Batteries can do that. But right now they have little incentive to do so. They are waiting for the carbon to be priced.
An aside - GE just ordered 12,000 Volts.
Great, we take a utility that is expensive and add more money to it. That’s efficient use of money.
Great, our grandchildren will inherit an additional $90 million dollars of debt for corporate welfare. That’s an efficient use of money.
David Pogue over at the NY Times just did a review of the Chevy Volt. He is a computer guy and not a car guy. The difference in point of view is interesting. I know from some of his gadget reviews that he personally drives a Honda Fit and loves it.
He mentions that there is an I phone App to let you monitor the battery charging and even turn on the seat heaters.
Explain. if they use it for tooling around town they will save a ton on gas. That is called “saving money”. That is not causing debt. If they ordered other cars, the cost would be the difference between the Volt and the other choice. If they are 5K more expensive, the cost difference is 6Mill What do you think, each Volt requires its own power plant?
I think he is talking about the $7,500 hybrid tax credit.
If the Federal government is spending more than it’s taking in then it is done through debt. GE is getting a public-debt funded gift of $90 million dollars.
I’ve asked you this before Magiver, is it just that you do not assess EVs as a viable part of the solution, or do you object to government subsidies of emerging technologies in general?
The tax credit is in line with past policies that have subsidized everything from HEVs to nuclear power, to wind and solar, to algal biodiesel. And if one accepts that the technology has potential to be part of the solution once volumes reach some critical mass to drive costs down and make it worthwhile to upgrade the infrastructure, then subsidizing corporate purchases of fleet vehicles makes just as much (or as little) sense as subsidizing individual purchases. It may even be a more effective means … corporations tend to own their cars for relatively short periods of time and then dump them into the used car market, where they are generally much more affordable to the masses.
I get that you would prefer subsidizing algal biodiesel research (even though some would consider that throwing good money after bad), and that you do not think much of the EV segment’s potential, but I don’t think that you would argue that government should have no role in assisting the emergence and adoption of new energy solutions.
GE’s decision surprised me though I must say. They certainly have a self interest in getting the EV segment to thrive. They own a large share of a major new battery company A123. They are investors in Project Better Place (a battery switching/charging concern that intends to sell plans for the batteries and the power as a package like cell phone minutes). They make charging stations and will benefit from any investments in infrastructure improvements. But you’d think they’d buy vehicles that more directly aided those ends, vehicles that used A123 batteries or that might benefit from charging stations outside the home or eventually use the Project Better Place model; the Volt does not meet those criteria - unless GM has unannounced plans to switch to A123.
DSEID, I’ve made my point clear. They do not provide a good return on investment. It was a waste of resources to make the car. It is a waste of resources to promote the car above other hybrids that can be sold for considerably less money and at a profit.
EV’s do not address the broad range of fossil fuels consumed and they won’t in the foreseeable future. They are the next generation after real power plants are built to sustain them and battery technology has advanced beyond what we see in the near future.
It is opening a door to a brighter cleaner future. It is not close to wasting resources. It is taking old technology and killing it a day at a time.
It’s wasting money which means fewer cars will be sold.
Well… if you just park the thing and charge up the battery at night, and discharge the battery during ‘peak demand’, according to Una you can get $1,000 for a peak Mwh. The Volt battery is 8Kwh (effective), so you could dump 1Mwh in 125 days. You could make about $3000/year doing just this (minus electricity costs). Pay for the $32k (?) sticker price in 10.66 years doing just this. Who knows, maybe you’ll drive it…
Just so it is clear - your objection is not to the “gift”, but that you do not think that it will accomplish what its supporters think it will. Government has a role in helping emerging energy technologies get off the ground; you just think this is the wrong horse. And your reasons for thinking that have been made clear, as I hope, have been my reasons for considering EVs as a significant part of the basket of solutions to a basket of problems.
I could really mix up the thread and say I’d like to see a parallel research course taken of super high-mileage diesel cars as both a way to more quickly roll out a reduction in fuel usage and GHG emissions, and to serve as a “second option” for a future where EVs have a large percentage of the total fleet. I keep reading about 75 mpg, 100 mpg, or better small diesel cars that can be made right now, and switching over a substantial portion of the fleet to that mode of transport could yield some good short-term benefits. And biodiesel is more net GHG better than ethanol, IIRC.
Sigh. Una, no you would not be mixing it up, you would just be demonstrating that this thread is long enough that people are posting to it without bothering to read it. The subject of diesels has been talked over for several pages in this thread beginning on page 3.
I do not think you’ll find that too many here object to a parallel research course - and in fact such has been done. Diesels are an improving but fairly mature technology that have been the recipient of subsidies for purchase that have covered most of their premium over similar gasoline powered models. Americans still don’t seem to want to buy them in any significant numbers. Biodiesel has had substantial subsidies and much government and more corporate money has been invested in developing the resource and the technology. Algal biodiesel has not panned out so far and few expect it to anytime soon. Other production methods, such as Amyris’ approach*, may become cost-competitive sooner, but not yet.
Diesel and EVs serve different niches. Just like neither any single power generating source nor conservation alone will provide all of our future electricity needs, no single vehicle type or fuel source is likely to provide for a one size fits all transportation infrastructure solution. They are not, IMHO, one or the other approaches. They are instead more similar to a good stock portfolio: part of a diversified basket of investments in the future.
*BTW, thank you Magiver - because of that discussion and what I learned about Amyris as a result, I decided to buy some Amyris stock last week, as a long term hold in my retirement account. Fortuitously timed!
OK, never mind then, I apologize.
It’s not a function of niches, it’s a function of basic math. EV’s are not economical at this point. Diesels are. There is nothing to reinvent. The Volt is a nothing but an overpriced hybrid being financed by excessive tax rebates.
And you’re welcome for lead in to the stock purchase.
Of course it is a true that, in general, an emerging technology is not going to be economical right out of the box. EVs are very much an emerging technology; diesels are relatively mature. (“Diesels are. There is nothing to reinvent.”) The cost arc on the batteries is dropping quickly. Emerging technologies get the assist exactly because they are not “economical at this point” yet have potential to become more economical once there are economies of scale and/or serve a larger societal goal. At what point do EVs become more economical than diesels (that meets the pollution standards America has decided it needs, whether you agree with those standards or not) for metropolitan area commuting (given that an emerging technology is going to improve on a cost basis much faster than is a mature technology that has no reinventing to be done)? If I recall this long thread, I think we found them to be not so far off now. But you want to do an analysis that does not consider the potential that may or may not occur in the future? Okay. Look at now. That means biodiesel as something that may or may not be cost competitive to diesel in the future, so we are looking at using diesel in current diesel cars versus the being released EVs using the current American power generation mix for costs and consequences analysis. In that case my analysis includes trying to monetize other costs, even if not at the purchaser level. At the individual level - How much is the time savings worth? Not just the stopping off at the gas station (vs the habit of plugging in at night), but oil changes and other regularly scheduled maintenance that a true EV (not the Volt) just doesn’t need (yes, I know there is a dollars cost too, but to me the time is worth more). At the societal level - How much is each “unit” of decreased energy dependence worth? How much is shifting the trade balance back to our side by switching energy used for infrastructure to domestically produced sources (whether that is current coal, more natural gas, new nuclear, or building and installing new renewables)? What is the carbon worth? Diesel, “at this point”, does not address those issues and EVs do.
And as for the stock purchase - the reason it fortuitously spiked this week right after I bought it though is telling. It didn’t go up because of some sudden belief in biodiesel competitiveness; it went up because of a deal to develop and provide key products for a flavor and fragrance company. Those are products that can cost-competitively exist at this point; biodiesel is still a ways away even for this approach. (I invest with a long term horizon though, so I’m good with that.)
Honestly, I think we are just repeating ourselves now though…
The volt is not an EV, it’s a hybrid. It is technically identical to a Prius with an emphasis on more batteries.
You keep selling pie-in-the-sky and I keep pointing out the numbers don’t justify the car. It’s not a technical achievement of any kind. When the price and technical achievements of batteries are better aligned it’s a simple shift for every hybrid to make. Battery technology will progress without cars like the Volt because the need already exists in other mass-produced products.
Agreed that the Volt is not a true EV. Disagreed that it is “technically identical to a Prius with an emphasis on more batteries.”
Agreed that you keep and I keep (even if I think the "keep"s are different than you do) and that at this point we are not making any new points. We’ll see how the market plays out over the next 5 years.
Hope they have enough insulation, or someone will be shocked. Shocked, I say. 12,000 volts isn’t to be trifled with.