backtop

Auto GM Attempts to Discharge Volt Hype
Brandon Hill (Blog) - March 26, 2007 10:18 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 94 comment(s) - last by spindoc.. on Mar 28 at 5:06 PM

Bob Lutz and the Chevy Volt
GM tries to limit excitement over its Volt electric car

GM's last modern electric car program began with the EV1 in 1996. The company spent over a billion dollars on the program and produced 1,117 units. The program was cancelled in 2003 and nearly all of the EV1s were crushed. GM felt that the program could never be profitable and that the public wasn't quite warming up to a 2-seater that was only operable in limited temperature conditions and featured a limited driving range.

Many believed that GM would right the wrongs of the failed EV1 program with the new Volt concept that was unveiled earlier this year at the Detroit Auto Show. The company hyped up the vehicle as the next step in automotive technology.

At the time, the Volt was expected to enter production at the beginning of the next decade. "We have set an internal target of production in 2010. Whether we can make that or not, this is still kind of an unpredictable program for us," said GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz. "We're sort of outside our comfort zone."

Although Lutz gave a launch date of 2010, he admitted that there are some challenges to be met with developing an electric vehicle like the Volt. Lutz also noted that the Volt had roughly a 90% chance of making it through to production. That's almost a guaranteed commitment in the car world -- especially from a man like Lutz who spearheaded the Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Sky and Pontiac G8.

Lutz then continued, "Competitors who write this off as a PR exercise are going to be brutally surprised."

According to The Detroit News, the competition may be saying "I told you so" if GM's current maneuvers are any indication. GM recently gathered a group of automotive journalists together and told them that it can’t guarantee that the Volt will ever hit the road.

"The pressure is intense," said Volt chief engineer Nick Zielinski. "We came out with this idea and now people are saying, 'OK, where is this car. We want it now.'"

Production is also highly dependent on lithium-ion battery technology which has not yet made into the automotive mainstream. The Tesla Roadster manages to fit 6,381 lithium-ion cells into its battery pack, but the price tag for the vehicle is roughly $100,000 USD. GM would need to sell the Volt at a price roughly one-forth to one-third that amount to garner public interest.

A concept like the Volt is quite appealing for a number of reasons. For one, it limits a driver's dependence on gasoline for around town cruising. The Volt gets all of its forward propulsion from its electric motor and onboard batteries. A turbocharged 1.0 liter 3-cylinder internal combustion engine (ICE) kicks in to recharge the batteries when they drop below a certain threshold, but is not used for propulsion. GM says that the Volt can travel as much as 40 miles on a charge -- enough for many American commuters on a daily commute -- and will save about 500 gallons of gasoline per year.

"It's a breakthrough of immense magnitude -- potentially one of the two or three most significant game changers that we've seen in a long time," said David Cole of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor.

Many automotive analysts questioned GM's judgment in showcasing the Volt to the public in the first place and in giving it a production date. GM insiders also questioned the decision to put what was basically an empty shell on the show floor. This isn’t like the Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Sky where a RWD platform was developed in record time using off the shelf components. GM has a much bigger technological challenge ahead with bringing the Volt to the market.

Michigan State University professor Bruce Vanden Gergh was a little more blunt with his assessment of the Volt program: "They'd better make it work or they're going to look stupid."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Saving what ?
By kensiko on 3/26/2007 12:45:17 PM , Rating: 2
"and will save about 500 gallons of gasoline per year."

Ok yes, but they don't say anything about electricity cost.

If you replace gazoline by electricity, the way to produce electricity could also make pollution.

Here in Quebec, we only have hydro-electricity, but it's not the same in US.




RE: Saving what ?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/26/2007 1:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
Energy can be produced far cheaper and cleaner in a large electric power plant than it can be by the tiny engine of a car. Even factoring in the electricity used by such cars, they generate considerably less pollution than their normal gas-powered couterparts.


RE: Saving what ?
By dever on 3/26/2007 2:41:10 PM , Rating: 2
There's no guarantee of it being less polluting without seeing some solid numbers. There is a penalty of having two systems for locomotion. Each has a level of inefficiency that taken together may be less efficient than a simple gas engine.

There are advantages are for urban areas. Reduction of pollution around road areas, shifting it to power plants which can scrub the pollutants. However, there's still an onboard gas engine, so there's actually a hardware cost penalty for the inclusion of two systems. But still cool for some applications.


RE: Saving what ?
By Schrag4 on 3/26/2007 3:45:01 PM , Rating: 2
Masher makes a good point about large power plants being more efficient than small combustion engines, but I think dever's point is valid as well. It would be great it you didn't have to lug around the combustion engine still, even if it is significantly smaller/lighter. Perhaps the passengers could drive some generator with sets of pedals for each passenger to charge the batteries! j/k

In all seriousness, though, I'd like to see the actual cost to the consumer compared for gasoline vs electricity, to drive one mile, assuming the gas engine never kicks in (because you drive only 40 miles or less every time). It has been thrown around that recharging these would probably use as much as an AC unit, but from what I gathered, that was a guess made by the poster.

Hypothetical: If my gas bill is 80 bucks a month now, but if I got one of these things I buy no gas anymore but my electricity bill goes up by 150 bucks a month, I say no thanks. Can someone with experience with electric/hybrid cars give me some hard numbers on what it costs to recharge them?


RE: Saving what ?
By Schrag4 on 3/26/2007 3:51:44 PM , Rating: 2
...I mean, wouldn't a significant increase in cost in order to reduce greenhouse gas production be a bad idea? After all, if you really cared about the environment then that money would be better spent by purchasing 'carbon credits' instead of reducing output...


RE: Saving what ?
By peternelson on 3/27/2007 1:44:26 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure I'd take the in-fashion "carbon" spin.

