backtop


Print 277 comment(s) - last by .. on Aug 30 at 8:51 AM


Chevy Volt
GM drops a bombshell during its public webcast regarding the Volt's fuel economy

Chevrolet's Volt is still more than a year away, but the vehicle is still creating a lot of buzz around the internet. The latest news sheds some light on the Volt's expected EPA rating when it is released late next year.

General Motors announced today in a public webcast that the Volt will be rated an an impressive 230 mpg in the city. The combined city/highway fuel economy rating for the Volt will still be rated at over 100 mpg.

The 230 mpg rating is no doubt boosted by the fact that the Volt can travel a total of 40 miles on battery power alone before the gasoline engine/generator has to kick in to keep the vehicle moving. Once the initial 40 miles is exhausted, the Volt can travel an additional 300+ miles through the use of the generator.

For comparison, Toyota's hot-selling Prius is rated at 51 mpg city and 48 mpg highway (50 mpg combined). Nissan's upcoming LEAF EV will travel a total of 100 miles before exhausting its lithium-ion battery pack. However, unlike the Volt, the LEAF doesn't have a gasoline engine/generator as a backup when the battery is depleted.

While the Volt will definitely have an EPA mileage advantage over both the Prius and the LEAF, both vehicles will significantly undercut Chevrolet's offering. The Prius currently starts at $22,000 and a new $21,000 model will hit dealer lots in September. The LEAF is being billed as "the world's first affordable, zero-emission car," so pricing will like be well below $30,000.

The Volt will retail for over $40,000 -- a figure that even took GM Vice-Chairman Bob Lutz by surprise. "When I said I hope to sell it in the 20s, I just thought, well, if a conventional car of that size with a conventional four-cylinder engine, we can sell it for $15,000 or $16,000, then let's notionally add $8,000 for the battery and we're at $25,000," said Lutz in an interview with AdAge.

GM CEO Fritz Henderson repeatedly commented during the webcast that the price of the Volt is indeed high, but that is the result of it being a first generation vehicle. Henderson added the prices will come down with the second generation Volt and the GM engineers are already hard at work on second generation technology.

Other vehicles announced by General Motors today include a new Cadillac ATS compact which will do battle with the BMW 3-Series, a replacement for Cadillac's long-in-the-tooth DTS called the XTS, and CTS Coupe/CTS-V SportWagon models.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

So what...
By klstay on 8/11/2009 8:59:39 AM , Rating: 3
If I purchase a Volt at $40k instead of a comparable gas powered vehicle that gets ~25MPG for $20k then it takes over 13 years to make up the difference if I drive ~15k miles/year. Yeah, I know it is 1st generation yadda, yadda....

I guess they might catch me on the third generation; especially since I currently drive a CNG at less than $1/gallon and practically zero emissions compared to however much coal got fired to charge the batteries on a car like this.




RE: So what...
By zsdersw on 8/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: So what...
By Mitch101 on 8/11/2009 11:11:25 AM , Rating: 3
Stupid Question.
After the first 40 miles the Volt can get 300+ miles out of its 6 gallon gas tank.

Couldn't they make one that just runs it off the generator and forget the first 40 mile charge? Wouldn't this make a cheaper vehicle that gets 50+ MPG? The battery pack would be much smaller and thus cheaper.


RE: So what...
By MatthiasF on 8/11/2009 12:13:18 PM , Rating: 2
I've asked that same question a dozen times on numerous boards and no one will answer.

It makes sense, since the gas engine generating the electricity wouldn't need a transmission (limiting loss of energy and making the car less complicated) and you don't need as many batteries (lightening the car). In theory, you could even have different packages for the cars tailored to your driving habits (more batteries for longer distance travelers, less for city driving).

This is exactly how diesel/electric engines worked before they added batteries to store braking energy.


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 12:14:53 PM , Rating: 5
I've explained why many times. A "smaller" battery pack doesn't provide enough draw to power the vehicle at reasonable accelerations. Accelerating to highway speed on a short uphill onramp requires a massive power draw. You can't do that with a tiny power pack.

Once you have the big pack that enables you to run on battery power alone, it costs very little to make it a plug-in hybrid.


RE: So what...
By Samus on 8/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 12:52:13 PM , Rating: 2
Huh? You store energy during DE-celleration, not acceleration. You have things backwards.


RE: So what...
By cosmotic on 8/11/2009 1:10:15 PM , Rating: 1
What are you talking about? Hes saying the huge power drain used during acceleration is coming from capacitors and not batteries.

Before you bash someone, make sure it makes sense. Like you could have bashed him for saying 144 farads, which is insanely high, like I did.


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 1:13:18 PM , Rating: 3
I'm talking about reality. There are no hybrids for sale with capacitor blocks capable of powering the car up to highway speeds.


RE: So what...
By FishTankX on 8/13/2009 10:14:22 PM , Rating: 2
There you are mistaken

144 farads is perfectly within reach of supercapacitors, which are often used in automotive applications.

The maxwell boostcap BCAP3000 stores 3000 farads

A bank of 40 of them would give you roughly 120 volts DC (you could use smaller boostcaps and have more of them to achieve a higher voltage) and this would provides a nominal continous power of 119KW (~160 horsepower, and almost perfectly matched to the volts motors) and roughly 450KJ of energy. This is enough energy to supply this amount of current for continously providing 100HP for ~6 seconds SOLELY ON CAPACITOR POWER. Sadly, it takes 8.5 seconds to get to 60 from zero, but from thirty to sixty might be a reasonable propositiion on capacitors alone. Unfortunatley due to the nature of supercaps you'd have to have a pretty wicked voltage regulator because their voltage versus discharge curve is quite unfavorable. If you use the battery in paralell with the capacitors you would probably have sufficent energy to accelerate to highway speeds even with a small battery pack.

Let's use the new Hitachi Li-ions for example.

Let's use A123's, 2.9kw/kg.

If you want to do half capacitor half battery, assuming your'e accelerating to highway speeds

If you want to have a 30KG battery pack of A123's that would store roughly 3kwh (15 miles in plugin mode) and provide a maximum power of ~90kw, or about 120HP. This provides roughly 2/3 the horsepower. With the capacitor bank for acceleration running in paralell that provides the full engine power of 120kw/160HP for about 24 seconds. Probably enough for most passing manuvers and still provides a massive energy bank for regenerative braking, probably capable of capturing all of the current being passed to it by the brakes since the super capacitor bank can accept energy at a rate of about 120KW.

Whether or not the massive oversized supercapacitor bank would actually cost more than the difference in the lack of a battery, i'm not sure.

If you sized a battery pack SOLELY for power, and not for capacity, you could get along with a 40KG A123 pack which would give you 4kwh and a max output of 120KW/160HP.


RE: So what...
By Chernobyl68 on 8/11/2009 1:08:53 PM , Rating: 1
I'm curious, how many KW-Hrs it takes to charge the battery. Here in central california, with the AC running in my home, I'm already up in the 200-300% range, over on my "base quantity" electrical usage, where electricity gets pretty expensive (that bill was about $170 bucks last month). If I buy one of these cars, and charge it up every night, am I going to come out ahead on electric cost vs. gas cost?


RE: So what...
By namechamps on 8/11/2009 2:08:18 PM , Rating: 4
The battery pack is 8.8KWH usable (pack is larger to extend lifespan but the car sees 8.8KWH "tank").

8.8KWH / 40 miles = 0.22kwh/mile

Here is VA electricity is $0.11 per KWH w/ taxes.

So that works out to 2.5 cents per mile.

At $4 gasoline even a Prius is more like 8.5 cents per mile.

So your electric bill will be higher but the reduction is gas is substantially more.

$25 more per month in electricity and $100 less per month in gasoline. Yeah I can handle that.


RE: So what...
By Spuke on 8/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: So what...
By Chernobyl68 on 8/11/2009 6:33:16 PM , Rating: 2
looks like I mis-remembered, last month's electric was $270, not $170.

If I drive an average 1200 miles a month, and half of that I can get by using electric only (days I drive more than 40 miles), that's .22*600 or 132 more KwH in electric usage on my residential bill.

PG&E here in the vally rates my home's baseline quantity at 511.5 KwH / month. Last month I was billed 1279 KwH.
on my bill,
Under baseline, my cost is 11.531 cents/KwH
101-130% of baseline, is 13.109 cents/KwH
131-200% of baseline, is 25.974 cents/KwH
201-300% of baseline, is 37.866 cents/KwH

If I add another 132 KwH to my bill, I'm up to 1411 KwH, which still puts me in the <300% range. The added electricicty would have cost me an additional $49.98, or about 17 gallons of gas at today's prices.

So, in the summer when electric use is high, its only a slightly better deal because of the sliding scale. It appears you nees some kind of renewable energy to really make this worthwhile in the summer - get a solar system so that when the sun is out the most, you get more energy for your car.


RE: So what...
By klstay on 8/12/2009 8:55:55 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, the Volt REALLY comes up short compared to CNG. (So does the Pious for that matter.)

The only vehicles with lower overall emissions than CNG are pure electrics IF charged by hydro/solar/nuclear.

Incremental cost for dual fuel CNG vehicle is only ~$6k.

Natural gas is 100% domestic.

Over half the homes in the US are heated with natural gas so the distribution infrastructure is already done.

Long term supply is not a problem - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124104549891270585...

I currently pay $.97/gallon for fuel.

Hindendburg tales are as factual as bigfoot, UFOs, or Michale Moore movies; unless of course you also paint your vehicle with rocket fuel...


RE: So what...
By Chernobyl68 on 8/12/2009 12:06:23 PM , Rating: 2
what pressure does your car's CNG tank fill to? Is this higher than domestic pressure for the home?


RE: So what...
By Keeir on 8/11/2009 7:00:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"$25 more in electricity per month? Somehow, I thought it would be lower. The thing is, will that extra $25 put you in a higher usage bracket with your electric company? "


This is a fair question. Unfortunely, the US is way too diverse for people to get a grip on this.

I live in an area where 0.0805 dollars/kWh flat, no usage restrictions etc. I expect if I had a Volt, my month Electric Bill would rise 16 dollars and my gasoline (25 mpg car) to fall 104 dollars (Today's price is 2.90 per gallon).


RE: So what...
By gstrickler on 8/11/2009 4:25:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
At $4 gasoline even a Prius is more like 8.5 cents per mile.
Current US average price for regular unleaded gas is about $2.70/gal. With the Prius rated at 51/48MPG, that's a fuel cost of about $0.055 per mile, which is slightly more than 2x the cost of electricity to run the Volt. So, you're costs would be more like $45/mo to charge the Volt vs. $100/mo for gas for the Prius, for about 1800mi/mo. Of course, if you're driving 1800mi/mo, you're averaging 60mi/day (including weekends), which means you're either using some gas in your Volt, or you're charging 2x per day. Cut those numbers to 1000mi/mo (12k/yr) and you're looking at $54 for the Prius vs $25/mo for the Volt (assuming electric only operation).

At about $35k (net after tax credits) for a Volt vs $25k (loaded) for a Prius, you'll be paying about $170/mo more for a 60 month loan payment on a Volt vs the Prius. If insurance, repair, and maintenance costs are about equal (all unknown at this time), the Volt will cost you about $140/mo more than a Prius for the first 5 years. Since insurance premiums are partly related to vehicle cost, it's likely that the difference is greater. Also, since Toyota generally has higher reliability than GM and because the Prius is in it's 3rd generation, it's likely that the maintenance/repair costs on the Prius will be lower than those on the Volt. The real difference in costs may be closer to $200/mo.

I don't know about the rest of the country, but in Texas, electricity rates aren't notably more stable than gasoline prices, so you don't have any significant improvement in energy cost stability. Since the current cost for electricity per mile is 50% lower, you can reasonably predict that as energy costs (for both electricity and gas) increase, the operating costs of the Volt will increase more slowly than the Prius, resulting in a decrease in the monthly cost advantage of the Prius. However, energy costs would have to increase 5x-7x or gasoline would have to increase significantly disproportionately to electricity rates before the monthly costs would be equal, much less favor the Volt.

I'm not a Prius (or Toyota) fan and I don't own one. I don't work for Toyota, nor am I involved any any part of the automotive production/supply chain or energy production, supply, distribution industries. I'm just good with numbers.


RE: So what...
By cosmotic on 8/11/2009 1:07:12 PM , Rating: 2
144 farad? hahahahaha, ur funny


RE: So what...
By Jaybus on 8/11/2009 3:39:42 PM , Rating: 2
Please see the Maxwell BCAP0350 D-cell size 350 F ultracapacitor with max continuous current of 25 A at 2.7 V. http://www.maxwell.com/pdf/uc/datasheets/DATASHEET...

