Slashdot Mirror
GM Cornered Into Defending the Volt
Al notes a story in Technology Review reporting on a CMU study (now over a month old) claiming that the Volt doesn't make economic sense, and GM's response. The study suggests that hybrids with large batteries offering up to 40 miles of range before an on-board generator kicks in simply cost too much for the gas savings to work out (PDF). Al writes: "Unsurprisingly, GM disputes the claims, saying 'Our battery team is already starting work on new concepts that will further decrease the cost of the Volt battery pack quite substantially in a second-generation Volt pack.' Interestingly, however, GM admits that the tax credits for plug-in hybrids will be crucial to making the volt successful. Without those credits, would an electric vehicle like the Volt be viable?"
Sure, it might cost too much, but hopefully enough rich, environmentalists will buy it, that the price will come down so that it will be economically feasible, and affordable for the rest of us. They can use the same selling model as the Tesla Roadster.
Ol' Rick Dawson had a farm EIEIO
It might not make the most economic sense *TODAY* without tax credits but putting the money into the technology being developed for battery and hybrids will make cheaper more efficient cars available in the future. The main cost right now is the battery pack but with more mainstream production as well as further research, this should come down in cost (higher capacity / cheaper batteries in future cars).
Simply because someone else is footing the bill, doesn't make it economically viable. The money doesn't come out of thin air.
Maybe that's what GM was thinking the bailout money they got came from...
Anyway, I have no interest in footing the bill with my tax money to pay for something that is a net drag on energy. If they can't afford to make it commercially viable on their own, they shouldn't look to do it on the taxpayer dime.
Considering that GM is surviving on taxpayer money right now, and is begging for more, I don't see how GM has any credibility on determining if anything makes Economic Sense. Maybe the Green Movement can buy the technology off GM, and produce the car themselves. Let's see if that is successful.
"...cost(s) too much for the gas savings"
Depends on the price of gas? Here in the UK we pay approx 0.90 GBP for a litre, = 0.90 x 1.42 (Pounds to Dollars) x 3.785 (Litres to US gallons) = 4.84 US dollars a gallon.
This is much less than a few months ago when gas here reached close to 1.20 GBP a litre and with the pound being stronger at that time it was over 8 dollars a US gallon.
Would you consider a gas/electric hybrid if gas was 8 dollars a gallon in the USA?
the issue is not that current battery technology can't adequately replace typical american highway needs
of course it can't
the issue is american car companies aren't even trying to solve the problem. meaning there is no advances in the technology that could make the replacement economically efficient
there is also the issue of american consumers, who will blindly buy SUVs while they send their sons and daughters to die in the middle east to fight for the oilfields needed to drive their precious SUVs
what is needed obviously is strong american legislation that will mandate battery recharging infrastructure and non-fossil fuel dependent car design
but of course, the conservatards will whine "socialism"
you know what conservatards? sometimes you need a large government and strong regulations. no, really, you really do
the market will NOT take care of itself on some issues
simple market dynamic only drives us into the status quo, since consumer demand is not coupled with the geopolitical realities about fossil fuels
government policy is the only way out of this mess. strong government regulation from a strong and powerful central government
market forces aren't cutting it. market forces don't drive progress on all issues
wake the fuck up conservatards
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I bet the same thing could have been said about the Prius during it's development phase. GM could always offer the Volt for lease like the Honda FCX, another car probably even more expensive to be economically feasible at this time, not to mention that hydrogen stations are few and far between.
GM has made tons of stupid mistakes, and frankly they deserve to be in the situation their in for it. On the other hand, the Volt is actually ingenious and I believe a more logical application of a hybrid powertrain than anything else currently on the road. I think it's cool that, like in diesel trains, the gasoline engine generates the electricity which powers the electric motor which in turn motivates the vehicle.
And for a change, I think it looks nicer than either the Prius or the new Insight. Hopefully, GM will be in business long enough for the Volt to see production. I do acknowledge that the risk in this car being too expensive is that enough people won't be able to buy for it to help GM in any meaningful way.
Recently my car got crushed by stuff falling off the roof of a business. So I've been the market for a new car. I looked at toyota between the Corola and the Prius. Both are similar size, but the Prius gets about 10 miles more to the gallon...for $6000 more.
I did the back of the envelope calculations and there was no way that I'd make up the $6000 price difference in the time that I am likely to own the vehicle. Even if gas goes back to USD 4.00 a gallon.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
How can it make economic sense? I'd much rather have a VW Sharan that gets 7 and still gets 40+ to the gallon. Why on earth are we trying to build electric cars that make no sense instead of using cheap, proven turbo-diesel technologies? Why can't I buy a car that will ride 7 and get 40+ to the gallon in the US? I'm baffled...
apt-get install redhat please god - Me (take it easy, I love Debian)
Electric light bulbs will put a huge demand on today's electric grid.
... but not a real practical one for the general public.
What does that mean?? Expensive electricity for EVERYBODY. Not just the owner of the electric light bulb.
With the raise of demand, the environmental requirements will be dropped to compensate for the need to build new power plants fast. By dropping the requirements, we will get power plants that will generate 3 to 4 times more pollution that gas lamps would have generated.
And lets not talk about all the pollution generate in the production and disposal of electricity. (wait what? disposal of electricity?)
The Edison bulb is a nice "concept" lamp
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
It doesn't make sense, right now. Right this second. But last time I checked they didn't have it in any showrooms yet, so that point is moot. Just because a global economic meltdown happened that made driving a gas-guzzling GM make sense for approx 6-12 more months, doesn't mean GM should bet the future of its company on gas prices staying low. That's basically what they've been doing. If gas prices stay low it will be because the economy is horrible, and GM will go out of business because no one buys their trucks. If gas prices rise GM will go out of business because they still don't build vehicles that anyone will want to buy at $6/gallon of gas.
The Volt is the ONLY thing GM is doing that makes the tiniest bit of sense. For goodness sakes, they released a passenger car hybrid that costs about the same as a prius, but gets about the same gas mileage as a minivan.
They were leasing them at a loss. People didn't want them at a price where GM could make money on them.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
I don't see that anybody on the GM board has anything to do with an oil company. Perhaps you can tell me more specifically whom you are talking about? (Or is your remark just uninformed rhetoric?)
Interesting comment, but I can't pick out the "oil company and foreign oil company interests" that are in the board of directors. Who are you talking about?
Erskine B. Bowles
President,
The University of North Carolina
Director since 2005
John H. Bryan
Retired Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer,
Sara Lee Corporation
Director since 1993
Armando M. Codina
President
and Chief Executive Officer,
Flagler Development Group
Director since 2002
Erroll B. Davis, Jr.
Chancellor,
University System of Georgia
Director since 2007
George M.C. Fisher
Retired Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer,
Eastman Kodak Company
Director since 1996
E. Neville Isdell
Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer,
The Coca-Cola Company
Director since 2008
Karen Katen
Chairman,
Pfizer Foundation,
Retired Vice Chairman,
Pfizer Inc and Retired President,
Pfizer Human Health,
Director since 1997
Kent Kresa
Chairman Emeritus,
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Director since 2003
Philip A. Laskawy
Retired Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer,
Ernst & Young
Director since 2003
Kathryn V. Marinello
Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer,
Ceridian Corporation
Director since 2007
Eckhard Pfeiffer
Retired President
and Chief Executive Officer,
Compaq Computer Corporation
Director since 1996
G. Richard Wagoner, Jr.
Chairman
& Chief Executive Officer,
General Motors Corporation
Director since 1998
http://www.gm.com/corporate/investor_information/corp_gov/board.jsp
What the hell does that mean? GM doesn't have oil company representatives on their board. If you'd like to see, I suggest you Google search GM's board and check out the board member bios.
Also, if oil companies are stopping GM from bringing electric cars to market, then how do you explain GM betting the ranch on the Volt? Wouldn't GM have *accepted* this argument that electric cars don't make sense, rather than defend their electric car project?
But hey, didn't stop this post from being modded to 5. I guess any paranoia about oil companies automatically gets modded up...
Ahh yes... Big brother knows best. People don't make good decisions on their own. They need someone else to make decisions for them.
Consumers are complacent about fossil fuels, but they are not complacent about their wallets. Why do we continue to buy fossil fuel cars? Because they are the cheapest technology right now.
Take an economics course. Government mandates HURT ECONOMIES. There is no exception to this rule. The government produces nothing and does not act in the best interest of the people with tax dollars.
As far as your points below:
1) yes, and as it becomes cheaper, electric cars will become viable, but they aren't today
2) once again, fossil fuels getting more expensive will move us towards electric cars, but today oil provides the cheapest energy and that allows us to use the savings to invest in the next energy source
3) Regardless of where the oil comes from, it costs money. Us not buying it from the middle east will not stop terrorism. They will simply sell to China. The problem in the middle east is a lack of education and unfair governments. You are suggesting we bring that here rather than fix the real problem.