It's believed that 95% of the global warming effect is more due to sun spot radiation cycles and ionic clouds than from levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I'd totally agree that for urban places, we don't want poisonous gas / diesel fumes polluting the air. It's not carbon but the other nasty pollutants that concern me. Electric vehicles would therefore significantly reduce smog and health risks from exhaust gases.

I'd say keeping down the CO2 is worthwhile, but secondary.


RE: Saving what ?
By peternelson on 3/27/2007 1:48:52 AM , Rating: 3
Additionally, wasting our oil resources by burning them is a CRIMINAL waste and we will be hated by future generations who need that oil to make plastic and other chemical products. Once burned it's gone, and they will have to mine our landfills for the plastics we threw out in the garbage.

THAT is the big environmental problem: burning oil is economically cheap so everyone does it now without thinking. There should be high taxes placed on using oil for burning applications to reflect the TRUE cost to future generations.

Like I said, it's not so much about carbon emissions, but there are very good reasons to break our "addiction to oil" and use alternatives like renewables and nuclear.


RE: Saving what ?
By Schrag4 on 3/27/2007 9:59:33 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the 'carbon credits' comment was supposed to be sarcastic. Sorry, I should try to make things clearer when posting, like using <sarcasm>...</sarcasm>.

I tend to agree that carbon emissions are the least of our concerns. As far as 'pollution' goes, I'm much more concerned about our water supplies, non-biodegradables, etc etc. As we develop different and/or more efficient technologies for producing and consuming power, our carbon emissions will eventually go down, and the carbon that DO we emit is a drop in the bucket compared to what mother earth herself belches from volcanoes and such every year. Oh boy, I'm gonna get flamed, huh?


RE: Saving what ?
By peternelson on 3/28/2007 9:58:22 AM , Rating: 2
Don't blame it all on the volcanoes. They can't help it ;-)

<sarcasm> Maybe I'll be flamed too ;-)

On UK TV today another shock, as researched by a student from Durham University:

The UK's peat bogs store loads of carbon. But various factors have led to some peat being eroded (through several causes including people walking, streams etc). That means tons of CO2 being released into the atmosphere.

They are now appealing for government funding to stop the erosion of peat bogs.

Not really news though because it seems new scientist mag covered that back in 2004.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6124

"Peat bogs harbour carbon time bomb" !!!!

“On these trends, by the middle of the century, DOC emissions from peat bogs and rivers could be as big a source of CO2 to the atmosphere as burning fossil fuels.”

So ultimately, will me changing my lightbulb make a whole lot of difference? Especially if that electricity is from renewables or nuclear?

Carbon is getting high media attention, every other story in the news these days ;-)

I think a green agenda is important just it seems to be overshadowed by focus exclusively on carbon. Meanwhile toxins continue to leach into water supplies, whales are killed, population grows rapidly, the sea is overfished, money is squandered on war, and people die for lack of food and water.

Let's hope we regain some sense of priorities.


RE: Saving what ?
By lobadobadingdong on 3/28/2007 3:07:19 PM , Rating: 2
afaik most plastics are made from soybeans now.


RE: Saving what ?
By Parkerl75 on 3/27/2007 1:43:57 PM , Rating: 2
I'd say you must have missed the report in 2007 by IPCC saying that global warming is most likely caused by human activities. According to Duke University's Sun's Direct Role in Global Warming May Be Underestimated article, Duke physicists estimate this accounts for only 10% to 30% of the climate change, farcry from your 95%.

You are definitely in the minority in your opinion and the majority of the scientific community disagrees with you.

Of course science isn't democracy or else we would still continue to believe that the earth is flat, but you are definitely contradicting the majority of the scientists out there, who I believe have better credentials than yourself.


RE: Saving what ?
By peternelson on 3/28/2007 10:33:41 AM , Rating: 2
Not being a scientist, I just try to read through the hype and political agenda and see the balance in arguments, rather than those with the loudest voices or popularity. There are actually some respected scientists eg David Bellamy who don't totally agree with the popular interpretation. Not saying I agree with them just keep an open mind.

While every other story on the news is about carbon, not ONCE have I heard any reporting on the study about the sun's influence on global warming. If there comes another ice age, we may find those greenhouse gases useful in future centuries ;-)

The truth is NOBODY fully understands the mechanisms by which these things work, on a macro scale. That goes for weather, sea level, atmosphere, plant ecosystems etc.

So if we allow half Brazil's rainforest to be cut down for agriculture, does not that reduce trees and alter the carbon balance? So why not internationally outlaw that if it is a concern? There are many approaches to this not just one. In my view carbon capture and storage (such as Japan project) can only be shorter term solutions. We aren't giving airlines cash incentives to replace their fleets with more efficient cleaner planes, nor making them optimise seat usage near capacity. Meanwhile Prince Charles flies half way around the world with 14 of his staff on a plane. Why? To collect an environmental award. Forgive me for being a little cynical.

Some of the reports talk of probabilities rather than certainties, and tend to paint worst case scenarios. There are some statistics about atmospheric carbon levels over time which are problematic to the simplistic message often propagated.

Changing the amount of electricity we consume by changing lightbulbs would be irrelevant if governments ensured none of it was generated by oil/gas/coal. I'd prefer to drive an electric car and would buy one, but I can't really influence who builds what kind of power stations.

Therefore I believe governments have other motivations eg to lessen dependance on volatile middle east oil.

I just find it hypocritical to be selective about which green causes to focus on. eg to let the sea be overfished endangering fish stocks whilst pouring money elsewhere.

If all governments were concerned about burning oil, I didn't hear them making a fuss when oil pipelines and facilities in the middle east or elsewhere are set alight by terrorist/protesting people as sabotage. All that fuel burning is hard to stop and has no emissions filtering. We just seem happy to let them burn away. We don't educate the firestarters about the environmental wrongs of their petty actions.

There are practical things governments can do, and yes putting a tax on using fossil fuels for burning applications is one of them. That would make alternatives economically attractive very quickly. eg if governments paid half the cost of electric cars, or doubled conventional ones through tax that would eradicate most old ones within say 10 years, but they would also have to address how that power is generated.

So it seems to me that the picture is more complex. Sure I accept people contribute to CO2 levels. If that is such a concern, why is there little effort being focussed on the countries with exponential growth rates eg in birth prevention education? They are becoming more developed because of globalisation, bringing desire for aircon, etc.

And if the correct sun figure is 30% well fine I stand corrected. And somebody ought to quantify the influence of peat bogs, volcanoes and whatever else non-human.

Don't forget that people being funded to research something will likely find what they are looking for and miss things which are factors outside where they are looking.

All that aside a practical electric car would be great.


RE: Saving what ?
By Hoser McMoose on 3/26/2007 5:43:53 PM , Rating: 4
I don't have any personal hard numbers, but we can do a quick comparison of the Tesla Roadster (pure electric) vs. the Lotus Elise (gasoline ICE on which the Telsa car is based). Both are quite sporty little cars offering reasonably similar performance and I think it's safe to say that the comparison would be roughly similar for any pair of cars.

Now, for the Lotus, they get 24mpg city/29mpg highway. Let's make that about 26.25mpg average and 9.524 gallons for 250 miles (roughly one tank of gas). Latest US average gas price was $2.61/gallon, so we're looking at $24.86.

The numbers for the Tesla electric vehicle are slightly less exact, but they claim 250 miles on a single charge. One charge takes roughly 4 hours off a 220V/70amp charger. That comes out to 61.6kWh worth of electricity, which seems quite reasonable given a slight loss in charging the 56kWh worth of batteries the car has. Now, current electricity prices in the US, all costs, taxes, etc. included, are roughly $0.12/kWh, so that works out to about $7.39.

Obviously you're numbers will vary considerably, but I think it's safe to say that the electricity will definitely be cheaper then the gas. The downside though, is that the upfront costs of the electric vehicle are MUCH higher. For our two cars in the comparison here, the base price of the Tesla is $92,000 while the Lotus is half as much at $47,270. At that rate you would need to drive over 600,000 miles to make up the difference in up-front cost.


RE: Saving what ?
By peternelson on 3/27/2007 1:37:49 AM , Rating: 2
You may be right for US market.

But here in UK, the Tesla being electric would make it exempt from road tax. It would mean no daily congestion charge for entering central london. It would mean free resident parking permit. It would mean likely cheaper insurance.

And since in the UK, gas is not $2.61 per gallon but much more than that (about 80% of our gas price is tax), there are SUBSTANTIAL savings to be made and the payback time is much, much quicker.

The Tesla roadster is great and can do over 200 miles on a charge, more than enough for anything but the longest journeys when you could just use a hirecar or train anyway.

Also it's more a proof of concept. Tesla are working on a cheaper and more mainstream family type vehicle for 2008 I believe.

The true breakeven depends how long you keep the vehicle, and the cost of replacing the Li-ion battery pack when it fails and needs replacing. I'm led to believe it will be fine for at least 5 years.


RE: Saving what ?
By Schrag4 on 3/27/2007 10:12:58 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks, Hoser, and peter, it sounds like a no brainer for the UK, given that you can afford the initial cost. It's hard to make the switch to something that you know will save you money in the long run if there's a large up-front cost.

If you don't agree with me, I would ask you if you have a traditional water heater with a tank in your house. If you do, you're proving my point (or you will be getting a tankless heater after reading my post, a great way to reduce energy consumption!).

Tankless water heaters use up to 70% less gas, take up less space, and never run out of hot water. Yet they're still not used because they cost 2-4 times as much, and installation is QUITE expensive (more expensive than the heater itself in many cases) because modifications to the pipes and exhaust must be made when switching from a tank to a tankless heater. And the cost difference is very little when compared to the cost difference between an electric/hybrid car and a plain ol' ICE one.

Yes, my water heater broke recently and I replaced it with another tank because I'll be moving the next few years. If your heater is old, replace it. They tend to dump 40 gallans of water all a once when the break down, as I now know...


RE: Saving what ?
By peternelson on 3/28/2007 10:50:37 AM , Rating: 2
Up front cost? That's why we have car finance and leasing ;-)

As for water heating, ours is integrated with the central heating system.

Besides you can always take a cold bath instead ;-)

Oh and don't forget only fill your kettle with the amount you need ;-) Then again you could switch to drinking orange juice ;-)

Or use a shower instead saving water and the energy to heat it, or bathe less frequently ;-)

If the boiler may be inefficient doesn't the escaping heat simply contribute to the warmth of the house?

A friend of mine says his oven is 100% efficient, because lost heat warms his kitchen. Maybe the same could be said for indoor lightbulbs.

Yes, I think electric car is a no-brainer for UK use, just its very hard to get one here (let alone service it). I'm not a big fan of ethanol or hybrid.

For cost reasons my brother drives his jeep on LPG fuel which is cheaper.

Ideally I'd fit my garage roof with high efficiency solar cells to collect power for charging a Tesla or similar, but as you say the up-front costs.... Not to mention planning permission. But excess power could help my computer farm.


RE: Saving what ?
By doctor sam adams on 3/27/2007 10:01:29 PM , Rating: 2
26.25 mpg is incredibly high for a Lotus Elise. The way an average Elise driver would drive, it would be lucky to get 6-10 mpg.


RE: Saving what ?
By doctor sam adams on 3/27/2007 10:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
Of course, the same overestimate would apply to the 200 mile electric range figure. But perhaps the manufacturer is more realistic than the government test course.


RE: Saving what ?
By Jellodyne on 3/28/2007 4:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, that figure looks about right -- the Elise has a Toyota inline 4 and weighs very little. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to get it down to hemi-in-a-boat milage figures. Sure you're going to burn a lot of fuel hotrodding around, but it's not a Lamborghini you're talking about.


RE: Saving what ?
By Alexvrb on 3/26/2007 8:05:00 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't have two systems for locomotion. The electric motors always propel it. The ICE only kicks on when the battery gets low, and all it does is recharge the battery. It doesn't propel the vehicle, it's just a gas-powered generator to greatly extend the range of the vehicle. Unlike traditional ICE-powered vehicles the ICE in the Volt is designed to operate at a constant RPM, so even in its capacity as a generator, it is still quite efficient.

They've thought out the design quite well. The real challenge is going to be bringing it to market, and at a reasonable cost to the consumer.


RE: Saving what ?
By Schrag4 on 3/27/2007 11:17:26 AM , Rating: 2
The 'penalty for having 2 systems' is that the ICE is not weightless. If you left the ICE at home, your range would effectively increase, or when you got home, you wouldn't have to spend as much to recharge the battery.


RE: Saving what ?
By Alexvrb on 3/27/2007 7:27:00 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say having two systems lacked ANY disadvantages over just having one or the other. BUT, weight is NOT the advantage of a pure electric. You're thinking "Remove engine, car lighter." But if you do that, you end up with a car with a terrible range and a slow recharge. So you put in more battery cells... Blast! There goes the weight advantage. Well, what about a pure gas motor - ah, but then you lose the MPG advantages of a full hybrid and 40-miles-on-battery-alone boost. The Volt and similar designs have advantages from both worlds, and it has a very small, light, efficient turbocharged engine which is basically just a well-tuned gasoline powered generator... and THAT lead to my post above, which I will try to clarify a bit:

The Volt does not have two methods of locomotion. Unlike a "mild" hybrid like an Aura, the only way the wheels are driven is by the electric motors. They run off battery power, and when the batteries get low, the engine (read: highly efficient turbocharged gasoline powered generator) kicks on and recharges the battery as you drive. Basically the Volt is NOT perfect, and it is NOT without flaws, like maintenance complexities and battery production/replacement. But it is just as convenient to refuel and drive as any other car with an ICE, but it has a battery to make the first 40 miles every day more efficient and cost effective, and it also bears the same advantages of any other full hybrid - meaning the engine operates at fixed RPM range(s) on a needed basis and is built for efficient power generation.


RE: Saving what ?
By ZmaxDP on 3/26/2007 1:41:33 PM , Rating: 2
The point is to make things more efficient, not perfect. The fact is that a small ICE running at constant RPM to recharge the batteries is much more efficient than current ICE implementations. Also, your various fossil fuel based power plants are much more efficient at turning fossil fuels into energy. So, despite the fact that ultimately you'll still be consuming fossil fuels when you add your car to the grid to be charged, you'll be using LESS than you would otherwise. Multiply this across thousands and thousands of people, and suddenly you've made a huge difference. I applaud GM for this if they can pull it off.

What concerns me is that there is no "green" battery. Batteries are incredibly toxic, and this means adding billions of batteries a year to the current production numbers. This isn't going to fix anything, just move the pollution problem from fossil fuels to batteries. Big deal.

Sigh, I want a flux capacitor.


RE: Saving what ?
By joex444 on 3/27/2007 10:54:40 PM , Rating: 2
These comment generally pop up, saying that hybrids or electric vehicles have just supplanted the gasoline pollution with additional power plant pollution.

Nobody ever stops to consider how the gas gets into the car to start with. Going backwards, the pumps run on electricity. They're delivered in huge diesel trucks. It came from a refinery, which I'm not sure what it runs on, but it isn't clean. Then, the oil got there from a boat that went thousands of miles, powered by diesel engines most likely.

Compare to your Quebec's electricity that they got by building a dam and making water go really fast... or my nuclear power which consists of excess water output.

To say that you've altered the pollution source is being a bit short sighted.


RE: Saving what ?
By spindoc on 3/28/2007 2:21:17 PM , Rating: 2
According to Wiki:
Québec
Data is as of 2002[2]:

Hydro - 96.7%
Nuclear - 2.3%
Oil - 0.5%
Biomass - 0.3%
Natural gas - 0.2%
Wind - 0.1%

(Nice try, but you were really close)


Until then...
By BladeVenom on 3/26/2007 10:45:58 AM , Rating: 2
Until they can start making these, why not reintroduce the EV1? The publicity the car, and the environment has gotten the last few years has surely created a big enough market for a limited production electric car.




RE: Until then...
By Kuroyama on 3/26/2007 11:09:14 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
GM felt that the program could never be profitable and that the public wasn't quite warming up to a 2-seater that was only operable in limited temperature conditions and featured a limited driving range.

Doesn't this answer your question? Hybrids have none of these problems, and despite increasing environmental awareness I think these are shortcomings that few people would be willing to accept (not to mention the inevitably high price even if GM sold them at cost).


RE: Until then...
By Noya on 3/26/2007 11:32:51 AM , Rating: 2
V6 family sedans are more fuel effecient and accelerate as fast as sport cars/coupes from 10 years ago, hybrids have been on the world market for what, 5 years+?, cars now have 8+ air bags, CPU power doubles every 18 months (or less), the WEB is bigger than anyone could've imagined, etc, etc...

It's been over a decade since the EV1 was introduced to the market, you're telling me that batteries are as crappy as they were in 1996?


RE: Until then...
By masher2 (blog) on 3/26/2007 11:46:42 AM , Rating: 3
When you say "reintroduce the EV1", that implies the original car, just as it was. Batteries and all.

Replacing the batteries with 2007 technology isn't drop-in replacement either. The voltages are different, the charge capacity is higher, and LiIon cells have a totally different charging profile than the old NiMH batteries.

For an electric car, new batteries essentially means resdesinging much of the car. That takes time. I'd much rather see GM deliver a succesful Volt in 2010, than yet another failed all-electric car in 2007.


RE: Until then...
By BladeVenom on 3/26/2007 3:03:27 PM , Rating: 2
It never failed. They leased everyone of them that they made available. Same with Toyota's electric car. The worst that could be said is that they were killed off before they ever had an opportunity to fail.


RE: Until then...
By cheetah2k on 3/27/2007 12:58:44 AM , Rating: 2
Litium Ion batteries in a car... Hmmmmm I shudder to think what could happen if these batteries were accidently over charged.

I've had a few faulty Lion RC helicopter batteries over charge in my time, and they hiss and explode quite quickly.. While Gasoline is just as dangerous, Lion batteries are very unpredictable and I would have to consider a less volitile battery type before I even touch one of these cars!


RE: Until then...
By FITCamaro on 3/26/2007 2:13:30 PM , Rating: 2
Actually roughly they are. Lithium ions are better but most of the hybrids out there don't have them. Batteries have been roughly the same for decades. Sure there have been slight improvements but nothing that has come close to a major breakthrough. The longer battery life of electronics devices is more due to better powersaving features and components that draw less energy than better batteries.


RE: Until then...
By Etsp on 3/26/2007 10:52:05 PM , Rating: 2
Ahem... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechargeable_batterie...
the subject you are commenting on is under the Energy/Size section... which clearly shows that lithium Ion batteries have 300 Watt Hours/liter and nickel-cadmium batteries have at best half that, if you remember correctly, Nickel-Cadmium batteries had been widely in use not too long ago...


RE: Until then...
By encryptkeeper on 3/26/2007 12:02:52 PM , Rating: 2
why not reintroduce the EV1

Look at the EV-1 and then look at the Volt concept. Which car would you buy? Plus, the article mentions that they destroyed almost all the ev-1s anyway.


RE: Until then...
By Masterrer on 3/26/2007 12:45:56 PM , Rating: 3
What? Déja-vu all over again?
People should watch the "Who Killed the Electric Car?" documentary; a true eye opener…
Short summary:
A large part of the film accounts for GM's efforts to demonstrate to California that there was no demand for their product, and then to take back every EV1 and dispose of them. A few were disabled and given to museums and universities, but almost all were found to have been crushed; GM never responded to the EV drivers' offer to pay the residual lease value ($1.9 million was offered for the remaining 79 cars in Burbank before they were crushed). Several activists are shown being arrested in the protest that attempted to block the GM car carriers taking the remaining EV1s off to be crushed.
GM spokesman Dave Barthmuss argued it was lack of consumer interest due to the maximum range of 80–100 miles per charge, and the relatively high price.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electr...


RE: Until then...
By masher2 (blog) on 3/26/2007 1:24:37 PM , Rating: 4
> "GM never responded to the EV drivers' offer to pay the residual lease value ..."

Because, had GM done so, they would have been required under federal law to provide spare parts for a decade a more, at enormous expense. That's why GM leased the vehicles in the first place...and thats why they couldn't simply sell them to those few activists who actually wanted one.

Anyone who finds a conspiracy in the death of the EV1 is gullible indeed. The technology wasn't nearly ready for times, plain and simple.


RE: Until then...
By michal1980 on 3/26/07, Rating: 0
RE: Until then...
By OrSin on 3/26/07, Rating: 0
RE: Until then...
By masher2 (blog) on 3/26/2007 2:19:02 PM , Rating: 3
> "And what facts did they twist?"

Pretty much all of them. In addition to their failure to mention why GM couldn't simply sell the remaining EV1s and rampant insinuations that GM intentionally made the car a poor performer, they claim that "5,000 people wanted to buy" an EV1. The real fact is that 5,000 people expressed interest in the EV1...but when GM called them back with the price of the vehicle and details on its limited range and charging time, almost none of them would commit to buy it.

I'd list a few more of the movies fictions, but anyone who believes automakers are 'getting kickbacks from oil companies' is certainly beyond the reach of rational discussion.


RE: Until then...
By Masterrer on 3/26/2007 4:34:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
anyone who believes automakers are 'getting kickbacks from oil companies' is certainly beyond the reach of rational discussion.

Well I don't claim "automakers getting kickbacks from oil companies" to be 100% true, but seeing how corporations can influence politics, countries and basically the whole world, makes influencing car manufacturers seem like a trifle.

And anyone who believes that large corporations (oil companies included) don't have a substantial influence on what is going on in the world is certainly having a questionable view on reality.


RE: Until then...
By Ringold on 3/27/2007 4:25:55 PM , Rating: 1
Gullible indeed.

Try and turn on your brain, and put yourself in the shoes of GM executive. You're fortunes depend on your ability to sell cars, lots of them, at the price the market supports that maximizes profits relative to the number sold at that price level.

Given that GM was and still partly is on an SUV craze, your financial fortunes would be the inverse of oil companies; SUV's consume gas, and the price people are willing to pay would rapidly collapse as prices for fuel rise.

So now you've got this EV-1. It's leased to gauge consumer reaction and commercial viability. Results come in. The oil companies, in an attempt to perpetuate reliance on their refineries products, asks you to scrap it and bury the project.

Completely independent of the lousy performance of the EV-1, what would any car executive do? Laugh so hard his sides hurt, and tell the oil man that he can forget about it and leave, and if he doesn't leave, he'd inform the Feds he attempted to engage in illegal collusion. Why? Because if the EV-1 could be successful, then it'd be a boon, and GM has no financial reason to care if that hurt XOM or not.

But, performance comes back being what it was. Lousy. Fuel costs are low, SUV's are cheap and easy to make and selling like hot-cakes. The decision on what to do with the EV-1 at this point should be fairly clear; file it away in a folder labled "US-OPEC War Contingency Plan", and move on with life.

How you can possibly dream up after that little logic exercise that GM, or any car company, in the 90s and to a large degree still today would have any interest in risking illegal collusion with oil executives to help fix the price of gasoline (unless it were to make it much much cheaper -- which would be of no benefit to the oil companies) then you should lay off the paranoia-inducing weed. Or whatever trips up your logic, like CNN.


RE: Until then...
By Masterrer on 3/28/2007 9:18:47 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
you should lay off the paranoia-inducing weed.

Hmmm?… Whatever.

Returning to the topic,
First off all I don't question your wisdom in marketing exercises, and let me assure you that my brain is functioning properly, at least allowing me to see any situation from several points of view…

As a consumer, I want only one thing: seeing electric cars on the roads in my lifespan, because of 2 simple reasons:

1. Electric cars will decrease the amount of pollution in urban areas

2. And most important for me - these cars are AMAZING performers if implemented properly.
That is:

- they can be light (below 1000kg)

- they have a torque graph that can blow our SUV into oblivion (and torque is what accelerates your car, and allows you pull impressive weights to put it short)

- they can rev beyond 10 000 rpm (Tesla Roadster revs up to 14 000 rpm)

- they can be EXTREMELY reliable (excluding the battery pack)

I could go on, in explaining how this can benefit everyone including such people as you, but it would be rather dull and obvious.

Too bad seeing corporate CEOs exploiting peoples (consumers) weaknesses (such as unknowing) and basically deciding what's best for them.

To make it more simple for you: The reason I mentioned the "Who Killed The Electric Car" movie, is because I wanted to educate people on the advantages of Electric Cars, and possibly show people that there is a different side to everything. Too bad you don't see any sense in anything which isn't instantly profitable.

Oh and I feel sorry for you, seeing how you're already wishing into those GM CEO shoes (judging by your post)…

P.S. Here's the link to the Tesla Roadster specs:

Torque curve
http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/performance...

Performance Specs
http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/specs.php


RE: Until then...
By Masterrer on 3/26/07, Rating: 0
???
By JazzMang on 3/26/2007 11:41:59 AM , Rating: 2
40 miles on one charge?




RE: ???
By GreenEnvt on 3/26/2007 12:10:01 PM , Rating: 2
Thats how far it can run on pure battery on a sinlge charge. When the small gas engine on board is running to recharge the batteries, it was more around 200 miles if I remember correctly.


RE: ???
By michal1980 on 3/26/07, Rating: 0
RE: ???
By Lord Zado on 3/26/07, Rating: 0
RE: ???
By Lord Zado on 3/26/2007 12:13:15 PM , Rating: 1
Ok, saw the above posters. I misread. The gas engine kicks in to recharge it after 40 miles.

Still the question about the power grid.


RE: ???
By Enoch2001 on 3/26/2007 12:24:01 PM , Rating: 2
It plugs in to a standard 110v houseplug. No more drain on the grid than running a window a/c unit I'd guess...


RE: ???
By TheRodent on 3/26/2007 2:41:32 PM , Rating: 2
the tesla roadster, which puts GM to shame, has a capacity of 56kWh. The minimum recharge time is about 4 hours. At 14kW this would be a fairly large AC unit! and an additional strain on the overstretched US electricity grid.


RE: ???
By hubajube on 3/26/2007 3:04:03 PM , Rating: 3
The Tesla costs $100,000!!!!! The Volt is supposed to be a car that actual humans can afford to buy.


RE: ???
By Oregonian2 on 3/26/2007 3:36:16 PM , Rating: 2
Probably a lot more expensive than that, in reality. What happens when a Tesla breaks? National repair and supply chain? I don't think so (something that costs a lot). Probably you ship it back to the factory in California to be repaired or have a repair crew fly out to wherever you live. More to "cost" than the purchase price and the cost of gas.

P.S. - Electricity coming out of the cord charging it costs something too, I wonder how much a full charge costs (for the Volt)?


RE: ???
By Belard on 3/26/2007 7:03:58 PM , Rating: 2
Keep in mind, that car is BASED off the Lotus Else:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Elise

That is a $50,000 sports car that does 0~60mph under 5sec!

Its a very TINY car - the Extra $50K is for a limited production model TEST car (for the most part) and its not being paid for by the govt. Current hybrid cars are discounted because the GOVT helps to pay for them.


RE: ???
By bobsmith1492 on 3/26/2007 4:43:22 PM , Rating: 2
Peak grid loads occur during the day when people are at work and industry is up and running. People would recharge their cars at night, most likely; hence, the load would still be distributed.


RE: ???
By Whedonic on 3/26/2007 4:52:02 PM , Rating: 2
Rechargeable cars are supposedly not a problem for the powergrid, since most of the recharging would be done at night, when power draw is usually lowest.


Where's this estimate from?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/26/2007 11:51:22 AM , Rating: 2
> "GM would need to sell the Volt at a price roughly one-fifth to one-forth that amount to garner public interest..."

I'd pay a good bit more than $20-$25,000 for this car. If GM could deliver this for $35-40K with any kind of performance at all, I think they'd find them selling very well.




RE: Where's this estimate from?
By hubajube on 3/26/2007 12:02:59 PM , Rating: 2
I'll wait for the 2nd gen of this car. All the bugs will be worked out on the 1st gen.


RE: Where's this estimate from?
By spindoc on 3/28/2007 5:06:28 PM , Rating: 2
Service Pack 1 will be out in 2011.


RE: Where's this estimate from?
By Enoch2001 on 3/26/2007 12:19:34 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah but the real money-making sweet spot is the $20-25k range, so for GM to recoup the billions they'll spend putting it into production the quickest, they need to hit that price point.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/26/2007 12:38:32 PM , Rating: 1
Obviously price affects sales volume, but the point was that the car can still be a success even if priced significantly higher than $20K.


RE: Where's this estimate from?
By Lord 666 on 3/26/2007 1:12:18 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, I am still tempted to pick up a Prius as a toy to compliment my Jetta TDI. Maybe even wait for the Volt.

However, hybrids still concern me for two reasons. First one is I live in a flood zone where all cars have to go through water at one point or another.

The second is the Electro Magnetic fields that are generated by the electric motors and batteries. Honda relocated the antennas on both the Civic and Accord to minimize interference. What research or long term studies exist on usage of hybrids of electric cars?


By ClockerXP on 3/26/2007 1:30:54 PM , Rating: 2
78% of drivers drive less than 40 miles to and from work. That's why the Volt makes great sense and can cut our dependance on foreign oil greatly.




By BMFPitt on 3/26/2007 2:52:41 PM , Rating: 2
Even if you drive 40 miles or less 99% of the time, would you really buy a car that won't make it much past that? I'd like to find out about the effective range and efficiency when the gas engine is included.

I see these cars as having much more value as fleet vehicles than for personal use. Medium to large companies can afford to buy a bunch of these, and have a few old fashioned cars for longer trips.


By ClockerXP on 3/26/2007 3:22:33 PM , Rating: 2
The VOlt can go up around 300 miles. The gas/e85/Hydrogen powerplant runs a generator to provide electricity when the batteries need to be charged. 40 miles is not the limit. Get educated before you make dumb comments.


By BMFPitt on 3/26/2007 3:44:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, maybe I should have said something like "I'd like to find out about the effective range and efficiency when the gas engine is included."

Oh, wait...


For a real snowy winter?
By Le Québécois on 3/26/2007 3:12:44 PM , Rating: 2
I like the idea behind the Volt vehicle but I don't see how I could use one in winter. The combustion engine produce the heat needed to warm to car and help defrost the windows. While you can use electricity to do that I doubt it's energy efficient. Until then, those cars will be out of reach for me.




RE: For a real snowy winter?
By slash196 on 3/26/2007 4:48:35 PM , Rating: 2
I sincerely doubt that an electric heating coil is going to give up an appreciable amount of efficiency to a heat exchanger. And if you've got everything running on battery power, you don't need to wait for the engine to warm up. So it sounds pretty ideal to me.

Of course this is only relevant if we can provide grid-level electricity in a green manner. Otherwise we're just localizing the pollution (although reducing city pollution is certainly a good idea).

My biggest problem, honestly, is that the government is not doing more to drive this shift.


RE: For a real snowy winter?
By Le Québécois on 3/26/2007 5:18:51 PM , Rating: 2
Are you telling me using all the power from your car batteries to warm the car so you don't freeze to death is a good idea? Don't you think that would greatly reduce the car autonomy?


RE: For a real snowy winter?
By Le Québécois on 3/26/2007 5:18:52 PM , Rating: 2
Are you telling me using all the power from your car batteries to warm the car so you don't freeze to death is a good idea? Don't you think that would greatly reduce the car autonomy?


By wirehound on 3/26/2007 5:15:38 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently, operating a Hummer is more environmentally friendly and less costly in terms of energy than a Honda Civic hybrid.

http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/

The dust-to-dust energy cost of the Civic hybrid is quoted as $3.238 per mile, compared to $1.949 for the Hummer.

I wonder how electric vehicles such as the Volt compare on these terms?




By webdev511 on 3/26/2007 6:29:18 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad Dust-To-Dust doesn't incorporate actual FUEL costs. It also bases the lifetime in miles on the manufacturer's power train warranty, not on the actual life of the vehicle. It also doesn't calculate cost per mile per passenger. A Suburban with 6 passengers gets better MPG/p than a Prius with a single driver.

With regards to battery tech, we are NOT in the same place as we were in 1996. Gen 2 EV-1's had a range of between 75 and 100 miles, and as others have noted, the Tesla has a range of nearly 250 miles.

Also in regard to the EV-1, my wife and I actually inquired about a lease. We made enough money to pay the lease and insurance, but didn't even get to fill out the application because we didn't own our home which in turn meant we couldn't mount a charging station. If you couldn't mount a charger you would automatically get turned down.


By joex444 on 3/27/2007 11:01:13 PM , Rating: 2
You just said to beat a Prius you need to find 5 passengers every time you want to take the Suburban out for a spin...


By evildorf on 3/26/2007 9:52:43 PM , Rating: 2
To answer your question, it would probably come in higher than both of the models you mentioned. As far as that report goes, I've read it. Interesting, but one should note that the dominant costs associated with hybrids are to do with the fact that they're lower volume and are built with newer, more expensive technologies. Over time one would expect the costs to come down (though who knows how much). I'd love to look at their methodology, but they don't publish it. Some of their numbers (for any car) seem a bit...wacky.


Hydrogen
By Ghost Simmo on 3/26/2007 10:17:11 PM , Rating: 2
I would prefer hydrogen. Seems to make more sense. Fill up with water, burns and releses water, ruther then the polution that is put off using the elec grid. And the engines are alot more similar to existing configurations. At least thats the impression I have recieved.

Oh and the Pontiac G8
http://www.holden.com.au/www-holden/action/vehicle...

Makes me proud
I think there is a different engine though




RE: Hydrogen
By Schrag4 on 3/27/2007 12:03:27 PM , Rating: 2
You would have to fill it up with Hydrogen, but you're right that the exhaust would be water. Where's the nearest Hydrogen station where you live?

Personally I'd love to see Hydrogen fuel cells take off. Why haven't they? Safety concerns are my guess, but how does Hydrogen compare to gasoline? ...and no, there would not be any 'hydrogen bomb' explosions taking out cities if you get in a wreck.

We'd need a whole new distribution system for Hydrogen as well. New plants, containers, transportation, stations. My guess is the government will have to step in to pay for things in order to get the ball rolling in some region in order for this to take off. If it works as advertised then eventually it would take off from there. Of course it would have to be cheap enough when compared to what we have now too.


RE: Hydrogen
By Schrag4 on 3/27/2007 12:09:01 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, I was talking about Hydrogen Fuel Cells as the power source for electric cars. That's the only one that has water for exhaust. Your post is confusing me!


RE: Hydrogen
By JediJeb on 3/27/2007 6:00:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh, I was talking about Hydrogen Fuel Cells as the power source for electric cars. That's the only one that has water for exhaust.


Actually if you use Hydrogen in a normal gasoline combustion engine you get water as exhaust also. There may be trace amounts of hydrocarbons if the lubricating oil leaks into the cylinders around the rings but this would be very minimal. This type of hydrogen engine has been experimented on since probably the 70's but is usually shot down because of public concern over having a compressed gas cylinder for the Hydrogen storage. But as my chemistry professor used to say, if you rupture the hydrogen cylinder all the gas goes up and the fire is above the car whereas with gasoline it runs under the car, which would point to hydrogen as actually being safer.

As for the distribution system for Hydrogen fuel, Hydrogen can be very easily produced as a point source, using only electricity and water. We do it in our Labs where I work with Hydrogen generators that are about the size of a large lazer printer. Now for producing enough for a filling station you would need a larger unit but still it is not going to be that large. Idealy you would place Hydrogen plants next to the hydroelectric and nuclear power plants around the country to make the Hydrogen with minimal polution. I think the biggest reason for pushing electric cars over Hydrogen ones is the same as not pushing nuclear power, it just scares average people, (otherwise we would have replaced all the petrochemical powerplants years ago).


The electric car killed the electric car
By brinkker on 3/26/2007 12:09:15 PM , Rating: 2
It's been over a decade since the EV1 was introduced to the market, you're telling me that batteries are as crappy as they were in 1996?

Unfortunately yes.

And forty miles per charge? Sadly most people drive more than that in their daily commute from suburbiat to wherever. Who would spend 30k on a car that has such limited use and no practicality.




By GreenEnvt on 3/26/2007 12:10:42 PM , Rating: 2
Thats how far it can run on pure battery on a sinlge charge. When the small gas engine on board is running to recharge the batteries, it was more around 200 miles if I remember correctly.


By cocoviper on 3/26/2007 12:46:32 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of posters have covered the 40 miles per charge not being the limit of the car, just the distance you would be able to travel before the engine kicked in. But there is another point that needs to be brought up: 1) obviously if your daily commute can be done on batts only...well thats fantastic and you will save quite a bit of cash as well as time (not having to go anywhere but home to "fill up").

But also 2) even if your commute is....80 miles...running half of it on batteries and then the other half on a small engine recharging those batteries is still going to be MUCH more efficient than a typical IC Engine. By assuming worst case cost values for charging the batteries at home, and best case cost values for gasoline...running of power created by the grid is still at least 2-3 times more cost efficient.


heh
By goku on 3/26/2007 5:53:44 PM , Rating: 2
I find it interesting that the volt has an effective 60% less capacity than the EV1... The EV1 had range of 100miles on electric only while the volt only has 40, what kind of improvement is that??




RE: heh
By masher2 (blog) on 3/26/2007 7:28:00 PM , Rating: 2
> "what kind of improvement is that??"

When the EV1 runs out of charge, its stopped dead for 8 hours while it recharges. When the Volt runs out, it merely starts up its gas engine and keeps going without missing a beat.

Oh, and the Volt has a higher top speed, accelerates much faster, and doesn't have the temperature range restrictions the EV1 had either.


Looks like I wont be buying GM.
By Mitch101 on 3/26/2007 12:44:25 PM , Rating: 1
I assume my car has another 2-3 years left on it. Same goes for my wife's minivan. With Gas Price gouging every summer I plan on going hybrid or something else when its time to get rid of our current cars. And well if GM doesnt have anything thats 2 cars we wont be buying from them. Whether or not its an oil company pact between GM that keeps them from producing green cars I could care less. Less selection makes it easier to choose my next vehicle.

For GM investors I would think this would decrease thier stock as they are overlooking a growing market. Not just for people wanting a green planet but for those who are getting sick of the Oil Companies claims and price increases when they record record revenues year after year.




By glennpratt on 3/26/2007 2:35:37 PM , Rating: 2
I'm curious why you developed this opinion. GM makes a hybrid or two and has several more coming out.


Lotus Engineering
By AllAmericanShooter on 3/26/2007 7:37:23 PM , Rating: 2
Isnt Lotus working a small suv that has a range of 350 miles and costs 3.50usd to recharge. Also isnt the top speed like 155mph?




Bah, humbug
By Mithan on 3/26/2007 7:56:44 PM , Rating: 2
I saw we should work on teleportation technology and screw the vehicles all together.

Beam me up Scotty!




saab
By inthell on 3/27/2007 8:17:53 AM , Rating: 2
i just want a nice/fun-to-drive electric hybrid ... a Saab hybrid please!!




Bob Lutz says STFU
By ClockerXP on 3/26/07, Rating: 0
Please tell me you don't believe that tripe!
By joey2264 on 3/26/07, Rating: 0
why thailand sell CHEV AVEO
By speed99 on 3/28/07, Rating: -1
"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki