I’d add that by not pursuing a car that has any real production numbers attached to it they are reducing the labor hours that would go into a regular production run. Again, all this at tax payer expense to keep the company alive and again with the huge tax rebate that comes with the car.
Compare this to a Ford Hybrid. The Escape actually pays for itself in fuel savings over a similar sized vehicle. It makes economic sense to buy the vehicle.
I think NOx emissions should be relaxed provided there is a higher CAFE for those relaxed NOx standards. However, you’re completely incorrect in thinking the efficiency would be twice as high. Do the math; even ideally we’re talking about a 20% increase or so at any compression ratio which can 1) run with the current gasoline we have, and 2) run at lean mixtures needed.
Magiver you are conflating several different metrics as if they are the same thing.
Miles per gallon is not the same as cost per mile.
Cost of running comparison - well this very much depends on how much you pay for electricity and how much you pay for gas.
Electricity costs varies locally from region to region but currently runs about 12 cent/KWH. A fill-up of the battery is 8 KWH (it operates between 80 and 30% charge and is 16KWH total). On average it costs $0.96 (2.4 cents/mile) to get the 40 miles currently, not $1.70. Less of course if you have smart metering and charge during troughs. More if you charge at a premium through commercia fast charge stations.
Gas prices also vary from region to region; I am currently paying quite a bit more than the national average of $2.83 a gallon for gas, and am among those who expect that we will see some significant upside volatility in that pricing in future years. But use the national average current price, your hypothetical car is getting 0.033 gallons/mile, uses 1.33 gallons to travel the 40 miles, which costs $3.77.
So at current prices city driving the Volt would cost $0.96 and your hypothetical vehicle $3.77. If gas goes up so does the differential.
In terms of fuel efficiency the Volt would use no gas for that 40 miles. It would use some coal, or natural gas, or nuclear power … but no gas.
Rare earth availability is a potential real issue. But that is not a limiting factor of running the cars that are produced, it is a potential future limiting factor in production. And one that gives China a certain amount of power over companies that want to produce these cars, as they have a large amount of the current supply. Of course HEVs use lots of rare earth - the Prius uses 2.2 pounds of neodymium and 22 to 33 pounds of lanthanum per car. My understanding is that the Nissan Leaf uses no rare earths at all as it uses an AC induction motor. Same with Tesla. I do not know about the Volt’s rare earth usage.
I don’t know the exact weight of Leno’s Baker or a golf cart, but it appears that you don’t, either, so we’re both guessing. I do suspect that the materials used in the Volt are far stronger per pound than the Baker, for one, and if the intention were to carry the same amount of cargo, today’s materials could be used to make a 2010 Baker that would be much lighter than 1910’s construction. The only reason the Volt is heavier is to provide more functionality.
But given the amount of car, they propelled it at least 2.5 times farther then than now. Think of Moore’s Law – if battery development improved at the same rate, 2.5x represents a year or three of development. And boosting the speed requires some more oomph, too. So, a 1910 battery couldn’t propel a Volt, but a 1920 could.
Obviously Moore’s Law doesn’t apply. But the propaganda I have been hearing for 50 years is that battery technology is improving by leaps and bounds. So leaps and bounds isn’t a doubling in 1.5 years; I’ll give you 5-10 years, and this should compound. We still haven’t improved enough to power a car as far as they did in 1910, and that’s what I am wondering about.
You have to learn to crawl before you can walk. Car manufacturers from other countries are investing heavily in electric car technology. Supposedly China plans to become the world leader in car manufacturing, by leapfrogging gasoline cars and focusing on electric cars. While the Volt may not be perfect, I expect that if the USA doesn’t at this time invest in electric cars it may become a marginal car manufacturer by 2030. And it’s not as if you has a great need to be stripped of more manufacturing jobs. As such it is a very good investment of the tax payers’ money.
No, I don’t. At that point, i was talking about your mpg calculation. I hadn’t even begun to talk about total cost of ownership or the cost of electricity.
Using your numbers, and an average of 80% of all driving being electric (which is close to what the real world will be, because the market will self-select for primarily city drivers), then over 100,000 miles the Volt will consume 526 gallons of gas, an equivalent of 190 mpg. You don’t think that’s significant?
A car that averages 30 mpg will consume 3,333 gallons of gas over 100,000 miles. In terms of gasoline consumption, a 30 mpg gas car will consume as much gas as 6 Volts driven 80/20 city highway. So right off the bat, if you care about oil imports and the risk of gasoline cost spikes and being able to shed the influence of OPEC and all that, the Volt’s technology could potentially be a big game changer.
Now, cost is a different matter. I’ve already said that the Volt doesn’t make sense on a pure economic basis. At $2.70/gal, the 30 mpg traditional car will cost $9,000 in gas over 100,000 miles. The Volt will cost $1,420 in gas, and $3440 in electricity. A savings of about $4,000. Considering the $18,000 price differential between that and another fuel efficient car, clearly you’re not going to make your money back. That’s why I said GM should not be trying to sell the car on a cost-effective basis.
People who think it’s going to have a big impact on greenhouse gases are also mistaken. Depending on where the car is driven, the GHG emissions may be as much as 20% better than a normal hybrid, but in an area that gets all its electricity from coal it could actually be worse.
That really depends on what you’re after. If you live in a state that gets its power from hydro and nuclear in significant measure, you’re going to be producing maybe 20% less GHG emissions than the Prius. For some people that’s important.
But again, cars like this really aren’t about saving money - they’re Halo cars, just like the Corvette or the Audi R8. They get people into the showroom to look at them. They create buzz for the manufacturer. They elevate the brand. They’re as much for marketing as they are for driving.
But the reason I’m excited about the Volt is that it’s the first step towards a vehicle architecture that separates the power source from the drivetrain. Our economies are becoming increasingly fluid and dynamic. Change is rapid. But our current transportation infrastructure cannot adapt very quickly. It is heavily based on one energy source, and cannot change easily.
An auto infrastructure that consumes 1/6 of the gasoline of the current one while running on electricity the rest of the time can disconnect itself from oil if it needs to. If another energy source becomes available, it can transition quickly. A car with an electric drivetrain and a fueled generator can run on gas, biodiesel, natural gas, fuel cells, whatever. And the manufacturer can change over without re-engineering the entire vehicle. Done right, even existing vehicles could have their gas generators removed and replaced with fuel cells or extended batteries or some other form of range extension.
The Volt is flawed, but as an engineering testbed it’s a step in the right direction. Getting it to market will start the process of people installing chargers in their garages, the electrical grid switching to smart metering and all the rest. Experience on the road will inform engineering decisions and help us transition to the next generation which hopefully will be more efficient and cheaper.
The difference being that the rare-earth elements are reusable. Lithium batteries can be recycled. Cobalt and Neodymium are also reusable. Furthermore, the somewhat limited availability of these metals has a lot to do with their relatively low market price relative to the cost of extraction. If demand goes up, the price will go up, and more exploration and recovery will be done.
So I take it you drive an absolutely bare-bones, low cost commuter car? Because if you drive something fancier, you’re making a conscious choice to spend more money just to increase the enjoyment of owning the vehicle - not because it represents the best bang for your buck. Spending $37,000 on a Volt is no more irrational than spending $37,000 on a Lincoln MKZ when you could buy a Fusion 4cyl for $19,000 which would get better gas mileage and be more reliable, and yet is built on exactly the same chassis and has identical utility.
Perhaps. I’m all for alternatives. One thing I think we can agree on is that it’s misguided for the government to be offering special incentives on these hybrid cars, because it distorts the market and kills innovation in alternative ways to be fuel efficient or produce less greenhouse gas. If the government wants to subsidize fuel efficiency, it should simply offer a sliding subsidy based on MPG instead of trying to pick winning technologies.
The hype around hybrids and the Volt also diverts public attention from the incremental improvements that have made other cars very fuel efficient. Take the new Ford Fiesta. If all I cared about was efficiency, I wouldn’t be looking at any of the hybrids. I’d be looking at a Fiesta or something like it. 40 mpg highway, 32 combined. $14,000. Super fun to drive, no strange hybrid braking quirks, no battery weight. Lots of interior space. This is the ‘sweet spot’ for automotive efficiency right now.
I think you’re letting your politics interfere with your engineering judgment. Lord knows I’m no fan of the bailouts, and I think the heavy subsidy for the Volt is a perfect example of what’s wrong with government getting into bed with industry - it can’t stop itself from using the power of government to slant the market in its favor.
But I try to put that aside when evaluating things technically. The technology is either good or it isn’t. A good technology doesn’t become bad just because the government is involved.
Quoth susanann:
Why on Earth would it have to be half the price? If it has the same range and refuelling time and power and all that as a gasoline car (as you’re stipulating), why could it not compete at the same price, too?
As for the range of old cars, that’s for a car that never went over 20 MPH, and was designed for that top speed. The ranges for current cars are assuming typical speeds of two to three times greater than that, which means 4-9 times as much drag. Plus you’ve got considerations of capacity, safety, and comfort. Any automaker could easily make a car that seats two uncomfortably and can’t go above 20 MPH, but which could go many times the distance the Detroit Electric did. They could, but they wouldn’t, because nobody would want such a car.
Electric cars are NOT meant for driving in hot weather where an air conditioner is needed.
Electric cars are NOT meant for driving in cold weather where a heater is required.
Electric cars are also NOT for people who want to drive more 40 miles, electric cars are NOT for people who have to commute to work or school, electric cars are NOT for people who own fishing or waterski boats, they are NOT for people who need fast acceleration at the end of a charge, and they are NOT for people who live in, electric cars are NOT for people who dont want to wait around hours for a re-charge, or drive around areas which do not currently have facilities for charging, electrical cars are not for people who work at businesses which do not currently have recharging stations for its employees.
Electric cars are NOT for people who live in states which experience, or will experience brownouts because of a shortage of electrical generating power, electric cars are NOT for people who live in states which have thunderstorms, ice storms, snow storms, wind storms, or hail storms which cause periodic electrical outages preventing a recharge, and electric cars are NOT for people who live in mountainous states.
Electric cars are NOT for environmentalist people who are green and who want to reduce pollution and carbons caused by electrical generating plants.
Electric cars are NOT for people who want to spend as little as possible, electric cars are NOT for people who just want a cheap, versatile, speedy car with a heater and an airconditioner and that can also refuel anywhere in under 3 minutes.
Very simple.
…Because “if” an electric car could give the same speed, same range, same amount of accessories like a heater and an air conditioner, recharging as fast and simple as current gasoline refueling, recharging stations as available as gas stations are today, the same power, and same everything else, then why would anyone except an idiot buy electric?
“If” an electric car ever was simply the s-a-m-e as a gas car, “if” it is no better than a gas car, that is no reason to switch…and nobody will switch. There has to be a compelling, overwelming reason to get the public to switch from a trusted well serving, long serving mode.
A competitor will never get me to switch any product I buy if their best arguement is that their product is “the same” as the product that I have relied on for all my life. Pleading with the public that you have a product that is the same, is not going to do win over anyone, it never has.
Luckily, an electric car is NOT, and will never be anywhere near as good, or versatile, or powerful, or convenient, or able to run in cold or hot weather, or as cheap as gasoline cars.
Luckily, electric cars are so inferior (in every way) to the simple time tested trusted gas powered car that todays elecric cars will be the same disaster that the electric cars built in 1905 were.
susanannYou do know solar panels will end the pollution argument.
The fact that 80 percent of people drive less than 40 miles a day, gives it wide spread potential.
Most people who tow boats and skis buy a truck for their second car.
As always, people forget it has a motor. It takes gas too. It just does not use much of it.
They absolutely are for people commuting to work or school.
They will not suit a hot rodder.
Very well said.
I know. I stupidly invested in solar technology over 50 years ago. I have been hearing that same promise about solar power for 50 years.
Shezamm, shezamm!! Guess what?
My gasoline powered car can already do all of those things(and more), in the mountains, in the desert, in the coldest North Dakota weather, with an air conditioner and a heater, and I can refuel the gas powered car, virtually anywhere in the world, in 3 minutes flat.
It is really amazing how superior, in every way,that my gas powered car is compared to any electric car in the world costing twice as much.
A gasoline powered car is a marvelous invention, unsurpassed by anything else.
If gasoline powered cars were only recently invented , they would obsolete all electric cars in just a year. Everyone would switch to gas power.
yes, I stated it in those terms.
You’re not capturing all the costs of electricity. you have to include delivery charges along with the Kwh rate. And will take more than 8 kw of electricity to charge the battery to 8 kw capacity so you have to figure that in. GM hasn’t said what that is yet but you can read about it here. So figure .15 kwh cost times 10 kw and you now have $1.50 cost to charge the car. And that figure will go up in states that are heavily dependent on coal with the proposed increases in cap & trade taxes. Add to the cost the loss of battery efficiency over time.
I was giving an equivalent cost in terms of gasoline so there was an apples to apples comparison.
If I ever bought any electric car, it would be the 100 year old antique like what Jay Leno has.
Learning to crawl before you walk doesn’t mean much when treading water. Ford is producing hybrid vehicles that pay for themselves in gas savings. Ford is making a profit. GM invested in a product that does not pay for itself and taxpayers are paying heavily for it as well as propping GM up in the process.
Unless the tooth fairy recharges the batteries, no I don’t think that’s significant.
As DSeid points out, it matters what electricity and gas costs are in any given region but the savings is simply not there to justify the car.
If politicians wanted to make a real difference then instead of wasting our tax money on this dog-and-pony show they could:
-reduce the 2010 NOx figures to 1996 levels to encourage diesels
-give a 100 rebate to cars with auto-start technology that allows any direct injected engine to shut down and restart without using the starter. Heck if every car had an electric motor/generator we could throw in a single 900 amp battery and use that to accelerate the car and recharge with regenerative braking. We could easily advance city driving mileage of every new car by eliminating idle time.
-pay cities to time their !@# traffic lights.
-fully fund bio-diesel fuel from algae with the intent to get the price down to $3/gallon. Do that and we’re done with foreign imports and co2 emissions are cut dramatically using existing technology.
The real gain in NOx rules reduction would be with diesels. Imagine a Crown Vic with a variable displacement diesel that drops from 5 cyl to 3 cyl on the highway and shuts off when it comes to a stop.
Uh, disaster how? Electric and steam cars were hot luxury items into the 20’s because early gasoline engined cars were a pain in the ass to start, really flippin’ hard to drive, foul-smelling, noisy and had lousy acceleration. Early electric cars were superior in every way except for refueling time and cost.
Okay. I’m imagining. Let’s see, a diesel E320 Benz weighs pretty much the same as a Crown Vic and gets 26 MPG vs the Crown Vic’s 19. Displacement-on-demand yields around 5-7% improvement (per the “active fuel management” wiki page, which has a citation from the SAE), so let’s optimistically say that gets us up to 27.5 MPG. Bosch (who make the damn things, so optimistic if anything) claims 8% increase for a start-stop system. That ends up a hair under 30 MPG. And, of course since you only get the benefit of the displacement-on-demand on the highway and of the start-stop system in town, it’s unlikely that the improvements are additive.
That’s better than what we’ve got, I guess, but it’s not anything to get excited about either. I don’t see how you can poo-poo the enormous potential fuel savings of the Volt for some drivers and then turn around and point at technologies like displacement-on-demand and start-stop systems which only provide tiny increases in efficiency under a very specific set of circumstances.
Really, the difference is that those are examples of trying to squeeze the last bit of blood out of the stone that is the conventional ICE-powered car, whereas the Volt (and Leaf and plug-in Prius, etc) represent an emerging technology. Even if the short term improvement in efficiency is about the same or even a tad worse developing a new technology versus putting a band-aid on the old one, in the long term we’re better off doing the former.
(And I do generally agree that it’s a good thing to refine the ICE and that we should make things more favorable for diesels, but I don’t see those as addressing the same issue electric and PHEV’s do.)