Slashdot Mirror
Chevy Volt Not Green Enough For California
thecarchik writes "The first two plug-in cars from major manufacturers will go head-to-head on warranties and lease prices: $350 a month for the 2011 Chevrolet Volt, $349 for the 2011 Nissan Leaf. Now the choice shifts to other measures, including electric and overall range, as well as the plug-in perks that states like California offer to early adopters to encourage them to opt for electric cars. This is where it gets interesting. While California loves the Nissan Leaf, current regulations deny Chevy Volt buyers two significant perks: a $5,000 rebate, and permission to drive solo in HOV Lanes."
Apparently California can't afford to pay government employees, but can afford to give money to people who buy electric cars?
The leaf is not a hybrid, the volt is. Seems pretty simple here folks.
HOV is for CONGESTION not for ENVIRONMENT. This is why for many years you could not build an extra lane on an interstate highway without building at least one of them as HOV. Of course, this so-called regulation was promptly disregarded in the New York City metropolitan area along whose left lanes on I-287 you can see the abandoned HOV signs and faded diamonds on their new left lanes.
But, seriously folks, HOV was always intended for congestion relief, not "clean/special fuel." This is why Virginia fights the hybrid-on-HOV law every time it expires. HOV was not originally intended to have anything to do with the environment, just congestion.
Kriston
This takes away any sort of "green" cred the vehicle had. Whether it's actually true what Calif. believes or not isn't the point. People will PERCEIVE that the Volt isn't "green" regardless of where it's sold in the US.
Sucks to be them.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
If it was diesel I would be way more interested. Why bother with a gasoline engine?
Assuming that introducing market distortions is, in fact, desirable(and, let's be frank, those already exist in vast numbers and a variety of forms for fossil fuels, roads, etc. so anybody whining about it being a liberal envirohippy conspiracy can spare me...) it seems like attempts to classify by "type" are far inferior to attempts to classify by efficiency.
All you have to do is calculate an adequately accurate conversion factor between a few fuel sources, based on what variables you care about(ie. co2 emmissions, foreignness, renewability, presumably a weighted average of some kind.) Then you could simply slap an "efficiency under expected conditions" number on each vehicle, without regard for how it achieves it, and go from there. Who cares if it is gasoline, hybrid, electric, diesel, alien tech, when we could know how efficient it is at moving from point A to point B at the lowest cost across the variables that concern us?
(If one were feeling really radical, one could simply apply a system of Pigovian taxes and/or credits to the fuel sources, and let car buyers follow their economic incentives from there; but I'm guessing that that'll be a non-starter.)
you need to stop believing those "documentaries" you've been watching.........
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1896
According to GM spokespersons Robert Peterson in Michigan and Shad Balch in California, GM decided in 2007 when it committed to series production of the Volt, to not seek California Air Resources Board AT-PZEV certification. Instead, the decision was made to certify the car in all 50 United States. ARB certification would have required, both GM executives explained, additional testing and since California's air quality regulators had yet to figure out how to classify the Volt, GM felt it was more important to continue the accelerated development program and get the car out by the Fall of 2010 then wait for ARB to come up with a way to categorize what will be for many drivers essentially an all-electric car, while for other who driver further distances each day, a hybrid.
As Frances Cairncross and others have argued, the best way to figure out this whole issue is a carbon tax. Tax fuels based on their carbon content. Refund it back through payroll tax credits (or other means) for lower income people who will feel more of an impact. Direct proceeds to mass transit or basic R&D for fuel efficiency/alternative fuels/etc. Then get the hell out of the way and let the free market work its magic. People saying, "Man, $5/gallon is expensive, maybe I should buy a more fuel efficient car or take the bus" is a hell of a lot more effective than arguing over whether this car or that car should qualify for this tax credit or that HOV lane permission.
I don't know why people don't like this. Conservatives can feel all warm and fuzzy about the free market and liberals can feel all warm and fuzzy about encouraging people to make the most environmentally friendly choices. Warm fuzzies all around.
-- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
After over three years of living in California, the HOV lane policy continues to drive me nuts.
Firstly, why should driving a more fuel efficient car give one the ability to drive in the "high occupancy" vehicle lane? If the intention of this lane is to give incentive for people to carpool, then this makes no sense. Further, the state stopped giving out these passes. It essentially created an elitist class of early adopter Prius/Honda Insight purchasers that get to use this lane. So, if the legislature decided it wanted to change the intended purpose of the HOV lane to also incentivise the purchasing of more fuel efficient cars, it has failed there as well. It seems beyond unfair to me to take publicly funded roads and give such a small percentage of drivers, who bought the right car at the right time, special lane privileges for eight hours a day.
Second of all, I remain unconvinced that HOV lanes actually increase carpooling. People I know who live reasonably close together, and work at the same business, usually do carpool. But the fact is that many people are not geographically close enough, or on similar schedules to co-workers to make carpooling make sense. I suspect that most of the people I see in the HOV lane on the 101 just happened to be making a trip somewhere together, which is much different than carpooling on a daily basis. A related point is that signs currently list a car with "2 or more occupants" as HOV lane acceptable. The rule SHOULD be 2 (or I'd argue 3) or more LICENSED DRIVERS. The many moms I see driving their kids around in the HOV lane are hardly taking a car off the road, now are they? That is unless the driving age has been lowered to 10 without me noticing.
Finally, the real reason this all bugs me, is the endgame: helping the environment. I see two arguments. Referring specifically to giving Priuses, or Leafs, or Volts access to the lane - The owners of all of them still own a car, and are still driving somewhere, just like the rest of us. In many cases, it is better for the environment to keep the car we have rather than purchase a new one. Last I read, a large portion of the environmental impact of a car lies just in its manufacture. My second argument is from obervation. I've seen many instances on a four lane highway, with the fourth lane being the HOV lane, where it was mostly not occupied, meanwhile the other three lanes were moving at a crawl. Wouldn't it be better to open the lane up to all and give the cars a chance to operate in their more efficient highest gear rather than polluting at a bumper to bumper snail's pace?
I really believe that HOV lanes in general are a flawed concept, that unfortunately are around forever, because who wants to be the politician trying to get elected lobbying against them? Talk about fodder for your candidate. You might as well argue we end the war on drugs.
I'm sure the manufacturers of diesel-electric locomotives, boats, submarines, and heavy trucks would all disagree with you.
That would presumably be mass produced. Electric cars have been around for over a century, plug in models that were practical and mass produced are much, much more recent.
And all these people really need to travel back and forth all the time between those points because of ...why? Really, fuck-ing why? How come no one brings this up there at all, is it an "inconvenient truth"? Why do they need either expensive upgrade at this time, alleged "mass" transit or "private" transit, just to keep burning some form of energy, go to lunch someplace else, "go shopping", or what? How about Californians realize they got so used to making huge money during two really bogus back to back boom and bust cycles (dot com and real estate churning) that they became obscene travel energy hogs, and a lot of this travel is just 'because they can", no different from someone driving his hummer to the end of the driveway to the mailbox..
Why not just, ya know, stop being "green" hypocrites and cut back on excessive travel in the first place, or in other words, be responsible and drop demand? Then you wouldn't need to spend these huge sums on any of those projects, the existing infrastructure would be "enough", with much cheaper normal maintenance. Is a really unnecessary trip in an electric car all that "green"? How about the same really unnecessary trip with "mass transit" some boondoggle high speed train, or worse, flying in some atmospheric kerosene exhaust spewing jet? When is jet travel *ever* "green"? Never, near as I can see, absolutely never.
And California as "high tech"? Prove it! Why do they still have millions commuting to go sit in offices in the internet age? Shouldn't they be showing the world this isn't necessary now? All those silicon valley high tech computer places, Google, Apple.., all that "we are just so gosh darn special" brags everyone else hears over and over again all the time.. so why aren't they showing the way that physical commuting, using any form of energy burning transportation, isn't really all that necessary anymore for really a lot of people? Why aren't they leading the world in getting good ultra high speed fiber to every residence and business in the state?
Wouldn't that be cheaper, greener and actually more effective than either the road and airport upgrade, or the whizz bang super high speed train alleged "upgrade"? All I am seeing is them sitting there all smug and "green" all the time, and they are the biggest energy hogs in the nation still. Plus water hogs. Live in a desert, and just demand the rest of the nation provide them with all the water they can evaporate away, "just because" they are California and somehow "special", and always seek to dictate to the rest of the nation how to think and act, "follow our lead"! BS, they are energy hogs, electric cars or high speed trains, regular gas hogs or flying around to go "do lunch" in some other city, it doesn't matter, never sit still or enjoy where you are, always have to "go someplace else". That's almost a freaking disease, and it certainly is some form of harmful obsession that is ingrained in their culture now. So ingrained, no one there can see it. Obsessive compulsive travel junkies.
I've you've ever been to the sf bay area during rush hour, most commuters would give their left nut for the ability to drive in HOV lanes. This will be /huge/ - the volt, with it's integrated range extending gas engine seems like a better idea than the all-electric leaf, but the market value of a HOV sticker, even without the rebates has got to be five or ten grand.
Typically diesels are more efficient than spark ignition engines - though not as much as it seems. Diesel fuel is more dense than gasoline so while the carbon emissions are better per mile, it is not by as much as the miles per gallon would suggest.
Typically diesels are more expensive and heavier than equivalent power spark ignition engines (for similarly advanced designs), so there is some disincentive to consumers. Diesel fuel is somewhat less available in the US.
