Great news: New electric car costs only slightly more than average annual per capita income
posted at 7:29 pm on July 28, 2010 by Allahpundit
Sticker price: $41,000. Per capita income: $39,138. No worries, though. You get a $7,500 tax credit for buying one, so in effect, this baby costs only slightly north of … $33,000. Which, really, is a small price to pay for showing How Much You Care.
As a noted RINO candy-ass, I of course will be exploring my purchase options immediately.
So now that we have a fixed price, let’s recap the subsidy math. The president has bludgeoned state-owned GM to put out a plug-in hybrid vehicle that is, according to the Post, more than twice as expensive as a comparable gasoline-driven car. To entice motorists to buy these untested contraptions, the government will give each one a $7,500 subsidy, and another grand if they install their own charger at home (apartment owners of course, are out of luck, and get to subsidize homeowners with this one). President Obama wants a million electric cars on the road by 2015, and since vast cost-saving advances are unlikely to occur so quickly, it’s safe to assume the subsidy would remain, sucking only $8.5 billion dollars out of taxpayers coffers to subsidize people willing to buy a more expensive car than they actually need. Of course, GM isn’t fully on board with Obama’s vision, only planning to sell 40,000 Volts by 2013. So that’s only $340 million being taken from low-end-car Peter to bribe high-end-shopper Paul.
Of course, that’s only the direct subsidies. IBM’s vice president for energy and utilities, Allan Schurr, estimates that 80 percent of vehicles aren’t parked in the garage of the person who owns them, which means there are going to have to be a lot of public charging stations built at taxpayer expense. And the gasoline that electric owners don’t consume also takes tax revenue out of the Highway Trust Fund, meaning that if there is massive penetration of cars that don’t use gasoline, some other way will have to be found to maintain transportation infrastructure.
Fully loaded it runs close to $45,000, and apparently, “The seats are a little flimsy and the interior has a small-car feel to it.” But you can run 40 miles on the electric charge alone — take note, school-shuttling parents — and then build it out to 340 miles with a full tank of gas. Exit question: Out: The health-insurance mandate. In: The Volt mandate?
Update: From Meric1837 in the comments, heart-ache:
Lets do some math:
Chevy Volt: $41,000 (True Cost)
Honda Civic: $20,000 (Average build)
Difference: $21,000Gas: $2.45/gal (in Oklahoma City)
The difference in price would buy 8,571.43 gallons of gas. The Civic gets an average of 29 miles to the gallon. That’s 248,581.47 miles on the price difference.Assuming the average driver drives 12,000 miles a year, AND you only drive the Volt on the 40 mile range of it’s battery, using no gas, you’d have to own the Volt for 20.7 years to justify the price difference in gas savings. How long’s that warranty again?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
The electrical grid can certainly handle many electric cars. Most charging will be done in the evenings well after daytime peak loads.
Obviously, the grids will need to be expanded if electric cars become ubiquitous, but that’s not going to happen anytime within the next 7 to 10 years. There’s plenty of time to make that happen. There would also be plenty of capital to make that happen since the power companies will be seeing much higher revenues/EBITDA.
The free markets need thought leaders to spread these good ideas and explain their merits. Hopefully the free markets will develop these solutions because they’re the right solutions.
I’ll tell you a secret. We are drilling our own oil with the exception of the current moratorium, anwar, and the states that restrict it offshore. We definitely shouldn’t have any restrictions, but we certainly are drilling for our own oil right now.
, let’s drill our own oil!
blink on July 29, 2010 at 12:05 AM
This is an absurd statement. I’ll provide my calculations if you really want me to.
blink on July 29, 2010 at 12:08 AM
See above comment.
blink on July 29, 2010 at 12:10 AM
No. The Volt is exactly what it is. It isn’t a glorified hybrid at all.
I agree that it’s overly expensive, that it’s not green at all, and it’s a special use type vehicle.
But for certain driving profiles, the Volt will absolutely consume a higher percentage of domestic energy than a gasoline powered car.
So the Volt isn’t a con from the perspective that it’s a type of car that will help the US to reduce its consumption of oil.
blink on July 29, 2010 at 12:20 AM
That’s not true. A relatively small panel used over a long period of time can make a significant contribution to the charge. I will provide calculations.
You’re more than wrong. This is a completely asinine blanket statement. Are you claiming that solar cells on calculators aren’t economically feasible? Or that Solar cells for charging emergency phones in the desert aren’t economically feasible?
While solar isn’t at all economically feasible for raw power generation, it does have real, economic applications. My application is one of them.
blink on July 29, 2010 at 12:26 AM
Hydrogen as fuel, corn ethanol, wind power, electric cars – it should all come down to math and physics, but somehow it always comes down to politics.
You know that pain you get behind one eye?
Merovign on July 29, 2010 at 12:37 AM
Gee AP, don’t you know hair shirts are supposed to hurt? Speaking of, any word yet on what the crash test ratings are, or how well the thing grounds itself when the Jaws of Life start carving into the bodywork? Future headline: “Firefighters electrocuted by demolished Volt.”
Blacksmith on July 29, 2010 at 12:41 AM
Sorry. I should have stated oil consumption.
What do you mean, “[a]t the very best[?]” That’s exactly what it’s doing.
I have news for you.
1. Electric drive train vehicles are much more efficient. This efficiency helps offset the inefficient process of extra conversions necessary for electricity usage.
2. The process of extracting oil out of the ground is getting more and more and more inefficient everyday. Primary, secondary and tertiary recovery techniques require more pumps, bigger pumps, steam heating, down-hole chemicals, additional water separation, deeper drilling, horizontal drilling, deeper well maintenance, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. All this just to freaking maintain the current oil supply.
I never stated that this car would ever put OPEC out of business. I was clearly discussing the idea of using electric vehicles with natgas engines. The Volt if very obviously not this type of car. With new horizontal drilling techniques we can certainly increase natgas supply in this country without losing all of the current price spread that exists between oil and natgas right now.
I’ve already stated that I think this Volt is flawed- and I think the Volt is potentially catastrophically flawed. This is a shame because I think the embrace of electric drive train cars would be good for this country.
blink on July 29, 2010 at 12:42 AM
No. Batteries are the primary energy source. The natgas engine (or fuel cell) would be used as a secondary power source.
1. Bigger batteries aren’t necessary.
2. Batteries will continue to improve.
3. It’s not prudent to blindly “listen” to anyone without thinking it through for yourself.
Um, I haven’t been specific about any motor drives. Any technology improvements in motor drive systems simply supports my arguments.
Diesel locomotives don’t have electric drives.
Electro-diesel locomotives usually have hybrid drives.
Diesel-electic locomotives do have electric drives.
The distinction can probably be made that diesel-electric locomotives NEED the diesel engine running which is why they can’t be considered “electric” and the word “diesel” is needed.
blink on July 29, 2010 at 12:49 AM
Sorry Blink. I hate to burst your bubble, but it’s a hybrid powertrain. Gas and electric, pretty much the stock-standard Miriam-Webster definition of it. It’s not a parallel hybrid like the Prius, it’s what auto engineers call a series hybrid – hook the gas into the battery, and when one or the other runs out of juice, the second system picks up the slack.
I’d even be willing to buy a hybrid car, if it was like the Mini Cooper some British electric-motor company modified as a demonstrator back in 2006: 4 150-hp electric motors at the wheels, 200-mile range on the plug-in battery (with then-contemporary battery tech), and a vee-twin motorcycle engine plugged into a generator for “just in case.” But with what amounted to 600 hp available at the wheels, and being built on a little Mini Cooper chassis, well… the blurb in Car & Driver was unprintable in a more family-oriented setting like this (“screams like a…” figured prominently). If the watermelons ever gave up on the hair-shirt moonbattery, then maybe they’d actually convince people to drive electric. Until then? Not bloody likely.
Blacksmith on July 29, 2010 at 12:55 AM
I’m sure this has been raised upthread, but so what? I’m not defending the subsidy, but it’s a first generation electric car – of course it’s going to be expensive! HD sets in 2003 were very expensive. Cellphones in 1992 were expensive. VCR’s in 1981 were expensive (I’m setting myself up for a Betamax comeback). It’s a newish technology – this is what happens.
If this thing catches on, as I hope it does, the price will eventually come down.
YYZ on July 29, 2010 at 12:57 AM
If by that you mean pure electric, running off the battery, then you are technically correct. If you think that’s the “best kind of correct,” then you’re a bureaucrat (apologies to Mr. Groening). Other than a handful of experimentals, every locomotive since the steam era has been driven by electricity, either from an onboard generator (so-called “diesel” locomotives, which have since the 1930s been as you described for diesel-electrics) or from an external source (pantograph lines or electrifiec “third” rails). Due to the massive expense, external-source electrification has historically been a non-starter in the US (again, with a few exceptions, most of which have been dismantled decades ago). Well north of 99% of all “diesels” have been diesel-electric since the 1920s.
Blacksmith on July 29, 2010 at 1:09 AM
Thank you!
Take care.
Taser on July 28, 2010 at 11:08 PM
silverfox on July 29, 2010 at 1:14 AM
It’s absolutely not green.
But that’s ok because the stupid environmentalists think it’s green. Those of us that know it’s not green don’t care that it’s not green.
blink on July 29, 2010 at 1:15 AM
I was very clear about making this distinction. It doesn’t burst my bubble at all.
And to be clear. The Volt’s drive train is electric only. The Volt does not have a hybrid drive train.
blink on July 29, 2010 at 1:19 AM
Epic fail – and this time, on the taxpayer dime thanks to Comrade Obama.
`
`
The history of “green” products is very clear: a very tiny segment of the market will pay significantly more for a product which promises greater friendliness to the environment, a small portion will pay a little more for it, but the market at large always rejects overpaying for purely environmental benefits.
`
`
Nobody in their right mind is going to pay $40,000+ for this vehicle.
Adjoran on July 29, 2010 at 1:54 AM
Yawn.
tx2654 on July 29, 2010 at 3:20 AM
I’m more than technically correct. If something needs a diesel in order to move forward at all, then it’s not at all disingenuous to consider them diesel-electrics. If something needs an electrical system in order to move forward at all, then it’s not at all disingenuous to consider them diesel-electric.
So let me get this straight.
On one hand, you want diesel-electric locomotives to be called simply “diesels” and not “diesel-electric” despite the fact that they NEED the electric system in order to have any motion whatsoever.
On the other hand, you want the Volt to be called a hybrid despite the fact that it can operate perfectly normally for a limited range without any combustion engine at all.
Whatever, play your word game that oldnuke started. I don’t care. Let me know when you want to start debating energy and economic analysis.
blink on July 29, 2010 at 3:50 AM
We are?? Where?? Can you show me any new drilling permits issued in the last six months which also have not been retracted since Deepwater blew it’s top? Any, anywhere in the U.S.?
You also state you have some data that suggests you could put a solar panel onto one of these that would generate enough power to move this vehicle more than 2 miles on flat ground. Please show us this data. I’ll even spot you 100% sun and 12/12 equatorial cycles. I would also like to hear your explanation of the trade off of having an extra 100+lbs. added to the GVW and it’s effect on performance.
You talk about the “efficiency of the electric drive train”. . . I’d like you to address the fact that it takes more fuel to generate power off-site, transmit it to the charging location, convert it’s form at the charging station, transfer it to the vehicle battery, then release it from the battery to the “more efficient drive train”.
The Volt uses more “fuel” on a unit of energy basis to travel a given distance than the average conventional sedan.
As for your flip/twist on LNG and OPEC, you seem to think that if we switched to LNG we’d have enough on hand to power the nations autos. Reality check, we don’t. We DO have enough reserves to easily supply this, but we also have enough reserves to easily supply all our oil. BUT, we do NOT have enough current LNG production to power a U.S. LNG car culture.
If you think that you can magically increase the amount of LNG in today’s political climate, please gift us with this knowledge.
Your defending the Volt on grounds that don’t really refer to the Volt. The Volt is a step backwards in electric cars and drive train tech, it’s not a step forward by any means.
Jason Coleman on July 29, 2010 at 5:22 AM
Just to add some more perspective:
We just had to buy the Volt’s failing company.
Take care.
rogerb on July 29, 2010 at 5:25 AM
Epic Fail.
gdonovan on July 29, 2010 at 5:32 AM
For more perspective:
You also have to buy $151,000,000 worth of the batteries. Fines and jail time if you don’t.
“This plant was funded in part by a DOE stimulus grant of $151 million…”
http://gm-volt.com/2010/07/16/obama-attends-lg-chem-battery-plant-groundbreaking-and-gets-first-seat-time-in-the-chevy-volt/
rogerb on July 29, 2010 at 6:17 AM
Gnashing teeth over this seems strange when we’ve been deficit spending for years. As does your need to sarcastically use my “take care”. Can’t you make a point without trying to be acerbic?
If you wanted to make the point that you oppose government bailouts of American companies, point out how you opposed the first and second Chrysler bailouts, the Harley Davidson bailout, and the Wall street bailouts. That would have been a great post.
Taser on July 29, 2010 at 6:22 AM
I would buy one, but the “electric tree” in my backyard died recently. That is where electricity comes from isn’t it? You just go out and shake the electric tree every night and it powers your house throughout the next day.
And to think that some people don’t understand the concept of the electric tree. They are the ones that still believe that electricity comes from fairies.
Morons.
DuctTapeMyBrain on July 29, 2010 at 6:48 AM
Why in the world would I mention HD (or any of the others) in a very narrowed-down post about us “not having to buy” the Volt?
And I hope the use of “take care” was more clear. It wasn’t acerbic, just a mimic of your “you don’t have to buy” when, really, you do. I meant to use it in my 6:17 post, too, but I hit submit before preview.
If I were being acerbic I’d add “take care” to this post, but that’s not my point.
rogerb on July 29, 2010 at 6:57 AM
blink on July 29, 2010 at 12:26 AM
When you start on the ad hominem attacks and using examples that are irrelevant you out yourself as out of arguments.
A solar panel sufficient to generate household power has a payoff cycle that exceeds it’s predicted service life.
Toyota put solar cells on the roof of a Prius, it powered a fan (not A/C).
mad scientist on July 29, 2010 at 7:36 AM
Yawn, the government motors car for ignorant people.
I wonder why they say the battery is made from rare earth stuff.
tarpon on July 29, 2010 at 7:38 AM
One factor they forgot to add into the math mix was the cost of the electricity to charge that puppy subtracted from the $$ saved on gas. Don’t know about you, but my electricity bill is expensive.
Alden Pyle on July 29, 2010 at 7:41 AM
YYZ on July 29, 2010 at 12:57 AM
Most of the price is the battery pack which uses metals that are in scarce supply and mined outdide of the US (China for example). Are we going to create a new version of OPEC for battery materials?
Sorry, I don’t see prices going anywhere but up.
mad scientist on July 29, 2010 at 7:43 AM
Something else not mentioned here:
We know A/C would be a huge drain on the electrical system, but what about heating in cold weather? You don’t have all of that wonder free waste heat from the gas engine to use. Yes, heating would use less power than cooling but it would still be significant.
Also, what is the operating temperature range for the battery pack? i.e. how cold can the pack get without losing operating efficiency or simply shutting down? Is this information on the volt website?
mad scientist on July 29, 2010 at 7:48 AM
I love how the concept cars always start out looking awesome and then by the time the car hits the showroom floor it looks like another crappy small prius rip-off. They should stop showing the concepts so we don’t know how many crappy compromises they made on the way to making the car cheap. (If 40,000 is cheap…)
Free Indeed on July 29, 2010 at 8:50 AM
Mad scientist: I doubt they’d put something so damning on their website, but there’s this hint at what we are all aware of:
“If on a standard day you see 40 miles with the Volt, on a cold day where it’s right around 32 degrees, you’re going to see 28 or 30 miles,” Lutz said.
- Jan. 12, 2010
http://www.annarbor.com/business-review/gms-bob-lutz-weather-will-impact-chevy-volts-electric-range/
Which probably means 20-25 miles in real world conditions. We’ll see, though. I’d hope it would only lose 1/3 or so of its range.
Thankfully, since we all own a bit of GM now, we can be as critical as we want of what we see as poor execution.
rogerb on July 29, 2010 at 8:56 AM
In all the stories and pitches for this car I have never seen any mention as to the cost of ‘plugging in over nite’. I suspect that you eyes are going to bug out when you get your first electric bill…
There is no free lunch.
Uniblogger on July 29, 2010 at 9:11 AM
PS: I did locate one link which discusses the cost of electricity and compares it to buying a cheaper gas powered car. Reading this and the comments attached still do not make the case for buying this untried vehicle.
http://theautoprophet.blogspot.com/2010/07/some-volt-math.html
Uniblogger on July 29, 2010 at 9:28 AM
I hope they don’t make a zillion of them in anticipation of hoards of people going to buy this, forcing another bailout. This sounds like the last thing on earth I would buy.
scalleywag on July 29, 2010 at 9:42 AM
Didnt this President tell us to…”instead of turning up the thermostat….just put on a sweater…” That would give your car extra life, just dont use the heat or A/C…tough it out
I think that was this President, wasnt it?
Koa on July 29, 2010 at 9:51 AM
The sex poodle alGore is into Fiskers cars. They offer a 100,000 dollar car. The gubment gave them 500 million dollars and the price still ain’t right.
seven on July 29, 2010 at 10:05 AM
Right now I can travel at least 350 miles on a tank (15 gal.) of regular gas in my 1996 Honda Passport (V6) which I bought in 2002 for $10,000.00 and was paid for 3 years ago.
The Chevy Volt and its ilk are bad culture cars.
Randy
williars on July 29, 2010 at 10:19 AM
I can drive 325 miles in my truck before I need to fill it. What’s your point?
CynicalOptimist on July 29, 2010 at 10:21 AM
Once they’re not selling, maybe the price will come down….
CynicalOptimist on July 29, 2010 at 10:23 AM
But Jesus loves you anyway and so do the rest of us. Thanks for the morning laugh, AP. :)
Benaiah on July 29, 2010 at 10:43 AM
The lessons, the spirit, the achievement of Henry Ford, long dead.
Starting with a new sheet of paper doesn’t mean putting the same old chunks back together.
Weight and stale design is the enemy of future transportation.
Speakup on July 29, 2010 at 10:49 AM
Thanks.
Randy
williars on July 29, 2010 at 10:49 AM
I’m sure someone has mentioned this above but…
Just because there is no gas does not mean that there is no cost to recharging the car. A personal recharging station will cost money to install and operate. (The $1000 rebate may take up some of the initial cost.) Even if we have a “public” refueling station, that station must charge a fee to pay for itself and the energy distributed. If it does not charge a fee then everyone, including the owner, pays for it through some sort of tax. I understand the difficulty of calculating an average recharge cost, given the variables. I just point it out to indicate further the inefficiency and unviability of this car for anyone without $50,000+ of discretionary income.
drocity on July 29, 2010 at 10:57 AM
Why does an electric car have a gas tank?
Oh, that’s right, because the battery only holds enough charge to drive 40 miles on.
When they get to at least 100 miles a charge, then these pricey prototypes will make sense.
profitsbeard on July 29, 2010 at 11:34 AM
Are you kidding me? Do you think that all drilling permits issued in Utah (or many other states) were retracted after the GOM blow-out? You obviously don’t know anything about the oil and gas industry. Many wells were drilled on-shore in the US this week, last week, the week before, etc, etc, etc. Many new drilling permits were issued on-shore in the US this week, last week, the week before, etc, etc, etc.
Yes, I have that data. Let’s say a conservative 1 square meter array of cells was installed on the car and generated 150 Watts. If the car was parked for 2 days in your 100%, 12 hour sun that would generate 3.6 kW-h of energy. Since the Volt is spec’d to do 40 miles on 8.8 kW-h that means that every kW-h of charge should allow the Volt to go 4.5 miles. So, the 2 hours of parking in your sun gives a range of 3.6 * 4.5 = 16 miles.
Now, lets say that we have real sun. Since the Volt is spec’d to require 220 W-h for every mile then a mid-day charge for even a few hours will get you your 2 miles.
Thanks for playing.
I already acknowledged those inefficiencies with respect to electric cars. Will you acknowledge all of the inefficiencies related with extracting oil from the ground (which is requiring more and more energy every year), separating it from ground water (which is often over 75% of the extracted fluid), transporting it to the refinery, transporting the distillate to the distributors, transporting the distillate to the filling stations, and filling individual cars?
But it’s a different type of fuel. The US has plenty of coal and is capable of building plenty of nuclear plants. Why are you so stuck on the fact that it might us more energy to run it even though it’s the type of energy we can produce domestically?
No. I said that we’d have enough to reduce our crude oil usage.
I never claimed this. Just like I never claimed I can increase the number of nuclear power plants we build domestically.
But that doesn’t mean that it’s not the right solution because it is. They are.
Reread my comments. I’ve very clearly stated that the Volt is catastrophically flawed.
However, I will continue to correct those that make inaccurate statements, and I will continue to claim that electric drive vehicles is the direction this country should take in order to reduce our dependence on purchasing crude oil from those that hate us.
blink on July 29, 2010 at 11:46 AM
Costs more than the avg. annual per capita income…you mean like the Model T? Yeah, this thing will never take off….
The free market says there is a demand for this car. Who is anyone to judge what the free market says, ya effin communists!!!
Constant Parrhesia on July 29, 2010 at 11:50 AM
I’m very current on economic and energy models for comparing solar to grid power for rooftop usage, and your statements are correct.
The thing is – that’s not the application being discussed. The fact that solar sucks for home use doesn’t mean that it sucks for calculators, satellites, emergency highway phones, cars, etc, etc, etc, etc.
This statement is accurate and immaterial to my claims.
blink on July 29, 2010 at 11:52 AM
AllahPundit, there are better, less expensive options.
Sultry Beauty on July 29, 2010 at 12:47 PM
I’ll just stick with my old car with a Casimir-Polder force engine.
BDU-33 on July 29, 2010 at 12:54 PM
Plenty of people who want to be smug in their self-righteous greenness will shell out for this car even without the tax break so they can look down their noses at the rest of us on their way to the airport to take their charter jet to their 40,000 square foot vacation home where only 1 square of toilet paper is allowed.
GM will sell as many of these as they can make.
stvnscott on July 29, 2010 at 1:10 PM
Keep fighting the fight, blink! You have been the voice of reason on this particular HA blog. Before I start, I need to say that I am against the takeover of GM by the government…..
About the Volt:
The volt has an electric range that covers the commute distance of most Americans. But what if, God forbid, you need to go to your mother inlaws house? Can’t make it there on battery, so the generator starts up and as long as you have fuel in the tank your good to go. Or what if you forget to plug in your electric vehicle last night? With the Volt, you can still make it to work.
Now if you own say, a battery only vehicle, you won’t be able to make it to your in-laws or go to work that day…..Hmmmm …. on second thought the battery vehicle is starting to sound better!
I do agree that the Volt requires a house or condo that allows you to plug your car in at night, but at least the Volt preserves the freedom of a car. An battery only vehicle keeps you on a very short leash. I think we should be happy that a technology like the Volt is being developed. Keep in mind that the Volt was NOT developed under obama motors, but started many years ago.
The Volt is an electric vehicle with a small battery system that has an on-board generator. It is a much better solution than what is today referred to as a hybrid. The Volt does not have the complex electro-mechanical connection to the motive system of “parallel hybrid” (Prius.) It relies solely on an electric motor to drive the vehicle. This is much simpler. Take a look at some of the dual mode transmissions out there, YIKES!
The batteries will come down in price and increase capacity. Refer to cordless tool technology, your lap top computer, your cell phone…….
On pure electric vehicles, what if you make a wrong turn or get lost in a rough neighborhood? ……
And for those who think the Nissan Leaf is a great car, do some quick research on it, and you will discover that your are mistaken. It has been rushed to market to try to steal sales. Further, the Volt is a class larger and a class higher than the Leaf. The Leaf is a tin can with a battery.
JeffVader on July 29, 2010 at 1:32 PM
blink on July 29, 2010 at 11:52 AM
Still can’t admit losing the argument.
I’ll break it down for you:
1) The amount of square feet of solar cell it would take to add significant charge to the volt is much larger than the car. Toyota did the math and ascertained that that much square footage would do nicely for a 12-volt fan, not a 120 volt charger.
2) The other examples you have given are for short-lived low voltage, low power consumption devices. I really like the example of Government controlled devices like the emergency phones-the more money they lose the better the Government seems to like them!
At this point the only virtue to your posts is to drive up the thread count.
mad scientist on July 29, 2010 at 1:44 PM
JeffVader on July 29, 2010 at 1:32 PM
So, here’s what you want to do:
1) Increase the stress on our already overloaded electrical infrastructure. As to the off-peak argument: most of that vaunted “off-peak” capacity is in rural America.
2) Increase our reliance on foreign nations for the raw materials to build the cars and batteries.
3) High cost and limitations for charging create an underclass for those who cannot afford the car and the house. This is the perfect elitist vehicle: too costly and too impractical for most Americans.
4) The volt has a large battery in comparison to a hybrid like a Prius. This is part of Toyota’s argument against that technology, they site an optimum battery size that is much smaller than the volt’s.
BTW, I see hybrids as bad technology also, more of a wishful thinking fad than sound engineering. Oil will be with us for many decades to come, why pretend otherwise?
mad scientist on July 29, 2010 at 2:09 PM
It’s got a 9 gallon tank. You get an extra 300 mile range with that.
300 miles / 9 gallons = 33.3 mpg.
I already get that with my 10 yr old Honda Civic…
SnowSun on July 29, 2010 at 2:10 PM
Not sure about this electrical “peak” time. What do you do on a 90 degree day when you come home from work? Lower the temp in your house that you raised during the day when you were gone, put in a load or 2 of laundry (just to keep up), use the microwave to defrost some meat, maybe an electrical oven to cook dinner on, a load of dishes after supper in the dishwasher, maybe fire up the TV or 2 and computer(s), radios being turned on to listen to talk radio,maybe go to your garage and fire up some saws and work on some wood projects, or sit out on your patio with the electrical designer lights on, and now you are going to plug in the car. We are an electrical society.
Obama has said he is going to make it harder for new coal plants to start ie more paperwork and a longer time from start paperwork, to approval, to it being built, passing tests and running.
He also wants to tax all of us at a higher rate so the money the electric industry makes will not be spent on building more plants but on sending it to Obama to redistribute.
journeyintothewhirlwind on July 29, 2010 at 2:58 PM
Every new technology comes out at a higher cost than it will eventually be.
rjl1999 on July 28, 2010 at 8:08 PM
New technology? Really.
Oldnuke on July 28, 2010 at 8:13 PM
Yeah, like that’s a fair comparison.
rjl1999 on July 29, 2010 at 3:21 PM
Why would I? You’ve yet to assert a cogent argument.
That’s not true. I provided my calculations. Feel free to comment on my assumptions and math, but don’t ignore them.
Is this the best you got? Toyota did your math for you?
Ford analyzed the concept of using color (non-black) paint for their cars and ascertained that black would do nicely. If you had been alive at the time, then you probably would have stated that no cars will ever receive color paint.
Btw, your comment about a 120 volt charger reveals that you’re neither an electrical or mechanical engineer (neither type of engineer would assume that a 120 volt charger was required given that each battery cell is probably 4 volts or so and that the battery’s charging computer could direct charge as needed). There’s nothing wrong with not being an EE or ME, but it’s probably why you ignored my calculations and try base all of your thinking on Toyota’s previous decisions with the Prius.
The average communications satellite lasts 10 years. That works just fine for the auto industry.
Again with the voltage comment. Voltage isn’t a measure of power. Please tell me you understand that.
Solar powered emergency phones are used throughout the world – including private highways. It’s better to use a solar cell for power than to bother running power lines.
Oil companies use solar powered communication systems for many of their well heads that don’t have grid power. Private oil companies.
Please. Most people reading these comments will recognize that my content is much more credible than yours.
I’ve conducted hundreds of analysis and feasibility studies within the energy industry and for energy related products. I know what I’m talking about.
blink on July 29, 2010 at 5:12 PM
Take a look at any grid load charts. As people are getting home from work and using their little A/Cs and microwaves, factories and office buildings are shutting down.
Don’t believe me. Look at demand (load) curves on the grid charts. They are very typical.
blink on July 29, 2010 at 5:26 PM
What Obama wants or doesn’t want has nothing at all to do with optimal solutions for energy dependence.
I wasn’t trying to offer a solution which I thought environmentalists would embrace. It’s pointless to try to do that. I was simply offering the best solution.
blink on July 29, 2010 at 5:34 PM
And another thing…. if you only do the 40 mile thing on electric… and use the gas as your just-in-case insurance:
DON’T even THINK of putting gas with ethanol in that tank!
After about a month or so the water can separate out from the ethanol and not allow it to ignite correctly.
SnowSun on July 29, 2010 at 5:51 PM
Given the price and specifications of this new car, I think GM should change the name from the Chevy Volt to the Chevy Revolt.
Hermeticus on July 29, 2010 at 6:41 PM
More permits were pulled in Utah after the Deepwater Horizon accident than have been granted.
Same is true in Louisiana, Texas and other States.
So lemme get this straight? We have a system with inefficiency, so your solution is to trade the more efficient system for a less efficient system, that oh, by the way, costs more per unit of travel. Which after all that, will actually increase the amount of pollution in the air, not decrease it? Gotcha.
Solar –
So in order to charge this thing, you’ll have to leave it parked in 12/12 sunny equatorial light conditions and surrounded by mirrors for five days or more. Hmmmm…… I’m sorry, but I just think you’re off by a few orders of magnitude. I’m also sure that a 10% increase in GVW will work in your favor, yes?
I’m sorry, but unless you can lay out that equation again in a straight line and also include a link to the specs on pushing power into that battery, I’m going to keep my money on Toyota’s math.
Oh really? Is it? Crude from Venezuela yields about 5% gasoline per barrel of oil. The other 95% yields other products. Texas and Arabian crude yields 30% gas.
The United States produces a surplus of gasoline every day. A portion of that surplus flows into the strategic reserve on a regular basis. The rest is sold on the market.
Increasing the surplus of gas produced every day will have NO EFFECT on the numbers of barrels of crude oil consumed every day in this country. It’s all the other stuff made from oil that drives the price, supply and demand of crude.
We might see some drop in Arabian crude and exchange it for Venezuelan. . . . .wonderful trade there.
The overall number of barrels consumed will actually increase as oil fired plants will consume more and those who have a choice of heating oil versus electricity will choose heating oil as the price of electricity necessarily sky-rockets.
As for implementation of LNG on a grand scale it will push prices for crude and plastics and esters down, which will increase their consumption and to expand supply, you have to. . . . import more oil.
The “solution” is to shut up and get out of the market’s way.
One has no direct effect on the other. They CAN have direct effect on each other, but only if we permit it. We can simply choose to exploit the resources we have and end “our dependence on purchasing crude oil from those that hates us” tomorrow.
The electric drive has nothing to do with the politics of buying Wahabbi crude, and it’s intellectually dishonest for you to try to associate the two.
We can drill and use our own oil damned near immediately if we so choose. That will “end our dependence” immediately.
You tossing that IGNORANT OR STUPID OR DISHONEST card pretty much sums up everything about your argument and it’s falsehoods.
PS – CO2 isn’t killing the planet. In fact, plants love it.
Jason Coleman on July 29, 2010 at 6:49 PM
Guys,
I don’t want to interrupt your debate (or go off topic), which is interesting, but since you seem to be well versed in these topics, I’d like to seek some free advice about solar – it’s been said up thread that the cost/benefit isn’t there for home use – what about just for the swimming pool? In Phoenix?
SuzyQAZ on July 29, 2010 at 7:12 PM
1. This statement is untrue.
2. This statement is absurd.
3. This statement doesn’t counter my argument at all.
4. Are you claiming that there is no drilling in the US at all?
It’s not necessarily less efficient. There are plenty of driving profiles which will make this more efficient. If we build hundreds of cookie-cutter nuclear plants – as I suggest, then there’s no reason why the unit cost needs to be less for certain driving profiles.
No. That was just one calculation based on the numbers you gave me. Look up the Volt specs for yourself. Less than 9 kWh for 40 miles. Your average square meter solar cell will do 150 W in the mid-day sun. You do the math. It’s not difficult.
What’s Toyota’s math?
What are you talking about? Have you gone crazy? If you replace gasoline usage with natural gas usage, then gasoline demand falls. Production levels don’t affect demand.
The market needs thought leaders proposing great solutions.
We’ve been drilling and drilling and drilling in this country yet we only produce 50% of the crude we need. If we dropped our gasoline consumption, then prices would drop throughout the world so that those who hate have fewer resources to use to hurt us.
The NYMEX spot price is the NYMEX spot price. I’m not being dishonest about anything.
None of this has anything to do with CO2.
blink on July 29, 2010 at 7:18 PM
Solar sucks for home use. Don’t do it even if your state gives you a big incentive.
Almost all swimming pools are solar heated. ;)
I haven’t looked at anything specific, but I’d have to look at their costs, expected life, and heating claims.
blink on July 29, 2010 at 7:21 PM
Just curious. Do you have any actual hands on experience in the production of electricity?
Oldnuke on July 29, 2010 at 7:33 PM
#1 is only untrue if you are counting the 77 Utah leases that were modified after a judge got involved in July 21st as new leases. I don’t count those as new leases at all.
#3 You’re all up on drilling on land, show me these new permits granted since DWP. Not rehashes of old leases, not expansions of fields, but new explorable territory granted.
#4 No, I said they are shrinking the number of wells out there by stifling new permits, they’ve mounted a war of attrition since the Obama administration took office.
NO, it won’t, you think that the battery is going to get charged from a solar cell on the roof, I’m telling you that your little panel isn’t going to produce enough electricity to run the charger itself, much less put juice in that battery.
As for Toyota’s math, it’s pretty solid, they can’t push enough juice into the battery pack with a panel. Your pipe dream of a solar panel on the roof and hood has been tried, and failed. We’re more than a few years away from that being a reality.
We already produce a surplus of gasoline because of the amount of other stuff we make from crude. Reducing gasoline consumption is not going to affect the production of the higher dollar products made from crude. They will still need to be made, and the same number of barrels of crude will have to come in for it.
It will drive the price of gas down, so of course, more people will fill up more often and drive more.
As I said, shut up and get out of the market’s way.
Unless you ban thousands of plastics, medicines, solvents, heating oil, jet fuel, diesel, computers and more, the number of actual barrels of crude will either remain exactly the same or increase.
What type of “thought leader” are you proposing here. . . Is Obama a “thought leader”??? Sorta like Lenin, right???
Yeah, we’ve been drilling, but NOWHERE NEAR where and as much as we could and would if we would allow.
IF we dropped our gasoline consumption, China and India would be happy to pay the Wahabbis while we pay Chavez. The OPEC nations decide what their profit margin is going to be, not us. They will negotiate for exactly the amount they think they can get from their new clients and make production match their goals. That is their primary advantage over us and that is why we buy their oil, because they can expand and contract production far easier than we are allowed to.
Get out of the way, let the market run the energy sector and that problem with the Wahabbi’s would be gone pretty much overnight. They’d simply take their unneeded oil to China and India and hate us even more for causing them the trouble.
Let’s also piss off the Saudi’s by not buying their oil. . . great option there. I’m all for it, but I think our reasoning’s are quite different.
BS….. IF this wasn’t about CO2, no one would be talking about replacing the cheaper, more efficient technology for a costlier, less efficient one.
Jason Coleman on July 29, 2010 at 8:01 PM
I’d like to seek some free advice about solar – it’s been said up thread that the cost/benefit isn’t there for home use
SuzyQAZ on July 29, 2010 at 7:12 PM
Takes about 40 years to pay off the actual investment. Luckily you the taxpayer often gets to pitch in about half.
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2010 at 8:38 PM
340 miles.. that’s it??
V-rod on July 29, 2010 at 8:51 PM
One of my friends works over at Tesla and I went over one day to check out the roadster they are working on. The price is high… but it has amazing performance (0-60 under 4sec. & 240 miles range on full charge). It’s hard to describe how responsive it is. You have to experience it.
These things are fun and hopefully the price will come down as the technology becomes more commonplace.
lexhamfox on July 29, 2010 at 9:44 PM
Gasoline consumption in the US is 380 million gal/day
There are 115,000 Btu/gal of gas.
115,000 Btu = 34Kwh
How many 1000 Mw power plants would it take to replace the gasoline used in the US?
Oldnuke on July 29, 2010 at 10:11 PM
Oh man, that was brutal Oldnuke.
Jason Coleman on July 29, 2010 at 10:17 PM
Yeah, reality is like that. Especially when you factor out unicorns and fairy dust.
Oldnuke on July 29, 2010 at 10:19 PM
The battery pack in an EV is not an energy source. It is just a place to store energy. The energy comes from the electric power plant the battery gets charged from.
The battery pack in an EV is equivalent to a empty gasoline tank in a conventional vehicle. $7500 for a battery pack vs $150 for a gasoline tank.
Gasoline however is a much more efficient at storing energy. For example my Honda Civic gets 40 mpg on the highway, its 13.2 gallon tank allows me to go 500 miles on a single fill.
Dasher on July 29, 2010 at 10:28 PM
When plasma tvs came out, they were $25,000. Now, they’re only a fraction of that, and they’re better.
New technology is always expensive before its cheap. But if no one developed it, we’d still be riding horses.
This whole Volt thing isn’t about the car itself. Its about moving on from gas for the benefit of society. Or somthing like that. The subsidy is intended to be a nudge.
ChenZhen on July 29, 2010 at 10:40 PM
ChenZhen — Plasma TV’s were indeed new technology, but batteries are not new technology, they have been making and improving batteries for a hundred years. There are limits to very technology. I don’t see any significant breakthrough coming anytime soon.
There is no good societal reason to abandon oil and oil products. It has been the engine of American growth, and will continue to be for many many more years.
Liberals don’t like oil because it has made America strong, and liberals hate America. It is simple as that.
Dasher on July 29, 2010 at 10:49 PM
Was this the selling point of the 1909 Baker?
Inanemergencydial on July 29, 2010 at 10:55 PM
You’ve obviously forgotten about the Loehner Porsche “Mixte”.
BillH on July 29, 2010 at 11:55 PM
Mad scientist; look into “brushless” electric motors for “model” RC airplanes.
This is somewhat “new” technology.
Basically they are taking single straitline DC voltage; convert it to 3 square wave DC (operates the same as 3 phase AC) and modulate it through a VFD, that they call an ESC.
They are getting some serious power out of these little motors. Not as much as a gas motor, but no where near what most people would think of an “little electric motor” could do.
11.1 V 49KVA motor pulling 25 amps at 40K RPM (EDF Electric ducted Fan or JET)
DSchoen on July 29, 2010 at 11:55 PM
Wait a minute…how many of the newest iPhones and iPads can you buy with $33,000 (plus tax, title and destination)?!
Jaibones on July 30, 2010 at 7:28 AM
Leases aren’t new drills or drilling permits on existing leases.
That’s a drill. You didn’t claim that too few leases were being issued. You challenged my claim that new oil wells were being drilled in this country.
You are dead wrong. If you disagree then provide specifics regarding the calculations I provided you. Before you try, you might want to look up the difference between a electric potential and electric power.
They can do it. They’ve simply decided not to do it right now. Ford decided not to sell colors other than black – it didn’t mean that they couldn’t.
Really? Tell me the crude product that will prevent a reduction of crude imports.
The type of thought leader I’m being in this thread.
Not at all. The electrical car concept isn’t Leninism at all. The electric car concept doesn’t have to violate any free market principles at all.
Look, Bozo. Such discussions don’t hurt the free market at all. The internet was discussed at length and developed prior to the free market having any clue about it. Technologists and venture capitalists are out ahead of the free market all the time. They shouldn’t shut up.
1. Feel free to move the goal posts about everything else, too.
2. You are dead wrong about this. I look at new drill deal opportunities all the time. Deals which are permitted and ready for drilling. The biggest constraint to more drilling is private CAPITAL!
3. I think drilling bans on the off-shore shelfs of many states needs to be lifted. I think the drilling ban in anwar needs to be lifted. I think the current ban in the GoM needs to be lifted. But none of these things changes the fact that there there isn’t enough capital to pursue all the permitted drilling opportunities that exist on-shore right now. Please, please, please be stupid enough to challenge me about this.
We want OPEC to be forced to cut production. That is a good thing even if it causes the prices to rise in the near term. Too many OPEC members cheat, and the higher oil prices attract more investment capital to drill here at home. You simply don’t understand the oil industry.
2. No, we primarily buy their oil because we don’t produce enough to meet our needs. Dude, this is like the simplest economic concept ever. A country is forced to import a product if they use more of the product than they can produce domestically. EVERYONE still readying this thread will agree with me about this.
By “this” I mean my comments in this thread. I don’t care about the reasons that early adapters become early adapters. Early adapters allow the market to be skimmed which helps introduce the next generation products – superior products at better prices. The Volt is flawed, but an electric car concept isn’t.
By the way, early plans for electric cars had more to do with getting particulate matter out of the cities.
blink on July 30, 2010 at 10:16 AM
Calculations please on this.
Where does your info come from that current drilling technology is less efficient than it was before?
From what I am to understand, at least the drilling here in ND in the Bakken & Three Forks, is way more efficient than it was before.
Horizontal drilling has opened up new possibilities in oil extraction.
But yes, it does cost more to do those things.
But we get more.
Something people rarely discuss.
Those pretty little solar Earthships the hippies build can get govt $$ help. So if it’s so great, why can’t solar stand alone without govt help?
I agree solar is good, like blink said, for some things.
But notice how the govt isn’t pushing for solar like before.
Now they’re pushing wind & ethanol.
None of these things can give us the power for industry.
Amazing how no one talks about this.
So here we have a blurb of it (from a questionable source IMO),nevertheless, how interesting!
And here we have the auto industry talking about it.
I notice in the 2nd article I’ve linked, they’re surprisingly upbeat about the crisis situation.
Bottom line though, rare earth metals are really in short supply. And recycling old technology is not going to supply the demand.
So when can we tap into Afghanistan’s big supply?
Russia should still have a heap of them.
How bout melting Antarctica & searching there?
Better yet, let’s get those solar powered space shuttles built so we can just mine asteroids.
Planet Earth meteorite hunters, get ready!
Badger40 on July 30, 2010 at 10:35 AM
Interesting point. Now if the price of gas were to go up to $10/gallon, you could cover the difference in a little over 5 years. Hmmm….
pt on July 30, 2010 at 10:43 AM
Well, gee. That really doesn’t matter since I never proposed doing that.
I proposed cutting gasoline consumption down 50% by using replacing cars with certain driving profiles. The new cars could be powered by grid electricity, solar, natural gas.
So, let’s say that grid power fills 25% of these new car’s power requirements. Using your number (which is high but not unreasonable – uses peak demand from 2007) my goal would be to cut 380 million gallons per day to 190 million gallons per day. 25% (the portion I want to draw from grid power) of 190 million gallons is 47.5 million gallons. The average full consumption in this country is estimated at 20 miles per gallon so that means I want to power 950,000,000 miles per day with grid power.
Using the Volt’s specs of 40 miles for every 8.8 kWh means 4.5 miles for every kWh. This implies that I need 211,000,000 new kWh of grid energy production per day in order to provide the grid power portion of the new electric vehicles energy requirements.
The US capacity right now is approximately 1,000,000,000 kW (1 million megawatts). Running this 85% capacity at peak for 24 hours could provide 20,000,000,000 kWh. Current grid demand is 4,000 TkW per year or 11,000,000,000 kWh per day. So we have an extra 9,000,000,000 kWh of spare grid capacity every day. This easily covers the 211,000,000 kWh that would be needed for my scenario.
So, as you see, we currently have enough grid capacity to power 25% of enough electric cars to reduce gasoline consumption by 50% simply by running electrical production facilities more hours every day.
However, each nuclear plant built is expected to add 23,000,000 kWh per day (approximately 1 mW per facility) so an extra 12 to 15 nuclear plants would easily handle the new load assuming utilization rates above 80%.
Guys, I’ve done all this math before, but feel free to provide comments.
blink on July 30, 2010 at 10:52 AM
The reality is that I do the math, and you choose to believe what you want to believe.
blink on July 30, 2010 at 11:00 AM
Please, people. I never stated that drilling was less efficient. I stated that drilling now required more energy. This is primarily because the depths are greater. Pulling miles of drill pipe in and out of a hole to change the drill bit takes much more energy than a few hundred or thousand feet.
But besides drilling, average lifting energy per barrel has absolutely increased. This is the amount of energy required to extract the oil from the ground.
Actually, horizontal wells usually yield the same amount of oil as old vertical wells which were drilling into bigger reservoirs. The same reality is that we are now exploiting smaller and smaller reservoirs. Horizontal drills are needed in order to extract the same amount of oil, and horizontal drills require more energy to drill than vertical wells.
blink on July 30, 2010 at 11:09 AM
One of the reasons I could never just give up and say I am a Conservative, is the on-going compulsive negativity.
Observation on July 30, 2010 at 11:45 AM
The Volt, just like the Mercedes diesel when it first came out in the U.S. you had to plot your trips around where the few stations that sold diesel fuels were. You could not trust on using diesel ‘Truck Stops’ because they too far apart (you know big rigs have BIG TANKS).
So with the volt every 340 miles you have to find a rest stop to plug into and recharge overnight to go the nest 340 miles and your electrical charges will be what ever the Kilowatt per hour charge is at that stop. I expect it will be three times what you pay for gas.
MSGTAS on July 30, 2010 at 12:29 PM
I choose to stick a little closer to reality. I am not really in opposition to electric cars that tap into the electric supply for their energy. But the reality is the infrastructure for gasoline is in place now. Of course we can build infrastructure to support the electric car society but we will still need oil for the other products that come from it. By your own numbers, which I think are overly optimistic, it’s going to take a major commitment from the utilities and from the government regulatory agencies to get even 25% of our travel miles over to electric cars. That said Oil is a finite resource. It’s going to run out someday. I don’t think we’re even close to that today but no one actually knows. Supply of oil today is not short so I know we’re not there yet. Why are we in such a big fizz to race to electric? I know you want to reduce our dependence on the Saudis. Others want to “Save the planet”. Over time as oil reserves dwindle and it becomes shorter one of two things will happen. We will either find other sources of energy or our technological society will cease to exist. For arguments sake let’s assume that you are correct and it is going to take 13 new 1000 megawatt nuke plants to supply the dedicated energy needs for 25% of our travel. If you started today I will guarantee you that it would be at least 10 years before the first shipment of nuclear fuel is received on site and even then it’s a long way to commercial operation. This is a very long term commitment and it’s not going to happen in my lifetime. No utility is going to buy into building power plants based on a car like the Volt. If someone comes up with a viable all electric vehicle that can compete with a gas powered car and it gains popularity then I’d agree that they’ll start thinking about adding capacity to account for the load. That’s because it’ll be bundled into their load forecasting models. That’s not going to happen in the near future. The Volt and the Leaf may be a start but it’s not a very good one. My prediction is that it will be a miserable failure and will actually end up hurting any further development of viable electric cars. They were in too much of a hurry to get something ‘green’ out there.
Oldnuke on July 30, 2010 at 1:30 PM
We’re mad because we had to frickin pay for it against our will you twat. This POS isn’t economy driven or environment driven, it’s ideology driven.
Logboy on July 30, 2010 at 1:39 PM
I can drive well more than 400 miles on the highway in my 2003 Saturn without having to refuel or recharge. That puppy only cost me about $12,000 and I got the loan at 0% apr.
Can your Chevy Volt do that?
dczombie on July 30, 2010 at 11:19 PM
I just read through all the comments on this page and, wow, people are a bit touchy tonight. It’s friday people, go have some Old Crow, punch a hippy in the face, and enjoy your weekend.
dczombie on July 30, 2010 at 11:29 PM
You don’t have to “give up” to be a conservative, you just have to have common sense.
Many conservatives are not known to be early adopters.
But then again in our household we have three flat screen HDTVs, and my computer has dual 23 inch monitors. This family of 3 also has 4 laptops and an iPad, and heck I’ve been retired for 5 1/2 years besides.
As far as the Volt goes, time will tell whether is will be successful or not. But any product that relies on a substantial tax payer subsidy is starting with the market not in its favor.
The government has no money. It never has had any money. It must first take it from us to dole back to them. Why should I help pay for a neighbors Volt or Prius, or Leaf?
Dasher on July 31, 2010 at 12:50 AM
No.
1. My numbers showed that we have enough grid capacity right now to get 12.5% of our total travel miles from the grid. If you do a little bit of calculating yourself (which I know you hate to do), then you’ll realize that there’s even enough capacity to get 25%. So, there’s no commitment necessary. Our current grid is good enough (except for the hottest of days).
2. It’s strange to describe my “numbers” as overly optimistic. I didn’t use any assumptions at all. What’s overly optimistic about my calculations?
3. I know you were taught some electrical power stuff by the Navy, and you might have had even more if you were a submariner. I know this stuff isn’t over your head if you’re open to learning it.
Oil will not run out for another 100+ years, but the oil supply will not be able to keep pace with demand at these prices. The demand growth of Asia is staggering. It would be stupid not to think about optimal solutions now. Nuc plants make too much sense to allow 1970′s throw-back activists to block. Clean coal makes too much sense (coal will be relatively cheap for a long time) to allow global warming chicken littles to block. Building several dozen plants over the next 7 to 10 years wouldn’t be difficult. Construction doesn’t need to start on any of these plants until the demand curves indicate that the time is right.
Who is in such a big fizz? Where is this race? We’re talking about a couple/few models being offered to the public out of dozens of models (including a dozen model SUVs and pick-ups) being sold.
We’re not talking about thousands of charging stations. We’re not talking about ground breaking for hundreds of power plants this year.
Honestly, I don’t see the race you describe.
Why would the power need to be dedicated. Electrical utilities would love to see increase demand now! They would especially love to see this load in the evenings and at night. Rounding out the grid’s daily load charts would be incredibly beneficial to the utility industry without any new plants being built!
Politics is the only reason why this would be (or will be) true. It doesn’t have to take this long at all. The optimal solution is the optimal solution. Start with the optimal solution BEFORE you start your political negations.
If not then it won’t be because of technical or economic hurdles.
Utilities have bought into building power plants even if GM fails to sell a single Volt.
And why is it so difficult for you to understand that nobody needs to build any plants yet. We can wait until we see increased grid demand prior to building the new plants.
You know, on one hand you claim that growth of electric cars will be extremely slow. On the other hand, you claim that the grid can’t handle the growth of electric cars. Neither needs to be true, but it’s silly for you to try claiming both.
You might be right, but I’m not convinced. The Volt might be a huge failure, but I think future electric car models might be more successful – especially if gasoline prices climb back over $3. At $4 it might be very compelling. These prices are not that unrealistic.
Gasoline hit $4 two years ago. The idea didn’t seem that bad then. I don’t think this was just about rushing a green product to market.
blink on July 31, 2010 at 2:09 AM
It’s not about this particular car and it’s NOT just about money.
Even though it’s currently cheaper, much cheaper, to run a car on electricity, imagine this:
Would you rather pay $1.00 / unit of energy to an enemy or adversary ( OPEC or Russia ) or would you rather pay $1.25, $1.50 or $2.00 to a friend ( domestic utilities, domestic resource companies, even the dreaded coal, but also natural gas, domestic oil, small scale nuke — liquid thorium — and even expanding wind and solar tech ), a friend you share your homeland with, with whom you share certain cultural and societal bonds, whose employees very likely will turn your money around and make use of the goods and services you provide, a friend who VERY UNLIKELY send your money to Islamic madrassa schools and groups like HAMAS, HEZBOLLAH (PARTY OF GOD), AL QUAIDA, MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, et cetera, ad nauseum.
Sometimes you have to ignore free market ideology and look at the big picture. They want to use our money to kill us.
The Volt incentive is fully justified as harrmonious with our nationall interest. It’s also a better performing car. It’s also better environmentally–NOT CO2 or global warming… Smog, people, it’s still a problem that still is deleterious to many of our fellow Americans’ health.
Fellow Conservatives: consider the big picture, our national interest!
silverfox on July 31, 2010 at 3:06 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »