In the interview Mr. Nysschen comments, "I
don’t think the Volt is a car for idiots."
He says the
journalists misinterpreted his comments, and that what he really
meant was that he felt the Volt was "an idiotic business case."
However, from there his comments go south as he begins insulting the
now-profitable Tesla. He states, "We might as well have
been taking about the Tesla. I am not an enemy of the (Volt)
He hints that he believes buyers of EVs to be
foolish, remarking that they "cannot amortize their incremental
fixed investment in the cost of the car to the savings in fuel
consumptions." He is careful to call the business plan,
though, not the buyers, "idiotic". He also opines
that the environmental benefits of EVs are debatable.
states that he "cares very, very deeply about the planet, what
we are doing to it and how our activities of today are shaping
tomorrow." He says he is "astonished" by the
"misconceptions" he says that lawmakers and buyers hold
that plug-in EVs are emissions free. He refers to CARB report
that claims that well to wheel emissions in the U.S. with plug-ins
are higher than diesel vehicles as their electricity comes largely
from coal plants. The interviewer asked if he had read the
EPRI-NRDC study from 2007 that showed that EVs feature less net
emissions than gas vehicles. He said that he was "not
familiar with that study."
He calls corn ethanol an
"outrage", though he says cellulosic
ethanol is a good idea. He also says that diesel is the
best option, though he admitted that it didn't eliminate the U.S.'s
dependence on unstable foreign sources.
Wrapping up, he
admits, "I have never obviously driven a Volt. [But I
have] always looked at the car with great interest."
he is willing to judge the vehicle, stating, "Its not a premium
car feel, but it’s got a premium car price."