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