4) Yes, CO2 is bad for the environment, we need to mitigate the effects of this. However, the effects are HUGELY blown out of proportion, with Al Gore being a major contributor. I suggest that we focus on switching from coal to nuclear, which is economically viable and will reduce carbon output much more than electric cars.
Oh wait, the government is preventing nuclear power plants from being built an operated efficiently... Maybe your theory is flawed after all.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
The problem isn't the Volt costs too much, it's the fact the cheap cost of a gas vehicle and oil to put in it doesn't take in to account the true cost of the vehicle.
If the full cost weren't externalized to the same degree, for example the cost of healthcare for those made ill by exhaust, the cost of dealing with the impacts of climate change, even just the health and economic costs of people injured in road accidents, the price of a gas guzzling car would be a few times higher.
Instead the system externalizes these and others in society, not the actual drivers of these vehicles, are made to pay the costs. In some cases such as the impacts of climate change, those paying the true cost for gas powered vehicles could be on the other side of the planet.
It shows how our entire economic model must be reworked so the true cost of a product, cradle to grave, on all of society is taken in to account. A holistic approach to economics.
It's the same externalizing that Walmart uses, prices are kept down because things such as benefits and healthcare are pushed on to state governments through minimum wage paid employees.
It's time all members of society becomes accountable for their actions.
What's most offending is that GM *knows* how to make good turbodiesel cars, we Americans have just been brainwashed into thinking that diesel==bad. When I lived in the UK I had a Vauxhall Zafira 1.9CDTi. I loved that silly box, and it got the same mileage as the VW Sharan.
More interestingly, GM has brought the Astra over from Opel/Vauxhall and called it the Saturn Astra. Even doing the US/Imperial mileage conversions, the most efficient Astra sold in the US gets worse mileage than the least efficient diesel Astra sold in Europe.
"Gas guzzler" ?? Are you serious? The Volt has a 1.4 liter 4-cylinder engine and will go 640 miles on a 12-gallon tank. Yes, that's over 53 MPG -- Higher than the Prius 45 MPG! I have no clue where you got "gas guzzler" from. And that's to say nothing of the best feature of the volt over prius/civic - you can charge it overnight and make your daily commute using ZERO gasoline and producing ZERO emissions. (yes, I know the electricity generation station emissions have to be considered as well) Finally, the volt's engine is used for one thing - driving an electric generator at constant speed. So the engine can be tuned to produce the most power/efficiency at that exact speed, and further generations of this engine will get only more efficient. The Prius/Civic must have a standard engine capable of wide speeds and flat torque curve, reducing efficiencies.
Oh, please! GM doesn't make a gas-sipper. Never have. Over the past 20 years I've tried in vain to buy a good fuel-efficient car from the Big Three. The only things any of them have made that satisfied my efficiency standards have been cheap, poorly-made boxes with few amenities (e.g. Ford Festiva) that deliberately pushed the comfort-loving American buyer toward their more expensive (read "profitable") models.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Personally, I call anything > 25 mpg a gas sipper. Yes, their discount cars are garbage, and of course they are going to try and push cars with a bigger profit margin, business exists for profit. My only suggestion to GM would be less plastic and velcro, more solidly made cars that you cant take apart the same way you unbutton a shirt.
"A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
some people believe if we allow gays to marry, we also have to accept pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, polygamy...
no: this is retarded hysteria. but some people actually believe this. because they are letting their irrational fears overpower their logical thought
as you are:
you believe if we accept a little government regulation, we're on an unstoppable slippery slope into a black hole of mind control communism
uh... how about no? how about you are irrational and fear addled?
we need a market that is mostly free for a rich society. no brainer. we also need a strong government and strong regulation so the market doesn't bubble and pop. no brainer
and, on either side of these obvious and prudent realizations, from the left and the right, we have fear addled folks, like yourself, who beleive in the slippery slope
there is no slippery slope. your fears are unfounded
really
please lose your irrational fears of a little prudent regulation leading to a communist apocalypse
NOT GOING TO HAPPEN
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The second law of thermodynamics says that pushing the problem down the road is the best we can do.
we Americans have just been brainwashed into thinking that diesel==bad
The interesting thing is that America's dislike of diesel passenger cars is in some part due to none other than GM, due to GM's horrible Oldsmobile diesels of the 1980s. Instead of just giving GM cars a bad reputation, it gave diesel engines a bad reputation in the mind of American buyers, and American manufacturers didn't offer another diesel car after that.
