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

Doesn't Make Economic Sense

[digitalgiblet]

"...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.

Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense

[MightyMartian]

I'm sure the companies that ultimately buys GM's R&D department from the liquidators will be interested in this.

Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense

[slick_rick]

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...

Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense

[vux984]

I'd much rather have a VW Sharan that gets 7 and still gets 40+ to the gallon

I honestly can't figure out what 'gets 7' or 'will ride 7' is in reference too...
After googling the Sharan the only thing that makes sense is that you mean 7 passengers?

Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense

[moosesocks]

Before you get all proud about the 40MPG rating, please note that a US Gallon differs from an Imperial Gallon.

A US Gallon is smaller, which makes British mileage ratings appear inflated compared to US ratings.

Also, US residents can buy a Diesel VW Jetta, which seats 5 comfortably, and (legitimately) gets 40+MPG. They sell like hotcakes, although the total number imported is still somewhat small. I've driven one -- it's quite nice. Almost impossible to distinguish from its petrol-powered cousin.

Of course, your main point still applies: By global standards, cars sold in the US are hideously inefficient, and we have an inherent fear of diesel, thanks to the loud, smoky GM diesels of the 1980s.

Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense

[Phreakiture]

Know also, that diesel fuel has a higher energy density than gasoline. A (US) gallon of gasoline has 125,000 BTU of energy, while a (US) gallon of diesel has just under 150,000 BTU. Keep this in mind when comparing the fuel economy of a diesel to that of a gasoline engine.

Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense

[clutchcargo]

I have a 2006 TDI Jetta, and (in practice) it gets 40 city/46 highway. The 2009 models are supposed to be even better.

Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense

[kenj0418]

I'm waiting until GM's stock price hits $0.00 -- then I'm buying the whole thing for the $9.99 etrade commission.

Then I'll fix this for you guys :-)

Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense

[cabjf]

Because diesel in the US is taxed higher than regular gasoline. Therefore, it won't make economic sense for someone to purchase a diesel engine vehicle in the US. Until the government changes that situation, diesel will remain a small niche in the consumer market.

Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense

[stuntpope]

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.

Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense

[DuckDodgers]

1. US gasoline is lower octane than European gasoline. The Astra engine was detuned from its European spec to use the cheapest fuel here, because almost all Americans buying economy cars expect to use the default low octane fuel.

2. GM, Ford, Honda, Toyota and Hyundai ALL sell diesel cars outside the US. Right now only Volkswagen and Mercedes offer diesel engine cars in the US because our diesel emission standards for non-commercial vehicles are very difficult to satisfy. If you're going to find the situation "offending", be offended by the automakers like Honda and Toyota who had plenty of resources to offer diesels in the US (unlike the domestic automakers) and still failed to do it.

Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense

[jshark]

Currently, in the US state in which I reside, diesel is $2.089/US gallon, gas (petrol for all you people who spell it "colour") is roughly $1.889/US gallon. Both prices include all applicable local, state, and federal taxes.

My 2002 VW Beetle TDI w/ 150,000 miles on it gets an average of 45 miles on a US gallon of diesel. My wife's 2006 Beetle uses petrol and gets roughly 26 MPG.

Doin' the math that's more than 70% better mileage for only 10% more money, or, to put it in a different light, I get around 630 miles per tank while she gets about 360, or, to put it another another way, diesel would have to cost almost twice as much as petrol before I started to lose money on the proposition.

Oh, and since I run diesel my car is exempt from state emissions inspections where I live, thus saving another $30-40/year.

So, how exactly does this *not* make economic sense?

Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense

[netruner]

I'll try to explain my viewpoint:

Cheap, proven technologies are still steps down a dead end road. We need to take a step back in order to start moving forward again. Electric vehicles are that path forward. An economically viable method for providing electric vehicles has not revealed itself yet, however the potential has been seen. The problem is that there is no reason to produce the new technology to make them viable unless electric cars are present to create the demand, and electric cars won't be viable until the new technology is present. So, what we have is a deadlock.

The question becomes "How do we break the deadlock?". This is a situation where the market as it exists today will not provide a solution in an acceptable timeframe, so we must consider external forces. Providing incentives to "early adopters" will be necessary to pull enough electric vehicles into the public to create a demand for the infrastructure. The problem of imperfect power storage is being mitigated by allowing for flexible power sources (i.e. onboard generators).

The Volt is a transitional technology, not the end result. GM can't say that though - after all, who wants to be the guinea pig with something as expensive and important as a car?

Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense

[moosesocks]

Actually, the dual-clutch transmission in the Jetta TDI should result in the automatic model actually being *more* efficient than its manual counterpart.

The dual-clutch gearbox is essentially a computer-controlled manual transmission (although it's a bit more complicated than that). There's no torque-converter to kill the efficiency.

The system also allows you to switch gears in the semi-manual mode faster than you could ever possibly do with a "real" manual transmission (around 8ms).

They're also available on a number of petrol-powered vehicles from a variety of manufacturers.

(Re: -40F: I know of quite a few gas powered cars that won't start at those temperatures! Electrics/hybrids also won't hold a charge without heating the batteries.)

Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense

[mhatle]

I wish people would stop spreading the misconception that US gasoline is lower octane then European.

Octane is simply measured differently in the US vs Europe. 87 octane in the US is equivalent of I believe 92 in Europe..

Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense

[hairyfeet]

Don't know where you are living, but down here in the south diesel is about $1 higher and always has been to my knowledge. I have family in construction and they all drive the big diesel duallies for work trucks and the major complaint from all of them is the higher cost of diesel down here.

I don't know if it is true or not but a buddy that works for the state told me that it is because American roads, and roads in the south in particular are made very badly compared to Europe with too thin a bed laid down before the asphalt is poured which causes large vehicles (like diesel big rigs) to bust up the roads much quicker than cars. So instead of building the roads correctly we simply tax the hell out of diesel and patch the hell out of the roads. I know here in AR our freeways have two states: ones that have potholes you can bury a dog in, and ones with potholes you can bury a cow in.

My buddy who just got back from doing a stretch in the Army in Europe was shocked at how shitty American roads are compared to what he got used to in Europe. He said there simply isn't a comparison. So maybe if we actually built our roads correctly we wouldn't overtax the diesel and would actually have roads that last. But a politician give up taxing? Nah, never happen.

Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense

[ivan256]

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".

Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense

[Vindicator9000]

GM bought Opel in 1929 and Vauxhall in 1925. It wasn't like they just bought them out recently to acquire their new and exciting diesel technology. I believe that they are mostly designed in Europe though, by European GM engineers.

Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense

[geekoid]

A Sharan I know could ride 7...

Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense

[maraist]

US gasoline is lower octane than European gasoline.

I don't understand why people keep saying this.. No they don't. They rate Octane differently than we do. They use Unloaded Octane reference engine values. The US uses (Loaded + Unloaded) / 2. Says so on every freaking gas pump in the US. There is typically a swing of 2 to 10 Octaine points between loaded and unloaded - thus the averaging allows for greater variability in synthetic blend possibilities while simultaneously giving a more accurate performance characteristic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating

Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense

[Bassman59]

Ha! Love that. Basically he is saying that yes, he does see a need for a larger car. But he'll let other people take care of that for him. I'm sure they are all just totally happy to provide practicality for him while he buys fun cars. Wish he were my friend. Guess they like the role of driving miss daisey.

His point is that he needs a truck so rarely that on the few occasions he needs one, he can borrow or rent. There's no reason to use a van-size vehicle so one person can commute.

I do quite well with an S2000, and the U-Haul literally up the street will rent a van for four hours for $20 plus mileage. So once or twice a year I rent the U-Haul and the rest of the time I don't worry about driving a large vehicle.

Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense

[UnknownSoldier]

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

"...During the Cold War era of the 1950s and early 1960s, General Motors (GM) urged patriotic U.S. citizens to "see the USA in your Chevrolet."
Such advertisements on the part of the automobile industry served to seduce North Americans, as well as Australians, away from what was once a relatively well-developed mass transportation system that included passenger trains, numerous intercity bus lines, and extensive urban and interurban trolley or tram lines. Indeed, a consortium, called National City Lines, consisting of General Motors, Standard Oil of New Jersey, and the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company had spent $9 million by 1950 to obtain control of street railway companies in sixteen states and converted them to less efficient GM buses. The companies were sold to operators who signed contracts specifying that they would buy GM equipment. National City Lines in the 1940s began buying up and scrapping parts of Pacific Electric, the world's largest interurban electric rail system, which by 1945 served 110 million passengers in 56 smog-free Southern California cities. Eleven hundred miles of Pacific Electric's track were torn up, and the system went out of service in 1961, as Southern California commuters came to rely primarily on freeways (Flink 1973:220).
Unfortunately, Henry Huntington, the owner of Pacific Electric, used his interurban trolley company more as a scheme for promoting his real estate endeavors than providing a public service and often alienated citizens in various ways, including in his failure to provide lines that connected suburbs to each other as opposed to strictly city centers (Bottles 1992). A similar process in which a consortium of road interests colluded to destroy efficient trolley or trams systems occurred in numerous cities throughout the United States and Australia (Goddard 1994; Davison 2004).

In the 1950s, with the assistance of the Eisenhower administration, the development of an interstate highway system resulted in enormous profits for corporate interests and benefits to supportive politicians, while hindering the development of efficient public transportation, and thereby forcing the general public to purchase and use cars for transportation (Leavitt 1970). Indeed, Lewis Mumford (1963) argued that the federally funded highway programs of the 1950s contributed to the creation of a "one-dimensional transportation system." According to Crawford,

The Interstates gave truckers a subsidized route network that allowed them to compete successfully with railroads despite the labor and energy inefficiency of trucking. It also gave real estate developers the high-speed arteries leading to downtown that made large-scale suburban sprawl possible (Crawford 2000:88).

A powerful lobby consisting of the automobile industry, the American Automobile Association, petroleum companies, and trucking companies, continues to pose a barrier to the development of an effective public transportation system in the United States. Whereas heavy trucks contribute more than 95 percent of the highway deterioration in this country, trucking companies pay only 29 percent of the highway bill (Freund and Marti

Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense

[regular_gonzalez]

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.

The Volt is the least of GM's problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently there are quite a few of GM's product lines that don't make any sense.

Re:The Volt is the least of GM's problems

[stewbacca]

Apparently there are quite a few of GM's product lines that don't make any sense.

That's because you aren't 70 years old with blue hair, a hip-hop artist, a professional athlete, or a trophy wife. Otherwise their products make perfect sense.

Re:The Volt is the least of GM's problems

[tverbeek]

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.

Re:The Volt is the least of GM's problems

[cawpin]

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.

rich buyers

[OlRickDawson]

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.

Re:rich buyers

[ACMENEWSLLC]

CD players were $1000 when they first came out. Only the rich had them. The price went down and down until today you can pick one up for $5.

DVD players -- exact same deal. Blue rays were $1200, now you can get one for $180. As more people buy them, they will eventually come down to the ~$50 price point a decent DVD player is at now.

Electric cars have been lingering at the high point because no significant car has been rough to market. The Tesla and the Volt appear to be the firsts going there. We need to take the first steps if we are ever to migrate from oil to electric.

Re:rich buyers

[lupine]

And I bet the study was don't by a bunch of economists that place zero value on having clean air to breath and clean water to drink.

Sending transportation dollars to wind farms in Iowa instead of the Middle East, South America and Canadian tar sands also has no economic value.

Re:rich buyers

[larry bagina]

If CD Players and DVD players are your guide, the price of electric cars will come down when they're mass produced in China and sold in Wal*Mart.

Re:rich buyers

[tripdizzle]

It doesnt make a lot of sense to me either, but wind power has usually had a "not in my backyard" policy follow it around. People are for it, until they have to look at it (or listen to it, I hear they are pretty loud). For example, look up RFK Jr. and his wind farm off Cape Cod debacle. All about wind power, until they decide a good place for it is out in the ocean which is visible to him from his beach mansion, then he uses every connection he has to try and stop it. We have termed this kind of situation in Garage Logic as "windmilling", very similar to the local NPR station in MN being a strong advocate for a light-rail system, but then they find out the plan has the tracks going past their station, and now they are very much against light-rail.

They missed the Technology Review link

[Anonymusing]

They forgot the actual link.

Re:They missed the Technology Review link

[Anonymusing]

Oh, and here's the GM blog with the actual response.

Economic sense for tomorrow ?

[adisakp]

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).

GM != Economic Sense

[dreadlord76]

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.

depends on price of gas?

[fantomas]

"...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?

Re:depends on price of gas?

[Orne]

Yes, and I bought one (a Toyota Prius). Of course I did that in Fall 2007 before the summer spike, because I value efficiency over origin.

The problem is that today in PA, the price of gas (this afternoon) is $1.83/gal x (1.4086 pound / $) x (gal / 3.7854 L) = 0.68 GPB / L (you have a 33% markup in taxes over our taxes!) Dealers today have more Priuses on the lots than they know what to do with, because people won't pay the $28,000 price tag for a 40% increase in mpg. At current prices, it's cheaper to pay $12-15,000 for a compact car at 30 mpg and eat the difference in fuel.

And that's what I see GM is up against. They are going to pop out a car that I'm sure will start at $30,000 for a compact car and go up to $40,000 with options (the gas/hybrid Prius MSRP is about $25,000 base). You won't have liquid fuel costs, since the fuel shows up on your electric bill, but it's still $0.0729/kW (that's from Exelon/PECO's web site for Residential rates). Wikipedia says that the Volt's battery capacity is 16 kWh, (wow, Wiki's cost estimates go from $35-40,000, only 30 with tax subsidies), with an effective use of 8.8 kWh. So, assuming you drive a full battery 6 days a week, 4 weeks a month, that's 6 x 4 x 8.8 x 0.0729 = $15.39/month to fuel a car, not bad! But what's harder to estimate is that your monthly loan payments are probably $300 higher... so that's where your gas savings go.

It does matter..

[denis-The-menace]

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.

Re:Ummmm

[CannonballHead]

My thoughts, as well. The company is still supposed to be a profit driven company, government money or not (and I personally think they should have been allowed to go bankrupt... and I'm a huge supporter of American companies, so it's not like I'm just anti-America-Corporation or something). It's decisions like these, IMO, that make me think they should go bankrupt, too. =P They seemed to do pretty well, once upon a time, building trucks and whatnot. Nobody really liked Toyota or Nissan trucks 10 years ago, for anything heavy-duty, etc. To get into the electric/hybrid market, I think they really needed some good ... well, innovation and technology. Not play a catch-up-to-Toyota/Honda game with my tax money.

What's so annoying about this stupid situation...

[fractoid]

...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".

GM is working on it?

[zappepcs]

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.

I disagree...

[MaWeiTao]

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.

The economics of it....

[ducomputergeek]

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.

Re:The economics of it....

[bgarland]

You obviously don't value that the Prius is larger than a Corolla, more comfortable to ride in, and will probably last longer (based on the historical evidence of Prius so far).

By the time a new 2009 Prius kicks the bucket (15 years at least), we'll see where gas prices are. I'm betting we'll be above $5/gallon before the end of 2010.

Re:hydrogen cars

[lupine]

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.

Yes. That's true.

[tthomas48]

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.

Re:Ummmm

[Ctrl V]

If they can't afford to make it commercially viable on their own, they shouldn't look to do it on the taxpayer dime.

Long-term, I agree.

However, this is a great example of a short-term subsidy that can help jump start the process until it _is_ commercially viable on it's own.

As it stands, the cost of the environmental impact is an externality to GM and the car buyer. By making cars (such as the Volt) that can drastically lower this impact, the cost is incorporated into the purchase price. Especially being new technology, this will initially have a much higher price point until efficiencies of scale/better production methods can eliminate the need for the subsidy.

At least, that's how it _could_ work :)

Re:A simple suggestion for GM

[bartwol]

I first suggest you get rid of the oil company and foreign oil company interests OUT OF YOUR BOARD ROOM?

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?)

Re:A simple suggestion for GM

[jgalun]

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...

Re:its not commercially viable

[danbert8]

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.

Re:wrong issue

[blueg3]

I've seen terrorists kill people. So far, I've seen no one die from Global Warming.

Yes, we know people are terrible at risk assessment and balancing immediate risk against long-term risk. You don't have to show it off.

Re:Why?

[Muad'Dave]

This is why it matters.

Re:its not commercially viable

[russotto]

Uranium is a finite, non-renewable resource

Now don't get me wrong, there's plenty of Uranium to go around for quite some time, and with proper breeder-reactors, there's very little waste, but in effect, you're pushing the supply/demand problem down the road a few years.

The second law of thermodynamics says that pushing the problem down the road is the best we can do.

Mr. Cochran would like to add a few comments...

[Guppy]

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.

plug-in prius being released in 2010

[chipace]

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.

You mean kilometers per joule

[George_Ou]

Per kilogram of fuel is variable. It's distance traveled per unit of energy that matters.

Re:You mean kilometers per joule

[NeutronCowboy]

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.

Re:You mean kilometers per joule

[avalys]

No, it's really distance traveled per unit of money that matters.

Or, per unit of CO2, if you're one of those people.

Economic Sense or No Choice?

[katorga]

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?

Diesel myths and reasons for buying hybrids

[hwyhobo]

There appear to be a few common myths being repeated here.

US gasoline is lower octane than European gasoline

No, it isn't. Octane rating methodology is different. Read Octane Rating

I would much rather have (some diesel vehicle) that gets this (some incredible number)

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.

cheap (diesel)

Diesel in Europe is cheaper than gasoline only because it gets vastly preferential tax treatment.

We have some bizarre unxplained fear and loathing for diesel in the US

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.

This one finally got me to register for Slashdot

[Mike_EE_U_of_I]

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.

GIGO

[Rei]

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."