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?"
"...claiming that the Volt doesn't make economic sense, and GM's response."
The GM response is that they understand that whole "make economic sense" statement. Like some foreign gibbersh to them.
Apparently there are quite a few of GM's product lines that don't make any sense.
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
They forgot the actual link.
Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
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
The Union is *currently* unwilling to cut back wages or benefits which is a requirement for GM to even get access to ANY of the "stimulus" money.
Only when GM goes into bankruptcy protection (chapter 11) will GM have more of a free hand to cut what needs to be cut.
Until one of the 2 happen, the Volt won't see light of day at a dealership.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
...is that 10 years ago GM was telling us exactly that about the EV1, and we (the people who wanted one) were saying "but it's awesome, why are you telling us we don't want one?" and they were saying "there's no demand, it's not cost effective, it's terrible anyway".
Damn CARB for crumbling and allowing any car with a slightly larger battery that can crank itself along with its starter motor to count as a "low emissions vehicle".
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Yea, it doesn't make economic sense. GM knows they are going to lose money on every Volt that rolls off the assembly line. Thats not the whole story though. They need a new image for the brand, and they have pinned that image to the Volt. Forward thinking, efficient, and revolutionary in the auto industry is the idea right now for the Volt. Them going out of business might hinder their cause. But, then again, its their own damn fault for behaving like asses for 30+ years. Seriously, they may have made money of trucks and Hummers, but they were certainly not innovative or groundbreaking in their designs. Their overall structure was hosed for so long, its hard to see what restructuring they are gonna do to recover.
Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
There are tons of people working on better electric storage system technology. This makes it sound like they are doing the engineering on their own.
Look here and this one is really interesting IMO.
When they get a breakthrough on high capacity systems it will make a lot of things possible that currently are not, not just cars. It is the battery technology that really puts the hobbles on generating your own electricity at home. Well, that and solar collector technology as well as HOA restrictions etc.
If I could get tax breaks to install a 95%+ self sufficiency system I'd do it in the blink of an eye. Having an electric car on top of that would be even better. I would like a nice little commuter car or two; 40 mile range is great if it will also support solar trickle charging while parked etc.
With an initial investment, I could become 95% free of the grid ... well, if I could do that, I'm all in... big time.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
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.
I'm not a huge fan of this technology replacing the existing infraustructure (gas powered vehicles) yet. But only because of energy density in the fuel, not what fuel it is. And these vehicles do have a niche market -- must be about as frightening as Apple is to Microsoft (oh, wait... that's not a fair comparison. Apple might actually be double-digits now). But as the technology develops, and the energy density problem is solved, gas-powered vehicles will go the way of the dinosaur. /tongue in cheek
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
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.
And we will create the hydrogen by grinding up invisible pink unicorns. Since there is an infinite supply of invisible pink unicorns and they are really easy to grind this will solve all of our energy problems.
We have the best government that money can buy.
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.
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?)
for problems where the producer and buyer drive progress. electronic gadgets, for example: i want my iphone cheaper. i want my iphone with more doodads. competitors are happy to oblige. congratulations: progress
there are other problems in the world, where neither producer nor buyer have a vested interest. and yet these problems are very real. here's one: justice. crime
you need a government, a strong one, with police powers, to run the judiciary since producer and buyer need an impartial justice system that favors neither producer nor buyer
now you could ignore justice and criminal law. and the social environment will deteriorate such that the marketplace deteriorates. or you could have a justice system run by populism that ignores the needs of producers. or a justice system bought and sold by corporations that ignores the needs of consumers. which are just two forms of injustice
the physical environment is the same thing: neither producer nor buyer has a vested interest in maintaining it. so its get dumed on by both, and the marketplace deteriorates. so you need a third party, a government, to engage in maintaining the environment by setting environmental regulations and enforcing them. the marketplace WILL NOT TAKE CARE OF THIS PROBLEM ON ITS OWN IN AN EQUITABLE MANNER
i say: leave to the marketplace issues that progress in the marketplace can solve
but that does not describe all of the problems in the world
irrefutable fact you need to learn: the marketplace is not where all progress in the world takes place, and does not answer every question that needs answering. this sort of marketplace fundamentalism some morons believe in is a simpleton's ideology that needs to die
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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.
"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.
Contrary to all of the "GM is in bed with big oil!" nonsense, the reality is that the automakers have been battling the conflicting voiced desire of consumers to have more efficient vehicles, with the reality that cheap gas has them buying inefficient beasts when it comes to putting words into actions.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/automakers-join-call-for-higher-federal-gas-tax/
It's hard for products like the Volt to come to market in any real way when gas continues to drop to undercutting levels that eliminate the advantages, so the CEOs are asking for the price of gas to be normalized to a level that more realistically incorporates its full cost.