The problem is that the cost to mine, process, manufacture, and deliver large quantities of batteries is actually LESS than the cost to do so on a small scale.
Due to efficiencies of production, permitting, delivery, costs of finance, etc.
As an example, let's say they get the mineral from a small mine right now - if they move to a large facility like say Tek Cominco (who get most of their power from hydro - green power) and have low costs of production due to large efficiencies - with lower costs due to lower demand for other materials right now so they bid low to deliver the material - then the price drops, since it represents steady work with low retooling for jobs - and low frictional employment costs since they have people who can handle that.
Combine that with say Ballard Power fabbing the batteries in similar circumstances (most of their power is hydro - green).
Total cost per unit NEXT YEAR may in fact be up to ONE-TENTH total cost per unit THIS YEAR.
That's what economy of scale during a cyclical downturn gets you when you move from fabbing 500 batteries in year one to 100,000 batteries in year two.
A hamburger today may not cost the same to make as a hamburger tomorrow.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
What's most offending is that GM *knows* how to make good turbodiesel cars
Just because GM bought Vauxhall/Opel et. al. doesn't mean that GM has the slightest clue on how to make a "good turbo-diesel car".
Cars already run on hydrogen. It is just a lot more convenient to bind the hydrogen to carbon to make it a liquid at room temperature. Americans call that gasoline - petrol in the rest of the world.
If you consider that hydrogen gas molecules are so small that they will slowly leak out of a steel pressure vessel, then you should realize that using it in gaseous form is not a great idea - think about what will happen when the gas slowly leaks out of the tank and then you or your neighbour goes out for a smoke.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
as are the few US diesel Volkswagens.
Uh, no. Other than possibly a badge you would never know you are behind a modern VW diesel. Since the US switched to ultra low sulphur diesel in the fall of 2006 you have been able to get the modern diesels that actually have LESS tailpipe emissions then the typical gasoline car. Personally I like the idea of turbodiesels but what I'm personally waiting for is the Ford Eccoboost 2L I4, produces 250HP and 275lb/ft of torque on 87 octane and it should get phenomenal fuel economy as long as you don't have too much of a lead foot. I just can't believe it's taken one of the big 3 this long to realize that small dual turbocharged engines are a win in almost every way. Though the fact that they are introducing the monstrous 3.5L 400HP turbo first just points out that they don't totally get it.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Well you just have ridiculously low standards then, don't you?
An actual fuel sipper, like a Honda Insight, Geo Metro XFI, or VW [Golf|Jetta|New Beetle] TDI, gets at least 40 mpg.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I liken many of these new technologies to those ripoff infomercials about losing weight.
"If you take this Pill, you will lose all the weight you want!"
Its the same as industry saying, buy this new technology car and be as wasteful as before!
As anybody that has half a brain will tell you the secret to losing weight is simple, it is a lifestyle change. Eat less food, eat better food when you do, and be more active.
Same can be said about our current dilemma. You want to have cleaner air, and help the environment, etc... Well here is how you do it: Its called walking. Alternative crazy machines like "Bikes". Also the concept of "Mass Transportation", etc... This isn't new technology, its called being responsible. Sure new technologies help, and sure they can do great good, but don't believe the BS that the auto companies are trying to "sell" for one second. Because that is exactly right, they all they are interesting is in selling and the status quo. They want eveyone to buy one of their products, or two even. If it wears out, but two more. The fact that the total cost of ownership in terms of pollution etc, is actually higher then proven efficient old technologies doesn't matter. Its about PR, hype, and selling product.
If you are really interested in the environment, clean air, etc... try walking to work, or biking, or taking a bus, or train, etc... Buy a house or rent close to where you work. Try not to be wasteful in anything you do. The simple basic things you do are likely way more effective than anything else.
It's funny how people love to take this stance about government. Sorry, government mandates do not always hurt economies. If that were the case then we'd have no Internet right now, no public roads, no police, no public schools. These are all things that commercial interests would not have picked up on their own that required massive investments.
Even gas powered cars would not have taken off so readily if the government hadn't helped oil companies grow. Lack of oversight became the real problem, not involvement in general.
That said, the CO2 problem is irrelevant. CO2 does cause temperatures to rise and does cause massive amounts of algae to grow in the ocean killing many other species. The impact we have as humans is up for pointless debate but the reality remains that the earth will get warmer even if we stop all emissions today. The question is whether we want to prolong this process by reducing emissions or help it move forward by continuing as we are. That is the real debate as such you are right that we should shift our focus to nuclear technology although I have no idea how government is somehow preventing nuclear plants when here in AZ they were going to build another out near Yuma but private citizens banned together and blocked it, not government. In fact, the government was heavily encouraging the development through very enticing tax credits.
Electric cars probably won't ever become viable because batteries are tough to make, although they are 100% recyclable so it might be worth it. Fuel cells are probably the best future bet, but hydrogen is the only thing we currently have enough technology to deploy widely at the cost of having to build more power plants through hopefully renewable sources which can be combinations of technology thankfully. Nuclear power is nicely dense, solar power has its merits here in AZ, hydroelectric power works beautifully in lots of places. There are a lot of options and we need to leverage as many as we can.
They were leasing at a loss because they made LESS THAN TWO HUNDRED of the damn things. A production run of them would bring the price per unit down hugely. As said below, the problem with electric cars is that they are _too good_, they're too reliable and they don't break down. The only secondary industry other than smash repairs and tyres is replacing the battery packs, and that's not something a car company like GM wants to retool to become.
If they were genuinely not a good product, and that's all there was to it, then why would GM have recalled and quietly crushed them instead of just letting people buy out the leases? Don't say liability or maintainence reasons, they're easy to get around with contract terms.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
GM has no choice at this point. They have taken so much government cheese that they will build whatever they are told to, no matter the cost.
That said, as much as I liked and wanted a Prius, the numbers did not add up. I could get a Fit that averages 38/41 on my commute for $10,000 less than a Prius that averages 45/47mpg on my commute. The Prius no longer has a tax subsidy and 10 grand is a huge nut. I went for the cash in hand.
My VW Rabbit in high school got 60mpg, and my friends' Civics and CRX's got 40+ in the 1980's....why do even small 4cyl cars get such bad mileage today? Is it just the weight of added safety features?
we Americans have just been brainwashed into thinking that diesel==bad.
Almost all of the refineries in the US produce a fixed ratio of gasoline:diesel. If consumption doesn't match that ratio, the price of one will skyrocket compared to the other.
It's not a matter of one being "bad", and the other "good".
At the current gas price at about $2.25 here in the L.A. area, the choice currently is OPEC, not the Energizer. But at the price of fuel going over $5.00 a gallon, those cars with Battery Power will very tempting. Solar is starting to look good also, as Edison says it needs a 100 Million Dollars to give to it higher level staff as bonuses for doing such a wonderful job. Let's see, energy from the Sun and the Wind, that I can plug into at home. It's starting to look like a very straightforward solution.
Well if it's a sports car then it's not a "gas sipper," now is it? The fact that you don't care about it -- which is perfectly fine -- doesn't change the definition of the term!
Your sports car, even if it gets relatively good mileage, is still not a fuel-sipper in exactly the same way that my TDI, even if it gets relatively good performance, is not a sports car!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Do they all cost too damned much and break down constantly like every other American vehicle I've ever owned? If so,no thanks. Most of my buds from school have been getting Kia cars, and after riding in one I understood why. Rode REAL nice and was very comfy. Got a fully loaded one for $16,500 and when one had a transmission trouble before work they APOLOGIZED to him, brought him out a brand new one to use as a loaner to his house, and brought his car TO HIM at work the next day on his lunch break and picked the other up.
Ever have an American car under warranty break down? It is like being stuck in DMV hell. My last American car spent more time in the shop than it did on the road, and from talking to my friends I am far from alone. I personally think the years and years of putting out shitty gas guzzling cars that you need a net dragging behind to catch all the falling parts has finally come back to bite them in the ass and no matter how good a product they make now it ain't gonna help. Too many folks got burned by their past mistakes. Even if they start putting out perfect cars they are going to have to sell them cheap for years to slowly build their reputation back up after years of screwing the consumer. And honestly I don't think any of the big three will last long enough for that to happen.
I have already had a buddy tell me that he refused to buy American because he feared the company would go out of business like AMC and leave him with a car he couldn't even trade in. I would love to see a survey of new car buyers to see how many others are starting to think that way. I think they are just going to have to file bankruptcy and start over. As long as this dark cloud is hanging over their head and with their past reputation for shitty quality I just don't see them able to turn it around. Unless of course you want the US government to turn them into another Amtrak.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I've been reading Slashdot for many years, but never registered. This one got me.
IMHO, you can summarize the whole article with this:
1) Heavier cars have worse fuel economy.
2) Batteries are much heavier than gasoline per joule.
3) Carrying around batteries on a trip that you aren't going to use wastes energy.
That's pretty much it. The only conclusion you could draw for the Volt is that in the opinion of the paper's authors, the Volt's battery should be smaller. GM disagrees. Personally, I think the ideal solution would be to offer 3 versions of the Volt with batteries that will take the car 10, 20, or 40 miles depending on how much you paid for the battery. I believe that would make the authors of the paper happy. The problem from GM's POV is that the Volt is a very low volume car. Adding options like that is probably something they would like to do when the volume is higher.
What the paper authors are missing is that electric vehicles are much cheaper to operate than gas vehicles. Tesla estimates it costs about a penny a mile to operate the Roadster. If the cost of operation is 10% higher because of the extra batteries being carried around, I don't really care. 1.1 cents per mile is not a problem.
The authors just glance at what, IMHO, the real problem with pretty much all electric cars is. The cost of the batteries is HUGE. The cost has almost nothing to do with the materials in the batteries. This is an assembly problem. The only way I know of to solve that is volume.
That means that, IMHO, the government tax credits to subsidize the PHEV vehicles based on battery size are a good solution. If mass production can dramatically lower the price of the batteries, then the subsidies won't be needed in a few years, and the batteries will be cheap. If they can't figure out how to make the batteries cheap, well then we are screwed. But the government subsidies do have caps on them so after the experiment, the government money turns off automatically.
Few new technologies make economic sense. They need early adopters to allow production to ramp up and get the price down.
And the fact that it doesn't make economic sense is clear from the premium you pay for those cars. Nevertheless, people are willing to pay the premium anyway.
my 3400lb grand prix gets 32-35mpg on the highway depending on how fast i drive. my last roadtrip with 4 people, and a fully loaded trunk, averaged 33mpg driving the speed limit. this included the occasional dropping down 2 gears (into VTEC/VVi/whateverthefuckGMcallsit 3.8L gas guzzling territory) to pass trucks while climbing hills.
that is right on par with the equivalent 3.0L V6 accord. we like to shit on american cars for their gas guzzling characteristics.. but that's because a lot of americans want to buy the car with the gas guzzling engines. what the fuck do you need a 5 liter V8 in a family car for? almost all american car models have some sort of ridiculous engine option like that. the accord maxes out with a V6 engine.
i will shit on american cars for their quality though. even though i only spent $15k for the car (after taxes and all... you can't get better than that) that looks better than the accord on the outside.. when you sit inside it reeks of cheap engineering (its better than my dad's old chevy lumina, but the stereo is still the same cheap plastic stereo from the 90s ugh). then there's the whole reliability thing... even in their higher end cars (lincoln, cadillac, feh)
ford is in the best position to run away with the american car market. if they borrow from mazda (like they did with the B-series truck) they stand a damn good chance of coming back. they started to do it with the focus, and they started to do it in '05 when they cleared out all their debt and redesigned all their cars.
You should really educate yourself before making such sweeping, idiotic, statements. Chevy alone makes more models with 30+mpg than Honda or Toyota. I had a 2003 Cavalier that was rated at 32 mpg highway and got 38+ on a cross country trip. I now have a 2006 Cobalt rated at 34 mpg that still gets 37-38 highway on the few long drives I've taken it on. Nowhere else can you get a 400+hp car that can hit 30 mpg highway, like the Corvette, and still have the performance which that car has.
Please stop repeating fallacies based in the 1970s and 80s.
However, as pricing currently is distance per volume of fuel, I have no interest in how much energy a certain fuel packs. If gas stations start charging me by the joule, we'll talk.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I'm not sure if you are trolling, daft, or just asking a legitimate serious question...
> How can it make economic sense?
You mean like how can the government afford to "bail out" a failing business model of the very same businesses that were against electric vehicles??
>Why on earth are we trying to build electric cars that make no sense
Right, we don't need sense like far less pollution, safer, stilumate R&D, etc.
> I'm baffled...
Here's a clue. Short-term last-millennium greed and thinking needs to be replaced with long term sustainability.
Who Killed The Electric Car
and
In order for an EV car to make economic sense over a gasoline car, the price difference between gas an grid electricity needs to be much higher. In order to recoup costs, driving 40 miles per day, for an $8,000 premium, is about 21 years right now.
For it to be viable, I'd say that should be about 2 years. So gas would need to cost about 12.50 per gallon, if electricity stayed the same at 16 cents / kwh.
But your S2000 gets the same mileage as many a 'large vehicle', so it's rather a moot point. It's not like you're doing the environment any favors by shunning SUVs in favor of a sports car. That said, I drive an RX-8 in the summer and love every minute of it. But I have no illusions that it's a more environmentally conscious vehicle than, say, a Ford Windstar or Expedition.
Due to circumstances beyond my control, I am master of my fate and captain of my soul.
Yes that is what they claim but as you can see from the clip, when TG hammered the Telsa it went ~90km.
As Clarkson admits, the ep was faked. It did no such thing. That was based on a calculation that if you floored it nonstop, that's what you'd get, but if you floor a Veyron, you'll only get about 110-120km out of it. Driving sports cars like sports cars cuts their range 3-4fold. You have to drive them like normal cars to get their EPA range.
And as for the charge time numbers, by the way? The standard Tesla home charger does 2-3 hours for a full, ~235 mile range. That's 94 miles of range per hour. The average driver travels about 30 miles a day, so that's an average charge time of 20 minutes.
fuel cells are vastly more practical and CLEANER than battery powered cars.
Oh, give me a freaking break. Fuel cell stacks powerful enough to run a car cost a literal order of magnitude more than an equivalent battery stack. The Clarity's fuel cell stack is estimated at about $200k, and the Equinox's even more. Fuel cells are normally about $10/W. Big auto makers *may* be able to get as low as $5/W in bulk, but I doubt it. A minimal 100 horsepower is 75kW. 75000 * $5 = $375,000. They only get away with less because they use... wait for it... lithium ion batteries to buffer their draw, so they only need to supply average draw, not peak.
So that's purchase price, down by an order of magnitude. Next up? How about fuel price? Methane reformation hydrogen is about $5/kg, while electrolysis hydrogen is currently about $18/kg or so. The Clarity gets about 70 miles per kilogram, costing $0.07-$0.25/mi. Residential average electricity prices are about $0.11/kWh (and EVs make electricity *cheaper*, not more expensive, as they allow better utilization of hardware resources due to steady draws and lots of nighttime charging... but I digress). Commercial rates are lower, and industrial rates lower still, but let's go with residential-only charging. An EV with the same aerodynamics and mass of the Clarity (Volt-like) gets about 200Wh/mi. That's $0.02/mi. So half to one order of magnitude improvement for EVs over hydrogen.
Next up... production environmental impact. Lithium phosphate cells are made of, basically mineral water, pencil lead, and coke: lithium carbonate (extracted from brine... you can't get much lower impact than that), graphite (or amorphous carbon), phosphoric acid, iron powder, and sugar (burned and deposited for a carbon binder). There's also a thin plastic separator membrane and a corrosive but cheap, nontoxic electrolyte (the electrolyte varies from cell to cell). They're so benign that, at least in Canada, you can literally legally just throw them in your household trash. Fuel cells use platinum. Platinum make up about three parts per trillion of the earth's crust. Even the best platinum mines have only a few parts per million. In short, vast amounts of tailings have to be extracted, leaving gaping holes in the Earth. And do we even need to get into how they extract the platinum from the ore? Or how leaked hydrogen depletes ozone? Score: Li-ion by an order of magnitude (at least).
What's next... how about longevity? Fuel cell stacks typically last about five years with current tech. To achieve this, they really have to be babied (I can get into the ways if you'd like...). About the shortest lifespan on a highway-speed EV is the Tesla Roadster, which uses laptop cells, but babies them to get... wait for it... five years. Lithium phosphate and spinel packs are generally rated for 10-20 without much babying, and titanates are practically immortal. Score: Li-ion by half an order of magnitude or so.
How about charge time? Hey, this was supposed to be a hydrogen strong suit, right? Initially fuel times were about 5 minutes. However, with higher compression ratios (to get better range) and/or storage media, new times are about ten minutes or more. Lithium phosphate and spinel cells take 15-20 minutes to charge on a
Stale pastry is hollow succor to one who is bereft of ostrich.