Slashdot Mirror


Musk, Others Want Volkswagen To Go Electric Instead of Fixing Diesels (washingtonpost.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Volkswagen has put itself in a tough spot. After cheating emissions standards, the company faces billions in fines and repair costs to bring those vehicles into spec and make peace with regulators. But a group of business owners, investors, and environmentalists has a different suggestion. The group, headlined by Elon Musk, sent an open letter to the California Air Resources Board outlining their solution. They want Volkswagen to be released from its obligation to fix cars already on the road, and instead require that the company substantially accelerate its rollout of zero-emission vehicles.

They want Volkswagen's money to go into manufacturing plants and R&D for zero-emission technology rather than to government-mandated fines. (Note that these investments would give Musk, in particular, another direct competitor.) The letter says, "In contrast to the punishments and recalls being considered, this proposal would be a real win for California emissions, a big win for California jobs, and a historic action to help derail climate change. The bottleneck to the greater availability of zero emissions vehicles is the availability of batteries. There is an urgent need to build more battery factories to increase battery supply, and this proposal would ensure that large battery plant and related investments, with their ensuing local jobs, would be made in the U.S. by VW."

7 of 313 comments (clear)

  1. Musk be a good idea by pellik · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Even with all the lying and dishonesty from VW, I'd still expect them to do a better job at making something useful out of that money then our government.

  2. Infrastructure by lymond01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Musk is smart. The more competition he has in electric car manufacturers, the less is his share in the infrastructure of recharging stations, battery building, and the research and tech behind it all. The more companies that jump on the electric car path, the easier it is for him to sell cars (though he seems a little more high minded than that which is why I like him).

  3. Zero emissions??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Most of US electricity is produced from coal and gas, zero emissions my ass. 67% coal/gas/petroleum. 19% is nuclear, technically zero emissions apart from the waste.
    I think they first need to get the generation of electricity cleaned up before pretending the electric cars are zero emissions.

    1. Re:Zero emissions??? by x0ra · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is, because the only way to replace carbon-based energy, at our current level of consumption, is a massive move to nuclear, which ain't gonna happen.

  4. Re:Passing the buck by wvmarle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Already VW and other companies are planning to go way into electric vehicles. And why wouldn't they want to? It's an easier and cheaper way of passing the EPA buck onto someone else. Instead of having to try to meet every stringent reg they can let someone else entirely (power companies) deal with that issue. And will they be able to deal with the issue either? Doubtful.

    That would be a management issue, rather than a technical issue.

    For decades now there are off-the-shelf gas scrubbers and other technologies that can very thoroughly clean up the exhaust of a power plant, including coal fired ones. It's not cheap or so of course, but there is nothing technical in the way. Add to a small number of sites, all of which are permanent managed, this is the best scenario possible for limiting pollution. Even CO2 can be dealt with this way, but that's getting a lot harder of course.

    For cars it's much harder to manage. Many, many small units, often poorly maintained (yearly checkups or less). The sheer number of units makes it impossible to install scrubbers, and catalytic converters go only that far. It's technically very hard to get car exhaust as clean as power plant exhaust, and cars are often spilling their pollution right inside densely populated areas.

    For your argument about trucks: well, sure, for now they won't be able to go electric. But that's not an argument to stop electric in vehicles, and even should be an argument to improve electric cars as improving technology there may just make electric trucks a reality, possibly via the hybrid diesel/electric stage where pollution can be kept out of the cities (running electric in the stop-and-go traffic of cities where diesel has a hard time, diesel on the motorways where it can shine). There are already electric and hybrid buses out there, so trucks don't seem to be too far off, either.

  5. Re:eGolf is agreat car by fsterman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Lifecycle analysis shows that electric cars produce 25% less emission than plug-in hybrids that use a drive train similar to the kind you are advocating for.

    Environmentalists have always been for more efficient cars but pure gasoline powered cars just aren't necessary. And there are a TON of engineering benefits to an electric car: the center of mass is super low, you double the storage capacity, you get rid of the vast majority of the maintenance cost, and the performance is really phenomenal.

    --
    Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
  6. Re:Where do batteries come from? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I get the impression that Musk isn't the typical sociopath business leader.

    He wants to change the world in positive ways. Money is a means to that end.

    Currently, I trust him more than many. I hope that trust isn't disappointed.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.