This is why it matters.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
GM didn't renew any leases on EV1s.
The primary reason GM decided not to go into even limited production came from the dealers who serviced EV1s. They didn't break down. No service revenue during the lease, of course, but the writing was on the wall. EV1s would starve the service department.
Wait until true elecrtics start to gain market share. The service needs will be much lower, and the dealer network will find their service revenue dropping. Unless, of course, the makers install some planned maintenance items.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I wish I could see the answers to the questions on any chemistry test final you have ever had.
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.
The GM response is that they understand that whole "make economic sense" statement. Like some foreign gibbersh to them.
Ladies and gentlemen of Slashdot, GM would certainly want you to believe that the Volt makes sense. And they make a good case. But I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca drives a Toyota Prius. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to drive a hybrid, carpooling with a bunch of environmentalists? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this post? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this post! It does not make sense! If the battery pack does not fit, you must acquit!
The defense rests.
GM sells the Malibu in a 'hybrid' version. A 'mild hybrid'.
The engine has an oversized starter motor and a 36V battery pack in the spare wheel well. At a stop, the motor shuts down and is restarted in 500ms when the driver presses the acclerator pedal. Apparently, the Belt-Alternator-Starter system also can kick in and add a power boost to help with accleration, and in the city can improve MPG by 10-20% Interesting concept, and saves gas, but hybrid? Not by a mile. At least not IMHO.
But GM will claim it, and plenty of people will buy it. It does save gas, this is good. But it is an example of the slow, painful, scratching-and-clawing approach Detroit is taking towards hybrids.
I'm not very hopeful for an alternative fuel either. My personal choice is some form of ultracapacitor. A capacitor makes a lot more sense than a battery; quick recharge, fewer chemicals hopefully, lots of available current hopefully. Still got the issue of the catastrophic release of energy if the capacitor got damaged, but batteries blow up too.
I'n not hopeful we are gong to see ultracapacitors within 10 years. A long time to wait.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
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! --
The Volt isn't much different that the Prius or Civic hybrid in that you don't have to ever plug it in if you are really that lazy. But, since it has a larger battery you have the option of charging it up at night or while you are parked at work and then running on electric only for the next 40 miles or so and at highway speeds. That's not an option with the current hybrids.
If you don't typically drive more than 40 miles between charges then you may get away with never having to use gas. You could, in theory, go months without buying gas at all but if you take a long road trip you don't have to worry about range because you can put gas in it every 3 or 4 hundred miles like any other car.
GM stated the following criticism of the study:
1) The cost/benefit ratio was based on a battery price several hundred dollars more than they're currently paying. And GM claims they are making advancements that will lower the cost in the future.
2) The study compared the 7 mile electric only mode of some proposed plug-in hybrids. However, GM criticized the study for not taking into account the need to recharge every 7 miles.
I know for myself, that 7 miles doesn't do me much good. Even going to the grocery store doesn't would eat up a lot of that range.
More thoughts with better quotes here...
http://gm-volt.com/2009/03/04/gm-vp-jon-lauckner-blasts-carnegie-mellon-phev-study-and-says-volt-cells-several-hundreds-less-than-1000-per-kwh/
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.
I'm opting to buy a plug-in prius next year. It will be cheaper than the Volt, and most likely higher in reliability.
At least I am seeing some return on my tax dollars, as the Volt has stimulated Toyota to keep their Lithium-ion plug-in on schedule.
The story of the EV1 is much more complex. There is a great movie about the EV1 called "Who Killed the Electric Car." http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/ It's clearly produced from an anti-GM standpoint, but it raises a lot of questions about GM's practices, motivations, and their current inability to provide a hybrid-electric vehicle that works.
Per kilogram of fuel is variable. It's distance traveled per unit of energy that matters.
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?
The Government is only fulfilling one of it's basic functions by giving tax breaks to both GM and the consumer for the Volt. This is one of the reasons we have a government, to steer us into a better future, despite the fact that neither the producer nor the consumer will benefit economically by going that direction in the short or medium term.
Some already do. Many(almost all?) diesel trains are really diesel/electric. Trucking companies are getting electric assists motors that are powered by electricity generated when idling at the dock or in slow traffic.
You do need some storage though. That, and how powerful an engine you can fit before displacing the ICE, are the limiting factors.
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.
There appear to be a few common myths being repeated here.
No, it isn't. Octane rating methodology is different. Read Octane Rating
1. Please make sure your are not quoting UK gallons - they are bigger than US gallons, and therefore get more miles.
2. Please understand that fuel efficiency measurements in Europe are quite different than in the US. The 2008 US EPA measurement methodology is much more conservative.
Diesel in Europe is cheaper than gasoline only because it gets vastly preferential tax treatment.
It may have something to do with poor diesel history in the US, but also with health side effects. Even with ULSD, the nanoparticles are suspected contributors to pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases.
BTW, I love diesels. I love driving them, I love the torque, I love increased fuel efficiency. However, it is important to know the whole story because the other side has very good points as well.
As for hybrids and plug-in hybrids, yes, I will likely buy the new Honda Insight when it becomes available even if it costs more than a regular vehicle of the same kind, and even if I cannot recoup the extra price. I would rather pay more money for R&D into technology than drop coins into Al Qaida's collection box.
End anonymous moderation and posting on
Battery replacements are horrendous for the environment and they're expensive.
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.
GM has no intention of ever making electrics for sale. GM made electrics, leased them, had very happy leasees, destroyed them and refused to let people buy them. GM always wants longer range, just wait another few years, not a car to buy today. 10 years ago I wanted a car with less than 20 mile range. Today my trip is still 3 miles out, 3 miles back. A 15 mile range electric for 2 people would be good for daily to-from work travel. For longer travels just hitch a generator trailer. Generator trailer could add 300 mile range, luggage rack, enclosed cargo, pickup bed or what you need. Still wondering Y GM will be bankrupt?
And it's people like you that PHEVs are designed for.
Once again, Slashdot does its best to continue ignorance by leaving out the core criticism of the study: that the study's authors assume a battery pack price of $1000 per kilowatt hour, and that's not even close to they cost today, let alone 5-10 years from now. And that's hardly their only mistake. I'll list their assumptions, and make a few quick comments on them:
* A 2004 Prius with varying size packs
* They upgrade the size of the motor to be sufficient to operate as series, but still keep the parallel configuration (why...?)
* 52 kW motor (70hp), yet weighs 40kg (huh...? The Tesla Roadster does 185kW with a 31kg motor)
* The main assumption that 1kg of batteries requires an additional 1kg of structure (Um.. really?). They also test 0kg and 2kg per 1kg of battery mass.
* Li-ion (unspecified chemistry). 100Wh/mi -- similar to LiP and some spinels -- and a 25% packaging weight penalty (on top of the 1kg weight for every 1kg of batteries)
* Only 50% depth of discharge (i.e., they're only using half of their pack)
* Charging at $0.11/kWh (US residential average)
* Gasoline at $3.00/gal (probably a reasonable long-term value)
* Assumption of $1,000/kWh battery cost (Um, no. I can get Thunderskys at non-bulk rates for a fraction of that. I can almost get A123s at non-bulk rates for that. The Th!nk's pack is $500/kWh, and they think they can cut that in half with production rates of several hundred thousand per year. Conventional li-ion, like Tesla uses, is ~$300/kWh currently. In short... no.). They justify their number by pointing out that it's cheaper than the original price of the Prius's battery pack (ignoring that small HEV battery pack prices don't scale linearly to BEV or PHEV packs or linear with capacity in general)
* GHG emissions of the grid are assumed to be fixed over time (Um, no)
* Vehicle lifespan of 12 years (the average vehicle *on the road* today is nearly 10 years old, and that number is increasing, so... no)
* 12,500 miles/year (reasonable)
* Vehicle base purchase cost, excluding the battery pack, of $17,600
* Assuming by default no carbon tax, both on electricity and gasoline, but considering it under alternative scenarios
* No tax credits assumed
* No battery replacement (in the base case; an alternative scenario includes replacement)
* A 5% "consumer discount rate", No clue what that is, but they state that the higher it is, the less competitive PHEVs are. So it's some sort of penalty. (Perhaps purchase interest rate on the auto loan? If so, too expensive.)
In short: stupid assumptions in, stupid results out. Note this paragraph that they just skim over:
Cheap battery costs of $250 per kWh would significantly increase competitiveness of PHEVs, making them similar to or less expensive than HEVs and CVs across all distances driven between charges. A battery technology with an increased SOC swing, which would allow more of the battery's physical capacity to be used in operation, would also improve PHEV competitiveness, making moderate ranged PHEV20s cost competitive with the HEV and CV.
In short: "If we pick more reasonable numbers, PHEVs are great. But with the bad numbers we picked, they're not."
Stale pastry is hollow succor to one who is bereft of ostrich.