The subsidies for the Volt are technology promotion, like the Apollo mission. If we have to subsidize them eternally (*), I agree it’s not worthwhile.
(*) It’s only a subsidy if a reasonable cost for CO2 emissions are built into the price of the gasoline (and electricity.) Otherwise, I’d say that the portion of the tax credit covered by (the average lifetime emissions of a Volt - average lifetime emissions of a comparable gasoline car) * a fair cost for CO2 emissions is not a subsidy.
Also, GreasyJack, I hadn’t seen your post when I submitted mine. We both just decided to talk about eggs and baskets at the same time.
Given that neither GM or its suppliers are willing to say exactly how much the battery costs - other than to deny expert estimates of $1000 per kWh - I don’t know where they got that figure. Interestingly in the cite I just provided GM was disputing criticism that claimed that large battery PHEVs were not cost-effective, saying that the battery cost assumption they used was too high. The critics, from Carnegie Mellon, did however state:
Apparently the real cost is less than the $1000/kWh, and may be $500/kWh, but since longevity is as of yet unproven they have played it safe and priced in one warranty covered replacement per vehicle: “We’re being conservative on battery life. For our cost calculations we’re assuming each car will need a replacement during the warranty period.”
Correct. The commercial quick chargers are DC based and the Volt is not compatible as there is no anticipated need. But they can take the larger Leaf’s battery from empty to 80% full in 25 minutes.
Do keep apples to apples and compare similar models. The 1.6 manual petrol is 42.2; the 1.6 manual diesel is 74.2. The 2.0 automatic petrol is 35.3; the 2.0 automatic diesel is 48.6. You compared the gas automatic with the diesel manual. Most Americans want automatic so do that for both. Ford is doing better than average and have their diesel automatic model at 37% more efficient than the petrol (gas) one. But not doubled. And their next gen gas model is expected to narrow that gap quite a bit. For America Ford is bringing in the Focus BEV. For comparison the Prius gets 74 mpg in that European cycle.
Let me know when biodiesel is cost-effective without those massive subsidies. I think there is a place for it in the mix, and likely more so than cellulosic ethanol … but again, there is no reason to assume that it is right around the bend. And until then diesel is subject to the same laws of supply and demand as is gasoline - increase the demand substatially without an ability to increase supply as quickly and watch what happens to price.
Finally, as pointed out, be fair about comparing with Europe. Put our gas prices at that level and we’d be embracing diesel too. Until then, well not every station has those pumps and those that do have many fewer …
I’ve overstated nothing. 70 mpg is better mileage than a Prius. Cheaper cars that get better gas mileage mean more of them will be purchased and driven.
Greater Co2 per gallon is meaningless. It’s Co2 per mile driven that counts. And biodieselwould release exponentially less Co2 than gasoline.
Your claim was you get double the distance per gallon from a diesel as compared to a similar gasoline vehicle. I don’t believe this is true; you certainly haven’t proven it. Therefore, you’ve overstated this claim.
If you want to know CO2 per mile driven, you could calculate that from the mpg number you and had been discussing and CO2 emitted per gallon. Therefore, CO2 emitted per gallon is meaningful. I know you know this.
The numbers in your cite discuss biodiesel made from soy grown in normal air, not in the exhaust of coal power plants. I hadn’t heard you advocate this solution before. I am also in favor of attempting to scale this solution up, instead of a solution that keeps us bound to burning coal. Glad to hear we agree.
I looked up the warranty and its 10 years or 150,000 so that cost comes out thanks for the link). I suspect that will bite them in the ass so I hope we don’t have to pay for it.
I couldn’t get an automatic quote because it isn’t sold that way. Automatics, particularly the new 6 speeds will react well to an engine with a broad torque curve. My Saturn gets 30 to 32 around town with a 4 speed automatic and 38 on the highway (it’s tuned for torque).
I don’t quiet understand this. Do you think Europe will see a lot of EV purchases given the high cost of fuel?
If the object is to reduce energy consumption and co2 emissions so that it makes a difference then we should bankroll something that will work on a large scale. I’d love to run my car on 2 banana peels and an apple peel but I can’t go back to the future driving a $40,000 car and neither can the majority of other car purchasers. We need to push stuff that works NOW and incorporate stuff that works in the future when it catches up. Battery technology will progress on it’s own because we are already a battery driven society.
You’re comparing 2 different diesels. If you compare like diesels its a 3 % difference so it would be more like a 71 mpg car. And you’ll note that one of the features is the start/stop technology that I suggested earlier for any car that has a direct injected engine.
First, yes, Europe will embrace electric, and more likely BEVs than PHEV/EREV. The idea of needing to have a car that can drive cross continent isn’t as entrenched among Europeans.
Second, hit the petrol tabto see the gas models. And the Prius is petrol, not diesel.
Biodiesel is being bankrolled, big. Diesel has had a tax break for purchase as well. Don’t get me wrong, if I needed a next car to take me many hundreds a mile at a crack with any regularity I’d want a diesel over an EV, be it BEV or PHEV/EREV. I’d love to see biodiesel succeed as a cost-effective option without needing massive subsidies. Those are the best choice for a good portion of the market. But EVs are the best choice for another portion of the market.
Oh, full disclosure since one poster was accused of owning oil stocks. I own stock in several battery companies, the biggest position in one in China (CBAK), less in AONE (bought in the $8s), some in a few others, in SQM (a company that mines lithium), and in some of the power companies that I see benefiting from increased electricity demand over the next decade. And Nissan. And I bought GM bonds when they were just about to go bankrupt which will result in me having some new GM stock warrants when they have their IPO. And Ford.
In America we drive long distances regularly. In Europe, the Volt may be an even better fit.
But I could see EVs taking over Key West a contained community. And still, 80 percent of Americans drive less than 40 miles a day. The car would have an immediate impact on gas usage and pollution.
The 2011 Volt in not the Volt of the future. There will be lots of changes making it better as years go by. It will ,hopefully, have a major impact on gas use and pollution.
It is not just the Volt and Leaf. There are several companies with EVs on the drawing board. There are new companies like Tesla that are aiming at producing a commuter car.
The answers to the ICE are popping up everywhere.
We’ve had disel cars since forever. Even though only a small percentage opt to buy one, we still had to require they be fitted with expensive catalytic converter and particle filters. And even so, with the small numbers, there are still major problems with all the disel pollution in the cities. It’s a dirty technology.
The first things about electric cars is that they don’t make a lot of sense with the current battery technology. Once newer battery technology, like the **lithium-air **battery becomes available, then it is a whole new ball game. IBM has a project to build an electric car with a 500 mile range. I usually mark the transition point as a battery that will store 1 kWh per kilogram of weight. Personally, I’d be be happy with a car with a 200 mile range and a price comparable to a gasoline powered car. For a design like the Aptera, that would be about 40 kWh.
The second thing is the cars should be charged with electricity produced by nuclear power plants, so they produce little or no CO2. The car batteries would charge at night when conventional electric demand is low and provide power for regular electric demand in the day time. This will reduce the demand for electricity produced by coal and natural gas and thus reduce our production of GHGs and regular pollution like Sulfur Dioxide.
The newer diesels, that meet the standards that Magiver wants to get rid of, are much cleaner.
This article contains what seems to me to be a very fair analysis. They are good, but not quite as good as HEVs like the Civic, let alone the Prius. As far as pollution goes diesels with these controls end up being middle of the pack with regular ICE vehicles.
Issues that make Magiver’s claims for decreasing CO2 emissions and dependence of foreign energy sources a bit more of an overstatement other than his comparing a gas automatic vs a diesel manual include that diesel in more energy dense, about 15% more energy dense. That is part of its better fuel economy but it also means that it takes that much more oil to produce it and that it produces that much more carbon per gallon as well.
As I pointed out earlier, you were comparing a diesel automatic against a different diesel manual. If you look at the higher efficient diesel (manual) and convert it using the losses represented by the less efficient diesel/automatic you go from 74.2 mpg to 71.84 mpg. Convert the mpg from imperial to US and that number is 59.8 mpg. This is the combined cycle mileage which I infer to mean average city/highway but correct me if I’m wrong. This is significantly higher than the Jetta and better than the Civic hybrid. This is the car I want to drive because it delivers the economy more consistently in all weather and under all loads at a significantly reduced price to the Volt.
If we’re rewarding behavior with tax money then we should push technology that will deliver the best bang for the buck. The Volt is not price competitive plus it undercuts highway tax revenue.
No. I was not. Recheck the site and flip between the tabs. I compared the automatic petrol vs the automatic diesel. You are mistaken. And the comparison was also made with the Prius on the same European mpg cycle.
Also note the difference in CO2 is only 23% which is offset, perhaps more than offset, by the environmental and global warming effects of the other pollutants, including NOx.
The question is how much better fuel economy you get with a similar model diesel than petrol. In America, except for sports cars, consumers prefer automatic. Just look above for the numbers of the automatic diesel vs the automatic petrol both comparable models: a 37-38% improvement in fuel economy but with a fuel that needs 15% more oil to produce it and that is more carbon dense so therefore only a 23% improvement in CO2 and worse in other pollutants.
He’s comparing the 2.0L diesel offered to the 2.0L Petrol motor offered, which are reasonably close in performance. The motor you’re looking at is a “detuned” 1.6L diesel which, as I pointed out above, is less powerful engine than even the other 60-something MPG 1.6L diesel, and significantly less powerful than the 1.6L petrol motor.
To put these in perspective, the 1.6L petrol motor has more horsepower and nearly as much torque as a small-block Chevy V8 from the 80’s. That is a fast engine for that sized car. The de-tuned diesel puts out about as much power as the base 4-cylinder in most economy cars. So the reason why the detuned 1.6L diesel gets nearly twice the mileage is only 20% due to it’s dieselness and the rest due to it simply being a much less powerful engine. Like I’ve mentioned several times now, due to the economics in Europe it doesn’t make sense to offer an “economy” gasoline engine, so you can’t make a straight comparison between the fuel sipping diesels and the performance-built gasoline engines.
