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?"

Comments

Katrina

[kangasloth]

Weather kills people all the time. The forensics is a little trickier though: fewer fingerprints and more computer simulations, fewer explosives and more droughts. On the flip side, there's still plenty of expert testimony.

the government is infinitely less prone

[circletimessquare]

to hysteria than individual mobs. in fact, it is less prone to emotional fluctuations than any other entity in the equation

the idea is to stop the wild fluctuations of the bubbles and pops of mobs acting on greed and fear. which is a vital goal as current market issues show us and why we can never get away from strong regulation. no, sorry, the market does not take care of itself (it just fluctuates wildly when left on its own, and weakening of regulations under bush has led to a bubble, and now a pop, which means we will get strong regulations and high governemnt invovlement which is a GOOD thing for stability's sake)

so: being that there is no entity that is completely immune to emotional fluctuations, the government is the best entity to turn to to regulate the market, not becuase it is perfect, but because it is the least emotional entity we can turn to

please

[circletimessquare]

show me the one president, ever, who was elected not based on appeal to emotion

unless you somehow mistake approval by your ideological partisanship with the definition of unemotionality perhaps?

and please, more exclamation points and name calling

it makes your unemotional point of view so much clearer ;-)

(snicker)

dear darling partisan hack:

[circletimessquare]

there is no objectivity in your comments. therefore, you are guilty of everything you are criticizing

based on your comments, one could find equally "substantial" criticism and judgment of the suitability of candidacy for gee, i dunno, say a conservative icon like reagan? ;-) but i won't stoop that low, because i'm not going to play your lame propagandistic game

not EXACTLY explcitly parallel of course, because, one would have to swallow the blue pill and some how magically believe, for example, that experience in the california governorship is somehow more germaine to the job of the presidency than say, a senatorship

so howabout we sidestep that entire lame argument, and get right to the heart of the matter, shall we my partisan braindead friend?

that is: how about the american people decide? as they just did, according to the founding fathers wishes, in a vote? and how about their vote, and their decision, actually have more validity and meaning than your shrill blind subjective partisan judgments? as it should in a democracy?

how's that suit you you partisan sheep?

and here's another cluebat for you ms. michelle malkin: why don't you go fix your broken party and your broken conservative ideology. you LOST the election already. STOP FIGHTING SOMETHING YOU ALREADY LOST. geez! why don't you go focus on 2012 instead, where your shrill partisan gasbaggery might actually have some more use? ;-)

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox