Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
Democrats and Republicans are like AIDS and Cancer, I want neither!
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.
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.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
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.
"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.")
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
Everything he has to say was fully debunked by the movie. He has nothing more than the tired old "waiting list" spin to offer.
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.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
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.
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.
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:
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.
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?
... 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.. ;)
I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
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.
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.
$0.02 (CDN)
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.
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.
Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!
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
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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
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?