Possibly a more serious problem is that diesels produce more non-CO2 emissions, especially particulates, than spark engines. This has gotten better over time, but modern spark engines are still cleaner.
A diesel hybrid is still a good idea - but not quite as big a win as it might seem
I think you're missing the point of my reply. AC stated that diesels excel at low end torque, which they do. S/he then went on to say that "is not what the electric generator of the Volt needs" which is frankly complete horseshit. More torque down low is actually preferable for a generator motor because it means you don't have to spin the thing as fast to generate the same power output. This means superior engine longevity (less friction) and better NVH (lower speeds mean less noise and vibration), which i'm sure everyone would agree are desirable qualities.
Now, not that I ever claimed a diesel was "best", but what actually constitutes the best engine for a case like this ultimately depends on the criteria. An engine that needs to be fuel efficient and durable, cost and weight be damned (like a big truck/boat/sub), will most likely end up a diesel. When total cost and size/weight are important factors (such as in a midsize car, portable generator, etc) then gasoline motors, which are smaller and less expensive to manufacture, are the more likely choice. But ultimately any engine that produces more torque at lower RPMs is going to have certain inherent advantages over faster spinning motors, even if they may not be the most appropriate choice for the application. Why do you think electric motors are so great? 100% torque at 0 rpm is pure amazing compared to internal combustion's offerings.
Anyways, there's the logic you were looking for. Hope it explains things for you. :)
California is full of idiots who keep electing uber-idiots to office.
Sorry, this is a clear case of typical short-sightedness of politicians. They pass legislation without thinking half a thought about it (heck they pass it without reading it). The result is stupid stuff like this.
(ie: crux of the problem, the Volt's motor is NOT low enough emission for California's liking. So they totally dismiss the fact that said motor will run far less often than an average motor.)
If they passed the law based on an avg. miles per year and the waste emitted on a yearly basis, the Volt would easily make the muster. This is akin to the problem some states had with the Prius. People could not register their Prius' because they could not pass the state emission tests. Because the testing equipment was incompatible with a hybrid vehicles operation. So wait, we have a cleaner, more fuel efficient vehicle but can't register it because of EMISSIONS testing. WTF.)
Let's not even get into the fact that my Prius must run the motor for a few minutes, wasting gas, in order to warm up the catalytic converter. Thus, if I am taking a 5 minute drive down the street. I have to emit extra pollutants thanks to environmental regulations. Our government should have made an exception to having to have the catalytic converter warmed up, and allowed for a gradual warming.
Just stupidity....worse, we elected this stupidity.
Guess that makes us (Americans) stupid!
IDIOT.....
Stop watching hackumentaries.
EV1 was NOT viable for U.S. market. You want proof of that? Look at the Honda Insight which was capable of getting 75mpg. It was a similar design (2 seater, not-sporty). It had three significant differences:
1. It could be refueled and continued with driving in a matter of minutes, versus hours.
2. It cost around $20,000 versus $60,000-$120,000.
3. It had all the current safety equipment required by law for a production car. The EV1 did not. And the added weight to add it would have resulted in the vehicle's range being drastically reduced.
--
Now, what was the result of Honda's Insight? Oh, that's right. It lost money. And in it's final year it sold a whopping 350 vehicles and was pulled from the market. And that was a vehicle that was a fraction of the cost of the EV1, and had none of it's limitations or drawbacks except for being a 2-seater.
The result, proof that the EV1 was "non-viable" as a production vehicle.
Well, let's see, you don't like it when we say the obvious: Mass Transportation. We hear the excuses it doesn't work there because the cities are to big.
Well, the cities are too big because most of the Americans wants a house for themselves (their family), and a grass lawn where they can make nice barbecues but take 1 ton of water a year to keep green. Come to Europe and take a look around. Practically no-one in a big city has a house for themselves, we all live in apartments. If you really want an house, well you have to move to the countryside. Where there is plenty of space and few people and you can drive your cars in normal roads. You gas is way to cheap there, and you got used to it. In fact you got so used that it's not enough to keep driving around ... you have to drive around in huge cars, or SUV's.
In a normal city, public transportation works. If you can't have metro everywhere, you get bus lines. But of course, that only works, if people actually live together, not if the house are so big and so separated that the BUS has to stop every 10 houses to pick up and drop people. Also, if you see in Europe, even in big cities, like Amsterdam, Madrid, Paris or even London (although London seems to be the least of the bunch), people actually live in the centre of the city. The centre is not just shops/restaurants/cinemas, no, there is people there ... but again, people living in apartment blocks.
That is the real problem you have. No mater how good are the cars, how good are the roads. If you continue building your cities this way, you will always need more and more roads and have more and more cars because it will be impossible to provide mass transportation to everyone.
Finally some reason! Where are my mod points when I need them?