Chevy Volt
- Thread starter TahoeHorn
- Start date
MaduroUTMB
2,500+ Posts
The resale value of any car with a battery and a non-transferable battery warranty is roughly zero. That's important, particularly given:
accuratehorn
10,000+ Posts
It may be a great commuter car, and I hope it is, but it is misleading in some ways to advertise the mpg of a primarily electric vehicle, because it is running off something other than gasoline, which still costs money to produce-and could be made entirely from burning fossil fuels at an electric plant.
Still, an interesting car, and may be the way of the future.
Still, an interesting car, and may be the way of the future.
NEWDOC2002
1,000+ Posts
The new CEO touts the cost for a "fill-up" based on electricity at 5 cents per kilowatt hour. I think I paid that little in 1988 for electricity. Try 10-12 cents per kilowatt hour. With real world numbers it will cost about $1.00 in electricity for that 40 mile run. Not bad, but not earth shattering either.
What happened to hydrogen? The volt is not revolutionary. It's Governmental Motors a day late and a dollar short. The Japanese are going to blow this car away in the next few years.
What happened to hydrogen? The volt is not revolutionary. It's Governmental Motors a day late and a dollar short. The Japanese are going to blow this car away in the next few years.
Hydrogen is still a quarter century away, minimum, so don't hold your breath. Nobody is going to buy this car because it's cost effective, and the people that would pay the premium to be seen driving green aren't going to have a bowtie on their car.
My best guess is that this another in a long line of flops designed to show that the car companies are trying to do something, however they also all appear to be designed to fail to give talking points as to why they aren't doing more.
My best guess is that this another in a long line of flops designed to show that the car companies are trying to do something, however they also all appear to be designed to fail to give talking points as to why they aren't doing more.
MaduroUTMB
2,500+ Posts
Golden Steer
250+ Posts
What are the benefits and challenges of hydrogen fuel?
Benefits - zero point source pollution - no CO2, no CO, no nothing.
Good power for transportation (comparible to gasoline).
Drawbacks - production of H2 is very energy intensive. Simpest method is eletrasis of water, which takes a lot of energy, as water, being a polar molecule, does not break up easily. Reserch is being done for possible catalysts that make make it eaiser.
Plenty of pollution at H2 proudction site, but foolish chumps will close their eyes to that and thing they're saving the planet by driving an H2 car (see Hybrid self-delusion).
H2 is a gas at all but close to 0 K, so low energy density compared to a liquid - low mileage range.
Diffiuclt to fuel a vehicle with gas - needs a more complicated connection from sale tank to vehicle tank that for a liquid.
Poential explosion danger in accidents. Gasoline only explodes at a 10 to 1 or more fuel/air mixture, so no explosions during wrecks, despite what you see in movies. H2 may explode if the tank is rupured and a spark ignites the fuel.
No fuel distribtuion nextwork - would require gas carriing transport trucks, and high pressure gas tanks to be installed at gas stations.
Don't hold your breath for H2. Electric cars with better batteries, and modular batteries that can be swapped out for fully charged ones at fuel stations is a more probable future transport method.
But gasoline with still be the major transportation fuel for the next 20-30 years.
Benefits - zero point source pollution - no CO2, no CO, no nothing.
Good power for transportation (comparible to gasoline).
Drawbacks - production of H2 is very energy intensive. Simpest method is eletrasis of water, which takes a lot of energy, as water, being a polar molecule, does not break up easily. Reserch is being done for possible catalysts that make make it eaiser.
Plenty of pollution at H2 proudction site, but foolish chumps will close their eyes to that and thing they're saving the planet by driving an H2 car (see Hybrid self-delusion).
H2 is a gas at all but close to 0 K, so low energy density compared to a liquid - low mileage range.
Diffiuclt to fuel a vehicle with gas - needs a more complicated connection from sale tank to vehicle tank that for a liquid.
Poential explosion danger in accidents. Gasoline only explodes at a 10 to 1 or more fuel/air mixture, so no explosions during wrecks, despite what you see in movies. H2 may explode if the tank is rupured and a spark ignites the fuel.
No fuel distribtuion nextwork - would require gas carriing transport trucks, and high pressure gas tanks to be installed at gas stations.
Don't hold your breath for H2. Electric cars with better batteries, and modular batteries that can be swapped out for fully charged ones at fuel stations is a more probable future transport method.
But gasoline with still be the major transportation fuel for the next 20-30 years.
MaduroUTMB
2,500+ Posts
Good post, Gold; that's what I was hoping for. The people who trumpet H2 as a fuel storage molecule generally do so because they also ignore the source of the energy stored therein.
I would point out that the explosion risk is almost nothing with new tank designs Further, the low volumetric energy density is solvable, albeit with monstrous compression (~700 bar). New electrolytic catalysts are getting close to acceptable efficiency in electricity to H2 and O2, but the compression is still a killer. I have often wondered if electrolysis in a deep trench, where the pressure approaches 700 bar naturally, might be a way to make H2 production practical.
I would point out that the explosion risk is almost nothing with new tank designs Further, the low volumetric energy density is solvable, albeit with monstrous compression (~700 bar). New electrolytic catalysts are getting close to acceptable efficiency in electricity to H2 and O2, but the compression is still a killer. I have often wondered if electrolysis in a deep trench, where the pressure approaches 700 bar naturally, might be a way to make H2 production practical.
53 Veer Pass
100+ Posts
Hydrogen will also leak where damn near nothing else will and is explosive (not just combustible) in an extremely wide range of concentrations in air. It's used as rocket fuel for good reasons.
The idea of a typical person owning a hydrogen powered car scares the crap out of me.
The idea of a typical person owning a hydrogen powered car scares the crap out of me.
Golden Steer
250+ Posts
I hadn't thought about H2 leaks, but yes, being the least dense molecule must make it very hard to contain. I wonder if it's even sealable with rubber O rings, or if you have to go to M2M (metal to metal) seals. If so, add lots of $$$ to any H2 system.
Then imagine your average Okie doffus poping the hood to fill up his wiper fluid, cig in mouth, saying hi to a collected pocket of H2 gas.
Other potential H2 production methods are to strip the carbon from methane and use the H2 remaining. I don't see any energy differences between that any just using methane as the actual fuel, but it would earn cudos with the GW crowd.
Transportation fuel isn't a scientific problem - just build lots of nuclear reactors, and use the electricy to power cars similar in size to the Smart car, with modular batteries that you can either charge up, or switch out while on a trip.
The problem is in giving up the Truckosauses, and building the nuke plants.
Then imagine your average Okie doffus poping the hood to fill up his wiper fluid, cig in mouth, saying hi to a collected pocket of H2 gas.
Other potential H2 production methods are to strip the carbon from methane and use the H2 remaining. I don't see any energy differences between that any just using methane as the actual fuel, but it would earn cudos with the GW crowd.
Transportation fuel isn't a scientific problem - just build lots of nuclear reactors, and use the electricy to power cars similar in size to the Smart car, with modular batteries that you can either charge up, or switch out while on a trip.
The problem is in giving up the Truckosauses, and building the nuke plants.
Uninformed
5,000+ Posts
they anticipate the cost being 40k and they CEO has already admitted they will have to subsidize it. I.e. it is just another expensive, money losing car with a limited market. Hybird cars are really for those who like to think they are doing something useful, but do not realize there is virtually no benefit to those cars over high mileage gasoline engines that burn incredibly clean.
hornpharmd
5,000+ Posts
Electric cars are going to be an imortant part of the landscape in years to come so I think it is an important step to start getting these on the market in larger numbers again. It will be interesting to see what the Ford version, etc, will look like when they hit the market in upcoming years.
I do think one of the big problems though is you have some people driving these hybrids that get 75 mpg and then a bunch of other people driving these gas guzzlers that get less than 15 mpg. There is a real need to get off the dependence of foreign oil....the electric car again is a step in the right direction but there are other things such as mileage standards that can help achieve that as well.
I do think one of the big problems though is you have some people driving these hybrids that get 75 mpg and then a bunch of other people driving these gas guzzlers that get less than 15 mpg. There is a real need to get off the dependence of foreign oil....the electric car again is a step in the right direction but there are other things such as mileage standards that can help achieve that as well.
Electric cars are the future- and hybrids are the bridge to that future. There are some posts here calling the Volt a nail in the coffin of GM, or not economic. You guys are the same guys who doubted T Edison with his light bulb and utility ideas. You guys would have made fun of Sprint and AT&T about their new invention called the cell phone- which at one time was a money loser, very expensive and needed some subsidies.
To put in layman's terms- indeed think of the electric car like the cell phone in 1989. Michael Douglas in the movie wall street, in the back of his limo- carrying a brick sized status symbol to make a phone call. Luckily for electric cars we have brands like the Tesla and Fisker Karma- which if you google them will blow you away.
No other solution, other than the perpetually 30 years away hydrogen fuel cell, offers domestic powered transportation that does not subsidize oil rich sheiks and their questionable ties to Al Qaeda.
911, You think the Volt is bad for needing a little help to get started? Look who our oil money is subsidizing. I am just glad I will get to see this electric car evolve into our new mode of transportation during my lifetime. Batteries will improve, ranges will lengthen and costs will come down- just like every other major technological innovation.
To put in layman's terms- indeed think of the electric car like the cell phone in 1989. Michael Douglas in the movie wall street, in the back of his limo- carrying a brick sized status symbol to make a phone call. Luckily for electric cars we have brands like the Tesla and Fisker Karma- which if you google them will blow you away.
No other solution, other than the perpetually 30 years away hydrogen fuel cell, offers domestic powered transportation that does not subsidize oil rich sheiks and their questionable ties to Al Qaeda.
911, You think the Volt is bad for needing a little help to get started? Look who our oil money is subsidizing. I am just glad I will get to see this electric car evolve into our new mode of transportation during my lifetime. Batteries will improve, ranges will lengthen and costs will come down- just like every other major technological innovation.
Golden Steer
250+ Posts
Uh no.
1. The light bulb was an amazing invention, that created light without needing to either refuel or run a gas line. The cell phone allowed making a phone call without wires. An electric car does the same thing a gasoline powered car does, at higher cost, lower range, and less performance.
2. Electric cars are not zero emission, merely zero point source emission. The electricity, not being able to be produced off the electric tree, still needs to be created somewhere, most likely using either gas or coal fired plants. Unless you want to turn the SW into one big solar panel, solar doesn't have enough capacity to power 300 million cars puttering around if they replace gasoline cars.
3. Unless you build a bunch of nuke plants, which isn't going to happen. So you're left with merely a big waste of energy. Instead of either running cars off natural gas or coal gas, you turn that energy into electricity, lose most of it, then lose more from transmission lines, and in the car itself. Buy you can feel good about yourself and how you're saving the planet, and that's what the electric car is really about.
4. The idea that electric car = no foreign oil = no money for Al-Qaeda = them not being able to fit murderers with nail vest and blow up buses has too many = to be true. The jihadists need very little money to blow up buses and fruit stands, and plenty of Arabs have plenty of money to fund these murders. Besides, if the Arab world ran out of money then we'd hear how we needed to give them foreign aid to "bring them out of the trap of poverty and terrorism".
5. The whole point, as stupid as it sounds, for the Volt isn't to actually make money on it. It's to sell enough high MPG cars, at as little a loss as possible, so you're allowed under fleet standards to make and sell the vehicles that people want to buy, and that you can make money on.
6. In summary, the Volt is going to be a car, designed and made by the same executives and union workers that ran GM into bankruptcy in the first place, that few will buy, will be sold at a loss per car to GM and make them lose money, losses that will be paid for by the taxpayer, in an attempt to sell enough to be allowed to make the SUV's that might make GM profitable.
The Volts that are sold will be plugged into a power grid that uses gas or coal to make the electric, which along with the methods used to make the batteries, result in an overall increase in CO2 emissions per mille than a gas car.
What's not to love?
1. The light bulb was an amazing invention, that created light without needing to either refuel or run a gas line. The cell phone allowed making a phone call without wires. An electric car does the same thing a gasoline powered car does, at higher cost, lower range, and less performance.
2. Electric cars are not zero emission, merely zero point source emission. The electricity, not being able to be produced off the electric tree, still needs to be created somewhere, most likely using either gas or coal fired plants. Unless you want to turn the SW into one big solar panel, solar doesn't have enough capacity to power 300 million cars puttering around if they replace gasoline cars.
3. Unless you build a bunch of nuke plants, which isn't going to happen. So you're left with merely a big waste of energy. Instead of either running cars off natural gas or coal gas, you turn that energy into electricity, lose most of it, then lose more from transmission lines, and in the car itself. Buy you can feel good about yourself and how you're saving the planet, and that's what the electric car is really about.
4. The idea that electric car = no foreign oil = no money for Al-Qaeda = them not being able to fit murderers with nail vest and blow up buses has too many = to be true. The jihadists need very little money to blow up buses and fruit stands, and plenty of Arabs have plenty of money to fund these murders. Besides, if the Arab world ran out of money then we'd hear how we needed to give them foreign aid to "bring them out of the trap of poverty and terrorism".
5. The whole point, as stupid as it sounds, for the Volt isn't to actually make money on it. It's to sell enough high MPG cars, at as little a loss as possible, so you're allowed under fleet standards to make and sell the vehicles that people want to buy, and that you can make money on.
6. In summary, the Volt is going to be a car, designed and made by the same executives and union workers that ran GM into bankruptcy in the first place, that few will buy, will be sold at a loss per car to GM and make them lose money, losses that will be paid for by the taxpayer, in an attempt to sell enough to be allowed to make the SUV's that might make GM profitable.
The Volts that are sold will be plugged into a power grid that uses gas or coal to make the electric, which along with the methods used to make the batteries, result in an overall increase in CO2 emissions per mille than a gas car.
What's not to love?
MaduroUTMB
2,500+ Posts
We will never find a renewable way to live in suburbs and take our own card down town to work. The good news is that we have never needed to.
The need isn't for new technology to enable our ridiculous patterns of transportation; it's for drastic changes in the ways that we waste energy. Suburban areas should not exist, anywhere.
The need isn't for new technology to enable our ridiculous patterns of transportation; it's for drastic changes in the ways that we waste energy. Suburban areas should not exist, anywhere.
Uh, excuses won't do it Golden Steer
1) Just finished reading a bio on Edison. Amazing how folks told him the light bulb was not economic and feasible. Ditto to electric cars. You miss what e-cars do that others can't. Domestic energy. No pollution. Efficiency increased by 40%. Lowered costs. Less parts. Less Maintenance. Umm, it's better.
2) Emissions are lower even if the electricity was supplied solely by a coal plant. Why? Because so much less energy is wasted on an electric motor than an ICE. Luckily, the avg, outlet is only 40% coal, and getting cleaner with each passing year lately. There is a lot of research supporting this. IM me your email and I'll fwd you some if you like.
3) No idea what you mean here. If anything trillions of kwhrs are saved because gas isn't being burned to idle at stop lights- only energy is being consumed for the car where needed, not "in case." And, look up the efficiency of an ICE vs. an electric car.
4) Al Qaeda receives one third of their funding today from Saudi Arabia- fact. The Bin Laden family was wealthy from oil- fact. Sorry, but I'd rather these folks be poor like the Africans than rich and funding questionable sources.
5) Umm no- the point will be to make money too- and they will. In fact, Tesla just announced they made a profit in July- a much more sophisticated electric car. You need to have patience that lasts beyond a few months to let things become profitable. As battery prices reduce, and they will, so will the profitability. If its 2014 and these cars are still losing money- ok that is not good.
6) Uf you were right, why was the Expedition line killed? Why is Hummer being sold to Chinese groups? Why is the Explorer being redone from the tire up to become more efficient? Why is the Ford Escape Hybrid one of the best selling SUVs? Sorry, you're just wrong. SUV sales are down big time, compacts, diesels and hybrids are replacing them. You can still drive one if you like, just sayin.
I think luckily for us, technology is coming on quickly. We've seen the same exact financial story before with the first computers, cell phones, and yes even Edison's lightbulb. There are always naysayers who are skeptical and like what they have.
1) Just finished reading a bio on Edison. Amazing how folks told him the light bulb was not economic and feasible. Ditto to electric cars. You miss what e-cars do that others can't. Domestic energy. No pollution. Efficiency increased by 40%. Lowered costs. Less parts. Less Maintenance. Umm, it's better.
2) Emissions are lower even if the electricity was supplied solely by a coal plant. Why? Because so much less energy is wasted on an electric motor than an ICE. Luckily, the avg, outlet is only 40% coal, and getting cleaner with each passing year lately. There is a lot of research supporting this. IM me your email and I'll fwd you some if you like.
3) No idea what you mean here. If anything trillions of kwhrs are saved because gas isn't being burned to idle at stop lights- only energy is being consumed for the car where needed, not "in case." And, look up the efficiency of an ICE vs. an electric car.
4) Al Qaeda receives one third of their funding today from Saudi Arabia- fact. The Bin Laden family was wealthy from oil- fact. Sorry, but I'd rather these folks be poor like the Africans than rich and funding questionable sources.
5) Umm no- the point will be to make money too- and they will. In fact, Tesla just announced they made a profit in July- a much more sophisticated electric car. You need to have patience that lasts beyond a few months to let things become profitable. As battery prices reduce, and they will, so will the profitability. If its 2014 and these cars are still losing money- ok that is not good.
6) Uf you were right, why was the Expedition line killed? Why is Hummer being sold to Chinese groups? Why is the Explorer being redone from the tire up to become more efficient? Why is the Ford Escape Hybrid one of the best selling SUVs? Sorry, you're just wrong. SUV sales are down big time, compacts, diesels and hybrids are replacing them. You can still drive one if you like, just sayin.
I think luckily for us, technology is coming on quickly. We've seen the same exact financial story before with the first computers, cell phones, and yes even Edison's lightbulb. There are always naysayers who are skeptical and like what they have.
If anyone likes, PM me your email address. I'll email you some research. Or, a simple google search will show you the same thing.
Keep in mind our generation is getting only cleaner, not dirtier- so the numbers only improve. Problem with ICEs is only 35% of their energy is converted to movement of the car or things like the AC. With electrics, it's around 80-90%. That's a big difference. ICEs waste energy through heat, noise, friction and simple inefficiencies. In fact I read where the typical ICE has about 8,000 parts vs. an electric car with about 2,000. Obviously, which one of the two takes less energy and maintenance to run?
There is no comparison as to which technology is superior.
Keep in mind our generation is getting only cleaner, not dirtier- so the numbers only improve. Problem with ICEs is only 35% of their energy is converted to movement of the car or things like the AC. With electrics, it's around 80-90%. That's a big difference. ICEs waste energy through heat, noise, friction and simple inefficiencies. In fact I read where the typical ICE has about 8,000 parts vs. an electric car with about 2,000. Obviously, which one of the two takes less energy and maintenance to run?
There is no comparison as to which technology is superior.
OrangeHair
250+ Posts
MaduroUTMB
2,500+ Posts
Clear Lake Horn
25+ Posts
THEU
2,500+ Posts
a couple of quick thoughts.
Does anyone here really believe it is possible much less plausible that people will just abandon suburbs? Seriously. Do you know what % of the American population live in what would be considered suburban areas? Also, how high would energy costs have to go before someone would break even to move into a city with MUCH higher property prices, which also means higher property taxes?
I don't see America being entirely remade based on energy.
The question has also been raised with regards to where will we get all of the added, and needed electric power to refuel our cars? California, and other areas of the country have massive blackouts and rolling brownouts etc, when it gets hot in the summer. Now you want to add all the cars in California to that same grid? Obviously the entire grid would have to be redone, and how many power plants added? Nuclear would be the ONLY option and people aren't going to go for that.
Also, why do you say that hydrogen fuel cells are 30 years away from being on the road. What do you call the Honda Clarity? Granted, I'm not saying that car is perfect, and there are MASSIVE infrastructure and production issues with hydrogen as well. I am not claiming it to be a perfect solution. It seems I have seen that hydrogen produced on a massive scale would be $2 to $3 a 'gallon' which is about what petrol is now. It also seems that because it could be produced here the costs would be far less volitile due to the areas in which it would be produced. You could drive, pull into a station, refuel, and drive... etc. This is how we live today.
Does anyone here really believe it is possible much less plausible that people will just abandon suburbs? Seriously. Do you know what % of the American population live in what would be considered suburban areas? Also, how high would energy costs have to go before someone would break even to move into a city with MUCH higher property prices, which also means higher property taxes?
I don't see America being entirely remade based on energy.
The question has also been raised with regards to where will we get all of the added, and needed electric power to refuel our cars? California, and other areas of the country have massive blackouts and rolling brownouts etc, when it gets hot in the summer. Now you want to add all the cars in California to that same grid? Obviously the entire grid would have to be redone, and how many power plants added? Nuclear would be the ONLY option and people aren't going to go for that.
Also, why do you say that hydrogen fuel cells are 30 years away from being on the road. What do you call the Honda Clarity? Granted, I'm not saying that car is perfect, and there are MASSIVE infrastructure and production issues with hydrogen as well. I am not claiming it to be a perfect solution. It seems I have seen that hydrogen produced on a massive scale would be $2 to $3 a 'gallon' which is about what petrol is now. It also seems that because it could be produced here the costs would be far less volitile due to the areas in which it would be produced. You could drive, pull into a station, refuel, and drive... etc. This is how we live today.
OrangeHair
250+ Posts
Not to mention that people moving back into the city would further drive up property values.
OrangeHair
250+ Posts
Mcbrett, yes the electric motor is ~90% efficient but the power plant that makes the electricity is only ~40% efficient (similar but better than the ICE) so the overall efficiency drops down quickly. You also need to consider losses during transmission and loss during charging the batteries (battery gets hot = loss).
The Link
I don't necessarily think the numbers provided are exactly correct but it is clear an electric car is more efficient but only by 1.5 or 2 times.
The Link
I don't necessarily think the numbers provided are exactly correct but it is clear an electric car is more efficient but only by 1.5 or 2 times.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Controversial opinions
- Started by Driver 8
- Replies: 675
- Quackenbush's
-
The Bible was created by man
- Started by Crockett
- Replies: 90
- Quackenbush's
-
Random ignorant comments
- Started by Chop
- Replies: 3
- Quackenbush's
-
Happy Mother’s Day
- Started by Dionysus
- Replies: 6
- Quackenbush's
-
Reflections on Reaching Age 80
- Started by HornHuskerDad
- Replies: 14
- Quackenbush's
-
Eclipse 2024
- Started by Dionysus
- Replies: 36
- Quackenbush's
-
PSA
- Started by SabreHorn
- Replies: 12
- Quackenbush's
Prediction Results Threads
