backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 175 comment(s) - last by estarkey7.. on Jul 27 at 1:11 PM

Chevy Volt

Honda Insight
The Volt may be good for some "spirited" driving

There has been plenty of hype surrounding the Chevrolet Volt over the past two years. The vehicle splashed onto the screen as a concept car at the Detroit Auto Show in 2007 and is poised to hit American roads next year.

The Volt's big claim to fame is its ability to travel 40 miles on a full charge from its lithium-ion battery pack. The vehicle's battery pack can be recharged through a household outlet or trickle charged via the onboard "range extender" gasoline engine.

Although the Volt ticks all the right eco-friendly check boxes when it comes to eco-friendliness and fuel consumption, General Motors hopes to also give buyers a sportier vehicle to drive compared to its Japanese rivals. While the Toyota Prius and Honda Insight are both praised for their high fuel economy, neither vehicle is exactly a corner carver.

The Insight specifically was recently blasted by a publication which normally gives favorable reviews to Honda vehicles. Consumer Reports noted that the new Insight “Fell short in ride quality, handling, interior noise, acceleration, rear-seat, access and visibility.” The only saving grace for the vehicle was its 38 MPG test average during Consumer Reports’ testing and it ranked 21 out of 22 vehicles tested.

For its part, General Motors hopes to exceed expectations in chassis development to squash one of the main complaints leveled against hybrids. "Our chassis is much more sporty than either of the other vehicles," said Volt chief engineer Andrew Farah. While it's unlikely that the Volt will challenge a BMW 3-Series when it comes to handling, it's also not likely to bore drivers like the isolating Prius.

The Volt is expected to have a price tag of around $40,000, but a $7,500 tax credit should help soften the blow.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
well
By yacoub on 6/30/2009 8:58:08 AM , Rating: 5
We'll see how much people really want plug-in electric vehicles once cap-n-trade gets into full swing and your existing electric bill skyrockets. Are you really going to want to add the drain of charging those massive battery packs in an electric car every day when your electric bill is already costing you twice as much as it used to?
Doubtful, especially when keeping your existing gasoline-powered car would be much more cost-effective than buying an electric car and charging it at home.

It's too bad, really, because the technology is interesting and would hold merit if it wasn't for the very-same environmentalists who support electric cars also being against electric power generation sources like nuclear, which is one of the power-generating sources that would most reduce the cost of electricity, or cleaner coal, which would make best use of existing power generation infrastructure.




RE: well
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2009 9:29:25 AM , Rating: 5
Gas prices will also go through the roof though.

Hope people are happy with their change. Because that's about all this government wants to let you keep.


RE: well
By bissimo on 6/30/2009 10:03:48 AM , Rating: 1
Am I the only person that reads this site who doesn't doesn't feel like they need to regurgitate AM radio right-wing dribble at every opportunity?


RE: well
By GreenyMP on 6/30/2009 10:15:18 AM , Rating: 5
Really? We don't want to pay feel-good energy taxes and the only way that we could have come to this realization is from someone else telling us this? Lets not flame freedom of speech -- oh, wait, you can't help it because you are liberal! I guess freedom of speech only applies if you are liberal, right?


RE: well
By ClownPuncher on 6/30/2009 11:41:54 AM , Rating: 2
How does it have to do with freedom of speech? The guy clearly just disagrees with you and thinks you are sheep. Which is what conservatives say about liberals all the time. But freedom of speech has nothing to do with it, it's called differing opinions. He is free to call you an idiot, and you are free to call him one. Quit pretending to have your freedoms treaded upon just to try to prove a point.


RE: well
By invidious on 6/30/2009 12:28:05 PM , Rating: 4
Good point, calling someone a sheep does not have anything to do with free speach. But some liberals do tend to argue under the hypocritical assumption that because they are on the environmental advocates that their opinion is the only one that is valid.

To those people please realize that just because something is good for the environment does not mean it is morally obligatory. Have some perspective and realize that the benifits must be weighed against the costs, everything is relative. Almost every conservative is going to agree that this bill is over the line.


RE: well
By LostInLine on 6/30/2009 12:50:22 PM , Rating: 2
Since the Gov'ment is involved, I bet crap and tax actually increases C02 levels. I'm investing in huge coal fired electric plants just south of the boarder so i can sell energy to the US grid and make a fortune while completely ignoring emissions.


