Johnson Controls - Saft , will be evaluated in prototype Saturn Vue Green Line plug-in hybrids beginning later this year. While both are lithium-ion batteries, the chemistry differs significantly. The suppliers also use unique methods in the design and assembling of the battery packs.

Johnson Controls, Inc., headquartered in Milwaukee, Wis., had sales of $32 billion in fiscal year 2006 and employs approximately 136,000 people. Johnson Controls' power solutions business provides more than 110 million starter batteries globally each year. Saft, headquartered in Paris, employs 4,000 people and had annual sales of more than $700 million in 2005. Saft and Johnson Controls formed the battery joint venture last year. Now, more than 150 people work for the joint venture, based also in Milwaukee. Saft is a world leader in high performance batteries and has a decade of experience in lithium-ion development and manufacturing. Saft provided lithium-ion batteries for the Chevrolet Sequel fuel cell concept vehicle.

Cobasys has facilities in both Michigan and Ohio with approximately 400 employees dedicated to the design, manufacture and integration of advanced energy storage systems for both transportation and stationary power markets. Their headquarters features one of the world's largest Energy Storage System development and test facilities required for the validation of battery systems. Cobasys is presently supplying nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) systems for the Saturn Vue Green Line hybrid SUV and will be supplying NiMH systems for the 2007 Saturn Aura Green Line hybrid sedan.

A123Systems, which employs 250 people, was started in 2001 to commercialize technology developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). A123Systems has quickly grown to be one of the world's largest suppliers of high power lithium-ion batteries. By the end of 2007, A123Systems will have the annual capacity to make 20 million lithium-ion batteries for use in power tools. It also sells batteries for stationary backup power, jet engine auxiliary power units and hybrid trucks and buses.

GM will be actively looking for more partners to bring lithium-ion technology to production. "It's important to point out that these two agreements are by no means the only avenues we're pursuing," Gray said. "We are fully committed to forging the necessary partnerships to produce ba

The thing to watch: Model-T, 1908

[Anonymous Coward]

In 1908, the Model-T got 25 MPG, which I think is the holy grail MPG that SUVs are trying for.

but transit subsidies are even greater...

[Helios1182]

The cost of roads comes from the fuel tax. And no matter how you look at it, the government subsidy of mass transit (on a per passenger per mile basis) is at least 2.5 times that of roads.

If transit users had to pay an equal amount (taking subsidies into account) that $2 bus fare would be more like $5-$8.

If you have doubts refer to:
Gomez-Ibanez, J. (1997). Estimating Whether Transport Users Pay Their Way: The State of the Art. In Greene, D.L., Jones, D.W. & Delucchi, M.A. (Eds.) "The Full Costs and Benefits of Transportation (pp. 149-172). New-York: Springer Verlag.

Re:but transit subsidies are even greater...

[jcr]

Ah, but you ignore the principal benefit of public transportation to the state, which is to provide a massive transfer of wealth from the private to the public sector. Busses and trains employ thousands of bureacrats.

-jcr

Re:but transit subsidies are even greater...

[Craig Davison]

The cost of road maintenance comes from the fuel tax. Those massive $300 million interchanges that need to be reworked every 30 years or so, and that land that needs to be bought for widening freeways, are paid for by your property taxes and income tax.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[timmarhy]

" having parts spinning around a thousand times per second in your car may prove to be a safety issue" - and thats different to a normal combustion engine how?

Re: Sensible?

[JaredOfEuropa]

Public transport is great, if the route and schedule happens to fit your needs. But for most people, it provides transportation from a place you are not, to a place you don't want to go, at a time that does not suit you, making unnecessary stops along the way, and charging too high a price.

The subway is pretty good because it runs so frequently. But for any other modes of public transport, it's the connections that kill its usefulness. Nothing like taking the tram, the train, and two subway lines to find that your bus just left, and the next one isn't due for an hour (which is what the route to my first job was like). Even here in the Netherlands, with a dense and heavily subsidised public transport network, and a stagnant neglected and busy road network, the car still often wins in terms of speed and convenience.

Re:Nothing quite like a million cars recharging...

[evilviper]

This will guarantee year-round brownouts, blackouts, and other power problems. Of course, that means plenty of "repair work" for IT staff.

No, actually this will mean a much more even load on the grid, countering daily peak/off-peak demands, as the vast majority will be plugged in after work, after the end of the daily peak energy spike.

It will also raise the power draw in the winter, which is much lower than summer (thanks to air conditioners).

These two issues together, will make it much more profitable for current power plants (which can be nearer to maximum capacity for longer periods of time) and faster return on investment, because it's more economical to build/run more new power plants.

And before anyone starts ranting about more coal... California has all but outlawed new coal power plants. Natural gas is much more likely, as well as increased solar and wind production... California is the PERFECT area for large-scale utilization of both, hence Sterling Systems/Edison's plans to build or the largest solar power plant in the world in California.

Kudos to GM

[carlivar]

It's about time GM got their act together in the wave of eco-friendly cars.

What a shame that no one here in California will buy one however, since as far as I can tell GM doesn't sell cars out here. Walking through my company's parking garage, all I see are Hondas, Toyotas, BMWs, Mercedes, etc. I think I might have seen a Chevy or Ford made in the last 5 years, but it probably had out-of-state plates.

Re:Kudos to GM

[mbstone]

The purpose of a small car at GM is to make buyers recoil at its tininess and buy a larger car. Witness the Chevy Cobalt. This car used to have lots of legroom, this year they took out all the legroom and it is just another showroom-upsell-car. Combine that with the utter contempt GM showed for the EV1 owners, and I'll keep checking the box that says, "Would not buy any car from GM."

Re:Kudos to GM

[that this is not und]

I even work for a GM supplier and I flat out refuse to buy another GM product. The way they totally fucked over the Saturn company makes me furious. They threw away virtually all of the body-design innovation that Saturn pioneered, and Saturn is just another shitty brand plate they slap on the usual GM junk now.

I have a 1993 Saturn SL2 with 190,000 miles that still gets 34mpg. There are very few aspects of the vehicle that have failed. Why can't I buy essentially the same vehicle today? I would. These days the local Saturn Dealership is connected to the same building as the Cadillac Dealership. I'm not interested in buying Saturn from the kind of hucker who hypes caddys.

I wish

[bmajik]

It is actually possible to have privatized train and mass transit systems - Japan would be an example of this.

That said, I beleive mass transit requires a certain population density before it really makes sense, something like 7 families per acre? Given the average lot size of most residential areas of .2 to .25 acre, the density just isn't there except in large cities or concentrations of block/apartment housing.

I often wonder what a pervasive mass transit system in the US might look like. I loved everything about moving from A to B when I was in Germany - they have transit completely licked there.

Mass transit wont ever work if it is "forced" at people. And mass transit makes no sense in most modern American cities because the cities are completely designed around the automobile - wide multi-lane roads, which are impossible to cross safely. Large setbacks for all homes and businesses, usually with acres of paved parking.

For density to develop, cars are simply not an option - consider that a man walking on a sidewalk needs about 9 sq ft (a 3x3 square that moves with him) to walk comfortably with low liklihood of colliding. Now consider a single occupant vehicle, which needs 10-15 feet of width and however long of a distance the car will cover in 2 seconds at the posted speed. Building cities such that people get around by car is just inefficient, and places an intrinsic limit on the density of the city. Yet only in cities where the density is already higher than that will mass transit develop and be successful.

Europe in many senses got lucky - not through autocratic or socialist government, but by having many of its cities completely pre-date the automobile.

engine worries

[dfries]

With my commute being a total of 18 miles a day, I would be worried about the gas motor. I might drive out of that range on the weekend and the gas motor would kick in, but for those who always say within it's battery charge range, is that gas motor sill going to work when you go to make that long trip? How would that be good for a gas engine to sit there for a few months between uses?

What if instead the gas engines were optional? Something like you get the all electric version and have a long trip coming up, so you go out and rent a gas generator that you bolt in, plug in, and fill up with gas for the trip?

Re:engine worries

[toddestan]

If I was GM, I would make the onboard computer smart enough to kick in the gasoline motor for a few minutes every couple of weeks just to make sure things stay lubricated. Though I do like the idea of an electric-only version.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo != http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbine

Holy cow

[amightywind]

In practice the personal car is close enough to a holy cow in American politics that any suggestions of in any way limiting the God-Given-Rigth to drive 3MPG super-SUVs alone to work is akin to political suicide.

That's sacred cow, Borat. But I mostly agree with what you say. For the record, my SUV gets 18 MPG.

Re:Holy cow

[Corporate Troll]

For the record, my SUV gets 18 MPG.

I'm trying to figure out if you are trying to brag with the efficiency of your SUV or if you are proud that you are wasting resources. It simply is not clear to me.

To give you an idea: I drive a 7 year old roadster that gets 25MPG and that is considered a wasteful vehicle where I live....

Re:Holy cow

[agallagh42]

You should also keep in mind that a US gallon is smaller than an imperial gallon. I just punched this into Google to translate for you.

1 (mile per US gallon) = 1.20095042 miles per Imperial gallon

therefore

18 (miles per US gallon) = 21.6171075 miles per Imperial gallon

The average mileage of American vehicles isn't quite as bad as most Europeans think it is, for this reason.

Re:Holy cow

[Corporate Troll]

I live in continental Europe and was just being a nice netizen. I converted most stuff (except €) to US units... Using Google. Apart from that, I knew there was a difference but assumed that Google would default to US gallons. (Which it does!)

So, no, we know exactly how bad your cars are....

Re:Holy cow

[agallagh42]

Ok, that's cool. And they're not my cars, I'm Canadian. We generally drive much smaller cars than the Yanks down south. We even buy our gas in highly taxed litres, just like you folks. :)

Re:Holy cow

[Corporate Troll]

Sorry, I assumed you were American. Didn't want to insult you. :-)

Re:Holy cow

[cayenne8]

"I'm trying to figure out if you are trying to brag with the efficiency of your SUV or if you are proud that you are wasting resources. It simply is not clear to me."

My previous car (R.I.P. in katrina) was a nice little German car. On a good day if I kept my foot out of the pedal....would get about 10 MPG.

Worth every penny of gas paid for tho...

:-D

Re:Holy cow

[Corporate Troll]

Yeah, my nice little German car easily does 10MPG too when, ehm, "having fun".... Your nice little German car most wasn't a new one. Those cars from Stuttgart aren't exactly known for fuel efficiency... They are known for "other things". Mine is not from Stuttgart though :-(

Re:Holy cow

[KnowledgeKeeper]

For the record, my SUV gets 18 MPG.

And that's a good thing? The thing is a pig. My car (Mercedes 190D) uses ~37 MPG. Sure, it uses diesel, but can be easily converted to use bio-diesel.

Let's face it people, there already are environment-friendly cars. The problem here is the driver's ego.

Amazed at anti-GM stuff

[2ms]

As a mechanical engineer with very detailed knowledge of the history of automotive propulsion, the contributions in the forms of specific engine and propulsion technologies each auto company has made throughout this history, the pros and cons of many many propulsion technologies/approaches that have been considered, studied, developed in the industry (of which I've never seen mentioned in mass media), and even more detailed knowledge of the theory behind (and experience with) the design of both internal and external combustion engines, etc. I am amazed by all this anti-GM conspiracy theory stuff.

The EV1, in my opinion, was one of the most impressive accomplishments in energy efficient design the industry has ever seen. It's failure, in my opinion and many others', was primarily the result of a huge discrepancy between what the public said it would buy and what the public actually does buy when it comes down to actually opening their wallets -- it's as simple as that. The EV1 was unchartered territory so they had to put tremendous effort and trust into asking the public what they wanted, but it turned out there was huge difference between what a consumer says he or she would buy and what he or she actually does buy when it actually comes down to it.

By the way, before you accuse me of working for some evil oil company or the evil Big 3 or something -- I am not an automotive engineer and have never worked anywhere in the industry. However, I have done a lot of work in energy systems and did considerable research in propulsion technologies.

Re:Amazed at anti-GM stuff

[blank_vlad]

It's failure, in my opinion and many others', was primarily the result of a huge discrepancy between what the public said it would buy and what the public actually does buy when it comes down to actually opening their wallets -- it's as simple as that.

I call caca del toro on this. The EV1 wasn't even for sale -- GM would only lease it to customers! And when GM finally pulled the plug on the EV1, many of the lessees offered to buy their EV1s but GM flat out refused to sell, choosing instead to repossess every last EV1 and have them crushed (save for a couple that went to museums after being functionally gutted).

Please school yourself before parroting any further GM lies.

Re:Amazed at anti-GM stuff

[2ms]

You consider yourself schooled because you read a wikipedia article about the EV1? Dude, get a clue. My life is devoted to engineering. I have studied with, worked together with (in research environment), and/or had conversations with some of the most distinguished names in the fields of energy conversion and engines. I even have a friend who's a prominent engineer at Saturn for chrisake (EV1 was nominally a Saturn). We talk about things like the EV1 and we are also very conscious/faced daily with the realities of how difficult it is to make more environmentally friendly products attractive to the public.

If you want to spend your time reading conspiracy theories about how everyone in world is out to screw up the world then fine and don't listen to me. However, talk to anyone in the field of thermodynamics, mechanical engineering, etc. and you will learn that saving energy is absolutely at the top of everyone's priorities. The limiting factor is always how much money the consumer is going to have to spend to save that energy. You are talking about a couple hundred people who got turned down from buying EV1s when the program ended.

Is it really completely unbelievable to you that GM is telling the truth when they say that it doesn't make any sense for them to be liable for the dangers of people driving around in cars that they'd have no way of guaranteeing either the ability for repairs or safe operation over the long term?

Anyway, your little article there in no way supports your claim that GM had some kind of evil intent somewhere with the EV1. It does say that each car cost GM $80,000 to build, however. They leased them for like $300 a month on 3 year leases.

Re:Amazed at anti-GM stuff

[blank_vlad]

Well, you've deftly managed to completely misinterpret and read a lot of silly things into what I said.

You consider yourself schooled because you read a wikipedia article about the EV1?