Maxwell's MC series go to 3,000 F.


RE: So what...
By gstrickler on 8/11/2009 5:37:35 PM , Rating: 2
Your point about 144F being practical is taken. However, the product you referenced is unsuitable for this application. These capacities are from the data sheet you referenced:
25A * 2.7VDC = 67.5Watts max continuous power.
200A * 2.7VDC = 540Watts max for one second.

1 horsepower = 746Watts. Therefore, do be able to supply an extra 50 HP for 10 seconds of accelleration, you would need 50 * 746W continuous = 37.3KW for 10 seconds, or 553 of those capacitors to supply the power. There may be others that would work better in this application, but that one isn't the solution.


RE: So what...
By 91TTZ on 8/11/2009 2:27:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
A "smaller" battery pack doesn't provide enough draw to power the vehicle at reasonable accelerations


Provide enough "draw"? What is that?

quote:
Accelerating to highway speed on a short uphill onramp requires a massive power draw


Sure, but that short uphill ramp won't require much sustained electricity, only a short (>10 sec) burst.

quote:
You can't do that with a tiny power pack.


Sure you can. It won't have much capacity, but it'll be capable of outputting a high amperage for a short period of time. Capacitors are commonly used for this task.


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 2:58:19 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Provide enough "draw"? What is that?
Shorthand-speak for sustainable VA output...or watts, in DC circuits.

quote:
Sure you can. It won't have much capacity, but it'll be capable of outputting a high amperage for a short period of time. Capacitors are commonly used for this task.
Again, you're dealing in science fiction, not reality. No hybrid has a ultra-high output capacitor pack capable of doing this today. At some point in the future-- sure.

The auto engineers know more than you do. They're not choosing to not build cheap serial hybrids with tiny battery packs because of some conspiracy, or mindless nearsightedness. There are real engineering barriers that exist.


RE: So what...
By tjr508 on 8/11/2009 4:07:34 PM , Rating: 2
Capacitors are commonly used for tasks in the microsecond and millisecond range. These applications include things like flashing lights or the 1/120 of a second between rectified AC peaks. >10 second "pulses," not so common.


RE: So what...
By MatthiasF on 8/11/2009 10:37:58 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing you said even speaks to what I was talking about in my post. I mention battery packs as a tangent and you focus on it because the gasoline generator idea isn't deniable.

And to respond to you castigating others refuting your BS, it took 30 years and foreign car companies to get the US automakers to make hybrids. It's not an issue of technical issues, but research capital from those holding the purse strings.

When the same banks hold huge stakes in commodities are asked for loans to research technologies to reduce the consumer's need of said commodity, suddenly the money dries up.

We should be adopting mature technologies from trains for our automobiles and that means a serial hybrid. A combination of super-capacitor like in the Toyota Vitz/Yaris, with a small pack of lithium ion, could let a gasoline generator start and stop to generate the electricity for an all electric engine car while still recovering energy from breaking.

That's using technology from 2005.


RE: So what...
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 12:19:21 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure if you're aware how vehicles work in this regard but I'll try to explain it best I can.

this is for a regular car

Basicly when you start your car your battery takes a chunk of energy out and the Alternator charges it back up.

Same thing goes for when you accelerate quickly, It will need energy to provide spark and sometimes your alternator will not be able to keep up so it takes a bit from your battery and then when your speed averages out the alternator charges it right back up.

Its almost the same idea with this model...

If you have a small battery being charged by a small generator the size of the one in the Volt and you decide to ram on the "gas" peddle you may max out the capacity of the battery in that acceleration which would diminish your ability to accelerate in a reasonable speed.

Obviously the Volts battery is Massive compared to the size that would be required for that to happen but even cutting it in half would effect this significantly.

I could explain it in more detail but it would require quite a lengthy response and lots of technical details which would probably just confuse you.


RE: So what...
By 91TTZ on 8/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: So what...
By tjr508 on 8/11/2009 4:13:41 PM , Rating: 2
While any alternator out there can handle the said task, you generally don't gain output by speeding it up due to modern(1960s-1970s) designs. If you have had enough go bad you will notice that at least 1 in 3 times or so it is still good over 3000 rpm or so since it isn't using the bad part of the coil.


RE: So what...
By rudolphna on 8/11/2009 12:44:54 PM , Rating: 3
Answer: Because most people will drive less than 40 miles a day, thus not using ANY gas. Whereas if you have a generator, it will always use gas. A good amount of people driving it would never use any gas at all.


RE: So what...
By mindless1 on 8/11/2009 2:57:34 PM , Rating: 1
A: Unless they don't drive in ideal conditions, like traffic jams or heavy foot.

Unless their battery pack isn't new anymore.

Unless it's cold out so they have sub-optimal storage, capacity, and acceleration.

Unless like all cars, the parts degrade over time when subject to the elements so nothing works as well as it did in the lab or on a test track w/pristine prototype.

I see it a lot like my laptop. They claim a little over 3 hours. 2 years later forget about using it, rather than idling, for 100 minutes. I appreciate that the 3 hour rating was marketing department BS, but do we believe GM doesn't have a marketing dept?


RE: So what...
By gstrickler on 8/11/2009 6:12:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Unless they don't drive in ideal conditions, like traffic jams or heavy foot.
Traffic jams (stop and go traffic) don't significantly impact the range of electric vehicles (and some hybrids). The only electricity they use when stopped is for the safety, comfort, and convenience features. Most use regenerative braking systems so that braking recharges the battery.

Since the lights, radio, and air conditioning combined use significantly less power than the electric motor uses to move the vehicle, the net effect is small. In fact, if you look at it, most hybrids that can operate off electric at lower speeds actually get better fuel economy in stop and go city driving than they do on the highway. That's because the losses from stopping, starting, standing are lower than the loss from wind resistance at highway speeds.

Heavy accelleration might decrease usable range, however, since they've designed it to use only the optimal 50% (see below) of the battery capacity, it should have a lot of headroom for peak demand current, therefore, even that shouldn't have a significant impact on range.
quote:
Unless their battery pack isn't new anymore
The Volt is designed to use only 50% of it's battery capacity (30%-80%) to maximize the battery life, and it's designed to get 40mi on that 50% at the END of it's useful life. When new, you might get 1.5x-2x that.

quote:
Unless it's cold out so they have sub-optimal storage, capacity, and acceleration.
They have systems designed to keep the battery from getting too hot or too cold, even when the vehicle is off. If the battery does get too hot/cold, performance MIGHT be reduced temporarily, but it would have to be nearing the end of it's useful life or be far out of it's operating temperature range before you would notice any difference in accelleration because batteries can generally supply far more current than is needed for peak demand.
quote:
I see it a lot like my laptop. They claim a little over 3 hours. 2 years later forget about using it, rather than idling, for 100 minutes. I appreciate that the 3 hour rating was marketing department BS, but do we believe GM doesn't have a marketing dept?
Completely different design criteria. In a laptop, size and weight are critical, in a vehicle, the size and weight of the battery are important, but not as critical. See above, they designed it to maximize useful life of the battery, not to minimize the battery size/weight or to maximize the driving distance, therefore, what they're marketing is very conservative. Of course, we'll have to wait to see if their design and testing works as well in the hands of consumers, but I suspect most of it will, they spent a lot of time and money on real world testing.


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 11:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Traffic jams (stop and go traffic) don't significantly impact the range of electric vehicles
Um, sure they do. They don't impact it as much as for a gas vehicle, but they certainly cause a large loss of mileage. Regenerative braking is less than 50% efficient. Better than nothing, but every time you touch your brakes in an electric car or hybrid, you're still losing energy.

quote:
Since the lights, radio, and air conditioning combined use significantly less power than the electric motor uses to move the vehicle, the net effect is small
The lights and radio, sure. But the A/C and heater both draw a large amount of power. Sit in a traffic jam with either one on for a while, and your range will quickly evaporate.

quote:
it's designed to get 40mi on that 50% at the END of it's useful life. When new, you might get 1.5x-2x that.
Wow, wrong again. The whole point of the 80%-30% charge cycle is to prevent significant deterioration of the battery over its lifespan. The range is spec'd at the beginning of the car's life, but (according to GM), it shouldn't drop much over the next 10 years. But you're not going to get 80 miles (or even 60) when its new.

quote:
They have systems designed to keep the battery from getting too hot or too cold, even when the vehicle is off
Yes, and guess what? Those TAKE POWER. Leave your Volt out in the cold for several hours, and you'll eat into the charge.


RE: So what...
By gstrickler on 8/12/2009 3:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They don't impact it as much as for a gas vehicle, but they certainly cause a large loss of mileage.
Apparently you ignored or failed to understand this part of my response "In fact, if you look at it, most hybrids that can operate off electric at lower speeds actually get better fuel economy in stop and go city driving than they do on the highway. That's because the losses from stopping, starting, standing are lower than the loss from wind resistance at highway speeds." Therefore, range can actually increase slightly in stop and go driving.
quote:
The lights and radio, sure. But the A/C and heater both draw a large amount of power. Sit in a traffic jam with either one on for a while, and your range will quickly evaporate.
And where is your evidence? AC (and if they're smart, they're using a heat pump so it can be used as the heater as well) uses significantly less power than is required to move the vehicle. It will affect range, but not your range will not "quickly evaporate".

quote:
The whole point of the 80%-30% charge cycle is to prevent significant deterioration of the battery over its lifespan. The range is spec'd at the beginning of the car's life, but (according to GM), it shouldn't drop much over the next 10 years.
Designed to minimize loss of capacity over time, yes. That doesn't mean there will be no loss over 10yrs/150k miles. It will experience a loss of about 30%-50% capacity over that time. Without limiting it to that range, you would expect to see a 50% loss of capacity in 3-5 years using the best available battery technology. Go back and re-read GMs announcement and/or interviews, they specifically state that they expect the car to have a 40 mile range near the end of the battery's useful life.
quote:
Yes, and guess what? Those TAKE POWER. Leave your Volt out in the cold for several hours, and you'll eat into the charge.
That wasn't the the issue being addressed. The OP said it would decrease the power available for accelleration, not that it would reduce the usable range. Of course, if it's plugged in, the power to maintain the temperature can come from the plug, not from the battery, therefore, you might lose some capacity while driving in really hot/cold weather or while it's parked at work, but when it's charging in your driveway, temperature is not a significant factor on range.


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/12/2009 5:10:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Therefore, range can actually increase slightly in stop and go driving.
You're confused. Stop and go driving decreases range. Hybrids/electrics don't get better city mileage because it's stop and go, but because the speeds (and thus tyre/wind resistance) are so much lower). Stopping still hurts MPG, period.

quote:
And where is your evidence?
Past electric cars, pal. The A/C on past vehicles such as the EV1 would exhaust the battery in 45 minutes...even if the car wasn't moving. Now the Volt has well over double the KW-h rating in its batteries. But the A/C is still going to be a huge draw.

quote:
It will experience a loss of about 30%-50% capacity over that time.
Nice to make up a statistic, eh? I call shens on this.

quote:
Go back and re-read GMs announcement and/or interviews, they specifically state that they expect the car to have a 40 mile range near the end of the battery's useful life.
God, can you not read? I wasn't challenging this. I was challenging your insane comment that the Volt would have a 60-80 mile range at the BEGINNING of its life.


RE: So what...
By gstrickler on 8/12/2009 6:51:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're confused. Stop and go driving decreases range. Hybrids/electrics don't get better city mileage because it's stop and go, but because the speeds (and thus tyre/wind resistance) are so much lower). Stopping still hurts MPG, period.
You apparently don't read. I've stated in BOTH of my previous posts that they get better range in stop and go "city" driving BECAUSE the LOSSES FROM stop and go driving are LOWER than the losses from wind resistance at higher speeds. I have NEVER stated that stop and go driving improves range, only that your range in stop and go driving may INCREASE SLIGHTLY vs your range in highway driving. "LOSSES FROM" clearly indicates that stop and go driving does cost you energy, it's just less than the energy cost to overcome wind resistance at highway speeds. The original post wasn't about driving 30MPH steady vs stop and go driving, it was about traffic jams. City driving is already stop and go, so traffic jams on city driving are relatively unimportant to range. Therefore, what I addressed is traffic jams on highways. For the reasons above, those will not significantly harm range and may in fact slightly increase range.

quote:
Past electric cars, pal. The A/C on past vehicles such as the EV1 would exhaust the battery in 45 minutes..
I just looked up the specs on an electric heat pump for an RV, 15k BTU/hr, which is far more than you should need for a small car, after all, it's designed to heat/cool a much larger RV. Maximum power draw is just under 2.2KW. Cut that in half (or less) for a unit sized to fit the Volt, and you're at 1.1KW. The Volt has 8KW usable battery capacity, so you're looking at 7+ hours of heating or AC. Even an hour of running your AC is only going to reduce your battery only range by about 6 mi. and you've only got about 1hr of battery only range anyway. Beyond that, the gas engine will kick in to charge the battery.

quote:
Nice to make up a statistic, eh? I call shens on this.
All rechargeable batteries lose capacity based upon the # of charge/discharge cycles. The best are rated for only a 1000-2000 thousand cycles before they're down to 50% capacity. At 40mi/charge, 150k miles is 3750 cycles, you're only using half the capacity, so you can count that as ~2000 cycles. It will have lost at least 30%-50% of it's capacity in 2000 cycles. http://www.powerstream.com/BatteryFAQ.html
quote:
I wasn't challenging this. I was challenging your insane comment that the Volt would have a 60-80 mile range at the BEGINNING of its life.
If it has a usable range of 40mi at the end of it's useful life, and it has lost 30%-50% of it's original capacity (e.g. it's at 50%-70%) it's original capacity), then the original range will be 60mi-80mi. That is, unless they're planning to use 80%-100% of it's remaining capacity as it ages, in which case, both the initial and final range will be near 40mi.

However, they haven't stated that they plan to use more of it's capacity as it ages, they've only stated that they plan to keep the battery between 30%-80% charged at all times to maximize it's service life and that they expect 40mi range at the end of it's life. My assumption that they'll have longer initial range is no more or less valid than your assumption that is will be the same throughout it's life, but mine is based upon what GM actually stated and the known aging characteristics of all known rechargeable lithium battery technologies.

Go learn something about battery technology before you try arguing with me.


RE: So what...
By mindless1 on 8/27/2009 3:45:46 PM , Rating: 2
Like I already wrote, marketing departments.

Until claims are backed in writing with refunds attached, they can claim it sprouts wings and flys on it's own power when it reaches 10 years old.

All these power taps and capacity losses add up. Towards the end of it's lifespan it will be an ICE vehicle with a battery powered electric motor assist for acceleration.

The real shame is, these things will end up in junk yards at higher rates because when it comes time to replace the battery, many of them will be worth less than the cost of a new battery pack.


RE: So what...
By gstrickler on 8/11/2009 2:52:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Couldn't they make one that just runs it off the generator and forget the first 40 mile charge?
They already do, it's called a Toyota Prius. Ok, strictly speaking, it's not comparable in that it can't run at highway speeds on battery only, but it's close. At lower speeds (e.g. city driving) it can run entirely off battery power. The engine is used for higher speeds and for charging the battery. It's a whole lot cheaper than the Volt, gets about the same mileage when the engine is running, it's reliable, and it's now in it's 3rd generation. It's also rather ugly, but not significantly more so than the Volt.


RE: So what...
By klstay on 8/11/2009 11:54:24 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
You just demonstrated the idiocy of your entire rant/comment right there.


Really? If you feel like ponying up for the privilege of paying to be part of GM R&D more power to you. I guess that would make you the one born in your minute...


RE: So what...
By zsdersw on 8/11/2009 12:34:31 PM , Rating: 4
I'm not going to buy the first generation Volt, but that's not the point.

The point is that rants against first-generation products are all idiotic, because history has proven time and time again that while first generation products are seldom as efficient and reliable as those that come next, everything new product, whether it's eventually a success or not, has to start somewhere .


RE: So what...
By zsdersw on 8/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: So what...
By Arribajuan on 8/11/2009 1:00:16 PM , Rating: 4
Its a new product but it is not a new market.

Prius, Insight, Leaf, all other are cheaper to buy.

The volt has existing competition and cannot afford to use the "first generation" excuse for a very hight price.

Hybrid, mild hybrid, hardcore hybrid, electric, electric range extender, etc... it all boils down to the questions:
Will it be cheaper to run?
Will it be cheaper in the long run?
Will it make up the difference in price versus another car?

At 40k+ the "save the planet" slogan does not hold much air.


RE: So what...
By zsdersw on 8/11/2009 1:20:20 PM , Rating: 1
There are some ways in which it has existing competition, and some ways in which it doesn't. Unlike the Prius/Insight/Leaf, the car is driven by an electric motor with gas engine for recharging.

If the Volt is a better car to drive from a speed/handling perspective.. like the Tesla roadster is.. $40-50K is not an unreasonable price for the first vehicle of its exact kind. There will be enough people to buy it.


RE: So what...
By mindless1 on 8/11/2009 3:29:53 PM , Rating: 1
It was not meant to be a sports car, that market was saturated enough already so we can fairly say that most people really DO NOT CARE if their car performs better than the average car on the road, not enough to pay thousands more anyway.

We just have a strange situation on Dailytech, predominantly younger males who feel compelled to feign dominance by how their <cough> car </cough> performs.


RE: So what...
By zsdersw on 8/12/2009 6:28:34 AM , Rating: 2
Who said it was going to be a sports car? I just said that if it's acceleration and handling are considerably better than that of the Prius/Insight.. enough of them would be sold. Consider the following:

- The Volt is a very good looking vehicle. The same is not generally said of the Prius or Insight.

- Acceleration and handling are going to have to be similar if not a little better than that of the typical 4-door family saloon in order to have mass appeal. This is something you want to get right or nearly right on the first-generation

- $40-45k is not unreasonably prohibitive. Many vehicles that are at least as common as the Prius/Insight cost almost as much; some Cadillacs, pickup trucks, and SUVs are close to $40k.. a few are even more than $40k.


RE: So what...
By zsdersw on 8/11/2009 1:26:37 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
the "first generation" excuse


It's not an excuse, it's an explanation.. and a very good one at that.


RE: So what...
By onelittleindian on 8/11/2009 5:58:03 PM , Rating: 2
One man's excuse is another man's explanation. Call it what you want, as long as these cars are impractical, they're not going to sell well.


RE: So what...
By zsdersw on 8/12/2009 6:35:09 AM , Rating: 2
First-generation plasma televisions didn't sell well either and were impractical.. but yet here we are, a few years later, with plasmas that are pretty cheap and pretty practical.

The Volt isn't going to sell like a Camry or an Accord, but neither do the Prius or Insight. It will still sell well enough for the program to continue, though.. and we'll have second-generation Volts soon enough.


RE: So what...
By mindless1 on 8/11/2009 3:02:35 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree to a large extent, we have to remember that with tech items such as, oh how about computers, cellphones, TVs, etc...

We are continually ponying up for the privilege of paying to be part of R&D even if buying 1 to 2 year old tech (to a lesser extent then but the initial parts costs were present they just depreciated and someone was left salvaging remaining value from existing stock).

The difference is primarily that cars just cost a lot more, then add the cost of a big battery pack. If a tiny laptop battery pack costs $100 with most R&D costs long ago resolved, why wouldn't a huge car pack and charging system cost thousands?


RE: So what...
By lco45 on 8/11/2009 10:22:30 PM , Rating: 2
According to your logic no-one would by a Core i7 chip.

Some people like to spend a little money on getting the newest tech, and the Volt is lot more interesting that the usual boring re-hash we get with new model releases.

I mean, what's the difference between a 2009 Accord and 2005 Accord, or a 2009 Focus and a 2005 Focus.
Answer: not a whole f***ing lot.

Luke


RE: So what...
By orgy08 on 8/11/2009 9:10:49 AM , Rating: 4
Actually, you should probably not be spending very much gas. Driving the full 40 miles on battery per day, you will have 14600 miles per year on battery alone, which means your only using 400 miles with the generator. So that 13 year estimate is closer to 8 years, depending on how gas prices change.

Of Course, all this depends if you take long trips or short trips, or if you recharge twice in a day, etc...


RE: So what...
By Spivonious on 8/11/2009 9:22:35 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah with the Volt it really depends on trip length. I'm curious how they got to the 230MPG number.

For me, I would never use gas during the week. It's about 10 miles each way to work and I could plug in in the garage overnight.

For longer trips, like my trip up to NYC this past weekend, I would definitely put the gasoline generator to the test. I wonder what the mileage rating is in that case. After the first 40 miles, how efficient is the car?

Still, I have to pause at the $40k price tag for what looks like a Chevy Cobalt ($16k) size vehicle.


RE: So what...
By mdogs444 on 8/11/2009 9:32:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Still, I have to pause at the $40k price tag for what looks like a Chevy Cobalt ($16k) size vehicle.

Yup, its just a 4 door cobalt with some batteries. If someone can justify the 16-24k difference in price, be my guest.

Personally, I hope they do buy tons of them...and keep the demand for gasoline down so my price to fill up my Navigator and F-150 stay cheap.


RE: So what...
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 9:35:40 AM , Rating: 2
I think its a bit bigger then the cobalt but even if not It looks alot better in my opinion. If I have the money I may pick up the second or third year of these.

I try not to buy first year vehicles because that tends to be where the recalls and problems all are. There are exceptions of course but statistically that seems to be the case.


RE: So what...
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 10:22:30 AM , Rating: 2
See what I mean about retards voting down randomly? lol

You made a perfectly valid point and offered a joke at the end yet because your view is not the same as others they voted you down as if your point was less valid.


RE: So what...
By mdogs444 on 8/11/2009 10:26:58 AM , Rating: 3
Yup - but i dont care about ratings. In fact, when i get negative, then I know im doing my job by pissing off lefties :)


RE: So what...
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: So what...
By mcnabney on 8/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: So what...
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 10:43:13 AM , Rating: 2
Am I an insecure "dipshiat" because my Jeep gets 10-15 mpg on a good day?


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 10:45:27 AM , Rating: 5
Very wrong. First, oil is a world commodity...the US now uses less than 25% of it, a share that has been dropping every year since the 70s. The real pressure on oil prices comes from China, a country that now is buying more cars than we are (and tiny cars at that, for the most part). Their usage is growing per year many times faster than ours is, much faster than production can be ramped up.

Secondly, the price is high because the US has essentially made new oil production off limits within its own borders. That forces us to buy it from overseas, rather than producing it ourselves.

Also, isn't it about time to put to bed this idiocy about "people who drive big cars are just compensating for something"?


RE: So what...
By ClownPuncher on 8/11/2009 11:17:34 AM , Rating: 5
I drive a truck to compensate for Smart Car "speedbumps".


RE: So what...
By adiposity on 8/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: So what...
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 11:33:11 AM , Rating: 2
I drive a jeep with Full side D60 axles, solid steel bumpers front and rear.

does that make me an idiot?


RE: So what...
By adiposity on 8/11/2009 11:37:35 AM , Rating: 2
No. If you drive it to compensate for insights, then yes.

-Dan


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 11:33:49 AM , Rating: 4
Actually, I've always found it funny that nearly everyone who buys "Smart" cars are idiots themselves. Most of them cost more than a cheap subcompact, are less comfortable, drive worse, and you'll never pay back the higher cost from gas savings. Plus unless you drive it only in city centers, you're taking a huge risk with your life.

All for what? So you can be "trendy" and pretend you're "saving the planet"?


RE: So what...
By adiposity on 8/11/2009 11:40:36 AM , Rating: 3
Smart cars are a trend; they aren't as fuel efficient as they should be, given their size, and they are often purchased by people who haven't researched them properly (like all cars).

However, buying a vehicle to compensate for other vehicles on the road has got to be the stupidest reasoning I can imagine. Much dumber than not knowing the trade-offs of a smart car.

-Dan


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 11:48:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, buying a vehicle to compensate for other vehicles on the road has got to be the stupidest reasoning I can imagine
That actually sounds very smart to me. Those other vehicles are on the road, regardless of what you buy. If you don't compensate for them, you're likely to wind up a statistic, instead of happy and safe at home every night.


RE: So what...
By adiposity on 8/11/2009 11:57:45 AM , Rating: 2
My bad...

I forgot that due to the buoyancy of tar, if too few heavy vehicles are driven, the road will float away. Given that, it does make sense to buy a truck to make up for all the smart cars that aren't pulling their weight.

-Dan


RE: So what...
By mindless1 on 8/11/2009 3:39:09 PM , Rating: 2
Nonsense, in fact you are NOT likely to end up a statistic (when you imply the statistic is harm from the choice).

The idea of compensating is an idea that you are not in control of your car. Me, I'd be plenty safe in a small car with reasonable handling and acceleration because once upon a time ago I realized you're not just along for the right, if some moron who can't drive their SUV is about to plow into you, you can do things like brake, accelerate, steer.

What do the statistics say really? That the majority of accidents happen to those who are impaired whether it be illness, rage, distraction, drugs/alcohol, mental defect, stupidity, refusal to maintain a vehicle, etc.

Stupidity includes things like driving too fast for conditions, letting passengers or road-rage distract them, driving an SUV like it's a sports car, tailgating, buying "performance" tires when they drive in rain/snow/ice, not allowing extra travel time for traffic or weather conditions.

There's the old argument that you need to compensate for these stupid people, but the compensation for that is how you drive, not what you drive.

Same holds true for being out in public without a car, so do skinny people think "I need to become fat so I have more defense against bigger people"? Of course not, being an intelligent human being is the right answer.


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 11:13:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Same holds true for being out in public without a car, so do skinny people think "I need to become fat so I have more defense against bigger people"?
The only possible conclusion one can draw from the above statement is that you're intentionally trying to embarrass yourself. Do you see a lot of skinny people dying from sidewalk collisions with lardasses?

quote:
Me, I'd be plenty safe in a small car with reasonable handling and acceleration because once upon a time ago I realized...if some moron who can't drive their SUV is about to plow into you, you can do things like brake, accelerate, steer
This is almost as funny as the first comment. If someone is about to head-on you at 90mpg, accelerating won't do anything but bring the angel of death on sooner, braking won't save you, and steering your way out isn't always an option, even if you have lightning reflexes and tires that hold like superglue.

I've driven well over 1 million miles so far, never had a single at-fault accident, and avoided a few from quick reflexes. But you can't avoid them all, scooter....and for the ones you can't, having an ultralight vehicle means you've just become a statistic.


RE: So what...
By lco45 on 8/11/2009 10:29:57 PM , Rating: 2
What do you mean by "compensating for other cars"?
Don't you just drive whatever suits your needs and budget? How do other cars affect which car you choose?
Not arguing (for a change), I'm actually curious.

Luke


RE: So what...
By Xerstead on 8/11/2009 1:38:02 PM , Rating: 2
The only reasons I've considered getting one is how easy they are to park. They only need a space 1/3 the size of some other cars on the road and are far more maneuverable in small spaces like traffic jams and side streets. As a city car they do quite well.


RE: So what...
By ClownPuncher on 8/11/2009 11:58:04 AM , Rating: 3
Why? Smart Cars are small enough to fit in a blind spot, I feel they are dangerous for freeway driving.

I also like my truck, it's reliable, safe, useful, and...my choice to drive. I take it camping, offroading, help my parents with projects on their house like roofing etc.

I don't commute with the truck, I live close enough to bike or take the free bus. Per year I spend less on gas, and pollute less than the vast majority of Americans. But who cares? It's about personal choice, no?


RE: So what...
By adiposity on 8/11/2009 12:11:51 PM , Rating: 2
How does your buying a truck help the smart car problem? You shouldn't buy a vehicle to "make up for" other people's choices. If you like your truck and it's a good vehicle for you, great! It's your rationale I took issue with.

-Dan


RE: So what...
By ClownPuncher on 8/11/2009 12:23:09 PM , Rating: 2
Don't take everything on the internet so literally. Sometimes I like to have fun at others expense.


RE: So what...
By HinderedHindsight on 8/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 11:54:18 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Wow, what a load. Of course if you don't give exact figures
Actually I did give an exact figure. The US uses less than 25% of world oil. Fact.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-ener...

Furthermore, US oil usage has been static or even declining recently, while China's is rising at 10% or more per year. Other BRIC nations are also rising very fast.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,5...
http://www.hybridcars.com/oil-dependence/oil-use-d...

Prices aren't affected by static usage. They rise when demand rises faster than supply. The increase in GLOBAL oil usage is what is raising oil prices. And that increase is not due to the US's usage.

Next time THINK before you post.


RE: So what...
By HinderedHindsight on 8/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: So what...
By HinderedHindsight on 8/11/2009 12:29:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Overall, the United States applies more pressure against China


Just a clarification meant to say that "Overall, the United States applies more pressure against prices than China".


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 12:59:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Overall, our usage has increased since the 70's.
Overall, our usage as a total share of global usage has DECREASED since the 1970s. Significantly. And in the last 10 years, our usage has barely budged at all, while China's has increase more than 50%.

Oil hasn't gone up from the $15/barrel days because US consumption has risen 3%. It's gone up because China and other BRIC nations are seeing their usage EXPLODE. There isn't any room for debate on this. Accept it, and move on.

quote:
You also ignore the reason why China has seen increased use- the United States
Oh please. China is using oil because 1.2 billion people are no longer driving bicycles everywhere. They're the largest car market in the world right now.

Blaming China's oil usage on the US is like blaming US usage on the rest of the world. After all, if nations wouldn't buy our products, or sell us steel for cars, rubber for tires, and a million other products we need to keep our economy running, then we wouldn't be able to afford oil either. Your argument is about the most back-assward pathetic excuse for logic I've seen all year.


RE: So what...
By HinderedHindsight on 8/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 1:50:50 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
you missed my point- I had a problem with your ORIGINAL argument which implied that China was solely the reason for increase in cost of oil
You have again misread. My original point was that US consumption changes were not the reason for increased oil prices.

China and the rest of the developing world are the primasrily (though certainly not the sole) reason.

quote:
as well as your assertions that just because our global share of usage has gone down, it means that somehow, we aren't having an affect on prices
If our percent of total usage is declining, it means we're not the primary driver of increased prices. This is inescapable.

quote:
Most of [China's] population still can't afford cars
What you've forgotten is that, even when 900 million Chinese can't afford cars, the 400 million who can are still a larger group than the entire USA.

THINK before you post.

quote:
you're ignoring the US's increased military involvement in oil rich countries
You're the one telling us to view more than a decade of history. Ok, let's look back over the past 60-odd years. Where have most US military operations been? WWII. Korea. Vietnam. Bosnia/Serbia/Kosovo. Somalia. Afghanistan. Oh, and Iraq/Kuwait.

Now, bright boy. Tell us, how many of those are oil rich nations. And for bonus points, tell us which ones we lost the most lives and spent the most money in.


RE: So what...
By HinderedHindsight on 8/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: So what...
By Keeir on 8/11/2009 1:24:57 PM , Rating: 4
Wait... your getting confused

If Oil Consumption is related to economic activity and personal consumption, why is the US to blame the most?

Standard of Living is tied to economic activity and personal consumption. The gains made in bringing the rest of the world "up to" the level of the United States -is- the principle reason why demand for oil increased.

(BTW, The US may us alot of oil, but Oil per Person is inline with Canada, Iceland, Belgium, Netherlands, Ireland, Norway, Australia, South Korea, etc. Essentially ALL First world countries use more than ~30 bbl/day per 1,000 people.)


RE: So what...
By HinderedHindsight on 8/11/2009 1:50:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Wait... your getting confused


Not really, my point was that China was not the sole reason for the increase in the cost of oil, and that the US has, when you consider trade and military involvement, a greater affect on the cost of oil.

My point was not that the cost of oil is tied to personal consumption, it is more closely tied to trade.

quote:
The gains made in bringing the rest of the world "up to" the level of the United States -is- the principle reason why demand for oil increased.


That was, by extension, my point; China isn't the only one increasing consumption, the rest of the world is also, which is what is bringing down the US's global share of oil consumed. I'm in agreement with you on this statement.


RE: So what...
By onelittleindian on 8/11/2009 6:00:25 PM , Rating: 2
Hindered, you certainly picked a good name for yourself. China, India, Southeast Asia, all these countries are increasing their energy usage for the same simple reason the US did 100 years ago. They're picking themselves out up of a 19th century lifestyle.

I realize you'd like to keep them there (and pull us back down there also), all in the name of "saving the planet", but most people actually like a modern lifestyle. And energy is the key to living well.


RE: So what...
By FITCamaro on 8/11/2009 1:02:22 PM , Rating: 3
Of course we use more gas than China currently. They may have over a billion people, but only about 15-20% of that even live in the modern world. Even fewer own a car.

Their cities are massively overcrowded and they largely use public transportation.


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 10:26:11 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Personally, I hope they do buy tons of them...and keep the demand for gasoline down so my price to fill up my Navigator and F-150 stay cheap.
You won't be so happy in that case actually. Enough Volts to affect the price of gasoline would mean you'd be having blackouts whenever they try to charge all those electric cars. A high price to pay for a 75 cent savings on the cost of gasoline.


RE: So what...
By Keeir on 8/11/2009 12:48:52 PM , Rating: 3
Sigh. Porkpie, thats flatly incorrect.

Even if Every Single One of the nations ~200 million cars was made a Volt and driven 40 miles each and every day, total electrical consumption would rise around 15%.

8.8 kWh * 200 million * 356 days = 626,560,000 MWh

US Electric Consumption (2005, CIA) = 3,816,000,000 MWh

16% of 2005 total.

In real world, even 10-20% Volt adoption would affect prices for gasoline (not Oil so much as price of gasoline is affected by many things) a fairly inelastic demand curve. 10-20% Volt adoption would only increase power requirements by ~2%. Only in states where there is already signficant power outages would this be a concern. And then only if the pluging in happened during peak electric consumption (and no at much more reasonable "overnight" times). Heck, Even California has the required capacity for 10-20% of Volt plug-ins more than 300 days a year -at- peak times.


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 1:10:21 PM , Rating: 1
Keeir, you're wrong on several points. First, you forgot that it takes more than 8KW-hr to put 8-KW-hr back into a battery. You have transmission line losses, coulometric charging losses, and conversion losses. All in all, about 20% of the total (it was much, much worse for NiMh batteries like the Prius uses, which is why it would make a terribly plug-in). Second, in many areas, peak electricity consumption is within 2-4% of grid and/or generating capacity, meaning a very small increase in load can lead to failures.

There's an even easier way to do the calculation. At present, 2/3 of all energy usage in the country is due to transportation:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A170...

Less than 1/3 is electricity generation. Any way you slice it, any significant reduction to that 2/3 figure is going to require a huge increase in electricity generation and transmission. And that we cannot do, not without major upgrades.


RE: So what...
By Keeir on 8/11/2009 3:07:56 PM , Rating: 2
Whoa there

#1. 8 kWh usage, 8.8 (only ~90%) efficient was my assumption.

#2. Your right, 2/3 of energy usage is due to transportation. This includes, Trucks, Buses, Planes, Ships, Trains, etc.

But hey, lets start with your 20% loss equation

200 million cars X 8 kWh a Day X 356 days a year X 1.2 (efficieny lost)= 683,520,000 MWh/year.

Gosh, it might even be 20%! of the power usage to replace each and every car on the road.

#3. Your value of 2/3 of energy used in Tranportation is misleading when dealing with replacement with electricity. Let assume that each "Volt Type" car replaces a 30 mpg compact. That means 33.8 kWh=1 gallon= 8 * 1.2 / 40 * 30 kWh= 7.2 kWh trade off. So by using a Volt type car, you have reduced the consumption of energy during transit a good 79% !. I know, there are tranmission losses, charging losses, etc. But guess what? There are also refining losses, transportation losses, evaportation losses, etc with gasoline.

So lets do your "simple" calculation. (See I can play with meaningless numbers too)

1/3 + 2/3 * .21 = .469 --> To replace ALL transportation requirement with electricity would only require increasing the power generation and transmission by 42%... the yearly savings in gasoline would probably pay for the required increase in electrical production and transmission upgrades.

I know this number is completely silly. But so is saying that 10-20% replacement of driven cars will result in "massive" power outages. Maybe, in California, in Summer, if all 10% + pluged in during peak time... Maybe.


RE: So what...
By onelittleindian on 8/11/2009 5:57:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by using a Volt type car, you have reduced the consumption of energy during transit a good 79%
This is so messed up, I don't even know where to begin. Using a Volt reduces gasoline, but for most people, it is far from eliminating it. Not to mention that personal cars are only a small part of total transportation energy usage.

If transport uses 2/3 of all energy in the country, you can't eliminate oil without roughly tripling electricity production. That's a very simple result. (It'd be exactly triple of all forms of transport used oil, but a few don't).

quote:
Your right, 2/3 of energy usage is due to transportation. This includes, Trucks, Buses, Planes, Ships, Trains, etc.
So? Trucks, Buses, Ships, and Planes use oil also. Even if we all switch to Volts, and even if we only drive them 40 miles per day, gasoline consumption is still going to be going strong.


RE: So what...
By Keeir on 8/11/2009 6:31:30 PM , Rating: 2
Your right. I will rephrase

Under Battery Power, a Car like a Volt or Leaf, will use 80% of the energy during actual driving in comparison to a Toyota Corolla/Honda Civic.

1 gallon of gas = 33.4 kWH of energy = 1.11 kWh/mile
1 charge= 8 kWh of energy = 0.2 kWh/mile

"If transport uses 2/3 of all energy in the country, you can't eliminate oil without roughly tripling electricity production. That's a very simple result."

This would be true, if and only if, the electric system was -same- efficieny as using gasoline. I already have shown you that in actual driving condition, Electric cars uses far less energy than Gasoline driven cars.

The electric Well to Wheel system can be twice as efficient as gasoline only Well to Wheel. This reduces the amount of energy required by the transportation sector in an absolute sense.

Example Numbers:
If we build new High Efficieny Combined Cycle Plants and burned the gasoline in them, we can acchieve efficieny of 60% energy conversion. This means each gallon of gasoline can either drive a car 30 miles OR produce ~19 kWh of electricity. Lets call the distrabution methods a wash to this point, although this heavily favours the car driving since at best there will be 5% losses from distrabuting the gasoline to a pump rather than a plant.

19 kWh * 90% (Tramission Losses are estimated at 7%, So again, I am favoring the gas car) * 90% (Charging inefficieny, again Lithium Ion typically is 95% or more so this favours the gas car)= 15.4 kWh availble now in a battery. 15.4 kWh will propel these Leaf/Volt cars upto 60-70 miles.

IE, even if we assume that all the additional power will be provided by gasoline, Converting to Electric Drive increases overall efficieny by 50%. IE, we could reduce our oil for transportation by 50%. Use the remaining 50% in CC plants and drive the same distance.


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 11:25:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If we build new High Efficieny Combined Cycle Plants and burned the gasoline in them, we can acchieve efficieny of 60% energy conversion
Whoa, whoa, WHOA. You just started your argument with the premise, "well if we throw away every power plant in the country and build all new ones..." How likely is that?

Your average power plant TODAY is not 60% efficient. It's a bit more than 40% IIRC.

But there's an even bigger flaw in your argument. Total energy consumption in the electricity sector isn't based on energy INPUTs to power plants. Its based on how much they PRODUCE. The extra efficiency in that case is already factored in.

quote:
19 kWh * 90% (Tramission Losses are estimated at 7%, So again, I am favoring the gas car) * 90% (Charging inefficieny, again Lithium Ion typically is 95% or more so this favours the gas car)
You're more accurate here, but you've forgotten conversion losses. You can't convert house AC to different-voltage DC without incurring a bite. Probably around 8-10% or so, though that would depend on how much Chevy spends on their electronics.

quote:
Converting to Electric Drive increases overall efficieny by 50%. IE, we could reduce our oil for transportation by 50%
Again, even assuming your efficiency number, the conclusion doesn't follow. A Volt is only "all electric" if you drive it under 40 miles per day. And even if you do that, almost half the oil used for transportation is for things besides personal cars.


RE: So what...
By Keeir on 8/12/2009 1:48:23 PM , Rating: 2
Okay

quote:
Your average power plant TODAY is not 60% efficient. It's a bit more than 40% IIRC.


Don't forget, Electric Autos create such a massive power requirement that we will need to build -new- plants to support them. If we think about 40-50 year time frame, do you really think in 40-50 years we will still be using inefficient plants? or will most be the more efficient types?

quote:
You're more accurate here, but you've forgotten conversion losses. You can't convert house AC to different-voltage DC without incurring a bite. Probably around 8-10% or so, though that would depend on how much Chevy spends on their electronics.


Your right. Well, Lithium Ion from DC is 99.9% efficient. Small Lithium Ion with quality electrics from House AC is ~95%. I have no idea what 220V at 16 amps would be. So I went with you suggested number of 10%. What again is the issue?

quote:
Again, even assuming your efficiency number, the conclusion doesn't follow. A Volt is only "all electric" if you drive it under 40 miles per day. And even if you do that, almost half the oil used for transportation is for things besides personal cars.


You can't have it both ways. Either Electric Drive will displace a significant amount or it won't. If somehow we were able to switch -all- transportation to electric drive, overall oil usuage (provided we used Fuel Oil in CC plants) would fall 50% by that simple conversion.

The Volt will not provide that of course. But I think its fairly clear that the 10-20% of Car transformed into electric drive over the next 10 years will

A.) Decrease resource consumption leading to lower demand from the US and thus slightly lower prices than otherwise

B.) Will not overwhelm the power grid.


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/12/2009 5:15:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your right. Well, Lithium Ion from DC is 99.9% efficient
No. You're talking about coulometric charging efficiency (which is affected by the battery type). I'm talking about conversion efficiency, which is independent on battery type. Any time you change voltages, or convert AC-DC, you lose power.

quote:
But I think its fairly clear that the 10-20% of Car transformed into electric drive over the next 10 years will
I don't think we'll get anywhere 20% electric car penetration over the next 10 years. I think 5% or so is optimistic, and even then you'd have to be selling close to 50% at the end of the 10 years to get your fleet average that high.


RE: So what...
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 9:32:55 AM , Rating: 3
If I recall a couple months back they announced after it switches to generator you will be getting around 50mpg.


RE: So what...
By mcnabney on 8/11/2009 10:06:53 AM , Rating: 4
That 50mpg running on gas-alone is probably dead-on. Engines that are designed to run at a single RPM, on or off, are much more efficient than engines with a throttle. I am surprised that regular Hybrids didn't take this approach, but with a smaller battery.


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 11:07:31 AM , Rating: 2
That's only because you don't understand the engineering. If your engine is designed to run at a single RPM, then your batteries have to be powerful enough to handle normal driving conditions. Your typical hybrid can't accelerate to highway speeds in a reasonable timeframe on battery power alone. Therefore the gas engine has to be used, and that prevents it from being tied to a narrow RPM range.

Believe it or not, auto engineers actually do know a little more about building cars than you do.


RE: So what...
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 11:13:34 AM , Rating: 2
in typical hybrids you are correct which is why his statement is incorrect.

However in the Volt because of the large battery it will have more then enough power to accelerate to highway speeds.

I'm sure auto engineers know more about building cars but I've also worked on cars and built them for the better part of a decade.


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 11:24:42 AM , Rating: 2
You didn't read the post. The OP said "I'm surprised normal hybrids don't take this approach". I was explaining why they can't. The Volt can BECAUSE of its larger battery pack.


RE: So what...
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 11:40:57 AM , Rating: 2
I believe I said that..


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 11:49:00 AM , Rating: 2
Lol, turns out I'm the one who didn't read carefully enough. Very sorry.


RE: So what...
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 11:56:20 AM , Rating: 2
It happens ALL the time on here lol


RE: So what...
By erple2 on 8/11/2009 1:37:08 PM , Rating: 2
Nonsense, that's what CVT's are for. Those have been made for years.

Now, the buzz of a small engine running at it's peak efficiency might become irritating.


RE: So what...
By ksherman on 8/11/2009 9:52:22 AM , Rating: 2
[whispers]Find a way to charge your car at work... ;-)[/whispers]


RE: So what...
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 10:00:55 AM , Rating: 2
My workplace already has plugs for every spot. not for recharging your cars but for block heaters. However given the nature of my company and the way they take care of their employees I'd say its a pretty good chance that they will allow recharging to some extent at work.


RE: So what...
By nafhan on 8/11/2009 10:12:43 AM , Rating: 2
I'm curious as to how they got the 230MPG number, too.
Assume a 230 mile drive starting with a full battery charge. Write off the first 40 miles as no fuel would be used. That means the remaining 190 miles would be on one gallon of gas, i.e. 190MPG on the generator.
So, maybe they're stopping to recharge a couple times? Am I missing something?


RE: So what...
By psychobriggsy on 8/11/2009 10:19:14 AM , Rating: 2
Large city you're driving for 230 miles in you have there.

Clearly the city MPG is extrapolated from usage in a series of shorter drives, with a full recharge in-between. Hence it really plays into the hands of such a vehicle, but it is actually irrelevant (although will be marketed massively).

The cynic in me suspects that the shorter drives are generally under 40 miles (hence the battery capacity in the car), and the couple of times they got caught in traffic actually gave a figure that wasn't "infinity miles per gallon".


RE: So what...
By monomer on 8/11/2009 11:54:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"infinity miles per gallon"


Nissan has announced that the LEAF will have a fuel consumption of "Infinity + 1" MPG.


RE: So what...
By gstrickler on 8/11/2009 6:33:01 PM , Rating: 2
They made it up. They lied. They engaged in deception.

Ok, in reality, I'm sure they did demonstrate driving 230 miles and only using 1 gallon of gasoline, but that completely ignores the cost of the electricity (and that some type of fuel was used to generate the electricity).

It's a completely meaningless number.

If you want my suggestion for a better way to rate automobile efficiency, see my post on this other DT article.
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=15941

I think Nissan's reaction claiming 367MPG for their all-electric LEAF vehicle is an appropriate (and still meaningless) response to GM's claim.


RE: So what...
By clovell on 8/11/2009 10:59:22 AM , Rating: 2
50~60 mpg after the first 40 miles.


RE: So what...
By retrospooty on 8/11/2009 9:24:32 AM , Rating: 2
you also cant assume plugging it in your garage t charge overnight is free electricity. It isnt.


RE: So what...
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 9:37:45 AM , Rating: 2
Some rentals still offer everything included in the cost of rent.

But even if not electricity is pretty cheap, atleast here in Canada anyway.


RE: So what...
By mdogs444 on 8/11/2009 9:39:25 AM , Rating: 1
Wait till cap & tax is passed, then how many rentals do you think will include free electricity?


RE: So what...
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 9:57:08 AM , Rating: 3
not many do anymore anyway. Not because of costs but because of legal consequences. If I rent out a place and include electricity and they turn it into a grow op and the bill comes in at 5000$ I am legally responsible to pay.

If its in THEIR name then its not my problem. Well the house would be a write off but atleast I wouldn't get the kick in the nuts that is the hydro bill too lol.


RE: So what...
By mcnabney on 8/11/2009 10:34:41 AM , Rating: 2
The worst estimates suggest a ~$10-15/mo increase for an average 3 bedroom home that is air conditioned. They will just pass the cost on, just like any other business.


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 10:41:16 AM , Rating: 2
Huh? The worst estimates put the cost to the average family at more than $300/month.

Even this middle-of-the-road estimate puts the cost at around $100/month, with the cost disproportionately born by low income families:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/244...


RE: So what...
By adiposity on 8/11/2009 11:35:52 AM , Rating: 2
It's pretty stupid to talk about the "worst" estimates. The worst estimate is $5million per month (that's my own estimate, but since it's higher than the one you cited, it must now be the worst).

Anyway, Tax Foundation is a policy think-tank that is essentially against all taxes (their estimates have also been discredited many times). I'm not sure their "estimate" of the costs can be considered "middle of the road" just because it's less than some other "worst" estimate you cite.

Don't get me wrong, I'm against this bill and taxes. But citing anti-tax think-tanks for a reasonable estimate of the tax effects of anything doesn't seem like a very convincing argument.

-Dan


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 11:40:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
(their estimates have also been discredited many times
The usual response to any policy analysis you don't agree with.

I've seen at least ten different studies of the effects of Cap-and-Trade legislation. All of them ran to thousands of dollars a year in coss for the average family. There's a reason they call these bills the largest tax increases in history.


RE: So what...
By FITCamaro on 8/11/2009 1:06:21 PM , Rating: 2
I've talked to people who work for power companies. They've said they're still trying to figure out how they're going to brace the public for the 100% rate increases that will come about if the legislation was passed.


RE: So what...
By Spuke on 8/11/2009 3:03:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
brace the public for the 100% rate increases that will come about if the legislation was passed.
Fvck!! I hope I'm out of CA before this happens. I REALLY don't want to pay $300 a month for electricity (summer rates).


RE: So what...
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 10:41:40 AM , Rating: 2
10-15$ per month to drive to work every day is a hell of alot better then the 80$ a month for the mass transit system in my city that MIGHT get you to work on time.


RE: So what...
By jimbojimbo on 8/11/2009 2:15:22 PM , Rating: 2
Parking's free?


RE: So what...
By gstrickler on 8/11/2009 6:37:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Parking's free?
It is in most of Texas unless you work downtown in one of the major cities. ;)

Still, parking can be a significant expense for those who do have to pay for parking, so good point.


RE: So what...
By Spivonious on 8/11/2009 9:38:29 AM , Rating: 3
But the cost of electricity versus the cost of gasoline makes the electricity essentially free. Here in PA we pay about $0.15/kWhr and about $2.60/gallon.


RE: So what...
By mcnabney on 8/11/2009 10:46:30 AM , Rating: 3
$0.10 for power in the midwest. And not a dime goes to terrorists.


RE: So what...
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 10:55:54 AM , Rating: 2
well.. now that enron is gone anyway...


RE: So what...
By Spuke on 8/11/2009 3:19:32 PM , Rating: 2
~$0.12 outside of July/August. ~$0.19 in July/August.


RE: So what...
By gstrickler on 8/11/2009 6:43:19 PM , Rating: 2
Read one of my earlier posts on this article, you'll see that it's not "almost free", it's about 50% of the cost of gasoline. Cheaper, yes. Almost free, no.

Also, prices can change. 8 months ago, the price of electricity here (Dallas/Ft Worth, TX) was 50% higher and gas was 50% lower, making gasoline cheaper per mile than the electricity for a Volt would have been. It's all relative.


RE: So what...
By retrospooty on 8/11/2009 10:20:19 PM , Rating: 2
"But the cost of electricity versus the cost of gasoline makes the electricity essentially free. Here in PA we pay about $0.15/kWhr and about $2.60/gallon. "

Really? where is the rating for kilowatt per mile? Moving a 3000 lbs car is a BIT more power hungry than lighting a light bulb.

I am sure its cheaper than gas, but not that mich... maybe half. but half is good.


RE: So what...
By mars2k on 8/11/2009 10:35:37 AM , Rating: 2
Cars like this, using a full electric drive train and a separate charging source like its gas engine, offer the chance at some point for production using a fuel cell module for charging instead of the gas unit.
There are already pilot programs in California and New York for for Hydrogen fueling stations.
There are companies producing Hydrogen production units about the size of a washing machine. Their cost is a little high but with government and local power companies offering tax credits and rebates the costs come way down.
With Photovotaics on your roof providing the elctricity, a home Hydrogen generator and and electric using a fuel cell this could all work out pretty well.


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 10:48:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
With Photovotaics on your roof providing the elctricity..
If you have a ranch house in Phoenix, maybe. In most cities, cloud cover, higher latitudes, shading from nearby buildings, trees, mean you're not going to get nearly enough to power the 2-3 cars most homes have. And that's forgetting the millions that live in apartments.


RE: So what...
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 11:16:50 AM , Rating: 2
So because you live in a house in the city in the shadow of buildings on all sides aswell as being covered in trees you are making the point that those of us who don't live in the tree city shouldn't be able to own something like this?

I live just outside the city basicly in a forest and I have enough room around my house from trees that my roof is almost always covered in sunlight. Winter or summer I think this would work really well on my place.


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 11:27:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Winter or summer I think this would work really well on my place.
Then you're thinking emotionally. Pull out a pencil and paper instead. Unless you're at a very low latitude, in a very sunny spot, in a ranch house (2 story homes have a smaller roof area), it doesn't work.

Give me your location and I'll do the math for you if you want.


RE: So what...
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 11:48:36 AM , Rating: 2
Ottawa Canada.

I live in a long bungalow with a 2 car garage forming the bottom of the L shape. I also have a small work shop about the size of the 2 car garage, maybe a little smaller but its one full size door. Makes it easier to fit my jeep in and out.

I have quite a bit of roof space which is why I said it would work for me.


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 12:04:51 PM , Rating: 1
Ottawa? ROFL, you get what, 6 hours of sunlight a day in the winter? At an insolation rate of about 250W/m^2 at noon? Factor in 25% cloud cover, mean insolation over the period, and the day/night cycle, losses from roof angle (unless you're assuming ultra-sophisticated tracking panels) and you average all of 0.75 KW-hours per m^2 of roof per day. Now factor in 15% panel efficiency, and you're down to about 12 watt-hours per square meter per day.

Even a small car these days has 150 hp or more. That's what, 120KW (120,000 watts)? Plus, your average household usually has at least 2 cars to charge. Unless you're driving a mile a day or less, it ain't happening.

Worst of all, how do you charge AT NIGHT ? The sun is DOWN. If you come up with some hydrogen scheme or something similar, you've got at least another 50% loss in efficiency right there.

As I said, it just isn't possible. Sorry man.


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 12:17:32 PM , Rating: 2
Whoops, I meant to put 36 watt-hours per day. But I didn't factor in charging or conversion losses either, which is going to bring it down another 10-20% or so probably.

Still, just not possible in places like Canada. Not unless you want to cover an area much larger than your house.


RE: So what...
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 12:24:21 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking it would be possible to tie in the hydrogen generation to my regular power aswell as offset the cost with solar panels.

And the Sun comes up around 6 and goes down at 4pm during the winter months in this area which makes about 10 hours of sunlight.

My house hold has 3 cars but only one would be charged. the others are a Ranger with a 351 and a Cherokee with the stock 242.


RE: So what...
By drmo on 8/11/2009 12:45:02 PM , Rating: 3
I'm confused on the math. Isn't 15% of 0.75 kWh = 0.112 kWh. That would allow for a 144 m^2 house to give > 17 kWh electricity (if fully covered). That is enough to charge a single 16 kWh Volt battery. And in summer it would even be better.

Admittedly, I may just not understand the math.

Also, solar panel efficiencies now can be as good as 30% I think.


RE: So what...
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 12:53:34 PM , Rating: 2
as good as 30% yes but his math was correct on the efficiencies of the solar panels that I would most likely have. The 30% ones are far too expensive for me, I'd rather spend that on new tires, bumpers and rock sliders for my jeep.


RE: So what...
By drmo on 8/11/2009 2:04:02 PM , Rating: 4
so 15% of 750 Wh is 36? How? I am missing something.


RE: So what...
By mars2k on 8/11/2009 7:20:26 PM , Rating: 2
Well of course its not for everyone. It may not apply to you. However lots of people live in sunny locations, California, Nevada, Texas, Arizona, Colorado, etc the list goes on.
People in these places do a lot of driving. Photovaics are getting better everyday. There are concentrating collectors now that track the sun and put out lots of energy per sq ft. These systems will approach 40% effinciencies.
A well insulated house with a few other engy saving cahnges and a concetrating solar dish putting out 10 kw could produce a lot of extra electricity for Hydrogen.
You can produce extra electricity for hydrogen and run your house on a fuel cell at night. Any excess hydrogen goes to the car.
The government is giving 30% tax credits right now on photovotaic systems and fuel cell systems along with all the other required changes too. My utility company will give me a rebate of $3/watt for the instalation and buy back the excess electricity.
When you add it all up it could work, especially if you had a Car like the Honda Clarity in the garage.


RE: So what...
By jimbojimbo on 8/11/2009 2:07:28 PM , Rating: 2
Every assumption and calculation of mileage seems to neglect the fact that YOU PAY FOR ELECTRICITY. Unless you've got a long cord going to your neighbor's those first 40 miles are NOT free.


RE: So what...
By lco45 on 8/11/2009 10:39:09 PM , Rating: 2
Nor free, but around 2.5c/mile.
This cost is being included in the calculations of most of the postings for this article.
Luke


RE: So what...
By DallasTexas on 8/11/2009 9:19:50 AM , Rating: 2
I guess the effort to conserve energy is not about you.


RE: So what...
By mdogs444 on 8/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: So what...
By mcnabney on 8/11/2009 10:42:29 AM , Rating: 2
It is on hold because Congress is on summer recess and Health Care will be front and center when they get back.


RE: So what...
By descendency on 8/11/2009 9:29:42 AM , Rating: 2
You do realize that the coal that will be burned to create the electricity that will charge the Chevrolet Volt and other battery based cars is indeed still just as bad as driving a Hummer? But you just won't have to see it. I guess feeling better is better for the environment than actually being better, though.


RE: So what...
By brybir on 8/11/2009 9:40:14 AM , Rating: 4
I agree to a point about burning coal to power the car can be harmful as well.

But your point about the prius and volt being worse for the environment has been widely discredited even here on DT in the past. The study that you are referring too had major flaws in its methodology and in any event was done by a marketing firm. The results it presents make no sense, such as the cost of owning and driving a Chevy Malibu over 168,000 miles is $319,000+.

If you go google the study you will find many articles discrediting the findings and pointing out the glaring flaws in this marketing study.


RE: So what...
By Nacho on 8/11/2009 9:40:37 AM , Rating: 3
Because petrol is created at no cost, right? And it costs $0 to refine and transport, right?


RE: So what...
By brybir on 8/11/2009 9:45:56 AM , Rating: 2
One study explaining why the Dust to Dust study is flawed.

http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science...


RE: So what...
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 9:52:19 AM , Rating: 2
Depends on where you live i guess.. Coal in my area accounts for about 1.06%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HQ_supplies_2007...

Theres my source.


RE: So what...
By Starcub on 8/11/2009 11:05:00 AM , Rating: 2
Very nice!

Mind if I ask how much you pay per KWh for electricity?


RE: So what...
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 11:22:00 AM , Rating: 2
3.6 Cents per kWh


RE: So what...
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 11:28:25 AM , Rating: 2
keep in mind that is Quebec rate for business customers, my house hold rate is just under 5cents kWh.

Its also a publicly owned company.


RE: So what...
By Starcub on 8/11/2009 11:50:48 AM , Rating: 2
Wow. That's incredible!


RE: So what...
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 11:59:08 AM , Rating: 2
why? we have the largest supply of fresh water in Canada which makes it extremely easy to produce hydro-electric power in high amounts.


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 12:07:17 PM , Rating: 2
I saw a study once that showed Canada could power all of North America with just 50% of its untapped hydroelectric capability. Forget wind, solar, coal, and even nuclear. Just hydroelectric.

Of course, environmentalists are against dams now even more than they are coal. Idiots.


RE: So what...
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 12:28:49 PM , Rating: 2
Complete retardation to be against dams. Its the cleanest form of energy.

Obviously we couldn't tap even close to 30% of the water or it would turn Canada into a giant man made lake lol.

But yes, with our James bay one alone we power the city of Montreal and Ottawa with ease. Helps James bay dam is the biggest damn in North America as far as I know the world aswell. I could be wrong on that though


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 10:04:09 AM , Rating: 2
Burning coal is not as polluting as burning gasoline-- and creating electricty from nuclear doesn't pollute at all.

But the real problem is that electric cars aren't any answer for the short or medium term. It takes 20 years to build up power plant capacity, and in our current political environment, it doesn't look like we're going to have ANY new plants coming online in the new few decades. Then you have the problems of extra load on the grid also.

If electric cars catch on big time, you're going to see most areas suffering brownouts and blackouts on a regular basis.


RE: So what...
By mcnabney on 8/11/2009 10:45:35 AM , Rating: 2
It is all incremental. Wind turbines are being put up as fast as they can get them built. New nuclear power plants are underway. These things take time. As grid-powered cars ramp-up, so will capacity.
And won't it be worth it?
To tell the Middle East to F off.


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 10:52:35 AM , Rating: 2
Powering the country with wind is a pipe dream, as anyone who can do simple math realizes. That's why the Pickens Plan died...it would have cost tens of billions of dollars just to upgrade the grid, not to mention more than a trillion for the windmill purchases and maintenance. Once wind (or any variable source you don't control) tries to fill more than about 5-10% of demand, it becomes totally impractical.

Nuclear would work. But if we want a large fleet of electric cars 20 years from now, we need to be building a dozen new nuclear plants TODAY. And that we arent doing.


RE: So what...
By 91TTZ on 8/11/2009 2:56:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Burning coal is not as polluting as burning gasoline-- and creating electricty from nuclear doesn't pollute at all.


Wrong on both counts. Coal pollutes more than gasoline and nuclear power does produce nuclear waste.


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 3:04:21 PM , Rating: 2
What are you smoking? Coal generation is far cleaner than gas-powered engines. Not only are coal plants more efficient (they run as high as 50%, as opposed to the 20-25% your average car engine gets), but they also have about a billion dollars in scrubbers and other pollution-control mechanismns on each one. A car can't carry around anywhere near the same level of pollution-control gear. Per KW-hr, coal is almost ten times as clean as auto engines.

As for nuclear power, the amount of "waste" is so tiny as to be totally insignicant. That's why we've had nuclear plants in business for 50 years, all without ever once having any permanent waste storage facility. The plants store it all on site. Decades worth of it...usually in one small room.


RE: So what...
By drmo on 8/11/2009 12:49:06 PM , Rating: 2
That is why they are pushing for new clean coal plants and carbond sequestration tactics. You can't reasonably sequester carbon from a car.


RE: So what...
By lco45 on 8/11/2009 10:42:06 PM , Rating: 2
No, it's more efficient to run a big generator on coal than to power each car individually using an internal combustion engine.
Should be obvious really, otherwise power stations would just use a giant rack of thousands of V8s ;-)

Luke


RE: So what...
By AngryNJ on 8/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: So what...
By mdogs444 on 8/11/2009 9:37:48 AM , Rating: 5
Ok enough of the crazy left talking points, seriously. Why do you feel the need to throw emotional responses into every subject?

If you knew anything about the subject, you'd know that we don't even get the majority of our oil from middle east nations. The rest of this anti-war rant is just you being a left winged loon - go back to Code Pink.

And he should be concerned with his own savings - its called personal responsibility. Just because you and your supporters don't like to hold yourselves responsible for your own well being, it doesn't give you any right to try and guilt someone else into feeling like they owe YOU something because they don't.


RE: So what...
By AngryNJ on 8/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: So what...
By Starcub on 8/11/2009 11:26:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you knew anything about the subject, you'd know that we don't even get the majority of our oil from middle east nations.

And your point is?

The US doesn't get the majority of it's oil from any single nation. In fact we get oil from a variety of different nations not all of whom we are on, or perhaps more importantly, plan to be on, friendly terms with.

You should be aware that the primary reason that congress has stated that pursuit of alternative energy sources is important is because of national energy security. Granted the pol's are no more trustworthy than the govt's they 'subsidize' and do business with, but that is what they've stated.

quote:
Just because you and your supporters don't like to hold yourselves responsible for your own well being, it doesn't give you any right to try and guilt someone else into feeling like they owe YOU something because they don't.

Now this is just completely out of left field. Were you attempting to address something the OP stated, or is this something you completely made up in your own mind? Why did you do so?


RE: So what...
By descendency on 8/11/2009 9:40:30 AM , Rating: 4
This is an interesting question. While you are right to say that there is definitely a cost to buying up oil, the better question is are we actually averting this?

The real answer is still no. The only way we can actually stop sending money to foreign nations that have questionable judgment is to drill for our own oil, which we have. The problem is the same people that want to drive cars like this... environmentalist.

Oil companies currently get very cheap oil (pure crude) and process it into gasoline among other things. The oil that they currently have access to is a lot more expensive (they have to do things like use hot water to separate it from the shale/mud). That will increase the cost of gasoline at the pump, which most people think is a huge conspiracy to make profit off of them (which is actually fairly true... it's what companies do... and I'm glad to see them do it.) Just FYI, your government makes more money off of Oil than any oil company. 10 billion dollars more last year. And that's before Obama taxes them (and us) back into the stone age.

The fact of the matter is that no alternative energy can be produced right now (or maybe ever) without going somewhere environmentalist don't want to. Either we drill for oil here or we drill in Saudi Arabia. Ethanol doesn't make itself and the coal and oil we will have to burn to make it is nearly as much energy as the ethanol will actually produce (net energy gain of 0... yet still burning those evil fossil fuels). Nuclear Energy? Oh my. Then you have "wind power" which is almost as absurd as riding a bicycle to work daily (wind is a pipe dream that will work on a communal level for some places, but it will not power the US). And you can go on ad nasium.

The answer is that there is no good answer to this. While I'd love to tell you that we can simply stop buying Middle Eastern oil, we can't.

I would like to say one positive thing though. Most of the devices that we currently power with oil are under 100 years old. The technology is progressing so fast, we may not even need fuel in 100 years. I know it sounds absurd now, but go back and ask people in 1900 what they think about getting news from Twitter.


RE: So what...
By Starcub on 8/11/2009 11:48:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The answer is that there is no good answer to this. While I'd love to tell you that we can simply stop buying Middle Eastern oil, we can't.

We could. The problem is that it's viewed as too expensive by the those who have lived high off the hog on oil for the last 50 years. Environmentalists are not the problem. The problem is with the instrustry/pol types that have (or at least are supposed to have) the resources to deal with the problem. Instead we get the same old "but the people want oil..." crap by those who are supposed to acting responsibly to and for the people.

quote:
The technology is progressing so fast, we may not even need fuel in 100 years. I know it sounds absurd now, but go back and ask people in 1900 what they think about getting news from Twitter.

Sorry, no back to the future for you. The future has been put on hold until the establishment lays the foundation to ensure that is can be made profitable to them.


RE: So what...
By Spivonious on 8/11/2009 9:41:56 AM , Rating: 3
The U.S. gets less than half of their oil from OPEC countries. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_...

We get twice as much oil from Canada than we do from Saudi Arabia.


RE: So what...
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 9:58:28 AM , Rating: 2
w00t. Rock on, paid for my house with your gas guzzlers! lol


RE: So what...
By AngryNJ on 8/11/2009 11:08:31 AM , Rating: 2
So we get 50% from opec. I think that is too much. I would love to tell opec to get lost. How about you?


RE: So what...
By Spivonious on 8/11/2009 11:24:04 AM , Rating: 2
Make sure you're looking at the right numbers. The most current year is the far-right column. We currently get about 39% from OPEC countries.

I'd rather get oil from whatever organization gives us the best deal. The free market at work.


RE: So what...
By AngryNJ on 8/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 11:39:12 AM , Rating: 2
You're throwing up red herrings. In reality, the US is more at military risk from the toys and dog food we buy from China, than the oil we purchase from OPEC. In 25 years, China will be a superpower equal to the US (sooner, if we keep cutting our military budget). Compared to them, the danger from any Middle Eastern country is basically zero.


RE: So what...
By AngryNJ on 8/11/2009 11:46:18 AM , Rating: 1
Really? So the middle east is no longer a threat. I guess the world was just delusional about terrorism, and all those wars in the mid-east were for nothing. Zero danger from the mid-east... Tell that to everyone who lost a loved one serving in the military in the middle east. Tell that to everyone that lost a loved one on 9/11.


RE: So what...
By Yawgm0th on 8/11/2009 12:46:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're throwing up red herrings. In reality, the US is more at military risk from the toys and dog food we buy from China, than the oil we purchase from OPEC. In 25 years, China will be a superpower equal to the US (sooner, if we keep cutting our military budget).
China is almost 30 years behind us in military technology and almost 60 years behind is as a nuclear power. We already have economic MAD with China.
quote:
Compared to them, the danger from any Middle Eastern country is basically zero.
How many thousands of Americans have been killed by the Chinese in the last ten years? How often do the Chinese publicly vow to kill the American infidels?

The reality is there is virtually no risk of actual war with China anywhere in the foreseeable future, but we're already at war with terrorists in the Middle East. To bill oil consumption as geopolitically unimportant because of this imminent non-existent Chinese threat is just childish.


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 1:36:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
China is almost 30 years behind us in military technology...
About 25 years. Just as I said.

quote:
... and almost 60 years behind is as a nuclear power
Huh? Where did you get this nonsense statistic? China has had nuclear weapons since the 1960s. They've been able to strike the US with nuclear ICBMS since the 1970s. They have MIRVs, nuclear cruise missles, enhanced-yield neutron bombs, and (other than some fancy tamper-implosion ultra-low yield devices) pretty much everything we do on a nuclear basis.

quote:
How many thousands of Americans have been killed by the Chinese in the last ten years?
In 1938, how many Americans had been killed by the Japanese?

quote:
How often do the Chinese publicly vow to kill the American infidels?
In 1938, how often were the Japanese vowing to kill the infidel Americans?

You're very confused. The real risk to a nation is not from a few radical groups. Ultimate worst case scenario, they get one nuke and take out part of one city.

The real danger is from a nation with a nuclear arsenal, and the means to deliver it en masse. An attack that can kill tens of millions in the blink of an eye, and hundreds of millions more in after effects.


RE: So what...
By Yawgm0th on 8/11/2009 2:58:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
... and almost 60 years behind is as a nuclear power Huh? Where did you get this nonsense statistic? China has had nuclear weapons since the 1960s. They've been able to strike the US with nuclear ICBMS since the 1970s. They have MIRVs, nuclear cruise missles, enhanced-yield neutron bombs, and (other than some fancy tamper-implosion ultra-low yield devices) pretty much everything we do on a nuclear basis
Relative power of nuclear arsenal is where I came up with that. China has under 300 nuclear warheads, and most of them aren't capable of striking North America. The US has over 9000 total, over 5000 active, and nearly 3000 deployed, all on delivery systems able to span the globe. The US nuclear arsenal could incinerate the whole of mainland China. China does not have reciprocal capability. China's ability to strike us is roughly equivalent to our ability to strike anyone in early fifties or late forties.

quote:

How many thousands of Americans have been killed by the Chinese in the last ten years?

quote:
In 1938, how often were the Japanese vowing to kill the infidel Americans?
None and probably none. I doubt any Japanese declared a religious war against us. But Japan was undergoing a war with an American ally (China) while Japan and the US where in an arms race. The threat then was very real and imminent. There was a cold war that quickly led to a real war.

We're not in an arms race with China. We're not in a cold war with China. China is not at war with any of our allies (though Taiwan has presented a potential issue, but for fifty years). China is a close trading partner and not an enemy. They aren't even communists, and even socially they have been liberalizing (albeit too slowly for my taste) for quite some time. Our relations with them are not good because of their government's social and economic policies, but we're no where near military action.

quote:
The real danger is from a nation with a nuclear arsenal, and the means to deliver it en masse. An attack that can kill tens of millions in the blink of an eye, and hundreds of millions more in after effects.
No doubt a Chinese nuclear attack would kill tens of millions of Americans. But it won't happen. It would incite a worldwide economic depression and China would be obliterated. There's nothing for China to gain, and nothing leading us to war with China. A terrorist has everything to gain, nothing to lose, and all the motivation to carry out any kind of attack on us.


RE: So what...
By onelittleindian on 8/11/2009 6:08:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We're not in an arms race with China
We're in far more of an arms race with China than we are with any Middle Eastern terrorist group. China is now building nuclear subs, aircraft carriers, and anti-satellite weapons. Your point about the number of nuclear weapons they have is pretty silly. China is building so many nuclear reactors right now that in ten years, they'll be able to reprocess enough plutonium to build ten warheads a day. They could close the gap any time they wanted (they might even be doing it now for all we know, they don't exactly publish open statistics on that sort of thing).

An alliance of China and Russia (for those of you who know history, they were allied against us not that long ago) could very easily threaten the US. Today, not in 30 years.

We've basically destroyed our heavy industry capability in this country. We don't produce our own steel or most other metals any more. We produce less than a third of our energy, and without oil, we can't even grow our own food any more. The US is a lot more vulnerable than you think to geopolitique.


RE: So what...
By AngryNJ on 8/12/2009 9:21:14 AM , Rating: 2
Funny how you and others gripe about how we are vulnerable to China since we don't build anything including steel, heavy industry, yet when I said that we should be less dependant on foreign sources of energy, I get -1 rating and told that I am part of code pink. the knee-jerk reaction by some of you is ridiculous. So childish.


RE: So what...
By Yawgm0th on 8/12/2009 2:48:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We're in far more of an arms race with China than we are with any Middle Eastern terrorist group. China is now building nuclear subs, aircraft carriers, and anti-satellite weapons.
We've had all of this for decades (except anti-satellite, which we've been to easily develop for decades). We're building anti-ballistic missile defense, cyborgs, and robotic weapons.

But the arms aren't what matter. A nuke in a suitcase is more probably and more dangerous than Chinese nuclear weapons.

quote:
An alliance of China and Russia (for those of you who know history, they were allied against us not that long ago) could very easily threaten the US. Today, not in 30 years.
Why would China and Russia ally against us now? We have no faux economic ideology disputes to drive us. Just national power and influence. There's no reason to believe relations with both won't improve, despite setbacks (ie Georgia). This isn't the 60s. There is no cold war, no holy ideologies to spread at any cost. No one wants to destroy the planet over what we call Taiwan or national Internet filters.

quote:

We've basically destroyed our heavy industry capability in this country. We don't produce our own steel or most other metals any more. We produce less than a third of our energy, and without oil, we can't even grow our own food any more. The US is a lot more vulnerable than you think to geopolitique.
These are ridiculous generalizations with minuscule relevance and accuracy.

I'm sitting about 100ft away from a pile of ferrous and non-ferrous scrap metal weighing millions of pounds and worth hundreds of millions of dollars, despite its recession value being less than half its value just a few years ago. The domestic metal market in this country is doing just fine. If we stopped importing metal from all of Asia it might bring prices to pre-recession levels.

I'm not sure where you get the idea about our energy. Coal is so popular here because it's domestically sustainable and affordable. I guess you have a point in that a huge portion of our oil comes from Canada, but somehow I'm not too worried about political problems with our northern neighbor. ;)

I'm pretty sure we're making so much food for so little money that the government has been subsidizing farmers for, say, longer than I've been alive just so they can turn a profit despite food being dirt cheap.

If they Chinese and Russians want to launch nuclear weapons, then we're all dead now no matter how we focus our geopolitical efforts. At the very least, being economically confrontational with China is only more likely to lead to bad things. Being economically confrontational with Saudi Arabia (ie importing less oil) is unlikely to make the political situation any worse, but might make it better by denying our enemies the economic support they need to wage war on us.


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/12/2009 5:24:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why would China and Russia ally against us?
Why did they do it before? Why would Germany and Japan ally against us? Why would England burn down the White House?

Every situation is different. But the idea that we've somehow "outgrown" large-scale war is pretty childish.

quote:
A nuke in a suitcase is more probably and more dangerous than Chinese nuclear weapons.
This is just plain silly. A "suitcase nuke" might take out a small portion of one city. A large-scale nuclear attack can destroy the entire nation.

quote:
These are ridiculous generalizations with minuscule relevance and accuracy.
What world are you living in? Do you not realize that, in 1955, the US produced HALF of all manufactured goods in the entire world? And that since 1970, the size of the manufacturing sector has declined EVERY SINGLE YEAR? Not just declined as a share of the world total, but declined in absolute numbers as well. We went from the world's largest producer of steel and most other metals, to a net importer.

These are hard cold facts, not "generalizations".


RE: So what...
By Spivonious on 8/11/2009 12:54:01 PM , Rating: 2
What Middle Eastern country has a problem with us? Maybe Iran, but they're too smart to do anything about it. The rest of the "problem" is one or two terrorist groups with more bombs than brains.


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 10:00:31 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
What price do you put on the oil you consume in: military actions, loss of US soldier lives in hostile territories in the middle-east, transfer of wealth from the US to countries like Saudi Arabia etc etc.
All the more reason for us to produce our own oil, huh? We have billions of barrels we're not allowed to drill for. There's so much oil off the Cali coast that its bubbling up naturally and fouling beaches there. If we were allowed to drill and pump it, it'd actually be BETTER for the environment than what we have now.


RE: So what...
By mcnabney on 8/11/2009 10:50:01 AM , Rating: 1
The US doesn't have Jack for oil. And don't go counting Shale Oil. The cost of getting oil there will never be viable for consumer transport costs. And don't go spouting about Alaska either. Pipeline volume has been decreasing for almost thirty years.


RE: So what...
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 11:04:55 AM , Rating: 2
Very wrong. Why do you think we have thousands of miles of coastline barred from drilling if there's no oil there to drill? Why do you think we have a debate about ANWR if there's not billions of barrels of oils up there alone? Why do you think dozens of beaches in California are fouled each year from natural oil seepage?

And NONE of that counts tar sands or shale oil. despite your lunatic remarks, that DOES work just fine. There are companies in Canada today producing from shale oil. Google it...it takes all of 5 seconds to prove it.


RE: So what...
By AngryNJ on 8/11/2009 11:09:02 AM , Rating: 2
Sure, sounds good to me.


RE: So what...
By lco45 on 8/11/2009 10:46:11 PM , Rating: 1
Dude, war is a waste, esp. of soldiers' lives, but let's keep it on-topic.
This is just a discussion of the merits of ICE engines vs electric, let's just focus on those numbers...

Luke


RE: So what...
By lco45 on 8/12/2009 9:32:05 PM , Rating: 2
To whomever voted me down, you disagree with my post, in other words you think:
1. War is not a waste.
2. It's not a shame to lose young men on the battlefield.
3. We shouldn't focus our comments on the merits of ICE vs Electric.
That's it, you're uninvited from my birthday party.
Luke


RE: So what...
By rudy on 8/11/2009 1:05:28 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone makes this arguement, while it is valid the fact is not everyone out there will buy a car based solely on its cost effectiveness if they did there would be no place for BMW or Cadillac. Many people will buy this car just like people bought the Prius. They do so for hundreds of their own reasons. But this car will sell. And if GM is lucky it will be a huge hit.


RE: So what...
By inighthawki on 8/11/2009 1:18:08 PM , Rating: 2
What you fail to realize is the savings in gasoline though. Sure it may take years before you see your profit from the vehicle in terms of cash, but imagine if everyone drove one of these, we would free ourselves from the dependence on gasoline. It's not always about the money, it's the price u pay for conserving gasoline.


Proper rating
By Visual on 8/11/2009 9:37:43 AM , Rating: 5
I am gonna shoot whoever came up with this kind of ratings in the face if I ever meet them in person.

I wonder, since they are using such a nonsense MPG rating anyway, why didn't they go all the way with the bull-crap and just claim infinite MPG?

Why don't they do it properly for a change, and give us the actually useful information about MPG while running on gas only? Like, start from a 30% charged battery and end with a 30% charged battery again, sit and wait till the gas engine recharges it if you have to.

And also give us a separate rating of miles per watt-hour (as indicated by the electric meter according to which you pay your bills, not just by the battery capacity rating) for the times when you drive on electricity.




RE: Proper rating
By mdogs444 on 8/11/2009 9:47:15 AM , Rating: 2
Probably because it will sell so much better if it says "100MPG", right?

Its all playing with the numbers to meet your anticipated outcome....

Like the administration playing with the numbers on the Cash for Clunkers scheme to make it look like the top 10 selling cars were all small fuel efficient cars, which Edmunds.com debunked.

Or like how they tried to say that the number of people who lost jobs dropped in half this month, which is blatantly false. Not only is the typical time of year when government does hiring to offset the yearly factory shutdowns, but they also do not include people who have given up looking for work. So if your not working, and your not looking for work, you're somehow NOT considered "unemployed"? Forbes has estimated that the 250,000 lost jobs is really about 600,000-800,000.


RE: Proper rating
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 9:53:53 AM , Rating: 4
could I see the link for the article your referring? I'd like to read that.


RE: Proper rating
By mdogs444 on 8/11/2009 10:02:03 AM , Rating: 3
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/07/recession-unemplo...

Let me find the one about the government hiring affecting the numbers too, hard to search on this site...


RE: Proper rating
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 10:05:58 AM , Rating: 2
Our media has gotten so in bed with Obama its pathetic. I really can't believe the average person doesn't know that the HUMMER of all things is approved for purchase in the cash-for-clunkers program. Along with a dozen other large SUVs and trucks.

Come on CNN and MSNBC. WHY won't you report this stuff?


RE: Proper rating
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 10:12:37 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't know that either. However I know the algorithm they use to calculate how much you get is based on the MPG DIFFERENCE. So you probably wouldn't get much switching from anything really to a hummer. And we have to keep in mind the Hummers of today aren't anywhere near what they used to be.

I could probably drive a Hummer H2 as my fuel saver with my vehicle lol.


RE: Proper rating
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 10:23:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
However I know the algorithm they use to calculate how much you get is based on the MPG DIFFERENCE. So you probably wouldn't get much switching from anything really to a hummer
Wrong. The "large trucks" category that is exempt from the MPG ratings is also exempt from that calculation. Trade in your old 16 MPG "guzzler" for a 10 MPG Hummer and you get a $4500 credit.


RE: Proper rating
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 10:45:50 AM , Rating: 2
4500$ isn't the only amount they offer. My buddy was offered 1000$ to trade his Ford Focus(not sure of year) for a new Ford Focus.


RE: Proper rating
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 11:17:11 AM , Rating: 2
Right, because the Focus has an MPG rating under the program. The Hummer (and other large trucks) don't. They get the maximum allowance.


RE: Proper rating
By Yawgm0th on 8/11/2009 12:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wrong. The "large trucks" category that is exempt from the MPG ratings is also exempt from that calculation. Trade in your old 16 MPG "guzzler" for a 10 MPG Hummer and you get a $4500 credit.
Wrong, twice. CARS only allows a $3,500 credit for "category 3" or "work trucks" exempt from MPG calculation, regardless of what the truck is traded for.
quote:
In addition, work trucks may only be traded in for the purchase of a Category 2 truck or another Category 3 truck that is of similar size or smaller than the traded-in vehicle. Finally, the Act provides only for a $3,500 credit for trading in a work truck.


Additionally, a Hummer H2 is not possible because no vehicle over $45,000 MSRP can is illegible under CARS regardless of category. A Hummer H3 is also not possible as it is considered a Category 1 vehicle under CARS and Category 3 trucks can only be traded in for Category 2 or 3 trucks.


RE: Proper rating
By AngryNJ on 8/12/2009 3:45:07 PM , Rating: 2
Where did you hear that??? The new truck has to get better MPG than the old one. Not much certainly, but you CANNOT trade in a 16mpg truck for a 10mpg hummer.

http://www.cars.gov/faq#category-17


RE: Proper rating
By nafhan on 8/11/2009 10:15:35 AM , Rating: 2
The cash for clunkers program is a thinly veiled bailout for auto manufacturers. It will do little to nothing to help the environment, and if you factor in the environmental cost of creating the new vehicles, it may be a negative.


RE: Proper rating
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 10:20:30 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think they were too secretive about the fact that the program is intended to boost autosales which would in turn require more cars to be built which in turn would require they keep more jobs and possibly even hire a few people which would in turn provide some job security which would in turn boost spending by those people which would in turn boost sales to retail and restraunts which would in turn... you get the picture.

Its Economic not Environmental in nature.


RE: Proper rating
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 10:35:47 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is that money isn't free. When the gov. gives $4500 to someone to buy a car, they TAKE $4500 from someone else. That person in turn spends less, invests less, and that hurts the economy.

The myth of government "stimulus" is like the perpetual motion machine: based on the idea you can get something for nothing.


RE: Proper rating
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 10:40:09 AM , Rating: 1
No, They dont take 4500$ out of my pocket to give to you to buy a car. They take about 1-2 cents out of my pocket at the end of the year.

The 1-2 cents figure is based on the fact that the cost is divided among your entire population which last i checked was around 300 million people and the fact that most of the money is borrowed.

I know its obviously not a perpetual motion machine. I know how it works, with every step the impact of the program is less and less but there is still an impact and its a temporary solution.


RE: Proper rating
By Machinegear on 8/11/2009 11:52:55 AM , Rating: 2
A couple thoughts after reading your post:

- It appears you gave tacit approval for government theft, particularly if you find the dollar ammount small; fact is, no theft is right.

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

- Second, you assume every US resident pays taxes. This is also incorrect. The fact is about half have zero tax liability.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1410.html

I hope these facts help you learn more about your world. Enjoy,


RE: Proper rating
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 12:04:48 PM , Rating: 2
How is it Theft? Its called a social program.

I live in Canada, I'm not privy to the US tax rates.

Perhaps you should learn to be more polite. I would be interested to see if you would speak to me in that manner in person.


RE: Proper rating
By porkpie on 8/11/2009 12:10:41 PM , Rating: 2
It's theft because someone (the government) is using the threat of force (prison time or worse) to coerce you to give your money to someone else. The very definition of theft.

Now, you could call all taxes that, but you'd be wrong. When I pay taxes for national defense, police service, etc, I'm bnefitting myself. But when I pay someone else's welfare check, I'm just being stolen from.


RE: Proper rating
By Machinegear on 8/11/2009 12:45:37 PM , Rating: 2
A quick clarification...

Taxes are theft if the authority to do so is not legally granted by the people. A tax can be theft regardless if one benefits from the tax or not. I want to make sure everyone understands that the definition of government theft is not tied to one's own personal gain/loss.

I know this point is probably obvious, but I wanted to state it regardless.


RE: Proper rating
By Yawgm0th on 8/12/2009 3:34:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Taxes are theft if the authority to do so is not legally granted by the people.
Congress is elected by the people and mandated to tax in the Constitution. Unless a tax in some way violates the Constitution, it is legal.

The point would be more obvious, but your response to Tsuwamono seems to imply that the government taxing a person's income is an illegal tax. Please clarify either how this is illegal or what you were actually saying if I've misunderstood you.


RE: Proper rating
By Tsuwamono on 8/11/2009 12:50:36 PM , Rating: 2
What happens if you or someone you love loses their job and is actively searching for a new one but while that happens their EI runs out and so does their Severance?

I agree with the IDEA of welfare to help out those who are hard working but just got hit with some bad luck but the idea of helping someone lazy pisses me off as much as it does you.

the difference between the two of us is I have had 3 different loved ones go on welfare for a couple months and come out of it better off with a good paying job and easily payed back what they took from the system. I think I told the one uncle who ended up with cancer and another one of my uncles became VICE PRESIDENT of an insurance company after a short stay on welfare when he was younger and lost his job. The 3rd was my mother and that story is simply too long and drawn out to tell but she is one of the hardest working people I've ever known. She HATED being on welfare