RE: well
By ClownPuncher on 6/30/2009 12:50:46 PM , Rating: 3
Pretty much everyone thinks their view is the only correct view. It's not liberal or conservative. Conservatives will use religion, liberals will use eco-religion, just 2 examples.

Anyway, I hate cap and trade too.


RE: well
By Jeffk464 on 7/1/2009 12:40:04 PM , Rating: 3
Luckily fact has very little to do with opinion.


RE: well
By ClownPuncher on 7/1/2009 7:54:47 PM , Rating: 2
Fact also has very little to do with politics.


RE: well
By Bender 123 on 6/30/2009 12:54:16 PM , Rating: 5
I am in for "Green", but the Al Gores and the cap and trade set make me irate!

How did Al Gore get all his money? His father was the CEO of Oxidental COAL! He got to his privileged position based on the industries he is trying to stop.

And...

What is his current income from cap and trade? He is the prime investor in several "cape and trade" carbon credit exchange brokers. This means that if cap and trade come to pass, we pay more money to the govt, we pay more to the companies and Al Gore gets to sit back and watch his money roll in as his brokers take slices of carbon trade credit exchange deals.

Then Al and ManBearPig all go live a happy life with all our green feelings and money.

No thanks...


RE: well
By randomposter on 6/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: well
By Mr772 on 6/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: well
By invidious on 6/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: well
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2009 11:10:11 AM , Rating: 5
How about you actually address my point? Prove to me that gas prices won't go up as a result of this. Oh wait you can't.


RE: well
By randomposter on 6/30/2009 11:15:43 AM , Rating: 2
Gas prices are going to go through the roof anyhow - just as soon as the global economy regains its footing. The sooner you accept that fact and adapt accordingly, the happier you will be as an individual.

But since this is DT I expect this post to be flagged a bright red -1 in about 3 minutes.


RE: well
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2009 11:19:42 AM , Rating: 2
So we should artificially inflate it even more?

I am well aware the the cost of gas can and will increase naturally as demand increases. There is absolutely no reason however to inflate it through bogus taxes designed to protect us from something we have no control over.


RE: well
By Alexstarfire on 6/30/2009 4:27:33 PM , Rating: 3
Depending on what the taxes get used for it couldn't hurt, but as the government just misspends all its money there is no reason for a tax.


RE: well
By Jeffk464 on 7/1/2009 12:43:50 PM , Rating: 2
Demand will go up as supplies are headed down. Should lead to very, very high prices and probably cause further recessions.


RE: well
By invidious on 6/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: well
By Jeffk464 on 7/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: well
By Spuke on 6/30/2009 12:55:57 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The sooner you accept that fact and adapt accordingly, the happier you will be as an individual.
Funny but my happiness is not based on how much the price of gas is.


RE: well
By icanhascpu on 6/30/2009 4:11:49 PM , Rating: 1
You haven't even proven it will. (not saying it wont, that's a different matter) But generally, if you're going to make a point, standing on the "well you cant disprove it!" logic doesn't go far to prove whatever point you were trying to make in the first place.


RE: well
By estarkey7 on 7/27/2009 1:11:10 PM , Rating: 2
This is one of the reasons why I stopped commenting on things for the most part. For a tech community website, you would think progression would be encouraged.

If this kind of attitude was prominent, we'd still be driving a horse and carriage.


RE: well
By Samus on 6/30/2009 7:46:57 PM , Rating: 3
The Volt has independant suspension, greatly improving handling and ride quality. That says a lot, since no other hybrids do.

I just can't believe in the 21st century we still build cars with a dead axle.


RE: well
By Bubbacub on 7/1/2009 5:51:28 AM , Rating: 2
<smug> we figured out that having an axle more advanced than a tree trunk that actually lets you go round corners may be advantageous many years ago in europe! </smug>


RE: well
By Jeffk464 on 7/1/2009 12:52:11 PM , Rating: 2
I read a review by some car magazine that got to test drive a prototype and they were extremely happy with the ride and handling. It looks like GM has managed to pull this one off, the only problem is the price.


RE: well
By Spuke on 7/1/2009 4:11:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Volt has independant suspension, greatly improving handling and ride quality.
More than likely the Volt has one simply because of its price point than any handling advantage an independent suspension would give.


RE: well
By cjc1103 on 6/30/2009 9:48:47 AM , Rating: 5
Direct operating costs for electric cars (battery recharging) is going to be less expensive than paying for gasoline (http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/d... However you have to figure in other factores, battery replacement cost being the big expense after 100,000 miles (or maybe more, some Prius cars have goone 190,000 miles on the original battery). Other maintenance is less expensive, for example mechanical brakes are used less with regenerative braking. Also electric cars are going to be more expensive to buy until battery costs come down. So it's difficult to compare total operating costs.


RE: well
By dani31 on 6/30/2009 10:07:46 AM , Rating: 1
When to many factors come into the ecuation, it's a matter of vision to move ahead.


RE: well
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2009 11:12:03 AM , Rating: 2
You speak of a vision as if you are somehow enlightened but you can't even spell the word "equation" properly. Pardon me for not really caring about your views when looking to whats best for my future.


RE: well
By invidious on 6/30/2009 12:46:53 PM , Rating: 2
Lol, you beat me to it. Personally I don't care about his spelling but it is funny.

The bottom line is people need to stop acting like they have a crystal ball.


RE: well
By Screwballl on 6/30/2009 10:09:41 AM , Rating: 2
That is part of the problem, battery costs are not likely to go down... or it may go down for a short time but as more of the battery based alt. fuel vehicles are sold, the price is more likely to go up.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/01/30/beyond-pea...

What we need is research into Telsa's "power from the ether" setup...

http://keelynet.com/energy/teslafe1.htm

http://electricandhybridcars.com/index.php/pages/1...


RE: well
By Alexstarfire on 6/30/2009 1:32:09 PM , Rating: 2
It could. The batteries we have now aren't really the best for a car type application. We really need new batteries for this specific purpose. Depending on what those end up being made of and the process involved they could end up being far cheaper and easier to make than the ones we have now.

Though I'm certainly not counting on that in the near future. Perhaps when they perfect the manufacturing process of making carbon nanotubes we'll see a dramatic drop in price.


RE: well
By Keeir on 6/30/2009 1:26:47 PM , Rating: 2
On Battery Replacement.. I think one needs to remember the car is usuable for a period going forward from Battery replacement and judge whether the battery replacement is economical

Well... GM has to offer a 150,000 mile battery warranty. Since they are only using 8.8 kWh out of 16 kWh, I think they should have no issue getting 4,000+ cycles before mileage really starts to decrease (I mean they can lose more than 30% capacity before that starts). So lets figure a Volt Battery lasts 150,000 miles. Compared to a Prius, thats 3,000 gallons of gas saved. Compared to a typical 30 mpg compact car, thats 5,000 gallons of gas saved. Since a Prius may also need a battery replacement at 150,000 miles, lets just consider the typical 30 mpg compact car. If you think difference between 40 miles on gas versus electricity will stay around $2.00 per "gallon" (3/4*8.8kWH*$0.11/kWH=$0.76 --> 1 gallon of gas = $2.76), thats 10,000 dollars of savings. I personally think going forward the difference will be more like $3.00+ (4.50 gas and 1.50 electricity). Well worth buying a battery which in ten years will likely be cheaper than current prices.

For those that don't know, ThunderSky sells Lithium Ion (Phosphate type) Batteries for EV conversion. 16 kWh (Volts full battery) sells for around $10,000 (with BMS) at list. Thundersky though offers upto 40% volume discount. OEM prices would be closer to $6,000 per 16 kWh or less. So right now, I would think a high volume volt replacement battery would cost ~$8,000. Even if in 10 years no advancements have been made on cost, reliability, size, wieght, etc. A replacement battery will likely be the sound economically.


RE: well
By Alexstarfire on 6/30/2009 1:41:29 PM , Rating: 2
People keep talking about how the Prius needs a battery replacement at 150k miles yet never look to see how many actually have replaced theirs. Looking at warranty info is perfectly acceptable in some cases, but this isn't one of them. I'd bet my life that 95%, if not more than that, of all Prius batteries still don't need to be replaced yet.

That being said, can't say the Volt will need to be replaced at 150k miles either. Only time will tell.


RE: well
By randomposter on 6/30/2009 2:58:13 PM , Rating: 2
Google "Prius Taxi" - some of these things are still going strong after a half million miles.


RE: well
By Alexstarfire on 6/30/2009 4:33:39 PM , Rating: 2
I don't need to as I'm usually the one pointing things like that out to others. Others don't like to do research most of the time so they are drastically uninformed about certain things.


RE: well
By mindless1 on 7/2/2009 4:37:12 AM , Rating: 2
Incorrect. You are optimistically fantasizing about nonsense.

The battery technology is well known as for the number of cycles and degradation curve. Whether it is in a car or not is largely irrelevant, what is relevant is whether the battery continues to hold enough capacity to get people to where they need to go without having to switch to the ICE for charging.

You have not done the research on this type of battery, you are drastically uninformed. Try thinking about it as a science instead of as political nonsense.


RE: well
By Alexstarfire on 7/3/2009 1:36:14 AM , Rating: 2
I can see you have no idea what you are talking about.

We are talking about the Prius, not the Volt. The Prius will ALWAYS switch to the ICE. I'm sure an older and more used battery will lower mileage, but that's it. I can't say by how much either since that part by itself it difficult to test, at least at home anyway. Haven't seen any professional test like that on a Prius, or similar car, yet.

I suggest you go take a look around some Hybrid websites before you continue to post your drivel.


RE: well
By Solandri on 6/30/2009 8:51:22 PM , Rating: 2
Pure speculation, but I suspect the type of cycling has a lot to do with the life of the battery. Deep cycling a battery (which a plug-in-hybrid would tend to do) generally puts more wear on it than infrequent and low-current charging and discharging (which a gas-hybrid taxi would tend to do). In other words, don't expect the lifespan of gas-hybrid taxi batteries to provide an accurate estimate of plug-in-hybrid battery lifespan.


RE: well
By Alexstarfire on 7/1/2009 1:18:15 AM , Rating: 2
While true, we weren't talking about plug-ins, now were we?


RE: well
By Solandri on 7/1/2009 3:38:37 AM , Rating: 2
I thought we were. The estimated lifespan of the battery on the GM Volt (a plug-in hybrid) was questioned. The Prius (not a plug-in hybrid) battery lifespan in practice was brought up for comparison. I'm pointing out that the Prius battery's lifespan may not be relevant to the Volt's battery lifespan, and thus the comparison may not be applicable.


RE: well
By Alexstarfire on 7/1/2009 6:47:11 AM , Rating: 2
The OP might have, but I didn't. I just talked about the Prius battery.


RE: well
By mindless1 on 7/2/2009 4:45:35 AM , Rating: 2
... but you ignored that the battery degrades long term then the ICE has to cycle on more often. That the car still runs is not evidence the operational paramaters have remained the same, the battery will still need changed for the car to be functional as specified.

Further, there are additional risks of using a battery long term. Automobiles are exposed to extremes in temperature, moisture, and after aged a bit are not necessarily air or water tight anymore. These problems may not be so obvious with vehicles which travel more than an average # of miles a year but the cars have to suit all common consumer usage patterns and all weather conditions within the markets they are sold in.

The whole point is to reduce use of oil, since it certainly doesn't save money compared to other alternatives. If you let the battery get too low in capacity it may be a bit like riding a skateboard with one lop-sided wheel. You can still get where you're going but you waste more energy getting there.


RE: well
By Alexstarfire on 7/3/2009 1:40:50 AM , Rating: 2
You need to read my other reply to you. You have clearly not done ANY research into the Prius at all, else you'd know that even on the first gen models most batteries still have yet to need a change.

It's not that what you say isn't true, but it's very difficult to say how much JUST the degraded battery is making on mileage. I wouldn't mind seeing any data if you happen to know where some is though.


RE: well
By Keeir on 7/1/2009 3:34:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In other words, don't expect the lifespan of gas-hybrid taxi batteries to provide an accurate estimate of plug-in-hybrid battery lifespan.


Furthermore, all current NA hybrids use a different chemisty entirely than most Plug-In electric autos.

However, Lithium Ion (Chevy Volt) has been used extensively in conversion projects and model RC. Using Thundersky's numbers for its Li-ion cells (which are suitable for auto use), provided cells are kept above 5% and at standard conditions for temperature/pressure/etc, they should get 2,000 cycles before degrading past 80% of capacity. It is currently not known how much the temperature variation and charging profile of the Volt will affect Battery life. (Volt profile will be ~80% full to ~30% "empty" and swing around 5% up and down during "extended range mode" according to the latest info on gm-volt.com).

I think its also fair to note for both current Hybrids and Plug-In type hybrids, a "dead" battery will only really occur due to manufacturing error. Likely outcome of actual usuage are a gradual reduction of battery life until its no longer "usable" because it provided only minimal boost or minimal AER. Tesla, which uses almost its entire battery and fairly un-sophisticated cells, only expects 70% life after 5 years and 50,000 miles. I hope the Volts Li cells are better than the figures Tesla expects from its Lithium Cobalt type.


RE: well
By Jeffk464 on 7/1/2009 1:02:52 PM , Rating: 2
The manufacturers are taking all this into account. They are programing the cars charging systems to get maximum battery life.


RE: well
By Alexvrb on 7/1/2009 9:46:19 PM , Rating: 2
As Keeir points out below, the Volt's battery is neither completely charged nor completely discharged, as BOTH of these would reduce the life of the battery. The battery is considered "depleted" at roughly 30% capacity, and "fully charged" at roughly 80%. So there will be no deep cycling, ever, no matter how you drive it.

Also the article has a minor mistake:
"The vehicle's battery pack can be recharged through a household outlet or trickle charged via the onboard "range extender" gasoline engine."

The Volt does not trickle charge the battery once it is "depleted". That would be stupid, as you'd be burning extra fuel to generate extra electricity to trickle charge the battery. What the Volt actually does is maintain a partial charge (approx 30%) using the engine-generator and regenerative braking. Keeir also pointed this out.

So, if the battery is at 30% when you pull up to your house, you can charge the "full" 8kWh. If it trickle charges while you drive, and you're at 50%, you have used additional gasoline to accomplish some of that charging. That would ruin the point of an E-REV, and that's why the Volt does not do this.


RE: well
By Starcub on 7/2/2009 8:46:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Volt does not trickle charge the battery once it is "depleted". That would be stupid, as you'd be burning extra fuel to generate extra electricity to trickle charge the battery. What the Volt actually does is maintain a partial charge (approx 30%) using the engine-generator and regenerative braking.

The point of using the engine to charge the battery is to maintain the minimum charge level in order to maximize battery life, not to maximize efficiency. This isn't new in the Volt, the Prius does the same thing. Thus, I interpreted "depleted" to mean that the engine hits the 30% efficiency mark. If I'm not mistaken the "engine generator" you mention uses gas to charge the battery, though not that much -- probably in a special low HP, high rpm firing mode while idling, which might put just a little more gas than normal. The engine force charging mechanism would disable itself when the battery charge level increased over 30% to maximize efficiency.


RE: well
By Alexvrb on 7/3/2009 8:09:13 PM , Rating: 2
I just said that it maintains 30% - I'm not saying it doesn't do any charging, I'm saying it charges and then stops charging. As opposed to charging it back up while you drive. If you read the DT article, you'd get the impression that once it hits "depleted" (which again I already said is rougly 30%) that it charges up the battery. It does not. The engine kicks on and off as needed for to maintain roughly 30% +/- 5%. Yes, the generator burns gas, as it periodically kicks on and off as needed. But it only charges the battery just enough to keep it around that area, it does not bring the battery back to "full" 80%.

Also "special low HP, high RPM firing mode by idling" makes no sense. In computer terms idling = no load, high rpm = heavy load. Besides, it generates more horsepower than you would think, as it has to power a fairly beefy generator. It's also not coupled to the wheels directly or through a traditional drivetrain. So they are free to maximize efficiency by running at fixed RPM range(s) for which it has been optimized. Unlike parallel hybrids which have to run the full range of RPMs.

To recap, saying that it trickle (slow, low amperage) charges the battery implies that the engine stays running once the battery is depleted, and that it slowly charges the battery back to full while you drive. I pointed out that this is NOT what it does, and that doing so would be stupid, because it would burn extra gasoline. I'm not saying it burns NONE, but charging up the battery full as you drive would burn MORE, and this ruins the point of charging it from ~30% to 80% when you get home, using the grid. Few people actually understand how the Volt operates....


RE: well
By Starcub on 7/16/2009 9:09:13 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't arguing with you, I was just pointing out that the purpose of the force charging was to extend the life of the battery by keeping the charge within a fixed range. It could be that he meant "range extender" referring not the range of the vehicle, but rather the life of the battery.

Both the brake and gas generated form of charging would use the same generator. When I said "low HP, high RPM", I meant that engaging the generator probably engages a motor driven by the main drive shaft which rotates through a gearing system at a significantly higher RPM than the drive shaft rotates at given that it is RPM that generates the charge in an electric motor and not force of rotation.


RE: well
By Starcub on 7/17/2009 4:39:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's also not coupled to the wheels directly or through a traditional drivetrain. So they are free to maximize efficiency by running at fixed RPM range(s) for which it has been optimized. Unlike parallel hybrids which have to run the full range of RPMs.

I just realized that the Volt isn't any kind of hybrid drive. It uses it's gas engine solely for charging the battery -- so it's a range extending motor in every sense of the word, but an ineffecient one since there are multiple energy conversions taking place before you get the power to the wheels. I wonder why they didn't just ditch the gas engine and put more batteries in.

Even though there is no drive shaft for the gas engine, there has to be some connection of the electric generator to the drive system in order for there to be regenerative breaking, so I'm guessing there is some gearing system in place to convert the horsepower into RPM.


RE: well
By Jeffk464 on 7/2/2009 12:28:45 AM , Rating: 2
ixquick "prius taxi"


RE: well
By Jeffk464 on 7/1/2009 12:56:10 PM , Rating: 2
No transmission, the engine running less frequent and always running at optimal level, regenerative brakes, if you ask me these things should be super reliable. That being said when its time to replace the batteries it really going to hurt the wallet.


RE: well
By namechamps on 6/30/2009 10:57:20 AM , Rating: 2
Gasoline emits more c02 per mile than electricity generated by any method (including coal).

So if hypothetically crap&tax raises electricity rates 20% expect it to raise gas rates 30%.

Still a net win for electricity.

Based on the size of the battery pack and estimate range the Volt gets about 3 mile per KWH. That works out to around $0.04 per mile.

The Prius = 50mpg. So $4.00/gallon gas = $0.08 per mile.
Typical "25mpg car" = 25mpg So $4.00/gallon gas = $0.16 per mile.

Gas would have to be less than $2.00 per gallon for a Prius to be "cheaper per mile than an EV".

Gas would have to be less than $1.00 per gallon for a typical 25mpg car to be cheaper per mile than an EV.

C&T is likely to make that difference even larger.


RE: well
By Alexstarfire on 6/30/2009 4:30:19 PM , Rating: 2
CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas my good man. Not that I know how coal plants and such compare to cars on other gases. I'm just saying you can't look at just ONE piece of the pie.


RE: well
By Ratinator on 6/30/2009 11:30:52 AM , Rating: 4
How much power do you use? I would happily double my electric bill right now in place of what I spend on Gas.


RE: well
By adiposity on 6/30/2009 12:48:15 PM , Rating: 2
Not that I agree with him, but he was saying your electric bill will double under cap-and-trade, BEFORE you start plugging in an electric vehicle. Once you start charging a car on your electric bill, the consumption could easily quadruple or even more. So no, he's not saying that for 2 times your current bill you can pay for all your mileage. That would be an extremely conservative estimate.

My electric bill is about $60 right now. My gas bill for the month approaches $200. So there's one piece of data to play around with.

-Dan


RE: well
By Spuke on 6/30/2009 12:57:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How much power do you use? I would happily double my electric bill right now in place of what I spend on Gas.
Would mind paying my electric bill?


RE: well
By Keeir on 6/30/2009 1:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
Rather than vague statements, let me be clear

Chevy Volt Battery is 16kWh large. However, the charging and discharging system do not use this entire capacity to prolong life. The current design is to use ~8.8 kWh to acchieve 40 miles on 2008 EPA city. Early projects for EPA Highway are more in the 35-40 miles range. Presuming you use the entire usuable battery each time you drive, recharge should be around 8.8 kWH.

Your cost for this 8.8 kWH can be drastically different based on where you are...

My electricity rate (~$0.09/kWh) would need to multiply by 6 so they cost of the electricity was equal to the equilavent I spent on gas currently. Even if I had a Prius, my electricity rate would need to triple to get equal cost.


RE: well
By Jedi2155 on 6/30/2009 11:42:25 AM , Rating: 2
My electric company (Southern California Edison) and probably many, offer a special lower rate specifically for EV vehicles during off peak charging.

So if you have a EV, you can be paying less for your electricity.


RE: well
By MrPoletski on 6/30/2009 11:48:33 AM , Rating: 2
yet another reason for investment in fission power and more research into getting fully operational fusion power.


RE: well
By Chudilo on 6/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: well
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2009 12:22:46 PM , Rating: 5
I would be happy to. Hell I'll have a mini reactor in a closet if I'm allowed to. Nuclear power is safe, efficient, and cheap.

I believe GE is now manufacturing reactors that communities can purchase which are buried a few hundred feet down, require no maintenance, and provide power for 50 years.


RE: well
By adiposity on 6/30/2009 12:50:10 PM , Rating: 2
I don't have any problems with nuclear power, but I don't know about a mini reactor. What happens the day you forget to go buy coolant? :)

-Dan


RE: well
By nct on 6/30/2009 1:02:08 PM , Rating: 3
It bathes you with radiation and you become a mutant superhero (or villain, if you prefer). What's not to like about that?


RE: well
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2009 4:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
That sounds like a win win to me. Maybe I'll get the superpowers of the dude from Infamous.


RE: well
By Solandri on 6/30/2009 9:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
Dunno about GE. I know Toshiba has applied to have their microreactor design approved for sale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S

Do note that these were designed for things like remote African villages in mind. If your town already has significant power infrastructure in place, it's cheaper to build one big power plant (coal, nuclear, hydro, geothermal, whatever).


RE: well
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2009 9:15:57 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah that's what I was referring to. Thought it was GE. Point is that kind of technology is out there.


RE: well
By Jeffk464 on 7/1/2009 1:09:20 PM , Rating: 2
Africa with nuclear power, what could possibly go wrong? :)


RE: well
By callmeroy on 6/30/2009 1:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't want to only because of the eye sore factor, just like any thing --- a cell tower, a wind mill, etc....not because of a safety factor.


RE: well
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2009 1:32:24 PM , Rating: 2
Personally I think that coal and nuclear power plants look cool. Now a cell tower or a wind mill in my backyard, that's a different story. I'm a light sleeper so I think the constant drone of a wind power plant near me would keep me up at night.


RE: well
By SuperFly03 on 6/30/2009 7:50:59 PM , Rating: 1
I have to say that is one of the dumbest reasons to vote against something meant to help society.


RE: well
By elgueroloco on 7/1/2009 8:33:57 AM , Rating: 2
Just because something is meant to help society doesn't mean it will.

Communism was mean to help Russian, Cuban, and Chinese society. Prohibition was meant to help American society. Hitler's final solution was, ostensibly, supposed to help European society. That doesn't mean any of those things actually helped anyone.

And no, I'm not saying C&T is as bad as the holocaust or anywhere close, just illustrating the difference between stated intent and actual effect.

And I think the fact that someone thinks something won't help society is as good a reason as exists not to vote for it.


RE: well
By Solandri on 6/30/2009 9:09:54 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If you think nuclear power is so great , would you personally live next to one, or withing like 5 miles of it? I didn't think so!

The fear is completely irrational. By number of deaths per gigawatt generated, the most dangerous power plant to live nearby is a hydroelectric plant. Worldwide, dam failures have been particularly devastating. Nuclear is actually the safest power source, even including the deaths from Chernobyl.

http://gabe.web.psi.ch/pdfs/PSI_Report/ENSAD98.pdf
Figure 7.2.6, page 240


RE: well
By ianweck on 6/30/2009 9:14:30 PM , Rating: 1
I'd live next to one. Hell I used to sleep thirty feet from one, no big deal...


RE: well
By Ammohunt on 6/30/2009 2:00:40 PM , Rating: 2
this winter i plan on heating my home with.....WOOD if electricity gets out of hand i will go amish for lighting Oil lamps(seriously). Hell this is what Obama wants anyway to turn America into a third world country.


RE: well
By Jeffk464 on 7/1/2009 12:24:21 PM , Rating: 2
My electricity comes from natural gas, so the price potentially can go down. Coal power companies will have to buy CO2 credits from clean plants like natural gas, if it works how I think it does. Although there is a lot of Obama bashing over this it does make clean electricity profitable, and I think natural gas is already pretty cheap.


Big claim
By SublimeSimplicity on 6/30/2009 10:11:33 AM , Rating: 5
Sportier than a 98hp car? Those are some mighty big claims... if they were unveiling the car during the 1900 World's Fair in Paris.




RE: Big claim
By randomposter on 6/30/2009 10:26:49 AM , Rating: 1
There's more to life than horsepower.


RE: Big claim
By austinag on 6/30/2009 10:46:19 AM , Rating: 4
Why would you say such a mean hatefully thing about sweet innocent horsepower?


RE: Big claim
By randomposter on 6/30/2009 11:05:43 AM , Rating: 1
... because I'd much, much rather drive a nimble, well-balanced car with telepathic road manners that happens to have 125hp, than a clumsy, numb car with a bullshit suspension that happens to have 250hp.


RE: Big claim
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2009 11:12:55 AM , Rating: 2
Why not have both? Oh right it kills the planet...


RE: Big claim
By randomposter on 6/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: Big claim
By jRaskell on 6/30/2009 11:35:15 AM , Rating: 3
Fallacy of logic. Attack the person, not the statement. Fail.


RE: Big claim
By Ranari on 6/30/2009 11:54:43 AM , Rating: 2
What are you, 16 years old and just got your first car? I don't see him insulting your preference of car now, do I? The fact is, some people like the fury and honesty of a powerful motor under the hood, like a Pontiac Trans Am, while others prefer the agility and lithe handling of something more nimble, like an S2000. Truth is, they're all fun to drive. I've driven both, and have had a lot of fun with them. Believe me, I've gone out and had my fair share of driving around in Mustangs and fast cars, video taping all the stupid shit we could think of.

Secondly, people's preference of automobile has a lot to do with their geographic location of where they live on a world map. I live in Florida, and there are huge Mustang and Corvette clubs located around my area. Gee, I wonder why? Maybe because, oh wait a minute, there aren't any mountains in Florida, perhaps? Heck, the highest point in my county is actually the county garbage dump, and I'm not about to go driving around that.

Thirdly, we're talking about hybrid vehicles here, haha. Small motors; big, heavy batteries. If it were the difference between 300hp and 340hp, I don't think many people would be sold on a "peppier" sales model. But car buffs or not, most people know what it's like driving a car where you can fit in a nap, a meal, and maybe a shave/makeup before you hit the speed limit. Try considering GM's market reach with hybrid vehicles.

So please, take your "brawn vs agility" car argument elsewhere.


RE: Big claim
By Jeffk464 on 7/1/2009 1:17:11 PM , Rating: 2
I prefer neither, I have a V6 prerunner Toyota Tacoma. Its not fast, doesn't handle very well compared to cars and I love it.

P.S. I plan on running it until the wheels fall of(probably around 2017), so I wont be buying the first generation of any of this electric stuff. I will be buying the second generation volt after all the bugs have been worked out. But I will be thanking all of you first generation buyers for working out all the headaches for me.


RE: Big claim
By Spuke on 7/1/2009 4:22:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
so I wont be buying the first generation of any of this electric stuff.
I don't plan on buying one at all. I think there will be enough used cars on the market for me to continue buying what I really want until I die. Of course, I could always change my mind.


RE: Big claim
By jRaskell on 6/30/2009 11:34:01 AM , Rating: 2
And I'd rather drive a nimble, well-balance car with telepathic road manners that happens to have 250hp (or hell, 500hp).

Your inference that you can't have both is just plain false.


RE: Big claim
By randomposter on 6/30/2009 11:38:56 AM , Rating: 2
Sure, you can have anything at a price. But in this world of free market economics, it's all about tradeoffs. Do I treat myself to a 500hp track car that I use maybe fifteen times a year, or do I sock some money away for my kid's college education?

Easy choice on that one. Real easy.


RE: Big claim
By ClownPuncher on 6/30/2009 11:45:18 AM , Rating: 3
It is easy, you can have more kids whenever you want, it's not every day you can afford a nice car. :)


RE: Big claim
By jRaskell on 6/30/2009 11:53:58 AM , Rating: 2
Still thinking a little too binary. There are always other options, but I get the distinct impression you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.