I don't consider myself schooled because I've read some Wikipedia article, nor am I suggesting that would be sufficient for you. I pointed you to Wikipedia because on technology subjects it's often a great jumping-off point to real research. I find it amusing that someone with an engineering background doesn't seem to know the appropriate use for a research tool like Wikipedia, or at least automatically assumes that others don't.

My life is devoted to engineering. I have studied with, worked together with (in research environment), and/or had conversations with some of the most distinguished names in the fields of energy conversion and engines. I even have a friend who's a prominent engineer at Saturn for chrisake (EV1 was nominally a Saturn). We talk about things like the EV1 and we are also very conscious/faced daily with the realities of how difficult it is to make more environmentally friendly products attractive to the public.

Irrelevant -- a classic argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy. You and your friend could be the finest engineers to grace the profession, but this doesn't make you any more qualified to analyze the business decisions or market forces which affect your projects than myself or any other layperson in business or economics.

If you want to spend your time reading conspiracy theories about how everyone in world is out to screw up the world then fine and don't listen to me.

Where in my post did I claim conspiracy, or that the world is such a nasty place? My assertion is that GM's public justification is old-fashioned spin -- there's a world of difference there. Like yourself, I believe GM's decision to axe EV1 was a rather pedestrian (no pun intended) business decision. However, I don't believe this decision was made solely on the basis that GM deemed that consumers just weren't ready to pay.

Since R&D of new technologies (especially energy-related) tends towards enormous expense and long terms, the risk this poses to a public corporation's short-term financial health often overshadows the potential for longer-term gains. GM is an old corporation who would rather not stake the bottom line on yet-unproven technologies. The market and industrial base for petroleum-based vehicles has been in place for decades, so discarding it almost entirely for something new without a damn good reason (i.e. emissions laws or compelling potential for profit) is just bad business to them. They couldn't come out and sell that reasoning to the public however, because damage to their public image for not "casting off the old ways" and becoming "environmentally responsible" is also very risky to profits. It's far safer to sell the idea that customers are to blame for not bearing the financial risk.

Is it really completely unbelievable to you that GM is telling the truth when they say that it doesn't make any sense for them to be liable for the dangers of people driving around in cars that they'd have no way of guaranteeing either the ability for repairs or safe operation over the long term?

That assertion is what doesn't make sense. The product is not known to be defective (unless you're hinting that there is a conspiracy and they're hiding something), hence there's no liability basis for what amounted to a recall by GM. Cars made in the 1990's were safer than cars made in the 1980's, but you didn't see companies recalling the 1980's models on the basis of liability concerns. Even the Ford Pinto, a known defective and sometimes deadly product, wasn't completely pulled off the road and reduced to scrap metal like GM did to the EV1. As for repairs, GM could easily have stipulated "no warranty" in their final sales to EV1 lessors, and aftermarket EV1 support would have arisen to fill the niche left by GM.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[nettdata]

Well, it's not thousands of revs per SECOND, it's usually around 10,000 RPM (minute).

But the makeup of a turbine is much different than an typical internal combustion engine. (My dad has worked on both for over 30 years in the aircraft industry as an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer).

A turbine does NOT do well with constantly starting up and shutting down, it will work much better if it's just turned on and left to run forever.

If a turbine "blows up", you better run for cover. If a normal piston engine blows ub, meh, no big deal... it's all pretty well contained in that monstrous engine block and is not generally such a big deal... just expensive.

Tolerances on a turbine are much, much tighter than the piston engine. Maintenance is a MUST.

And yes, turbines are LOUD, and smelly, and generate a lot of heat, and won't do well on current pump gas.

Turbines are not yet ready for the general masses, only a select few, IMO.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[nettdata]

Depends on what you mean by "turbine". There's a big difference between a K27 and a PT6... one is a "turbo charger", the other a full-on turbine engine.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[QMO]

10,000 RPM is not "thousands of times per second"

GM's idea of competitive?

[beaverfever]

"GM did not release cost estimates but said they recognize the Volt's price will have to be competitive."

As I've been shopping for a new car lately I can tell you that GM seems to have a tough time with the idea of "competitive pricing".

Besides that, GM shouldn't forget the Volt will need to be reliable too; that's an area GM has issues with.

Re:GM's idea of competitive?

[covertlaw]

You are a dumbass. Go buy your me-too Toyondassan and blow it out your ass.

Re:Nothing quite like a million cars recharging...

[dal20402]

So did you even read the article? (Oh, wait, this is /. )

The machine has an engine which it can use as a generator if the batteries run low. This gives the car a 640-mile range, with no waiting if you haven't been charging. If your personal vehicle gets 640 miles, congratulations... those Mercedes turbodiesels are pretty slick.

Listen to the Buggles

[NitsujTPU]

Video killed the electric car.

But where do you plug it in?

[heroine]

But most Americans rent apartments with no elecitric outlets in their "garage". Better stick to China for this brick.

Re:But where do you plug it in?

[that this is not und]

Most Americans don't rent apartments.

However you're correct in that most of the kind of Americans who would buy an electric vehicle are probably the kind living in apartments in urban centers. They don't get to pick what the rest of us drive. Yet. Thank goodness.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[jcr]

automakers are only interested in their own profits.

That's called "fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders." It's a good thing.

-jcr

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[skogs]

Right.

All the airlines in the world are switching back to piston driven aircraft right now because maintenance on the turbine engine is sooooo frequent and burdensome.

Maintenance on a turbine engine the size required for a vehicle of 5000lbs or less is trivial: You remove the power plant, and place a new one in its place.

I agree that maintenance by my average mechanic would be troublesome and/or costly, you need to see where this would actually lead: It is far more cost effective to simply replace it as a sealed unit with a few coolant, fuel, and oil lines attached than it would be to open the thing up and repair a small component to the specifications required for reliable use.

Its pretty obvious that the turbine is a different beast...but it is also a fundamentally more efficient and trouble free beast.

If there were hundreds of thousands of turbine engine vehicles on the road, replacing the turbine powerplant would be no more common or difficult than replacing the alternator and a set of brakes.

Thats my 2 cents...which I'm pretty sure is a bit more enlightened than the parent's cents. I wouldn't trade my 2 for his 5.

The 1999 EV1 got 100 miles- What gives?

[ThoreauHD]

Didn't the EV1 get 100 miles per charge on old batteries? I would think that the newer redesigned batteries- now owned by Chevron(Stan Ovshinsky->GM->Texaco->Chevron)- would be able to raise the bar. The battery is called the Ovitron(http://www.ovonic.com/). It would be nice for the car companies to realize that they sell cars and not oil/gas. But GM's Andrw Card screwed themselves out of the patents that would have ensured that GM ruled the electic car market. Nice shot man. Build Hummer's instead. They are interdependent now(auto and gas), but the car companies have the advantage. They just don't know it yet. High efficiency solar panels on the roof. Recharge at braking.

Problem-
No gas sales to consumers
No oil changes and service via car dealerships

Solution-
Replace all gas cars with electric(enables a new market to form)
No noise pollution
No gas pollution
Centralized gas combustion and emmission controls- by the power plants rather than 50 million cars.

Gas will still be sold and cars will still be sold. Both companies will do well in either event.

They had better figure this out before the cost of a gas auto 20 years of your life gone. It's 2007. How many people thought we would still be at the gas horse and buggy stage in human history? It makes one wonder whether humans really want to survive or not.

Re:The 1999 EV1 got 100 miles- What gives?

[b0s0z0ku]

Didn't the EV1 get 100 miles per charge on old batteries?

Those batteries were heavy. This is a lighter bettery pack designed for short-distance trips. For longer trips, the generator picks up the slack. Chemical fuels are still a lot lighter per given unit of energy than batteries.

-b.

I love Wired's story on it...

[Anonymous Coward]

" ... the all-electric vehicle has a gasoline ... " WTF? ( http://blog.wired.com/wiredphotos14/ )

I'm sorry, but I'll believe it when I can buy it

[localman]

I've been going to auto shows since I was a little kid, and one thing I've learned is that "concept cars" don't get built for mass production. Not even close cousins. At least not by American car companies. Only the most mundane technologies from concept cars trickles into production models. They're just cool looking things that the creative staff makes to draw people to that manufacturer's area, so that people will also see the basic cars.

You might be able to find an exception or two, but overall that's the way it is. I think the Volt sounds pretty cool. I own a Prius now, and if the Volt was well made, reasonably priced, and comfortable, I'd consider it for my next car. But once I saw them calling it a "concept" car, I lost hope.

BTW, why don't we have a full electric with a sterling engine generator... aren't they much more efficient than internal combustion? And with the electric buffer, the slow startup time shouldnt be an issue.

Cheers.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[Duhavid]

someone made one once

Gearing is the thing.

The first naval turbines had the same issues. Running the propellers at turbine speed
cavitated the blades, running the turbine slow meant poor efficiency. There was an
attempt at a fluid coupling ( Foettinger or something like that in Germany ). Between
WWI and WWII, at least the Americans experimented with Turbine electric drives for
ships. ( Lexington or Saratoga ( CV2 && 3 ) powered part of a city in the 1930's because it had
the generating capacity. ). When double reduction gearing became reliable, the wieght
of the electric generating and using gear became a penalty.

So, gearing can change this, or the turbine can run at rated speed, and produce electricity
directly, without any direct "contact" with the drive train. And probably at higher efficiencies
than a conventional piston engine. As noted elsewhere in this thread, the servicability
of the units might be an issue, but I think it one that can be overcome.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[fyngyrz]

These aren't great solutions anyway. We're at a technological crossing; we have great electrical motors, but we're still stuck with shitty storage (batteries.)

When ultra-capacitors become widely available, batteries will go away, cars will be able to store enough energy to have 300-400 mile ranges, and the only reason to have a combustion engine in the car will be for emergency power (when you run out of electrons, which mostly, you won't.)

You watch. Ten years from now, the idea of having an internal combustion engine in a new vehicle will seem ludicrous.

I'm already vastly cheered by the idea of a car that has a 40 mile electrical range. 99%+ of my driving is under 40 miles cumulative every 7 days or so; if I remembered to plug it in once a week, I'd be covered. Lots of other people around here see the same kind of uses. Drive to work, the grocery store, the post office, occasionally the hardware store... and all of it within 10 short blocks. We only have ten blocks. :)

Bring it on.

Idiotic rational

[r_jensen11]

Going from 12mpg to 30 mpg will save more gasoline than 30 to 40 mpg

The rational you express is simply described as horrible. How much money you "save" by still using a more inefficient mode of transportation still costs you money. Think of it as opportunity cost. It's exactly the same mentality as when someone buys something they won't ever use for the sole basis that it's marked 30% off some mark-up price they never considered.

Re:Idiotic rational

[daviddennis]

I find it interesting that so many people in this kind of discussion ignore customer preferences. We are not East Germany, whose government said, effectively, "Drive this Trabant or nothing!" We are America. We give people choices. And, I might add, even our biggest SUVs are cleaner than the Trabant was. A LOT cleaner.

So the problem is that most people - at least most Americans - like big, heavy cars and trucks better than small and light cars and trucks.

Many will buy what they want even if it gets 7mpg.

If technology can take a car that goes 7mpg and make it go 27 mpg, that's an enormous win - much more so than increasing an econobox from 30 to 40mpg.

I don't think there's anything wrong with giving people what they want. In fact, I think it's a big virtue of the USA that we do.

I don't like big SUVs myself - my car is the big, heavy Mercedes-Benz S-Class, that flies and gets about 20mpg in my hands. I'll probably drive something like that for the rest of my life, because I love driving that particular kind of car.

And you're not going to prevent me from doing that -- at least as long as we're still America. A hybrid S-Class would give me better acceleration and fuel economy. It would be cool. I'd buy it. And I would save fuel and money doing so.

(Although I might find the Tesla roadster hard to resist thanks to its audacity).

D

Re:Idiotic rational

[c6gunner]

You might want to make sure you actually understand what he's saying before you go calling him an idiot. As it is, you're looking a wee bit silly yourself.

His point was that it makes more sense to make SUV's hybrid because it'll make a bigger difference than if you make compact cars hybrid, and he's absolutely correct. The fact that the compact car will still be more fuel-efficient is irrelevant. The fact that my bicycle is still more efficient than your compact car is also irrelevant. What matters is that by making the SUV hybrid you're saving 15+ mpg for those who were going to buy an SUV anyway, whereas by making a car hybrid, you're saving a lot less on a per-vehicle basis.

Re:Idiotic rational

[vincnetas]

This is called Tragedy of the commons.
If every one would get what they want, we all would be screwed, because environment is our shared limited resource.

Re:Idiotic rational

[Taxman415a]

I'm all for giving people choice, but lets at least make sure we're letting them make the right choice. The problem with the current system is that allowing people to drive 7mpg cars has a significant negative externality that they don't have to pay for. If the externality was accounted for and they had to pay for the higher polution then the game would be even. So add a carbon and other polutants tax/fee on that pays for reducing the polution and you're closer to a system that has the right incentives. Buy the thing anyway if you want to, but it's going to cost you. That way the costs of taking care of the polution are paid where they are incurred, instead of by everyone else.

Re:Idiotic rational

[Skreems]

Oddly enough, it's usually the people that love driving big heavy cars that also bitch like hell when anyone suggests making them actually pay for ALL the resources they're using up in the process... wonder if the GP is one of them...

Re:Idiotic rational

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't think there's anything wrong with giving people what they want." ... because what you want = what you need. (according to public-relations-mass-brainwash)

Re:Idiotic rational

[SenseiLeNoir]

Ok, I will bite.

Nothing wrong with buying a luxury car. But its more about wastage, remember that huge car, needs a lot more power to move. Now if the majority of the time, you are driving alone, its a lot of wastage, polluting our environment.

The fact is, you CAN buy a luxury car, and be responsible to the environment too.

I myself Drive a Jaguar X-Type Diesel. Its not as big as your car, but in the same class as the BMW 3 series, or the Merc C-Class.

IT is fast, and classy. it goes 0 to 60 in 8.5secs, which is no Ferrari, but no slouch either.

Yet, does 35mpg at 30mph around town driving (UK), and up to 60mpg on the motorway, combined about 45mpg. Cruising in the slipstream of a lorry at 60mph, gives 80mpg.

And its emissions are low too, costing me less road tax than many other cars in its class.

Oh and its one swish car too!

Re:Idiotic rational

[Russ Nelson]

I don't think there's anything wrong with giving people what they want.

You are correct. On the other hand, the tax laws are written such that you get a business subsidy for buying heavy vehicles (e.g. an SUV). Are people really getting what they want if we have to pay them to want it?

Re:Idiotic rational

[daviddennis]

I don't really like that class of car because it feels cramped to me. Of course part of the reason for that is that I'm overweight, and so in theory we could solve this problem by reducing my weight which unfortunately in practice is extremely difficult.

But it is interesting, thinking about it, that a few inches of extra room on the left and right are all I really need, and I have to drive this enormous car in order to get it. I wonder whether a wider C-Class wouldn't suit my needs just as well. (Amusingly enough, I saw the new C-Class a few days ago, and it's easy to confuse with the S-Class - they gave it exactly the same styling, just slightly shrunk).

It would be tougher to wean me off the wonderful rush of getting from 0-60 in 6.1 seconds, though. Fastest car on the road unless I'm going after a 911 or Tesla.

I'm not convinced, though, that big cars are inherently that bad, though. Pollution in new cars is pretty much a solved problem. It looks like electric cars are going to improve to the point that they will be viable in a few years, probably by the time I replace my current S-Class.

D

Re:Idiotic rational

[SenseiLeNoir]

Ah, I didn't realise your reasons for choosing the S Class, and to be honest, a modern European "large car" is still going to be more efficient than the equivalent SUV, and faster. I still feel that unless you are actually going to use the off road capabilities of a SUV, most people buy them for bragging rights.

The Mercedes B-Class (and even A-Class LWB) gives SUV like space, with superb economy. My dad has a A-Class, which can be turned into a van, by removing the rear and passenger seats.

Over here in Europe where fuel prices are high, manufacturers have come with clever ways to get fuel economy without sacrificing speed, or even space. Recently there has been a resurgence of Estates (known as Station wagons in USA). These estates are not the boxy hearse like affairs of times pasts, but sporty vehicles with heaps of practicality, in fact they are more likely called SportsWagons now.

But yes, here in Europe there is a trend for more economical yet high performance cars, mainly due to high fuel prices. Whilst we find in USA, people still go solely by Engine size, which is no longer a reasonsable measure of performance.

Re:Idiotic rational

[daviddennis]

This is visible even in the S-Class. In my old 1991 S-Class, I got about 14mpg. On my 2000 S-Class, I get 18.9mpg in all driving and 20-21mpg when I'm lazing around.

Incidentally, performance fans (and foes) should know that the brutal gas mileage killer is idling. Accelerating from 0-70 in a quick burst of throttle does virtually nothing for my fuel economy (and a lot for my mood), simply because the higher engine power is used for only a few thrilling seconds. It's sitting in traffic that's the killer.

I'm really not sure what the appeal of the SUV is - to me they're underperforming trucks. I'm not interested in driving off-road or other macho stuff, so the sport/luxury car is the right place for me, and I cheerfully admit it. And of course when it comes to safety, the Benz has every safety device in the known universe at the time of its creation.

For comparison's sake, premium unleaded gas right now is about US$ 2.59, so each mile costs me about $ 0.13. I'll bet that with higher European fuel prices, your Jag is about the same cost per mile.

As for station wagons, well, here's an interesting station wagon review which makes your point pretty well.

D

Re:Idiotic rational

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't do 6.1 secs with you on board, fat boy.

The grid is just fine, thank you.

[loshwomp]

Has anyone quantified the "recharging load" on the grid?

Sure, many people have. Why are you running off your mouth about the limitations of the grid (and getting modded insightful, no less) without having researched your own question? If you'd read up on it at all, you'd realize that:

• Millions of EVs could recharge, off-peak, with no improvements to the grid whatsoever, and
• Millions of EVs will not appear at once. The transition will be gradual. The sky is not, in fact, falling.

Re:The grid is just fine, thank you.

[duh_lime]

The grid is so fine that California doesn't have summers without brownouts or warnings of impending blackouts any more.

My point was that the recharging load would not be trivial. Sure, many people would recharge overnight. But that's also when solar and wind power is usually dead as a doorknob.

And, unless you start building nuke plants now, you're just shifting the source of the greenhouse gases from the "point of use" to the "point of generation", aren't you? Talk about nuclear power or some other non-hydrocarbon power and then we'll have something. Failing that, the introduction of a major new electric appliance (the recharger) will make electric rates go up like gas prices have recently.

Re:The grid is just fine, thank you.

[topical_surfactant]

...and oil burned in a power plant is still more efficiently used than gas in a car.

I'll cite Tesla Motors (warning, PDF) research for that one.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[DavidTC]

That is, in fact, how diesel trains already work, so it's obviously feasible. They have an electric motor on each wheel, which would result in some interesting car engineering changes if that was implemented, but nothing requires switching away from a traditional drivetrain for now. (Although having four motors would be a great safety feature. If you lost one motor, they could cut out the matching motor on the other wheel, and you'd still have two to drive to safety.)

What would be really cool is if they actually made a car with the ability to remove the turbine, generator, gas tank, everything, for short trips, and put it back in if you needed to drive long distances. I mean, it's just attached electrically, so it's not like there need to be tight mechanical threshholds to hook it in.

It could take up half the engine compartment, and essentially just sticks supports downward, you swing the front bumper open or something, and back up, leaving it in place. Either in your garage or build a way to lock it in place if it's outside, probably by attaching it to rings set in poured concrete. (Not that people would be likely to steal them at first, they'd weigh like 500 pounds and have no obvious way to move it. People don't normally steal car engines sitting on the side of the road for the good reason that it's really really hard. But eventually they'd figure out a way.)

Actually, there's no reason you couldn't do the same thing with extra batteries, too. Think about it. You have once set of batteries that gets you 40 miles, you have another set you can put in that gets you another 35 miles (Reduced because of the added weight), or you can put in a generator instead that gets you 25 miles on the battery but also holds 5 gallons of gas to get you another 150 miles on a single tank, and of course you can buy gas.

And it's trivially upgradable to the 'buy batteries on the side of the road' model of electric cars. In fact, let's just build those cars, with the automated replacement systems and all that, and make sure we can put self-contained generators in in place of batteries. Maybe instead of 50/50 that I was talking about, maybe have a very very small battery, and a large battery swappable for a generator, where the generator is designed to provide enough power to run 75 down the highway and 55 up mountains and essentially runs all the time, and the small battery is just a buffer.

That way the biggest complaint of electric cars, that you need at least one non-electric car to hand driving to grandmothers or whatever, is removed. You can get to work, and you can get anywhere else with five minutes of work. Not only that, but when you drive cross country for a week with the relatives, you can remove your generator there and tool around totally electric until you need to leave again.

Locomotives can be considered a form of hybrid...

[Firethorn]

Umm, no. Locomotives don't do any stop & go driving, don't have a large battery pack, can't go an inch without the diesel engine running, etc.

While lacking a battery pack, a locomotive is still 'hybrid' in that it has both a diesel engine and electric motors. There are car type hybrids out there right now that can't go an inch without the engine running, with the battery system only providing a power boost, allowing a smaller engine to be used for the performance. Even then, I read an article about 4 months ago that pointed out that they're starting to build true hybrid locomotives.

The nature of a hybrid the size of a locomotive actually allows more efficiency than a transmission of sufficient strength to move the train. See my point about larger electric motors being more efficient. A locomotive of course has some really big ones. That and you can operate and tune the diesel engine for maximum efficiency because you don't have to worry about the RPM range of a convential gearbox mechanical connect system.

As for hooking multiple locomotives together, there's really no reason that you couldn't do that with direct-drive, it's just a bit easier because of the decoupling of speed/engine RPM and force.

The REAL reason work / home is so spread out

[Anonymous Coward]

Is crime. Much office and relatively good paying work is in various city centers which are inside or adjacent to high crime (mostly minority) areas.

Take LA. People pay very high prices (median home prices 3X or 4X other less costly parts of the country) because geography (mountains and sea) hem in the areas away from high-crime hellholes. Homes are dirt cheap in South Central which is very close to LA's downtown business center AND the West-side / Studio City areas, but no one is buying. Because it's too dangerous.

The private auto gives people the ability to vote with their wheels and move out to low crime areas. It's why few families live in NYC or SF (mostly crime tolerant young people or rich urbanites in security buildings). But economic centers for a variety of reasons are distributed away from the suburbs and in places where people won't want to live.

Take a tour of Downtown LA. Ridden with homeless and gangs, no one could call it family friendly.

[Suburbs date back to the 1830's with rail lines allowing middle class people to escape the polluted and crime ridden cities. Then the pollution was coal smoke and horse poop. The crime is the same though.]

The original poster doesn't think WHY people sit in the freeway for hours. Because it beats having to dodge the gangs every night when you come home. The private car gives people the freedom to live where they want which is why activists hate it so.

what's its public release date?

[Locutus]

You know, they've had a ICE/Hybrid project going since the mid 90's and showed a prototype in 1999. They've also shown hydrogen vehicles and a whole bunch of other stuff which has NEVER been put into production.

So I'll believe it when they actually release the thing and just showing it is meaningless when it's GM. IMO.

BTW, I read an article on this where it said that GM had a fully-electric car called the EV1 but the public would not buy it and so it was discontinued... Yea, right.

LoB

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[DeadChobi]

Why not just set up induction charging systems at service stations and sell electricity to power your car without the need to get out and pump it? Or set up a system where the car is charged at a stoplight. The latter option could feasibly be paid for by vehicle license taxes since the driver is the one using the system. This could add a few miles to the range of a car. Imagine going to work on half the battery, and coming out 8 hours later with a fully charged battery. There would be some engineering and security to work out, but it would be worth the simplicity which this would afford you.

A tax that the rich can afford to pay

[clay_buster]

These types of taxes are fine but they really don't affect the affluent. Folks that can buy a $40K SUV and pay for the gas aren't going to be turned off by extra taxes. (Aren't they already taxed extra by virtue of the gas tax?)

In my case the extra tax might have an unintended consequence. We've got a couple cars. One is a truck to haul trailers. Raise flat rate taxes on the truck and I'll sell one of my small cars and drive the truck full time.

Re:A tax that the rich can afford to pay

[Eivind]

These types of taxes are fine but they really don't affect the affluent. Folks that can buy a $40K SUV and pay for the gas aren't going to be turned off by extra taxes. (Aren't they already taxed extra by virtue of the gas tax?)

True. There will always be people who are willing and able to pay whatever price we demand, and continue as before. I think we just have to accept that for behaviour that is simply undesirable. Its supposed to be a free country afterall. If the behaviour is so bad that we *cannot* or *will-no* tolerate this, we have to outlaw it. (we *do* outlaw some sorts of polluting)

In my case the extra tax might have an unintended consequence. We've got a couple cars. One is a truck to haul trailers. Raise flat rate taxes on the truck and I'll sell one of my small cars and drive the truck full time.

There's unintended consequences to all actions. What matters though is the *average* consequence. If the *average* car starts polluting less as a result of a tax-regime that taxes more polluting vehicles higher, then that is what counts. Looking at the average US car compared to the average Norwegian car, its hard to argue this isn't -- infact -- the case.

time to say good bye

[phrostie]

i will miss the days of the 396s and 454s, but it is time to say good bye to them.

i'm glad someone is taking the hybrid seriously.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[nettdata]

Uhmmm... yeah. You're a moron.

The reason that turbines are used in airlines has NOTHING to do with maintenance... it's all about power produced, power to weight ratios, and fuel efficiency. Go take a look at the maintenance protocols for a turbine vs. piston powerplants and then get back to me.

And explain to me again why it is that most private / pleasure aircraft are powered by piston engines? Oh yeah... they're much more complex and actually DO require more maintenance. And are much more expensive.

Don't get me wrong, turbines are WAY better from a technical perspective, but realistically are not appropriate for automobiles due to their cost, complexity, fuel requirements (they DON'T run on pump gas), noise, heat generation, etc.

And exactly WHERE are you getting this whole "trouble-free" stuff from? I'm getting it from a guy who's worked on both engines for more than 30 years as a bush pilot and an AME working on everything from Beavers to Twin Otters to Turbo Beavers to Caravans to Bell Jet Rangers and LongHorns.

I think you're just pulling shit out of your ass.

Doubt it.

[kahrytan]

  I highly doubt the electric car will ever catch on. And Ethanol is idiotic because it reduces a cars mileage. And next year will be the year of the Hydrogen car for the consumers. Gasoline cars will be replaced with Hydrogen cars. Flexfuel is just a fad.

Re:Doubt it.

[fluffy99]

Too bad the gov is convinced that ethanol is viable. The only reason the auto makers are doing flex fuel vehicles is because the get pollution credit for producing the cars. In reality, most of the flex fuel vehicles get filled up with gasoline because it's cheaper per mile.

If you think E85 is a joke for mileage, wait until you see what you get with hydrogen. Even liquefied, the energy density per volume is atrocious. Better to go with natural gas. Incidentally hydrogen is usually produced by cracking natural gas and throwing away 15% of the energy in the process. Plus, you've got the whole lack of infrastructure for hydrogen delivery.

Re:Doubt it.

[kahrytan]

Yes, It is true the first hydrogen engines won't be as good as gasoline engines today but It will be the first of it's kind.

Hydrogen today is produced by Natural Gas but it can be produced from anything else, including Solar Power. Even our trash can be used to produce hydrogen. The same trash that will be used to produce oil as well.

Auto makers should have focused more on Hydrogen R&D rather then Flexfuel. Since they all screwed up, Honda will reap the rewards first. Again, Japan beats American corporations to the punch.

Re:Nothing quite like a million cars recharging...

[Anonymous Coward]

Rest assured, California is not the only state with barely enough power-generation capacity. This could be "just the ticket" to justify hugely higher electric rates nationwide.

Yeah, and wouldn't it actually, you know, be justified? I mean, if there's barely enough, and they start charging more, won't people start doing a variety of power-saving measures to cut back on usage (this is good, right?) and give an incentive for more companies to come in and build electrical facilities (since they can make more money off it)?

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[kimvette]

and having parts spinning around a thousand times per second in your car may prove to be a safety issue

Not really. They are very lightweight, and therefore will have little inertia. Turbochargers spin between 60,000rpm and 100,000RPM and have a strong, long, proven track record (102 years) and the only time they become unreliable is when there is a lack of lubrication, usually from piss-poor maintenance (e.g., an owner gets an oil change once every 100,000 miles whether it's needed or not), or from running the car at FULL boost, then immediately shutting down (e.g., your average teenager pulling into a mall parking lot), without letting it idle down and cool off.

Turbine generators will be far less prone to the latter. There is no cure for poor maintenance, except that the turbine housings will be strong enough to protect against shattering during a catastrophic failure. Heck, even most turbines on jet aircraft are built to contain their massive, extremely high-speed turbines, and ditto for power plants with their even more massive gas turbine engines which are run at full speed at nearly 100% duty cycle.

And waste heat? They may run at a hotter temperature, but they use far less fuel than a conventional engine. There will probably less total heat output. The fix to lower the temperature of the exhaust? Mix the exhaust with ambient air (like the stealth bombers do to reduce their heat signatures), or reclaim the heat for other purposes, such as thermocouples or sterling engines to further increase efficiency, or during cold weather, heat exchangers for heating the vehicle, rather than relying on electric coils for heat.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[mikeboone]

A continuously variable automatic transmission

I'm surprised GM is trying this again, after the fiasco of their last attempt. I have this transmission and I keep my fingers crossed that it keeps working, but lots of folks on the Saturn forums have had serious problems with it.

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

GM Working on Feasible Electric Car

I can't wait for GM to make a 'feasible' electric car and show all the other electric cars the what for.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[Anonymous Coward]

Large piston-engine planes like the B36 bomber had passages so that the crew could access the engines in flight. Why? because they needed vastly more maintenance than jet engines, so much so that were expected to routinely break down in flight.

Within a couple of years after jet airliners were introduced, large piston-engined airliners virtually disappeared. Why? Because they required a tiny fraction of the maintenance effort of piston engines, which had to be completely overhauled at frequent intervals. Jet engines can far, far longer that piston engines before they need a complete teardown. Piston-engined planes cost far more to operate because of this fact.

You are dead wrong, and the guy you claim to be talking to doesn't know jack shit about the economics. He probably just figures that since it takes more specialized skill and equipment to work on jet engines, that makes them more expensive to operate. That's just bullshit.

Who killed the electric car?

[HairyNevus]

There's already been a few fully electric cars. When I saw that documentary and left the theater to some 100 degree heat (...in Minnesota) I got pissed more people didn't know. There is a good point in the Wikipedia article from GM; that the consumers simply didn't want to but the cars at the time. However, Shell's buying of battery companies and and other Big Oil companies filing for patents regarding battery technology seems just plain evil.

Glad to see GM has finally stepped up to do something practical for the environment and consumer. 640 miles is enough for anyone, and if the car is more expensive it's still cheaper than any experimental fuel cell technology.

Re: Sensible?

[CptPicard]

I believe you are exaggerating the problems... a mass transit system should easily be able to provide economies of scale, and I can't see how it would fail to do so, be it public or private in implementation -- although I am pretty sure a public system will be able to coordinate things such as schedules better. A bus simply transports more people than a car. The commuting sort of traffic the article talks about should be just about perfect for it, too, as people tend to work mostly from 8-16 or so and in, say, hour-long blocks, and move between workplace and suburbs, so they aren't just going around random routes. Traffic patterns can be identified, and then capacity allocated accordingly. If you are a statistical outlier, it is good to remember nobody makes you NOT use a car, and if you do, you'll be happier as hopefully a greater proportion of people will not be sharing the road with you.

At least in Helsinki the public transportation is good enough to seriously make people consider whether owning a car is worth it, and a lot people don't. I for one appreciate the fact that there is no need to build the city to accomodate an inordinate number of cars... it makes the place much more comfortable. I'm pretty sure even all the huge roads and parking lots just simply increase the distance you'll be driving over, making the case for a car stronger.. otherwise you might be using a bicycle or... imagine it.. walk ;)

Do you really get to OWN the car this time?

[VGfort]

The thing about the EV-1's is that you could only lease them, no one was allowed to keep theirs, they were all shredded and destroyed. There is one in a museum but its nothing but the shell.

General Motors already HAS an Electric Car

[AikonMGB]

I had no idea about this until recently, when I watched a documentary called Who Killed the Electric Car?, but General Motors already had a fully-electric car on the market: the EV1. This came as quite a surprise to both myself and my father, who has worked either with GM directly or as a GM dealer for many years here in the snowy state of Canadia. I have always had a special place for GM in my heart, and I always will, but I'm not naive enough to neglect some of the information put forth in this documentary. I've yet to do further research regarding the biasedness of this documentary etc., but even still, it seems quite disturbing.

How can so few people, including my own family, have known about this car? It looks like it could have done wonders for modern transporation..

Aikon-

Re:General Motors already HAS an Electric Car

[cdrguru]

One big problem is that to sell an EV-1 in the State of California would require a huge sticker on it that says it is made from materials that are known to cause cancer. Privately disposing of an EV-1 is illegal in every state. It contains toxic materials and in no way did GM get any kind of federal waiver on this.

From what I understand they were allowed to market the car on the condition that it was leased and never sold and GM was eternally responsible for proper disposal of the cars. So you couldn't buy one at any price.

We have yet to see what happens when hybrid vehicle batteries start turning up in auto junkyards. It hasn't happened much yet, and I know of no cases where this has been an issue, possibly because the manufacturers quietly "recycle" the cars that are totaled in accidents. I do know you do not want to put a Li-ion battery into a car crusher.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[MightyYar]

I'm not sure what you mean by "You can't put an effective muffler on a turbine engine." The turbine Chryslers back in the 60s had a waste-heat collection system on them that effectively muffled the turbine. In fact, the complaint from the testers was actually that they sounded like a vacuum cleaner.

I am not claiming that turbines would be good in a family car, just that you can muffle the sound.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[wasted]

The reason that turbines are used in airlines has NOTHING to do with maintenance...

  WRONG - Turbine engine maintenance is much more predictable, which reduces unplanned costs. Although actual costs are greater, the predictability allows the aircraft to generate more revenue.

...it's all about power produced, power to weight ratios, and fuel efficiency. Go take a look at the maintenance protocols for a turbine vs. piston powerplants and then get back to me.

Sort of right, sort of wrong. Piston engines are generally more efficient for a given thrust, but can't operate at higher altitudes, and require large propeller disks for high thrust. Jet engines can operate at altitudes high enough where the reduction in drag allows them to be more efficient on a per mile basis. For example, the air density at 40,000 feet is about a fifth of the density near the surface, so drag is significantly less, and this allows the jet to use less fuel. If a piston and a jet aircraft with identical configurations were flown at the same altitude, (assuming it was an altitude within the piston aircraft'sservice ceiling,) the piston aircraft would use less fuel. The jet engine would be lighter, though, than the piston engine and propeller combination.

For a good comparison, look at the BD-5B (piston), BD-5T (turboprop), and BD-5J (turbojet). Very similar aircraft, with the BD-5J having the least range with identical fuel.

And yes, piston engine maintenance costs will be cheaper than the jet engine, on a per engine basis alone. Commercial operators have to consider more than repair and overhaul costs, however. Airlines just pull and replace the engine prior to a major maintenace requirement so that the aircraft can still generate revenue, which allows the predictability of turbine engine maintenance to more than offset the cost savings of piston engine maintenance.

Hope this helps.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[MadUndergrad]

Take a look at this: http://www.starrotor.com/Engine.htm/.

In the year 2620...

[Sloppy]

William Gates XXI will say "720 ZilloCongressLibs ought to be enough for anyone," finally putting an end to that joke once and for all.

Re:Nothing quite like a million cars recharging...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me add this, too...

I live in Los Angeles. In an apartment. Easily 2/3 or more people I associate with (friends and work) live in apartments or condos too. I lived in San Francisco for a while, and most people I knew lived in apartments/condos there too. Spent some time on the East Coast and New York and Boston are the same situation, if not much much worse.*

Why do I bring this up? People in apartments usually DON'T HAVE GARAGES. Some may have underground parking or a nearby outdoor lot** but in cities, a sizeable majority have to park on the street. If these cars are meant for city-dwellers this is going to be a major problem to overcome. At the very least there will have to be a LOT of charging stations, as it's obviously not feasible for much of urban America to run an extension cord out their window to charge their car..

* Should be noted that many who do own houses live a very long distance away, at least in LA, so much so that I would think they would not trust the electric car's range unless it was a hybrid or had a backup motor.

** And it should be added for those who live in a building with parking, it will not be an easy matter to install. Obviously the property owners aren't going to just put some plugs in the garage without a way to charge the car owner for the power they use.

Re: Sensible?

[cdrguru]

The issue in the US has primarily grown up in the last 40-50 years or so. In 1950 all of major centers of employment were in large factories in industrial sections of cities and in offices in the center. For a number of reasons, the industrial sections are gone or no longer employ large numbers of people. The city centers are almost gone with most businesses having moved out to suburban locations.

In 1950 there was a high likelyhood that 10 people in a suburban housing area were all going to either an industrial center or the city center. Such a high likelyhood that it was practical to run buses to take people to trains which then went to industrial sections and city centers. Transportation problem solved.

Unfortunately, things have changed. Now, with the wider dispersion of offices in suburban locations and no more large industrial employers, there is no likelyhood whatsoever that people will be going to the same place. They are going to many different places. This is true in almost every US city today.

This was a result of taxation, city planning, real estate values and urban crime. It might not be too late to change it back, but it will probably take 40-50 years to do so. And I do not see anyone motivated to do so.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[nettdata]

You're talking about 2 different operational modes... car travel vs. airline travel.

A jet's turbine will typically run at a constant RPM for long periods of time, whereas a car will be variable RPM and be used for (generally) more frequent, shorter duration trips. If you compare the maintenance required/performed on long-haul (transatlantic?) flights versus short-hop commuter planes (Dash 8's, etc), the transatlantic flights usually require less maintenance. Maintenance is not just about engine time, it's about past performance dynamics.

Such usage behaviour has a LOT to do with the wear and tear on the engine, and the required maintenance as a result. The absolute BEST thing you can do for a turbine engine is to start it up and never shut it down... it will last almost forever. As soon as you start cycling it, thermal expansion/contraction over time plays hell with the tolerances and causes problems.

You're also talking about 2 totally different atmospheric conditions... "ground level" vs. 30,000+ feet. That also has drastic implications with respect to longevity and capabilities. Running a piston engine at altitude will have issues with it running rich, etc. That's one of the advantages of a turbine; it compresses the air before ignition, so that the air:fuel ratios are better maintained, allowing you to get higher efficiency at altitude... in short, more thrust/distance per lbs of fuel.

If you were to put a turbine engine into the operational conditions required by a car, I still think that the turbine would require more maintenance.

Mind you, I'm also talking about existing turbine engine technology, and not taking into account any potential turbine development that could come about. For instance, taking a look at the variable vane turbo technology that Porsche has just developed that they've implemented on their new 997 turbo, the way may very well be paved to allow turbines to sustain the speed and operational temperatures required by "pump gas", etc. They were successful in taking something that typically would only work in the (relatively) low speed, low temp environment of a turbo-diesel environment and implementing it in the gasoline internal combustion environment. (It has a lot to do with the material of the turbine vanes, their size/rotational speeds, and the exhaust heat generated, etc).

My main point, though, is that as things stand right now, a piston engine is much more forgiving of poor or no maintenance, and while it may have more moving parts than a turbine, I think it's generally easier and cheaper to maintain by and for the masses.

Re:Nothing quite like a million cars recharging...

[dbIII]

When they talk about electric/hybrid cars with more nuclear power plants nationwide

That is an idea. How much of an increase in taxes are you willing to bear to build these nuclear plants? Private enterprise certainly has shown no sign of doing it for decades.

Re:Nothing quite like a million cars recharging...

[Scudsucker]

I swear every place was cooled to 72 degrees - needlessly.

I need 72 or less or I can't sleep. There are less snobby ways of addressing that issue - like using more swamp coolers, as the humidity is low for much of California.

Re:Great - Update the Prius - no time to wait for

[fluffy99]

100 miles per gallon , plus how much electrical energy sucked from the wall? They are deliberately misstating the efficiency because they are selling a product. Don't get me wrong, I do like the idea of plug-in, but it still has a number of drawbacks such as limited charging rate and requiring a larger and heavier battery bank. Liquid fuels still have the best energy density. If a relatively cheap method of mass producing butanol (http://www.butanol.com/) can be developed, it's a drop in replacement for gasoline. Don't even get me started on E85 - nothing like paying more for less.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[that this is not und]

and all of it within 10 short blocks. We only have ten blocks. :)

You live in an unusual setting, then, and shouldn't be speaking for those of us who travel much farther to work. My daily commute is 80 miles round trip, for instance. I live in a small town and would love to spend my entire week within ten blocks but I'm not willing to work for minimum wages.

seriously, just how stupid are you?

[Anonymous Coward]

What I like about having a car is the fact that I can, at any time, with no warning, grab my keys and go somewhere. If I have to worry about having plugged my car in BUT IT NOT HAVING BEEN CHARGING DURING THAT TIME, well, that just.. sucks.

These cars still have a gasoline engine for when the battery runs out, dumbfuck.

train station cars

[joetheguy]

Does anyone remember or have info on the old "station car" program offered on Metro North and the Long Island Railroad? I remember seeing news about it around 2000 and maybe even something in the mail. The idea was, you leased a Ford TH!NK car for around the same price the EV1 was going for. But for the lease price you also got, free monthly train pass (which could run you $200+ a month on its own), free charging while at the train station, a charger to use at home, and a parking spot at the station (which can take years to come by). As far as I know it was a popular and pretty successful program, but the cars used for it were discontinued. Some of the chargers and spaces are still there. I've seen them at Southeast station on the Harlem line.

Its fills that last gap in to the public transit commuter situation. The free train passes and parking made this really attractive, and most families in this area have multiple cars and some realize they have no need to use their work vehicle for anything more than going to the train and maybe getting some groceries on the way home.

If you do a search for "electric station car" on google you'll get back some info on the project.

Are there any studies or numbers out there regarding this project and if it will be revived at some point?

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[drewzhrodague]

Yes, there are some challenges. I can imagine that since parts = loss (in terms of friction), that just having one rotating thing, or a minimum of on-fire rotating things, would be able to produce enough power to drive a reasonable car. There were a few articles regarding microturbines, which were thoerized to work for powering laptops.

As for waste heat -- just vent it out the back. no more tailgating assholes. Either that, or reclaim it. Imagine your car continuing to charge just because it is cooling down. I would also expect that the power produced, would be far more than humans could bear, doing zero to sixty, and that safeguards would have to be put into place.

They use turbines with generators, and locomotive engines, it doesn't make any sense to me that we've got these rube goldberg contraptions under our hoods.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[that this is not und]

(Not that people would be likely to steal them at first, they'd weigh like 500 pounds and have no obvious way to move it.

Think about what you just said.

The thief simply needs to own the same or a similar model of vehicle. Wheel up to the 'engine block assembly' with his vehicle on battery only, hook up, and drive off.

Electric Cars are Easy!!!

[RexRhino]

Making electric cars are easy:

A couple molded plastic and fiberglass parts, A few car batteries, and some cheap electric motors, and you have yourself a pretty decent electric commuter car. Image a lightweight bike chassis with electric engine. This is just a step up from the golf carts and electric warehouse vehicles that we use now.

The hard part is making an electric car that can meet all the road safety requirements we now have. You can strap your kid to the back of your bike, jump on the road, and there are absolutly no rules regarding safety... but give something a motor and protection from the rain, and suddenly it would bloody murder to let someone drive something that isn't as safe as an SUV in a collision.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[drewzhrodague]

> automakers are only interested in their own profits.

That's called "fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders." It's a good thing.

And how well are they performing that function?

I really think that any car maker (even a new one) should be able to produce a turbine/electric hybrid that lasts forever, is a simple design, and can be mass produced like the Civic. I don't want leather seats and plastic cupholders -- I need a commuting charriot, like most of us.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that as if noise ordinances are enforced anyway... Boom cars and ricers are already enough of a nuisence at all hours of the day and night, I can't imagine it getting much worse.

Re:Nothing quite like a million cars recharging...

[bogjobber]

And before anyone starts ranting about more coal... California has all but outlawed new coal power plants. Natural gas is much more likely, as well as increased solar and wind production... California is the PERFECT area for large-scale utilization of both, hence Sterling Systems/Edison's plans to build or the largest solar power plant in the world in California.

Which has pushed all the new coal plants into other Western states who then transmit their power back to California. Coal power is still by far the cheapest way to go, even when you have to move the power source further from the consumers. Until other states adopt similar regulations or California stops importing electricity from coal plants, the effects of California's regulations will remain very small.

Some further reading: Western Resource Advocates (read the excellent study at the bottom) and SFGate.com

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[Anonymous Coward]

"This encompasses the Chevy Tahoe and Suburban, the GMC Yukon and Yukon XL, and the Cadillac Escalade and Escalade ESV, among others. The hybrid uses the GM/DaimlerChrysler"

So far, the whole American car company approach to hybrid fuel efficiency makes as much sense as having a diet Coke after consuming a big, greasy burger. I have no problem with people choosing to do that, but I do have a problem with companies implying it is a good way to lose weight.

These "hybrid SUV" combinations are not improving the situation (total fuel consumption), they are maintaining the status quo. They are no better than people choosing to drive a regular passenger car.

"Whether or not one likes or dislikes SUVs, or thinks people should be able to be told what types of vehicles they should or shouldn't be driving, or think subjective judgments can be simplistically made about what other people "need" or don't need, it's still an excellent step forward."

The criticism isn't about telling people what vehicle they *must* drive. People should drive what they want. But it is about being honest with people about what they are accomplishing by what choices they make, and what the real implications of them are. In this case, any progress is largely illusionary, because it is only measured in comparison with how much worse the non-hybrid vehicle would be, and for some things (e.g., increased wear on the roads from heavy vehicles) there is no change at all.

I fail to be impressed by technological improvements that let me drive a big vehicle at the same efficiency as an ordinary and cheaper car. It's great that people have the option, but, really, so what? How does this help solve the oil supply/demand challenge? By not worsening it as much at it would otherwise? Yawn.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[NormalVisual]

That's right, it's not. However, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a turbine small enough for an automotive application that will run that slowly. In general, the smaller the turbine the faster it has to run to be useful, and a turbine that is small enough to fit into a car (2 feet or so in diameter) would need to run between 60-70K RPM.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[hustlebird]

you may want to look at this site:
http://www.allpar.com/mopar/turbine.html
They worked with turbines before, conspiresests can fill in the rest.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[NormalVisual]

Well, it's not thousands of revs per SECOND, it's usually around 10,000 RPM (minute).

Maybe for a big JT9D that you'd find under the wing of a 747, but not for a little-bitty turbine that you can stick in a car. Operating speed and size are usually inversely proportional for turbines.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[NormalVisual]

The fastest your car's internal combustion engine will safely spin is probably a little above 8000 RPM or so, or around 150 times per second. That's at redline - a much more common value that you'll see is between 1500-3000 RPM. A car-sized turbine will probably have to run about 8 times faster than the speed at which your internal combustion engine redlines, and will have to maintain that speed all the time. That's a *lot* of kinetic energy to have to safely contain in the event of an accident.

Finally I can steal gas!!!

[shaitand]

Woot this is perfect. The first time I saw electric cars I didn't have warm fuzzies for the environment. After all, the oil will last for my lifetime anyway. Instead I thought of the millions of locations that have utility outlets on the outside. If you look for them you discover that every gas station, car wash, apartment buildings, almost all other commercial buildings, and many residences have those outlets outside.

How fast does this sucker charge?

Re:Finally I can steal gas!!!

[julesh]

6 hours. You'll need somebody very inattentive.

Re:Finally I can steal gas!!!

[shaitand]

okay, so evening charges at locations that only operate during normal business hours. Shouldn't be a problem.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[nettdata]

True, the 10k RPM is indicative of larger turbines. While car-based turbines may be a bit higher (double?) than a large turbine, I can't see it being "thousands of revs per second".

Even 1 thousand revs per second would equate to 60,000 RPM's, and I seriously doubt that a small gas turbine engine would come anywhere close to that.

I could see 20k RPM, maybe 25k max, but nothing higher. Gyroscopic precession, the fact it's not going to be running in a vacuum, etc., will limit the high end speeds that are possible. For that matter, higher isn't necessarily better, as boundary layer effects, etc., will become problematic at uber-high speeds. After all, we're talking about something large enough to create a reasonable amount of power, not an academic exercise.

Ramp that up to even 2k revs per SECOND, and try and turn the car that it's mounted in... that's a LOT of force we're talking about, and if it lets go, it's not going to be pretty.

Even the work done to date on turbine powered cars (you may find this interesting: http://www.allpar.com/mopar/turbine.html ) don't go above 20,000 RPM.

That's only 333 1/3 revolutions per second... nowhere near "thousands".

That was the only point I was trying to make...

Battery Life vs. 100,000 miles of service

[sco08y]

From a page linked to by TFA: Regardless of the claims of battery makers, the technology to build an affordable battery that will last 100,000 miles, with minimal degradation of performance has yet to be demonstrated.

Li-ion batteries, after about a year, hold about half their charge. And this degradation can be accelerated if they're regularly stored in a hot place. And if battery manufacturers have fixed this, we sure as hell haven't seen these wonder batteries in laptops or mp3 players.

Maybe if you can afford a $100K Tesla you wouldn't mind buying a new battery pack every year, but I don't think this would go over well with consumers.

Re:Battery Life vs. 100,000 miles of service

[julesh]

Maybe if you can afford a $100K Tesla you wouldn't mind buying a new battery pack every year, but I don't think this would go over well with consumers.

The last time I did the maths (on a vehicle with lead-acids), the cost of replacement batteries was roughly the same as what you'd save in fuel terms. Battery prices may have dropped since then.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[Lord Kano]

It's my belief that straight ethanol and E85 are the way to go. Ethanol is carbon neutral and E85 is a good compromise in places where it's too cold to burn straignt ethanol as a motor vehicle fuel.

Whether or not one likes or dislikes SUVs, or thinks people should be able to be told what types of vehicles they should or shouldn't be driving, or think subjective judgments can be simplistically made about what other people "need" or don't need, it's still an excellent step forward.

This is quite true. Regardless of who likes it, people are still going to buy and drive SUVs. It's a good thing to make them more fuel efficient.

LK

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[nettdata]

Point taken.

I shouldn't have said the decision has "nothing" to do with maintenance, as it's a part of the big picture.

But forgetting maintenance, it's much more efficient and cost effective to run turbines at altitude. Throwing maintenance factors into the equations and it's still a better ROI to run turbines than pistons.

Especially when you're talking about ETA for the customer.

For short hops (commuters, etc) turbo-props are more cost effective, for long-haul (cross country, intercontinental, etc), turbojet is the way to go.

A number of executive "jets" are now going to turbo prop (Piaggio P180 for instance) due to their cost effectiveness. Not as fast getting you there, but way cheaper. Not having to deal with domestic air carriers is enough of a reward to justify the slightly longer ETA.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[NormalVisual]

I'm not sure you can really compare a turbine engine that's driving a hefty generator through a gearbox to a turbocharger that's directly driving a set of lightweight vanes in air - with the turbine, the load will be *substantially* heavier and you'll have to maintain a comparable rotor speed the entire time the car is running. The gearbox will also have parts moving at a non-trivial speed.

You're absolutely right about aircraft and power plant applications being built to withstand rotor failure, but those are also two applications in which there's not much concern about the additional costs needed to keep everything safe. Planes and power plants also tend to have rigid maintenance schedules, whereas it's a challenge to get most car owners to check their tire pressure regularly. Engineering a turbine system that is safe for a car is not particularly difficult, but making it lightweight, quiet, cheap, and sufficiently maintenance-free may prove to be a challenge.

The two unfortunate problems with electric cars...

[NerveGas]

    Cold, and heat.

    Many places around the US get pretty cold in the winter, which means your battery capacity is halved - or worse. And some places (including some of the cold places) get hot enough in the winter that driving without AC simply isn't an option, which again, reduces your battery capacity.

    Remembering that you really don't want to drain your batteries all the way (50% is a more reasonable day-to-day figure), that means that your 40-mile radius is chopped to 20 miles, then down to 10 miles or less in the winter.

    It really is a sad thing. I thought long and hard about a battery-electric vehicle, but with temps down to -25 F in the winter and over 100 F in the summer, it would spend 7 or 8 months out of the year in my garage, plugged in to a trickle-charger to keep the batteries alive.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[jcr]

And how well are they performing that function?

Some better than others. If you want the specifics, try Google Finance. All the publicly-traded automobile makers make quarterly reports of earnings.

I really think that any car maker (even a new one) should be able to produce a turbine/electric hybrid that lasts forever, is a simple design, and can be mass produced like the Civic.

Well, if you're sure, then raise about $1M from your friends and family, build a prototype, and then see if you can come up with major venture funding to get it off the ground. Good luck to you!

-jcr

Re:Locomotives can be considered a form of hybrid.

[evilviper]

As for hooking multiple locomotives together, there's really no reason that you couldn't do that with direct-drive, it's just a bit easier because of the decoupling of speed/engine RPM and force.

That's not true at all. It's practically impossible, in the real world, to have two engines operating at EXACTLY the same speed over any length of time. You ALWAYS have one slightly ahead, and one slight behind. With the huge forces trains are operating with, that means destroying the wheels and the tracks in no time, and lots of completely wasted energy.

Without electric drive, it would be (damn near) impossible.

Re:Nothing quite like a million cars recharging...

[evilviper]

Until other states adopt similar regulations or California stops importing electricity from coal plants, the effects of California's regulations will remain very small.

And that is slowly happening. There have been added regulations over the years, further limiting that practice. The measure proposed last year to expand the practice was overwhelmingly shot down.

Re:Nothing quite like a million cars recharging...

[Anonymous Coward]

The intellectual level on slashdot certainly has dropped in the last year. Next time, why don't you try to understand the article before posting such drivel?

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[NormalVisual]

I had originally said "a thousand times per second", so I think that might be part of the confusion, and I know for a fact that turbines for use in model aircraft run upwards of 150K RPM at peak with rotor diameters of 5" or so. The page you linked to gives a figure of 45,700 rpm for the second stage of one of the vehicles they discuss, and that implementation was limited by the need to be linked mechanically to the drive train and to be able to be spooled up and down often. I'd think that a more modern version would run the turbine constantly at a faster speed for the efficiency benefits.

Mind you, I'm not a mechanical engineer, nor do I work on turbines, so one shouldn't put much faith in anything I say on the subject - without much direct experience, I'm limited to the accuracy of the stuff I read.

Re:Nothing quite like a million cars recharging...

[Anonymous Coward]

From above:

GM, just start building EV-1's again. Stop with this "always four years away" nonsense. Just get started. You already have a feasible, marketable car. Just start building it and marketing it.

Try this:

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, just start building fission power plants again. Stop with this "always four years away" nonsense. Just get started. You already have a feasible, marketable alternative energy source. Just start building it and marketing it.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[jdray]

Try again (no trailing slash): http://www.starrotor.com/Engine.htm

No worries here!

[SaDan]

I drive 130+ miles a day for work, five days a week. All of my relatives are out of state. This car is PERFECT for me.

What's kinda funny is if the specs don't change and this car is produced as is (yeah, I know, quite a stretch), it really is a perfect set up for my situation: Run the batteries down while on the highway (40 miles), and by the time I've reached the office (the last 25 miles), the engine has just finished (or came close to) topping off the batteries for my trip home.

I would LOVE to see exactly this type of car produced.

There's "feasible", and then there's "feasible"!

[rickshaf]

Chevy's "concept" is ludicrous. It's just more smoke to delay the advent of an electric car. Here's why: There already have been feasible electric cars. I owned and drove one. It was called a "CitiCar". It was manufactured in the mid-70s by a firm known as Sebring-Vanguard. The original model used 6 6-volt batteries driving an 8-HP DC elevator motor. It had only two seats and an area behind them for about 6 bags of groceries. It looked like a pregnant door-stop, but it was safe, reasonably comfortable, and it was charged using ordinary 110V AC electricity. The CitiCar had a range of about 40-miles and a maximum speed of 40-mph, so it wasn't a car you'd take onto a freeway. Later versions could attain 45-50mph, and had about a 50-mile range. It took about 8-hours to fully recharge. The one I had ran fine, except that it used relays to switch power, which meant I was burnishing relay contacts every week or so. Also, the front brakes were (literally!) the same as those on a Cessna-172 airplane, and were simply not up to stopping an automobile. I re-engineered the brakes, but never got the power control system working dependably. So I donated the car to the local HS voc-ed department. (I know. I know. I wimped out!) However, DC power-control systems are now available that could have controlled the motor on this car easily. My point is that we CAN have electric cars right now if we don't demand that we be able to drive them to Vegas and get 50-mpg while doing it. We don't need electric cars that seat 5 defensive linemen and can go 75-mph! Many of us could save a lotta bucks driving a modern version of the CitiCar for commuting to and from work, shopping locally, and general driving around our neighborhoods. We could then either have another, larger car for occasional longer trips, rent such a car for those trips, or own a part of a larger car with a few friends or relatives. So, let's take a look at our definition of the word "feasible", shall we?

Got to agree - distributed systems are better

[MCRocker]

Having lots of people producing power using a variety of means as you suggest and adding what they don't need or can't store to the grid is much better solution than the grand parent's massively centralized system. Every engineer knows that single points of failure are bad and multiple sources are generally good. A distributed system like the parent suggests gives us all more security from all sorts of failure mechanisms from bad weather to terrorism and puts the power, litterally, in the hands of the people rather than a bunch of fat cats with sweet govenment subsidies.

Styling

[Tablizer]

From a styling POV, it is not a tesla,

I think the Volt styling is better than the Tesla. The Tesla looks like a mid-80's import sports car while the Volt chucked the rounded edges of the 90's and has the sharp-edged polygonal look and chunkier nose that is the trend.

Oddly enough...

[HerculesMO]

They haven't gotten gasoline powered cars made properly yet. Now they want to make electric ones?

The only car I liked from GM was the Corvette, and aside from that they are by in large, horrible pieces of trash. I'll stick to Japanese for innovating efficiency, and Germans to innovate suspension design and material construction.

And I'll leave American automakers to copy everybody else 10 years after the Japanese and Germans create the good products.

So I imagine we'll see a 'reasonable' electric car from GM, when the Japanese and Germans give us flying cars.

Who said the focus was ugly?

[bunbuntheminilop]

The old one was quite nice wasn't it?

Radio controlled off-peak

[grahamsz]

There's a system in Scotland where the power company provides a circuit which provides 8 hours a day of much cheaper off-peak electric (typically used for storage heaters). They have a second circuit and meter which are toggled on/off by radio.

The end result is the power company can turn different areas on and off and consume power much more evenly.

Re: Sensible?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least in Helsinki

Ah yes, a non-American commenting on the situation in America without any knowledge of our particular issues trying to blindly impose ideas upon us.

Take your righteous holier-than-thou attitudes elsewhere, dipshit.

Re:Locomotives can be considered a form of hybrid.

[ColaMan]

Without electric drive, it would be (damn near) impossible.

Hardly damn near impossible. Speed is immaterial. It's about torque output of each engine on the track, and that can be balanced relatively easily to a few percent.

Coal trains have been routinely running here for 30 years with 3 locos at the front and two remote-controlled ones in the middle, with about 140 wagons and a net carrying capacity of about 10,000 tons. They're all electric now, but in the dark ages before electrification, they were pure diesel, not diesel-electric.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[ogmundur]

Turbines are not as flexible as piston engines, their startup process is more complex and they cannot be throttled as easily. They prefer working in a relatively narrow rev band where they run at maximum efficiency. In other words, turbines are not very happy at giving relatively short bursts of power, typically required by a car in stop-start driving.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[fyngyrz]

You live in an unusual setting, then, and shouldn't be speaking for those of us

Where did you get the impression I was trying to speak for you? I'm unaware of any such agenda. I was speaking for me, as far as I know, with regard to what I like and can take advantage of. Please elaborate.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[DRACO-]

Turbines are out due to their maintenece requirements. The things spin up at high rates of speed. Jet turbines are under service all the time. The blades on jets are titanium, the ring surrounding the turbine is designed to take a hit from a lost turbine blade in order to protect passengers and possibly keep a lost blade from becoming evil crashing object above. The same blades are tested repeatily to take a hit from random airborne objects, duck flambe anyone?

Who would want Joe User driving a vehicle with a turbine engine in it that could suck up a rock and explode with such force taking out the cars around him just because he didnt keep the grill on. Or say Joe User neglects to service his bearings properly and the entire rotating system decides to sieze and break away rocketing forward or exploding while fuel is still being dumped into the firing chamber.

A 5.3L V8??

[Viol8]

Well , with a large V8 engine they've *obviously* got fuel economy at the top of the list with this vehicle. /sarcasm.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[Anonymous Coward]

"Large piston-engine planes like the B36 bomber had passages so that the crew could access the engines in flight. Why? because they needed vastly more maintenance than jet engines, so much so that were expected to routinely break down in flight."

The B-36 was pretty much the only one in the late 1940s. A few had this before. The issue was more the reliability of engines in that time period in combat than anything else. Most large piston engined bombers of the 1940s did NOT have crew accessible engines.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[somersault]

What about those Y2K superbike things that run on a small turbine? http://www.bikez.com/bike/index.php?bike=20021

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[tacocat]

But Locomotive and Dump Trucks use diesel engines which is a far cry better than using a gasoline engine for this type of application. Given the higher efficiency of biodiesel over ethanol and the fact that diesels excel at continuous RPM, it's a natural choice to build diesel electric cars.

NOTE: Before you piss all over my biodiesel to ethanol remark please research the end-to-end effeciency. It takes a LOT more energy to make a gallon of ethanol than it does biodiesel.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[Anonymous Coward]

From my understanding, turbines can manage up to around 60% efficiency, only a little better than a much cheaper DIesel can manage. Surely the best power unit for trucks and cars is a hybrid Diesel/electric one?

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[Calinous]

One of the last commercial passenger aircrafts using 4 piston engines and propellers had its engines so perfectly reliable it was known as "the most reliable three engined aircraft ever"

Re:Locomotives can be considered a form of hybrid.

[Calinous]

You are so wrong with that - as long as both locomotives pull in the same direction, one of them will pull harder. That's no problem at all - the speed of the train is based on what the two locomotives can pull the entire train, not on what each locomotive could do with half the train.
      Have you ever pulled a cart with someone else weaker (or stronger) than you? Have you seen tandem bicycles? When there is just one rider, the chain should snap because one rider will pull forward, but the lack of the other will force zero speed?

because the EV-1 sucked.

[Shivetya]

it had horrid mileage,wasn't cheap, and carried 2 people.

It had to die. It was more of an attempt to prove what could be done, what people wanted, and how the technology would hold up.

Most people don't have the luxury of having a "commuter car". Most of those who do that I know are people others here would sneer at. They have the money to toss on the commuter car while at the same time keeping their SUVs and such at home.

EV-1 was made into something it wasn't by a film relying on the publics lack of knowledge of the area being represented. IOW - it relied on ignorance to make GM out to be evil, after all its far easier to do that then present a true discussion on the issue. For some reason there are way too many people out there who believe any action by a corp they don't like is for nefarious reasons. This line of thinking runs rampant on many tech based discussion sites for some reason.

Re:because the EV-1 sucked.

[Scudsucker]

it had horrid mileage,wasn't cheap, and carried 2 people. It had to die.

The parent already covered this - if it's not the right car for you, don't buy it. Should BMW close operations because they aren't cheap like Hyundai?

Most people don't have the luxury of having a "commuter car".

"Most people" would have liked not having to pay three bucks a gallon for gas for a couple years.

First Step..

[sadr]

This is the first step in GM's plan to revolutionize the automobile.

They've been working on a "platform" (literally) that uses electric drive and everything else just stacks on top of it. There was some discussion of even have replacable bodies.

They had been planning on using fuel cells to provide the power, but apparently have decided that a traditional IC (and hopefully diesel option) running a generator is a useful stop-gap.

There were several articles, including some in Wired IIRC, about 4 or 5 years ago predicting this new platform would be available in about 10 years. Looks like they're more or less on schedule.

Buy anything from GM, shame on you

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that GM hasn't been able to produce a worthwhile internal combustion car since the 50's, how likely are they to make a workable electric? I know I wouldn't buy any American made car it's first year out (or, based on the last decade or so of experience, any GM product under any circumstances.)

Ford reportedly licensed Toyota technology for their hybrids, giving some hope the drivetrain wouldn't self destruct the first month. Whatever Ford's reputation for engineering, GM's is worse: a Japanese motor is small consolation when the doors and wheels fall off and the suspension causes back injuries.

Old news...

[CrazyTalk]

I was just at a vintage car museum over the weekend - saw an electric car from 1909! GM is behind the times, all right. Whats next, the new Stanley Steamer? (Come to think of it, that may not be such a bad idea....)

Traction

[scharkalvin]

As a model railroad buff I rather like the idea of the Volt's hybrid model.
Its the same as a modern diesel locomotive, with the engine driving an electric generator
which in turn drives electric traction motors. Only they haven't taken the concept all
the way, by putting an electric motor at each wheel like the trains do. This would give
all wheel drive, and electric computer controlled positraction.

Gross exaggeration

[amightywind]

I'm trying to figure out if you are trying to brag with the efficiency of your SUV or if you are proud that you are wasting resources.

I am pointing out that the parent was grossly exaggerating the low mileage of SUV's. What's the waste? My SUV gets me where I'm going safely and comfortably. Gas prices are plummeting. $2.06/gal this morning. When auto manufactures sell a viable hybrid alternative, I will buy it.

Re:Gross exaggeration

[Corporate Troll]

Comfortably, sure... (But my car is comfortable too!) Safely... Let's say, that I'm safer in my roadster than you are in your SUV. Educate yourself

At over 4€/gallon, you'd be talking differently.... that's what I pay and I live in one of the "cheaper" countries of the EU. You are wasting resources, just like I am. We both use much more gas that we need to. You're just a worse offender than I am. My wifes Mini is both comfortable, safe and does 50mpg. Apart from that your SUV took much more energy to produce than my mine....

The only reason that I didn't sell my car and bought a more energy efficient one is simple: it's paid off, and the only thing I need to pay now is insurance, tax, gas and maintenance. I would have to pay all those on a brand-new energy-efficient car too and add in money to get a new one. You may have the same reasons, and I will not be criticising you for it. I just wanted to point out that 19mpg most certainly is a bad mileage. Just as my 25mpg is a very bad mileage. Especially for new cars. Heck, I used to have a 14 year old Audi 80, that did 33.5mpg (gasoline, not diesel in case you wonder) and that was 7 years ago! These days a new car should at least do 35mpg: anything lower is unacceptable.

Re:Gross exaggeration

[ryanov]

No, he is not grossly exaggerating. Anything under 20 today is an embarrassment. Your SUV gets you places safely and comfortably? So what? So does my car, so does the bus... what is your point?

Re:Gross exaggeration

[amightywind]

Apart from that your SUV took much more energy to produce than my mine....

Don't be so sure. I drive an Isuzu. Those Japanese can be darn efficient.

The only reason that I didn't sell my car and bought a more energy efficient one is simple

I am in the same situation with my car. We call it 'driving it into the ground', though I try to take good care of it. Next time around I will try to get a hybrid. One wonders what kinds of things go wrong when you have a car without a direct drive train.

Re:Gross exaggeration

[amightywind]

what is your point?

That I don't give a crap about gas mileage because gas is cheap.

Re:Gross exaggeration

[ryanov]

And you are a selfish piece of shit that doesn't care what you put into the air?

Re:Gross exaggeration

[amightywind]

Like you I put CO2 and some CH4 into the air. It is a by product of a thing called life. For eco-crazies such as your self are so uptight about CO2 emissions I invite you to hold your breath.

P.S. I am enjoying the mild winter that my CO2 emissions have created.

Re:Gross exaggeration

[Eivind]

The waste is in using 3 tons of metal and 5 gallons of petrol for a job that could just as well be done by 1 ton of metal and 2 gallons of petrol.

Part of the cost of this waste is carried not by you, but by those people inconvenienced or harmed as a result of your added pollution. (which means all of us, basically)

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[somersault]

"I would also expect that the power produced, would be far more than humans could bear, doing zero to sixty"

We can already do that in a couple of seconds in powerful cars, and I expect that's to do more with what the tyres can take rather than what the driver can..

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[monsted]

The Y2K superbike melts the asphalt behind it if it stands still too long and makes a lot of noise. I doubt that'd be acceptable in the Prius v2.0.

Forty miles per charge is rubbish

[Sciros]

Forty miles? You've gotta be friggin kidding me. So, if run continuously it will go for a while, but if you drive around like a normal person then 20 miles becomes a point-of-no-return? Yeah, I rather buy a car that gets 8 miles per gallon because then I might actually drive it sometimes.

Granted on average people tend to drive less than 40 miles per day, but unless you charge your car daily that is a completely moot point. Even that silly electric Saturn that GM made a while back had a range of 80 miles. And that failed miserably like it was supposed to.

Re:Forty miles per charge is rubbish

[Cro Magnon]

Agreed! I live 15 miles from work, so I could just make it there and back. Unless I had to make an additional trip on my way home from work. And I live 25 miles from my GF, so even just going there and back would be impossible without a charge. Not to mention going on vacation.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[somersault]

Well the car will be a bit longer and wider so they can maybe engineer some better sound/heat isolation, and reclaim the heat back through a small steam turbine or somesuch.

Failing that, they could just call it the Frius.

Increased false drug raids?

[Anonymous Coward]

What I want to know is this: How much power does the thing suck down?

One of the main ways that the fed track down marijuana here in the US is by looking at electricity consumption. What happens when people start charging their cars and sucking down lots of power? How about the brown outs that many cities had last summer? Is an electric car really a good thing?

Re:Nothing quite like a million cars recharging...

[erko]

How about some real numbers?

This will guarantee year-round brownouts, blackouts, and other power problems.

The Department of Energy disagrees with you:

http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=204

"If all the cars and light trucks in the nation switched from oil to electrons, idle capacity in the existing electric power system could generate most of the electricity consumed by plug-in hybrid electric vehicles."

"off-peak electricity production and transmission capacity could fuel 84 percent of these 198 million vehicles if they were plug-in hybrid electrics."

Re:The two unfortunate problems with electric cars

[julesh]

Remembering that you really don't want to drain your batteries all the way (50% is a more reasonable day-to-day figure), that means that your 40-mile radius is chopped to 20 miles

I'd assume that the quoted 40 mile range is down to 50% charge (or whatever the recommended regular-use duty cycle for their battery technology is; with some battery types the figure is more like 70 or 80%).

Re:Nothing quite like a million cars recharging...

[noidentity]

Even though the cars would mostly be charged at night time when there is "excess" electricity available?

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[tylernt]

Where are the turbine/electric hybrids? Why are we still dealing with pistons?

Here, let me fix that for you:

Where are the diesel/electric hybrids? Why are we still dealing with gasoline?

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[jjthegreat]

They are very lightweight, and therefore will have little inertia. Turbochargers spin between 60,000rpm and 100,000RPM and have a strong, long, proven track record (102 years) and the only time they become unreliable is when there is a lack of lubrication, usually from piss-poor maintenance (e.g., an owner gets an oil change once every 100,000 miles whether it's needed or not), or from running the car at FULL boost, then immediately shutting down (e.g., your average teenager pulling into a mall parking lot), without letting it idle down and cool off.

Not to nitpick, but the idle down procedure has long since been a thing of the past. Upto the early-mid 90's, auto based turbochargers were chiefly oil cooled. After having a blazing run, then immediately stopping the engine, the turbo will continue to spin down, but also has 0 oil pressure. Dont care what anyone says, but if you still have something spinning at X thousand RPM with no oil pressure, bearings will eventually give way. But more importantly, with a really hot turboshaft bathed in oil, it will eventually start to cook right onto it. This is called "coking". A thin layer of rock hard sludge that messes with tightly defined bearing specs will cause it to prematurly wear. That being said, modern day turbocharged cars are oil and water cooled. The turbocharges don't get as hot as they used to plus with modern day oil tech, the oil doesnt coke onto the turboshaft. But I suppose with a burger flipping "average teenager" in this example, they most likely are driving around an old turbo sweedish car which does make the parent indeed correct.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[ryanov]

10 short blocks? Can you still SEE your feet? Especially if not, I'd consider using them to WALK to these places.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[fifedrum]

I don't think that's a major roadblock, they'll adapt or die like anything else. Anecdotally, the mechanics I know tend to be geeky when it comes to new car technology, and take any changes in stride (after a few months of bitching about it first)

new models are certified for repair at the dealerships first, then repair shops outside the dealerships start to get people certified or more familiar with the product, and in a few years, as consumers are reeally starting to put serious numbers of these on the road, the average joe repairshop can rebuild a microturbine as easily as a VW engine

stop lying about batteries

[savuporo]

I wish for once they'd stop lying and come clean. The batteries are there. Tesla uses them, heck, even indian REVA uses them in a full electric car. There are also a bunch of new generation safe li-ion batteries with high charge and discharge rates available and in mass production in some cases. A123 ships in volume in Black and Decker power tools, Valence has some market penetration, Altair Nano just shipped their first automotive-size batteries. There are also countless hobby lithium-ion conversion EVs on the roads, and lithium-ion plug-in conversion kits available for Prius. If batteries were good enough to run 100 miles ten years ago in an EV1, they are definitely good enough to run 40 miles now. So stop the FUD and bring this tech to market.You may wish to tell this to GM Vice Chairman Robert Lutz himself on his blog at http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/ Also, if you want it, go vote for it on GM page > http://www.gm.com/company/gm_exp_live/events/naias _2007/index_flash.html?navID=3.0.1.1

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[DavidTC]

I was assuming there'd be some sort of faceplate with a lock on it to keep that from happening.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[Anonymous Coward]

Some day, surely, the world's supply of oil will run out. If you are building a car for environmental purposes, why bother simply incresing the efficiency of a fossil fuel powered car, as in the long run, you will release the same amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (just over a longer period of time). IMHO, all the time and resources put into the research of more fuel efficient engines is just a waste. We need to move onto different fuels, not engines, and save what we have remaining for plastics etc. (whether our oil is predicted to run out in 20 or 20,000 years).

So...we're using essentailly 100 yro technology?

[jzarling]

This car is basically a diesel-electric. This technology was pioneered 103-ish years ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel-electric.

I do hope that GM has a better 3 cylinder engine that the one used in early model Geo Metros.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[sphealey]

> Don't get me wrong, turbines are WAY better from a technical perspective,

Actually, when you are talking about light aircraft that do a lot of up-down, stop-start at low altitudes, piston engines are vastly more fuel efficient than turbines (one of the reasons you still see DC-3s flying in remote areas). Sort of like another vehicle type we are discussing here...

sPh

PR Crap at Work

[Nom du Keyboard]

but it is also not a focus or a pinto.

Since it's a Chevy Volt, they should be saying it's not a Vega, instead of throwing stones against rivals. I really hate Marketing people's spin.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[Citizen of Earth]

Diesel locomotives have been "hybrids" for decades. So has "super-sized" construction equipment, like those gigantic dump trucks. They all use piston engines. If turbines were practical in a vehicle, they'd already be in use.

I remember watching a Discovery-channel segment about a model of locomotive that uses a gas-turbine engine to power its electric generator. This probably wouldn't be practical in a dirty environment like a mining pit, though.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[DavidTC]

I'm all for that in the long run, although I think swapping out batteries at service stations might work better than induction charging. Although we should certainly should have some sort of plug-in standard for parking charging. And note everyone but your own house are going to want to bill for it, although I'm wondering if it might be offered as a employee benefit, and if companies will start 'validating for charging' for their visitors.

On the plus side, maybe some places will get parking that sorely need it, because parking lot owners will be making extra money off charging.

Anyway, my point about an insertable generator was for now. The idea being that, in ten years, no one would use those generators, and they would be operated fully-electric.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[smellsofbikes]

>even most turbines on jet aircraft are built to contain their massive, extremely high-speed turbines,

I'm not sure I believe this.
Here's a 2004 NTSB report on a helicopter crash where the entire turbine wheel shot out of the helicopter after breaking.
Here are reports of four uncontained turbine failures on Delta aircraft in the last 10 years, using recent aircraft.
John Deakin who has 36,000 hours flying 747's, says that often a turbine can operate for hundreds of hours after throwing a blade, so it's not like it's always a catastrophe, but a cursory survey of google and the NTSB literature indicates that there's no way failures of the turbine section are always, or even usually, contained.

By the way, everything other than fighter jets already mixes the turbine exhaust with ambient air: they're called high-bypass engines, and they're essentially ducted turboprop engines.

Re:Nothing quite like a million cars recharging...

[powerlord]

Let me add this, too...

I live in Los Angeles. In an apartment. Easily 2/3 or more people I associate with (friends and work) live in apartments or condos too. I lived in San Francisco for a while, and most people I knew lived in apartments/condos there too. Spent some time on the East Coast and New York and Boston are the same situation, if not much much worse.*

Why do I bring this up? People in apartments usually DON'T HAVE GARAGES. Some may have underground parking or a nearby outdoor lot** but in cities, a sizeable majority have to park on the street. If these cars are meant for city-dwellers this is going to be a major problem to overcome. At the very least there will have to be a LOT of charging stations, as it's obviously not feasible for much of urban America to run an extension cord out their window to charge their car..

* Should be noted that many who do own houses live a very long distance away, at least in LA, so much so that I would think they would not trust the electric car's range unless it was a hybrid or had a backup motor.

** And it should be added for those who live in a building with parking, it will not be an easy matter to install. Obviously the property owners aren't going to just put some plugs in the garage without a way to charge the car owner for the power they use.

First off, get an account, your comments are at least interesting food for though (wether you agree or not) and certainly raise the bar for most Anonymous Cowards.

Now, I live in New York, so I'll agree that the vast majority of people who live here live in Rental Apartments without garages, so hybrids are better choices (unless there are "quick charge stations" we can "refill" at).

There is something else to consider though, most of those in the apartments don't have cars, and if they do, its usually only one for the family, and used on weekends or holidays to go out of town. Yes, some people do a "reverse commute" (live in the city and commute to the outer boroughs or New Jersey/Connecticut), but the majority of people who live in New York use mass transit to commute to work (subways and busses). By the same token, a lot of those who commute TO the city from the suburbs (New Jersey, Connecticut, Long Island, the outer Boroughs of New York City) either take mass transit, or else drive in. I believe most of those who drive in usually have a garage (obviously not all of them, but a significant percentage).

As long as a purely electric car has enough range, it should be an ideal choice. In some ways it might be obviously better than a traditional gas car, since I imagine it would use less energy sitting, or moving slowly in traffic. So, while "pure" electric cars might not be the best choice for some those in the city itself, they still would be very beneficial to those who commute into the city every day/regularly, and those in the city (at least in New York), are already using Mass Transit for the most part, so the car wouldn't appeal to them directly either.

Another yes, but...

[sean.peters]

... what does come out of general revenue is the enormous military expense required to ensure that the supply of oil continues to flow from the Middle East without obstruction. If we weren't so dependent on fossil fuels, we could leave that part of the world to settle its own problems, and our military could be significantly smaller.

Maybe it's not so unreasonable to ask motorists to pony up to fund some of these gigantic defense expenditures.

Sean

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[smellsofbikes]

Turbines aren't more efficient.
Read about best specific fuel consumption. Even at full power, where turbines do best, even the best turbines are only at about what reasonable gasoline engines do all the time, while purpose-built reciprocating engines can do nearly twice as well.

Add to that, that at 20% of full rated power a recip is using about 30% of the fuel it would at full rated power, whereas a turbine is using about 75% of the fuel it would at full rated power, and you come up with some good reasons to use reciprocating engines.

There are combined-cycle turbine engines that do *very* well, but those are different beasts from what we're discussing here, I think.

Would be nice to live closer, but...

[mutterc]

...like most these days, I'm a throwaway employee.

From what I've read, the way to make the biggest positive environmental impact, for most people, is to live close to work (ideally walking/biking distance). As somewhat of an eco-freak, that would be nice, but jobs just don't last long enough these days to plan where you live around.

Right now I live in northeast Raleigh, NC. My day job is a stone's throw from RDU Airport, in Morrisville (a bit to the west of Raleigh, 20-odd miles from my house). If I moved to downtown Morisville, I'd save a ton of money in commuting (even with a Prius).

What happens, though, when this job finally gets around to transitioning to India? I might end up in RTP (close to Morrisville), Durham (10 miles or so from there), Wake Forest (5 miles from my current house, 30 or so from the airport), who knows? (Of course, I might have to move to a new city, and as such move anyway, but that's a different problem).

Re:you are working for GM!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.greenhybrid.com/compare/mileage/ only for "conspiracy theorists". LOL you made me laugh daveschroeder (516195) !!!

I get about 45 mpg

[Anonymous Coward]

My 1989 Kawasaki Vulcan 1500 cc bike gets about 45 mpg (4 cylinder engine).

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[ncc74656]

I'm not sure what you mean by "You can't put an effective muffler on a turbine engine." The turbine Chryslers back in the 60s had a waste-heat collection system on them that effectively muffled the turbine. In fact, the complaint from the testers was actually that they sounded like a vacuum cleaner.

They also suffered from sluggish acceleration, mostly as a result of driving the wheels directly from the engine. A turbine running at constant speed, powering an alternator which then powers one or more traction motors, wouldn't have that problem.

ISTR reading about a prototype or concept from Volvo several years ago (probably ten or more years ago, at this point) that had an alternator running at the same insanely high speed (tens of thousands of RPM) as a gas-turbine engine, so that a reduction gearbox (with its attendant losses) wasn't needed. I suspect the high cost of the materials needed to keep it from flying apart and becoming so much shrapnel kept it from going to production.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[UbuntuDupe]

You can't put an effective muffler on a turbine engine. Most drivers would be unwilling to wear hearing protection to drive to their local Safeway. Plus, the vehicle would violate many city's noise ordinances.

Apparently, you haven't been stopped at a light near some thug playing his gangsta tunes as loud and as deep as he possibly can.

Whatever ordinances you're talking about, they're not enforced.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[Drakino]

"...not to mention that every mechanic in the country would have to learn how to work on a fundamentally different type of power plant."

I don't see this as any different then the change from carburetors to fuel injection, manual to automatic transmissions, or many of the other changes cars have seen over the years.

And oddly to do the reverse example, how is this different then IT workers having to learn new operating systems? Jobs change over time, mechanics are in the same boat here.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[Mr Z]

Which is all the more reason you're bellying up to buy a WhirrMaster-10000 to go screaming down the road in?

Just because someone else is being a dick cranking their music doesn't automatically make turbine whine attractive in an automobile, let alone salable. Lack of enforcement or under-enforcement of noise ordinances doesn't make me want to damage my own hearing within the (dis)comfort of my own car, and I imagine most people feel the same.

--Joe

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[UbuntuDupe]

That's my point -- the gangsta thug quite clearly does not care about his hearing. Last Friday I was stopped at a light with my windows down and this thug's music was so loud that, even with my windows down, it was *still* unbearably loud. I'm sure these same people wouldn't mind too terribly the noise such an engine would make, the concerns of others be damned.

Next time I'm in that situation, I swear, I will stand right in front of his car until he grows up.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[jeff4747]

Given the higher efficiency of biodiesel over ethanol and the fact that diesels excel at continuous RPM, it's a natural choice to build diesel electric cars.

I completely agree. A diesel, bio- or otherwise, would be a better piston engine. AFAIK, we're getting gasoline-electric hybrids because diesel is not as widely available to your typical suburban driver (Lots of US suburban gas stations don't have diesel at all).

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[jeff4747]

Two points:

1. Not all cities even have noise ordinances. Even if a city does, the police might be busy with more "important" issues.

2. A turbine engine is many times louder than that thug's radio (unless that thug has reaaaaaaly tricked-out his stereo). Try hopping out of your car near your local airport.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[jeff4747]

All of the turbine-powered vehicles I'm aware of (such as the Y2K superbike or the prototypes done by many car makers) made too much noise. While the prototype cars could dampen the noise you hear inside the vehicle (like a passenger jet), they were too noisy outside the vehicle.

If Jay Leno rides his Y2K around Malibu, he could get a ticket for the noise if a cop was so inclined.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[Anonymous Coward]

In Pasadena, CA (USA) there is at least one "E-Bus" which is used
regularly on urban routes. It has a turbine/electric drive from
Capstone Turbines. Whistles a bit while idling at a light, but
unlike a diesel, the exhaust note doesn't change noticeably when
it takes off. Of course it's a largish shuttle bus rather than an
over the road truck, but I still find it interesting.

Re:Nothing quite like a million cars recharging...

[Kreigaffe]

Hi, I was responding to the parent. Not the article.

""Rest assured, California is not the only state with barely enough power-generation capacity..." ...at maximum load, which occurs during the day during business hours. Which is not the dead of night and way off-peak when most of these cars would be charging. Several companines have discussed timers and/or remote control switches such that the power company could "schedule" your recharge such that your car isn't on the grid at the same time with everyone else's."

That part.

I realize it's got a gas engine. Why have the plug in the first place if I'm not going to be able to use it? And what about entirely electric cars, which seem to be some sort of wet dream around here (and which seems, for the reasons I stated, to be about as realistic a dream as Communism).

an aside, I love the "offtopic" moderation. Yes, because saying something about wall-charging electric cars and the drawbacks is offtopic when we're talking about wall-charging electric HYBRID cars (but of course comments such as "OMG WHY NOT TAKE OUT DAH ENJUN AND PUT IN MOER BATTARIEZ??!1 are on-topic and insightful).

Gotta love Slashdot!

Re:Nothing quite like a million cars recharging...

[dal20402]

We've been having a lot of weird moderation lately. People have been moderating posts they disagree with "redundant" a lot. (Watch this get moderated "redundant.") I suppose the solution is to metamod as much as possible.

Any complex problem will require a multi-part solution. I think something like the Volt is very promising, even if you can't plug it in all the time, because of its flexibility. Most days, most of the time, it would be plugged in overnight and sometime during the night you'd get a full recharge. On most days, when you go to work and come home and don't do anything else, you won't use any gas. During those periods it's giving all the benefits of a pure electric car.

But you don't have to put up with the drawbacks, because on those days when you have to drive further, or when you haven't had time or "grid clearance" to recharge, you've got the hybrid capability. If everyone were driving a Volt-like machine (or even a bigger SUV variant of one) the energy savings compared with today would be staggering, even if each Volt were not optimally used every day.

Beyond the environmental implications, electric powertrains are very satisfying in stop-and-go traffic. They're quick, quiet and ultra-smooth. I think if you gave 100,000 LA commuters vehicles that could operate in electric mode in stop-and-go, we might see real movement toward a Volt-like solution.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[skogs]

You, my misguided attacker, have been foxed. You got lucky this time by fleecing several other people in the area, but you are blowing smoke, don't know what you are talking about, and used your stupidity to attack me.

12+ years USA Air Force....engine mechanic....on F-16s, F-15s...and for a short time C-17s.

Yes, some jets can be significantly more complicated, but some can also be far more simple. Did you know that you can technically make a turbine engine with only ONE moving part? Keep that lubed and you are good to go.

Engine maintenance on piston engines is measured by hundreds of hours. Turbine maintenance is measured by thousands of hours.

The original reason for switching military aircraft over to jets was simple - speed - but an unexpected benefit was that it hardly showed signs of wear even when run full out for weeks on end. Try running your Ford POS at 7000rpm for a day straight.

Civilian aircraft switched to turbines for maintenance costs.

Even current 'turboprop' aircraft....those propellers are driven by a small turbine, not a piston engine.

Your mechanic friend sounds so stupid I wouldn't let him change my tires.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[skogs]

And explain to me again why it is that most private / pleasure aircraft are powered by piston engines? Oh yeah... they're much more complex and actually DO require more maintenance. And are much more expensive. Oh yes...because prop planes are cheaper.

If you have a turbine powered aircraft, suddenly you can reach 30,000 feet or more rather than topping out around 17-22,000.

Most people pass out when they don't have any oxygen...so you then need to supply a sealed, pressurized cabin. That requires significantly higher tolerances - think about it...air tight...or somebody dies and you get sued.

Turbines will push you faster, so pilots need to be trained to handle a different type of beast. They need to land a significanly hotter aircraft, and they need a longer runway to do it. Most private pilots don't want all that headache...and they surely cannot afford it.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[MightyYar]

I LOVE Jay's bike. I think that there are several reasons why these turbines are so loud. First, they are waaaay over-powered. Jay's bike, for instance, uses a surplus helicopter engine! Second, the guys that are sticking jets into their vehicles want the vehicle to sound like a jet... it wouldn't be that cool if your jet-powered Beetle sounded like a vacuum cleaner! Finally, most of these projects are not gearing the turbine to the wheels - they rely on the thrust from the jet. Obviously, this limits your silencing options quite a bit... they want it to belch fire, after all.

Any turbine used in a car to generate electricity would be much, much smaller than even the turbine that was used in the Chrysler gas-turbine car in the 60's, and could presumably be silenced effectively. In fact, I think that Volvo demonstrated a gas-electric hybrid with a very quiet running turbine several years ago.

There are plenty of reasons that turbines aren't in our cars - efficiency, heat, expense, maintenance... but I don't think that noise is such a difficult issue.

Of course, I have absolutely no hands-on experience with turbines, so I could just be talking out my ass :)

Re:Locomotives can be considered a form of hybrid.

[Firethorn]

As others pointed out, there's actually a natural tendency for them to match up, even if one is pushing slightly harder or softer than the other. The one pulling harder experiences a little more drag, the one pulling softer experiences a little less. Both are effectivly pulling the same load, so the load moves with the average pull.

What electric would let you do is again, decouple the wheels and the engine so you can run the engine in it's optimal range.

Idiotic rational - Maybe not

[Firethorn]

As Colaman said, you can't ignore customer preference in a free society. Heck, the way we wrote the regulations so tight for cars helped push consumers to SUVs and light trucks. You have to face it, there's generally a reason for somebody to pay an extra $10k for an SUV, and it's not always 'compensating'.

It's a fact of life that there are many SUV's out there. They're used for towing and heavy hauling even less than trucks are, they're filling the 'Van/Heavy passanger car' role. Great for the familiy that needs more cargo space than the average econo-box provides.

How's this for opportunity cost: Because the 40 mpg car doesn't meet all my requirements a sufficient amount of the time, I'd still have to buy a larger vehicle for those weekly trips where the vehicle is stuffed full.

Situation 1: $12k econobox for commuting plus $30k 'beast' that gets half the gas milage. Call it 40/20.
Situation 2: I straight out buy the $30k beast and use it for commuting, even though I end up not using it's full potential 80% of the time.

I'll figure out Sit 2 first because it's easier. Let's call the commute 20 miles. Round trip in the beast will use 2 gallons of gasoline and cost ~$5 of gas. 50 weeks of 5 days is $1250 of gasoline.

Hmm... The econobox is only going to save me $625 in gasoline a year. It'd take 20 years to pay for the econobox with gasoline savings, not couting any capital costs* or interest, extra insurance(probably be more than $600/year alone), taxes, etc...

Now, econoboxes do make sense for many people as a second vehicle in a dual income family or families without children, as well as many singles or retired folks.

*IE the money I'd have made if I instead took the money and put it into interest bearing investments.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[drewzhrodague]

Well, if you're sure, then raise about $1M from your friends and family, build a prototype, and then see if you can come up with major venture funding to get it off the ground. Good luck to you!

Thanks for the advice, but I think that like most of us, if my family and friends gave me all of their money, I may have enough to be able to buy a used bicycle, but not enough to buy parts and tools for even an electric bicycle.

Believe me, I really did try to make a few million durring the dotcom days. Of course, now my resume looks like a list of examples of major downsizing, and dot-bombs. I do have a whole bunch of experience, though, which I kinda wish would help me to get even a low-end job. Instead, I'll have to pull a Dave Thomas out of my ass. Luckilly, there's still time.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[permawired]

Yes but the question becomes... is that more efficient even after the extra losses from energy conversion (mechanical to electrical and back again)?? And you have to look at the increased complexity of the entire system and the added maintenance for it. All to often when you boil all the numbers down you wind up with a rather close match. Not to say that research should stop, and people shouldn't try new things... just that all angles must be looked at to see how truly viable something like this would be.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[skogs]

Again....95% of what is marketed as 'turbo-prop' is really a turbine engine that gears down and turns an outboard propeller. Allows slower airspeed and landings, with reliability that is close to clean turbine.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone considered one reason GM killed the electric car and other _major_ automobile companies haven't developed one is that -- they could potentially last 10-20yrs. Sure battery packs might have to be replaced every 5-10yrs, but that could be done easily. The electrical components in the cars could be repaired easily by any skilled IT technician. The autos would start to resemble computers where modules could be readily swapped in or out. This is the greatest danger to the auto guys -- commoditization of the industry.

If cars truly lasted 10-20yrs, many buyers would stop buying new cars every 4-5yrs -- the car companies would loose mucho dineros.

IMHO, this is THE main reason we're not seeing true electric cars, but hybrids instead (more moving parts, more wear on the combustion engine).

PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE is very much a part of auto industry culture. Who wants to bet that the plugin-hybrid will never see the light of day at GM without serious limits on range and/or long term reliability of the chosen battery technology? The ICE part of the hybrid will be designed to fail in 5-7yrs.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[nettdata]

Uhmmm... yes, that's right... wasn't trying to say otherwise.

As far as I know, ALL turbo-props are exactly that. It's still a turbine, but it uses props instead of jet thrust, and is much more efficient.

You just can't go as fast with a prop as you can with a jet.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[nettdata]

The point I was trying to make is that a turbo-prop is more effective than a turbo-jet when it comes to fuel efficiency, etc.

You get more distance per lbs of fuel with a turbo-prop than a turbo-jet, you are just limited to how fast it can go.

If you want to go fast, turbo-jets are the way to go. You get there faster, but it costs more fuel.

Shorter hops (domestic/regional flights) that use turbo-prop won't really care if you're only going 70% (number pulled out of my ass, BTW) as fast as a turbo-jet, as it's only a 5-10 minute difference. But stretch that out over a few thousand miles (cross-country, transatlantic, etc), and that 30% can represent hours of "extra" time added onto a flight, which would piss off the passengers.

Opinion on Chevy Volt

[Editorgirl35]

John Dodge at Design News takes issue with one of his edtiors on the whole notion of the electric, gas-powered car. He seems pretty enthused about Chevy's Volt Electric Concept Car. He has a pretty interesting opinion. Check it out at: http://www.designnews.com/index.asp?layout=blogPre view&blog_id=130000213&blog_post_id=820006282

Who Killed the Electric Car? GM, for one.

[RaNdOm OuTpUt]

What makes anyone think they won't crush this batch of cars?

Re:Nothing quite like a million cars recharging...

[sonofagunn]

If the battery packs can have a standardized size and interface, I can see refilling stations popping up that just do a quick swap of your battery pack for a fully charged one.

Of course, since battery packs degrade with age, there would have to be a way to measure this to make sure you're not paying full price for a fully charged battery pack that is only holding 50% of the energy you're paying for.

This would also work out nice because the refilling stations would be the ones paying the cost for new battery packs when old ones wear out, and the price could be amortized over the lifetime of the batteries instead of a painful one-time charge to a consumer replacing a battery pack after 5-10 years.

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[Chandon Seldon]

Isn't that a perfect application for one of these computer-controlled continuously variable transmissions?

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[caffeineboy]

The other issue, as far as I can tell, is the bad rap that diesel engines have because of their dirty ancestors.

Even the current generation of ultra low sulfur diesel with particulate traps there is still the issue of particulate and NOx emissions to be dealt with; they're dirtier than gas engines even when done 100% correctly with best available technology. Now, whether NOx is actually a problem in a lot of areas remains to be proven; smog formation is VOC limited in a lot of areas, so a little more NOx doesn't make a difference in the long run.

I think that poor economy and engine durability is another killer when it comes to gas turbine engines in a car. While regeneration can increase efficiency, at the scale of automotive engines there are a LOT of losses.

There were actually some turbine powered serial hybrid diesel electric locomotives built back in the 1970s, but you're right; if a gas turbine was the best engine, it would be in widespread use...

Re:The thing to watch:hybrid full size truck platf

[lloydsmart]

Good point!

Window Dressing

[hachete]

Nothing more. Marketing to make themselves appear green, after all where's the problem?

This goes for Ford too, although bankruptcy looms as they sink into complacency.

Re:Nothing quite like a million cars recharging...

[bergeron76]

Actually, the cars will charge when usage is low. Most people will charge their cars overnight while they sleep. It will consume more power, but there likely won't be any "surges" that cause blackouts.

Re:Nothing quite like a million cars recharging...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me give you a parallel story.

I live in a city having the weather characteristics of a desert. Water is a real problem. So, we have two alternatives... everyone buys a rainwater tank or two [leading to significant cost/wastage and unsightliness] or the government gets off its ass and builds a generic infrastructure for rainwater catchment and water distribution that benefits everyone and reduces the pressure significantly. As the parent moder said, this requires a plan.

Now let's discuss the power grid in California. We can leave it as it is, or upgrade it. The good thing about the power grid is that it can receive electricity from just about any source (including a solar updraft tower - if/when they build one). Which means that you can clean up the back-end and make all 'electric' cars greener.

Now if we can only do something about those damn batteries. They create a toxic waste and need to be considered very carefully.