Well the point is that you can throw 4 people in it and run it all day long without feeling like you’re driving a golf cart. It’s also faster than the Volt on the top end.
I made conversions to compensate for it. You’ve made no attempt at all.
Honestly I never understood why people care about “the top end” - I have no occasion to drive 119 mph. 70 maybe, passing. But not in my commute. Neither will I be towing much.
And the 1.6L manual diesel Focus is certainly better than a golf cart. No argument there. It is a car, a real car. A decent car. A car designed for high mileage and that achieves the goal nicely and at a reasonable price. I have no desire to diss it. But it is not reasonable to compare it in the ways you have to the cars you have.
There is no point in making “conversions” based on unfounded assumptions when you can make direct comparisons of similar vehicles in the same test cycles that essentially only differ in whether or not they use diesel or petrol. Same automatic model that differ only in diesel vs petrol and in the size that Ford has decided is what the American market desires. The difference between those two vehicles can be applied the same sized gas one sold in America and its results for mileage in the American test cycle.
Enough of the bickering, okay? Let us assume that Ford’s 1.6L ECOnetic diesel could have an automatic bolted on and get great gas mileage for half the price of a Volt. Ford could possibly have sold it with a tax credit of $1300 that would have covered much of the additional cost of being diesel over a gas model. But they didn’t introduce such a vehicle to the US or even create one. They are not planning on it either apparently. Why not, do you think? Why are they instead planning on bringing a Focus BEV to the US market by a year from now? It can’t be for the tax credit unless they have already got the cost of batteries down substantially.
And since such import was placed on Leno’s thoughts earlier, this is a fun bit. He still likes his Baker, but …
Not that I accept him as a seer.
I am however looking forward to the Focus BEV. They will have to have it top the Leaf in some way to make a splash, either undercut the price or deliver better performance for the price.
Of course I am also curious about the Fiat 500 BEV, the Think vehicle, the Mitsubishi iMiEV, and even the Aptera (although I really do need to the ability to carry more than one other person, even if it is snug, on occasion) …
Nissan has stopped taking reservations for the Leaf. The Volt is expected to sell out at above sticker. Many more are coming. They are not for all drivers. But they are for some.
I apologize for the multiposting but I would like to point out that we looking at the op in a very provincial manner: the US is not all there is to a vehicle’s success. Less so now than ever.
Earlier I was asked if I thought Europe would embrace EVs and I answered yes. I’d like to change that to Hell Yes and Asia too, especially China, which may be the biggest future driver of auto sales.
Diesel usually costs more than gas in America (and does today) while in Europe gas costs more. Diesel aint cheap in Europe, about $6/US gallon, but gas is about $7. Yet the increased efficiency still makes diesel sell more there anyway, while the cheap price of both makes for a less compelling diesel case state side. But with gas at $7/gal our economic analysis of PHEV and BEVs flips around, even with relatively high battery costs. Especially for a market that has less long distance driving and is primed for use of cars as city commuting vehicles.
Asia even more so. GM recognizes this. Introducing the Volt in China and building other battery based vehicles there with their Chinese partner SAIC is at least as important to this vehicle’s place in GM’s future as the America market is. Nissan also is racing to get an early toehold in the Chinese EV doorway. They both are anxious to benefit from China’s top down decision to make China adopt EVs as a major form of transport (including the use of very generous subsidies), but both will also have to contend with the fact that China is committed to playing however they have to play in order to make sure that China leads the way in building them, for both China, and, they hope, the world.
In terms of absolute numbers of EVs sold America will not be the world’s driver of this technology - but the technology will be driven (so to speak).
There are a number of reasons Ford isn’t bringing their diesel over. Ignoring the fact that GM poisoned the well with the Oldsmobile diesel the main reason is that it requires government intervention with the cost of the fuel: “We don’t have a full scale energy policy in place in the U.S. that promotes the usage of diesel fuel,” Ford spokesman Said Deep told Wired.com.
So, given that even though we have disagreed over the magnitude of the GHG and oil dependence reduction that a switch to diesel in cars of otherwise similar performance and utility would cause we still concur that it would minimally be substantial, what full scale energy policy would you like to have in place to promote the use of diesel fuel in the U.S.?
Should it be given the same advantages as a mature technology with economies of scale that we give to new emerging energy technologies? Better advantages?
Funding more research into algal biodiesel? Its getting research dollars both at governmental and commercial levels. (Exxon and Shell are among those who are investing heavily.) The problem is that it is hard to make it either cost or life cycle CO2 effective. See here and here. Now those less than sanguine assessments do not mean that algal biodiesel is “dead in the water” (so to speak) but it does mean that it we have no assurance of success to be obtained if only we throw enough money at it. This article is perhaps especially interesting. The authors take a balanced optimistic approach: “the sobering fact is that we’re at least a good eight to ten years from seeing any kind of real, commercially-ready product… At least at the volumes that could allow for meaningful market penetration. … But that doesn’t mean we’re going to wait around and ignore all the developments that are happening in the world of algae today.” The discuss some approaches such as incorporating algae farming with waste water treatment and the approach of growing it on site at a coal power plant and then resulting it as biomass mixed with coal on re-burn. Yes, the most cost-effective way to use algal biomass may be to produce electricity for the Volts and the Leafs, rather than to produce and transport a liquid fuel. Go figure, eh?
Sure there are promising non-algal possibilities, but none is a sure thing.
So other than getting rid of NOx restrictions, what do you propose?
leveling the price of Diesel.
Well how much do you think that’s going to cost? Either you spend way the heck more than the government is on the Volt to subsidize diesel, or you essentially tax drivers of gasoline cars (costing them orders of magnitude more than whatever miniscule portion of their tax burden comes from electric car subsidies).
And, like I mentioned before, the ratio of diesel production to gasoline production isn’t greatly adjustable. So imagine you do, say, tax gasoline more and diesel usage jumps and gasoline usage sags. You’re still essentially producing the same amount of each, so the price of gasoline will plummet while the price of diesel will soar. So you have to tax gasoline and/or subsidize diesel even more! It’s a nasty feedback cycle. Maybe we should adopt a “gasoline of wrath” policy where the government buys it and just burns it to get rid of it?
In Europe, government policy is only part of the story-- they also use a lot less diesel for trains and trucking so there’s more for cars.
We’ll call that plan b. How about the government fund bio-diesel refinement so that we have a permanent renewable energy source that burns cleaner and denser than conventional diesel and uses Co2 from coal power plants. We don’t need to get rid of all the co2 on the planet, just reduce it. Problem(s) solved. We will always need diesel for truck transportation and aviation. Better to have a source that serves our infrastructure needs and is symbiotic with other infrastructure. We don’t have to reinvent any wheels beyond reducing the cost of bio-diesel. That one act fixes everything for the near term. EVERYTHING.
Electric cars do not address our energy needs across the board like diesel does.
This I don’t get. I thought these products were fungible.
How much do you want of the cost of biodiesel production and purchase do you want the government to underwrite and for how long … forever?
Biodiesel has had years of a $1/gallon subsidy (which expired in January and has been on and off again in passage ever since) which hasn’t really done much. There are also mandates for the use of biofuels in blends. And various state subsidies and mandates as well. Quite a few. But biodiesel producers have been operating at 15% capacity and had taken advantage of the subsidy to export the stuff:
And I reviewed the state of the art for algal technology up-thread. Smokestack bioreactors just are not ready to produce large volumes of biofuel in anything close to a cost-effective manner. They can provide a cost effective way for a coal plant to reduce their CO2 output and stay under their cap or have to trade for fewer, or to avoid a CO2 tax … but we are not there yet.
Now if by wave of the magic wand you got a majority of cars in America driving on diesel with no alternative to go to gasoline, then biodiesel would become competitive. But only because the price of diesel from petroleum would spike so high due to demand greater than supply. The EU wouldn’t be very happy either.
Heck, T. Boone Pickens’ self-serving idea for significantly increasing the numbers of CNG run vehicles is a more practical idea than that, and that is not a very good idea to be in the company of.
You have made it clear that you have hauling to do; a diesel works better for your needs than any EV or a PHEV/EREV aimed at the general consumer would. And there will be diesels be available to you … well maybe not the Ford Focus ECONetic diesel, but there are others.
How much is saving the world worth? All this talk about the need to reduce Co2 is either a bunch of political talk or a real problem.
Making oil from Algae is not the problem as far as I can tell. Its the cost involved in refining it. It’s not just a global warming problem, it’s a security issue.
What price do you put on energy independence? Think about delivery costs if energy costs are stabilized. Think of how the economy would change if the money we spent on fuel stayed in the country?
We shouldn’t underwrite it at the pump, it should be invested in at the development level.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/29/autos/GE_electric_car/ Some are very enthusiastic about the cars of the future. GE is going to buy 10s of thousands. That will get them off and running.
This is your angle? Really? Cost is no object when it comes to reducing CO2 in the interest of reducing global warming risks and of energy security, not if we are talking about biodiesel anyway?
Yes the cost is getting enough oil out of algae that you haven’t both expended more CO2 producing/refining it than you save by using it and that it is not so expensive that it requires either massive subsidies and/or mandated usage. And whether that is possible is still an open question. So far the answer is … maybe, someday.
I find this an odd angle for you to take after expending so much of your own warm CO2 on how grid powered vehicles are not cost effective right now so this emerging technology should not be supported in any way.
IN any case, once again, the investment in development is being made, as already referenced, both at a Fed level and at a commercial level. Exxon alone is throwing $600 million at it and have promised many billions more if it looks like it has potential after this is spent. Shell has been investing heavily for years, albeit they have cut back recently: “The firm has more ongoing projects in the area of second-generation biofuels than any of its rivals and Voster claimed that it was 18 months ahead of them in terms of its research into biodiesel made from algae. The reference was targeted particularly at ExxonMobil … But the company has been pruning back its own portfolio in the area and has acknowledged that it was previously over optimistic as to when such ventures would start generating a return.” Other big pockets have included Ford, BP, and a variety of venture capitalists. And the Feds for well over $100 million on R&D grants themselves.
So how big of a check do you want? And do you really want to put all on this one horse?
gonzo, GE is tight with the Renault/Nissan partnership (which has bet its future on BEVs), is a major shareholder in A123 (a 10% shareholder), and is partnered with Project Better Place. They are betting on this segment is a big way. Of couse anything GE does is big.
I never said cost is no objective. I asked you what it was worth to build a real solution. Real solutions are those that produce results.
In order to create a viable energy plan that reduces co2 and is energy independent it should work with existing infrastructure and still be fully functional. The Volt is not close to being fully functional in the real world. It’s a gimmick for yuppies who live close to work and their favorite herbal tea store. Once it hits the open road it performs below that of every other hybrid and is more expensive. It doesn’t address coal fired electricity at all and will put a strain on many electrical grids that are already stressed during the summer months.
looking at the current energy system we rely mostly on coal, gasoline and diesel. We have unlimited coal reserves for the foreseeable future. Coal can be scrubbed of Co2. Gasoline from crude oil is linked to diesel so the ratios are not infinite but diesel can be expanded using bio-fuel. The highest growth density by far is algae and that technology is symbiotic to coal. It is also augment-able by recycling other oils. Algae doesn’t have the sulfur that crude oil diesel has plus it has a higher density energy per volume.
The transition to bio-fuel on a national level would be seamless to our infrastructure and provide vehicles that meet all driving needs both short distance, long distance, commercial truck and rail service.
Does it take a billion to make it work? 2 Billion? $50 billion? You tell me because once it is accomplished we have a real solution and since it’s a worldwide concern that research project can be spread out over every industrialized country.
Okay.
As far as algal biofuel goes, how much would it take to make it work? No one knows if any amount of money would make it work. It depends on whether or not there is a scientific breakthrough or not. Venter’s company might be able to create a designer algae with all that Exxon money … or not. No one knows. As a speculative investment it might be a good play. High risk of total loss but the possible return is many times higher. But betting our entire energy future on that one horse? I’d prefer to have us diversify. I don’t believe in a real solution; I believe that there is going to be a basket of real solutions. Algal biodiesel may someday be part of that basket, maybe. But grid powered vehicles for sure will be. Beginning this next year.
We know that today grid-powered vehicles could provide a fully functional solution for a sizable segment of the driving public. Not every driver. But many of them. And not just yuppies. Those who need different functionality won’t choose that option until and unless it has that functionality, and that will require significant technologic improvements and expansion of some infrastructure options. But those of us who spend little driving time going hours on the open road will find that choices within this broad emerging segment available over the next couple of years will meet our needs very well. The analyses provided show that even with our *current *grid use of EVs significantly reduces CO2 emissions, and our grid mix will improve (be it by more nuclear or less dirty coal or more natural gas or renewables of every stripe or all of the above). Analyses also show that our current grid could easily handle more than half the fleet going EV overnight so long as they charged at night. And if a V2G system is developed (and made attractive to the drivers) then it might very well reduce grid strain at peak hours, not increase it. (Especially in the urban and suburban environments in which these cars are likely going to most appeal.)
That all said, the Volt is not for me. I think I’ll see what the Ford Focus BEV offers buit otherwise wait for the Fiat 500 EV. Like I’ve said, my 7 year old Civic hybrid still has many years left on it, so I’m in no rush to be an early adopter. I just want to buy before the tax credits go away.
That’s like saying we will never reduce the cost of batteries. We already know bio-diesel can be done and companies like Greenfuel Technologies are planning on building a facility in Europe.
It is as theoretical a cost reduction as batteries are. Diesel cars are plentiful and consistently produce their rated fuel economy at a considerably cheaper cost without stressing the power grid. The Volt has yet to see mile one of public driving and is far from a proven technology.
How old are you? You sound like the people who thought the car would never supplant the horse. It is coming, and it is coming now.
I spend a great deal of time working on cars. I know what current battery technology is capable of because of the mix of tools I have. I’ve cited the real-world tests that GM showed the car would do.
In it’s current state, it’s a grossly overpriced vehicle that does poorly in heat extremes and extended driving trips. It will not sell in volume because it doesn’t replace a modern car.
You are extolling the virtues of a car that hasn’t seen a single owner/operator mile driven. While I’m sure there will be cars that run off banana peels in the future we have to go back to the present and look what works now. Diesels work now. Batteries suck. When they can travel 300 miles and recharge in 5 minutes then they will replace any car used for light duty transportation.
I never, never, never said it was ready to replace the ICE. But it is coming. For a commuter car, it may be here now. I believe the battery technology will improve some times by increments and sometimes by leaps. In 5 years you will wonder why you ever wrote this stuff.
A guy at my racketball club was pricing a 150 Ford pickup.It is 34 K with his discount for working there. I would take a Volt over that behemoth any time.
Please stop conflating things.
Diesel is an established and mature technology. And it works well at delivering reasonable performance and utility and modest decreases in CO2 emissions compared to comparable gasoline vehicles, especially if used for frequent open highway driving. Yet despite tax credits on vehicle purchases that would cover a large fraction of the additional cost of the diesel alternative over a similar gasoline one they have not sold well in America. Part of that is that Americans don’t know how good the newer diesels are. Part of it is that even with the tax credits they don’t pay for themselves with gas this cheap. Gas does not cost $7 a gallon here like it does in Europe. And another part of it is that diesel does not deliver on the intangibles that drive purchases above and beyond saving money over the long term. Those intangibles are different for different people but include feeling that this purchase right now makes a major difference in decreasing our reliance on foreign oil and does as much as is realistically possible to decrease CO2 emissions. And, yes, to some people, that it is consistent with the image about themselves that they want to put out.
Algal biodiesel has some future potential but there are no major sources of it right now and despite years of research most experts are far from optimistic that there will be any commercially viable source for many years. We do not know it can be done at a large scale without producing nearly as much CO2 as it saves or at a reasonable cost. It is not being ignored or underfunded, in fact most recently a bill giving it extra Federal help made it through the House:
But the economics are not in its favor with the prices as low as they are in America. That why your 2008 Greenfuel link noted that the company “has hit some speed bumps over the past year, including layoffs, switching CEOs, shutting down a greenhouse in Arizona and discovering that its algae tech was more expensive than first planned.” There is a reason that the new facility they discussed was to be in Europe. And I say “was” for a reason. A year after that article, in 2009, Greenfuel pulled its own plug.
What other companies are finding is that it is more effective to capture the carbon with the algae and to harvest it by using it to produce electricity. Biomass is good but using to to create liquid biofuel entails major expenses and produces much CO2. Co-firing seems to be the way to go.
Diesel is not excessively costly and is proven; algal biodiesel is neither. Algal biodiesel would make a significant impact on CO2 emissions and toward energy independence; diesel does not. To bastardize an old saying, that which is proven about diesel aint very dramatic for energy independence or the environment; that which is dramatic aint proven. Again I hope that part of the mix in the future can be algal biodiesel, but I can’t drive to work on hope.
OTOH remember that for these batteries “in a little under three years, the going price has declined by 60 percent.” There is a worldwide capacity to produce batteries in bulk and few doubt that prices will down to $250/kWh within a few years due to both economies of scale and competition or that gas and diesel prices will increase substantially … unless of course something comes along that decreases future demand … something like having a sizable segment of vehicles being grid-powered.