The great leap forward in technology that is the Chevy Volt

[Little-Acorn]

Before you start getting too upset at paying $40,000 for a car with 40-mile range and cramped seating, you can at least be proud of being on the cutting edge of high technology.

Or can you?

----------------------------------------

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/14/114-year-old-electric-car-gets-same-40-miles-to-the-charge-as-chevy-volt/

[Little-Acorn]

Actually, the author probably would have done better to write about the Nissan Leaf, which is all-electric like the Roberts, though with a poorer view.

The Volt has both electric and gasoline motors. You can go about 40 miles on the electric, whereupon the gas engine starts up and you drive with that, sort of like a Toyota Corolla but with poorer gas mileage from then on.

And the Volt at least has an interior space heater, which neither the Roberts nor the Nissan Leaf do. :D

[logroller]

I saw a volt at the county fair last month, on display at a pg&e booth-- pretty snazzy. Asked the guys there about it, charging costs etc. They knew no details, only that they raise electric car owners' household baselines. Maybe its just because its a new program. 40 miles would be ample for my or my wife's use, but lacking the cost specifics, I was unpersuaded on the benefit.

[Little-Acorn]

I saw a volt at the county fair last month, on display at a pg&e booth-- pretty snazzy. Asked the guys there about it, charging costs etc. They knew no details, only that they raise electric car owners' household baselines. Maybe its just because its a new program. 40 miles would be ample for my or my wife's use, but lacking the cost specifics, I was unpersuaded on the benefit.

Chevy Volt has a 300 mile range, doesn't it?

First 40 miles on the electric motor, then the rest on the internal gasoline engine.

Once you switch over to the gasoline engine, can it recharge its electric batteries as you drive? Or do you have to wait until you stop for the night and plug it in?

I know you can recharge by plugging it in... but is that the ONLY way you can recharge?

Nissan Leaf, OTOH, has batteries ONLY. It has no gasoline engine, no gas tank, no exhaust pipe or gasoline filler door. You drive it as far as it will go on its batteries... then you have to get out and walk.

Nissan Leaf is advertised as having more than a hundred miles range, I believe. But that is under ideal conditions. People in Minnesota in the winter report getting maybe 30 miles out of it before it dies, when the temps are below -10F or so.

A $40,000 car that will restrict me to 30 miles range under some conditions, is completely useless to me. Why on Earth would anyone buy such a thing?

[Noir]

Having a wee hoke about it they do seem very cheap;


But what, exactly, is that charging time going to cost? Sure, it'll be cheaper than a gallon of gas, but is your electric bill going to go through the roof when you park your green grocery-getter in the garage?

Nope, it won't. Plug In America estimates that it will cost $2 to $4 to fully charge an all-electric car. For that price, the EVs that will be hitting the market soonest, like the Nissan LEAF, will travel about 100 miles (160.9 kilometers). Of course, your mileage may vary -- in a couple of ways. The cost of electricity in your city will affect that price, and the way you drive your EV will affect how many miles you get per charge.

That said, let's do a little math. In Portland, Ore., where electric cars are gaining ground and the local utility is providing charging infrastructure, electricity runs about 6 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). The new Mini E, which is still in field trials, uses .22 kWh per mile, which translates to 22 kWh for 100 miles (160.9 kilometers) of driving. And in Portland, 22 kWh will cost $1.32.

Just to compare, the 2011 Mini Cooper that runs on gasoline gets 31 miles per gallon (49.9 kilometers per gallon) combined, according to the EPA, which translates to 3.2 gallons (12.1 liters) per 100 miles 160.9 kilometers). And if a gallon of gas is about $2.70, as AAA says it is today, then that same 100 miles (160.9 kilometers) would cost $8.64 in a Mini with an internal combustion engine instead of a Mini with a bank of batteries.

http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tech-transport/how-much-does-it-cost-to-charge-an-electric-car.html

[Psychoblues]

My wife has a Toyota Prius. It's only about 6 months old but we are so tickled with it. I am the one that usually drives it on trips and I get a very consistent 52 mpg. It appears that it gets a similar mpg around town. You never plug it in. The car is not small as it sits 5 adults comfortably and 4 adults very comfortably. It has a large covered storage area behind the rear seat. I paid just over $20,000 for my unit brand new. It's relatively well loaded with most of the bells and whistles, even the custom pearl white color that is simply gorgeous under any lights. It's quiet as a mouse. My wife, her sister and I went to Atlanta from Memphis, Tn. last month. 440 miles one way. The car was pretty loaded up with us and the luggage but we were very comfortable. I filled up in Memphis and again in Atlanta. It took 6 gallons and 6 gallons again back in Memphis. We love the car and only wish that Chevy or GMC would build one that would compete. I would buy it in a heart beat.

Psychoblues

[ConHog]

Chevy Volt has a 300 mile range, doesn't it?

First 40 miles on the electric motor, then the rest on the internal gasoline engine.

Once you switch over to the gasoline engine, can it recharge its electric batteries as you drive? Or do you have to wait until you stop for the night and plug it in?

I know you can recharge by plugging it in... but is that the ONLY way you can recharge?

Nissan Leaf, OTOH, has batteries ONLY. It has no gasoline engine, no gas tank, no exhaust pipe or gasoline filler door. You drive it as far as it will go on its batteries... then you have to get out and walk.

Nissan Leaf is advertised as having more than a hundred miles range, I believe. But that is under ideal conditions. People in Minnesota in the winter report getting maybe 30 miles out of it before it dies, when the temps are below -10F or so.

A $40,000 car that will restrict me to 30 miles range under some conditions, is completely useless to me. Why on Earth would anyone buy such a thing?

In most cases when you are running on gasoline in the Volt, what you are actually doing is using gasoline to allow the electric motor to produce electricity. Only under hard acceleration does the gas motor drive the vehicle directly. That coupled with regenerative braking allows for the 300 mile range. So yes the battery IS recharged by the gasoline motor , but not at a rate that is equal to what the vehicle is consuming so eventually you lose charge and the gas motor runs out of gas to recharge it.

[Nukeman]

If our going electric this is the car to have.....


http://www.teslamotors.com/models

[Psychoblues]

If our going electric this is the car to have.....


http://www.teslamotors.com/models

You got that right, Nukeman. I wish Tesla Motors every ounce in my body for everything it's namesake and the company deserves. They are FANTASTIC!!!!!!!!!

Psychoblues

[Nukeman]

You got that right, Nukeman. I wish Tesla Motors every ounce in my body for everything it's namesake and the company deserves. They are FANTASTIC!!!!!!!!!

PsychobluesThey're coming out with a SUV this winter and a mid-size family car in a year or two that will be much more affordable.

Personally i believe that our govt need to do a "Manhatten Project" type of program for batteries. Bring the best and brightest. The battery packs are the items that will change our concept of electric vehicles. If you have switchable battery packs that are smaller and you can charge one and drive while having one in reserve will increase your distance and less likely to get stranded somewhere..

[Kathianne]

Seems the folks that make Duracell or Energizer should spend the R & D dollars to make better batteries, not the government.

As for the Volt and US investments to tackle the unemployment issues:

http://www.detnews.com/article/20110928/AUTO01/109280321/1148/GM-considers-building-Volt-in-China--praises-U.S.-hands-off-policy




<tbody>
September 28, 2011
http://detnews.com/article/20110928/AUTO01/109280321

</tbody>
GM considers building Volt in China, praises U.S. hands-off policy

DAVID SHEPARDSON
/ Detroit News Washington Bureau
New York—General Motors Chairman and CEO Dan Akerson said Tuesday the Detroit automaker may assemble its extended-range Chevrolet Volt in China, if Chinese consumers embrace the vehicle.



At a Bloomberg News forum, Akerson said the automaker plans to export the vehicle to China from its Detroit Hamtramck Assembly plant and then decide whether to assemble it in China, where buyers would be eligible for up to $19,000 in Chinese government subsidies.



"We're going to export into China for probably a year or two and see if it gets a take … if customers set the right usage patterns," Akerson said. "If it does, we may manufacture it there."



He said neither the Chinese government or GM's Chinese partner had pressured the company to share the Volt's technologies. But he said GM didn't want to build the Volt — which has a back-up gasoline engine — in China at this time "for a variety of reasons," declining to elaborate.



Akerson has pushed GM to quickly ramp up production of its Volt in Detroit.



GM is jointly working with its partner SAIC on a battery electric vehicle for China, which requires foreign automakers to partner with Chinese companies.



"We don't invent everything ourselves," Akerson said, laying out a new GM view. "We either build, buy or we partner."



The company launched a $100 million venture capital fund last year — GM Ventures — to invest in promising auto technologies.



GM's directors last week held their first ever board meeting in China, where GM is the largest automaker, through its joint ventures. By 2025, China will be 40 percent of the luxury market, GM predicts.



GM plans to build Cadillacs in volume in China by next year.




"We want to be producing Cadillacs in China — not exporting to China," Akerson said.
GM isn't sitting on its lead in China.



"We have a lot of competition there," Akerson said. "Instead of standing still, we're bringing new product in."



Akerson cited estimates that annual Chinese auto sales could increase by 13 million vehicles during the next decade — as much as total U.S. auto sales.



"This is where you want to be strong," he said...

[Psychoblues]

They're coming out with a SUV this winter and a mid-size family car in a year or two that will be much more affordable.

Personally i believe that our govt need to do a "Manhatten Project" type of program for batteries. Bring the best and brightest. The battery packs are the items that will change our concept of electric vehicles. If you have switchable battery packs that are smaller and you can charge one and drive while having one in reserve will increase your distance and less likely to get stranded somewhere..

Great. Tesla, the REAL father of all alternating current electrical systems and components in the United States and worldwide, would be proud. The government has already done most of the Manhattan Project of which you speak. It's part of NASA and now the Russians have most of it. Like about all of modern day technology R & D the USofA government has either done it directly or paid for it. It's part of living in the USofA in the 20th and 21st centuries. God Bless The USA.

Psychoblues

[Nukeman]

Seems the folks that make Duracell or Energizer should spend the R & D dollars to make better batteries, not the government.

As for the Volt and US investments to tackle the unemployment issues:

http://www.detnews.com/article/20110928/AUTO01/109280321/1148/GM-considers-building-Volt-in-China--praises-U.S.-hands-off-policyAltough I agree with you kath.. the facts remains that for those companies it doesn't make sense for them to make a durable, easily rechargeable, and very slow discharge battery. It would break them. They are after all about "DISPOSABLE" batteries.

If they were to make a battery that could recharge in less than an hour and get 300 mile range on a charge and could be replaced by hand in a car that could carry a couple of spares to go on a long trip they would be out of business.

Any company that makes a better battery is going to put people out of business, that is why it needs to be a govt initiative. They should be the ones that have NO money at stake in success... Only the betterment or the common good... That is what they are there for isn't it the common good of the community...??

This is ONE area I feel the govt is lacking in support of our country, this is ONE area that could benefit EVERYONE and should be a primary research program of the govt....

[fj1200]

Any company that makes a better battery is going to put people out of business, that is why it needs to be a govt initiative. They should be the ones that have NO money at stake in success... Only the betterment or the common good... That is what they are there for isn't it the common good of the community...??

It's still going to put people out of business. Your assumption that the government can get it done just because is false IMO. That also assumes that cars running around on battery power alone is the better alternative. I don't think that has been proven at this point.

[Nukeman]

It's still going to put people out of business. Your assumption that the government can get it done just because is false IMO. That also assumes that cars running around on battery power alone is the better alternative. I don't think that has been proven at this point.That is WHAT I said. The reason it needs to be initiated by the govt is due to fact that they shouldn't have a stake in one company over another.. That is why I said that. The companies that rely on disposable batteries have no profit in developing a quick recharge, slow dispersion of power, and easily interchangeable. It will either be from a new company or a govt backed research.. So why not just start a large project to bring the brightest and best to do just that. John Glenn stated in 1987 what would it take to change our dependence on global oil and he said than "better batteries".

[Kathianne]

Altough I agree with you kath.. the facts remains that for those companies it doesn't make sense for them to make a durable, easily rechargeable, and very slow discharge battery. It would break them. They are after all about "DISPOSABLE" batteries.

If they were to make a battery that could recharge in less than an hour and get 300 mile range on a charge and could be replaced by hand in a car that could carry a couple of spares to go on a long trip they would be out of business.

Any company that makes a better battery is going to put people out of business, that is why it needs to be a govt initiative. They should be the ones that have NO money at stake in success... Only the betterment or the common good... That is what they are there for isn't it the common good of the community...??

This is ONE area I feel the govt is lacking in support of our country, this is ONE area that could benefit EVERYONE and should be a primary research program of the govt....

Not necessarily or even likely true. Just the premise that cars would be manufactured in massive numbers puts a lie to that. Then there are all the new products we can't even dream of today-nanotech being one.

[fj1200]

That is WHAT I said. The reason it needs to be initiated by the govt is due to fact that they shouldn't have a stake in one company over another.. That is why I said that. The companies that rely on disposable batteries have no profit in developing a quick recharge, slow dispersion of power, and easily interchangeable. It will either be from a new company or a govt backed research.. So why not just start a large project to bring the brightest and best to do just that. John Glenn stated in 1987 what would it take to change our dependence on global oil and he said than "better batteries".

My apologies if I misread that but it still doesn't hold that government involvement can get it done just because one company has no advantage. Why don't we just start a project? Because that's not the role of government. And why the insistence on "disposable battery" companies, just about every automaker in the world would throw money at any better battery mousetraps so they can gain advantage for themselves. There are plenty of "bests and brightests" out there without government money.

Also, I happen to disagree with John Glenn. Batteries don't create energy, they store it; Where did he suggest we create that energy? If you really want to change our dependence you should defund highway construction.

[ConHog]

If the government REALLY wanted to make this happen. Here is what they would do.

Simply have a contest to see who can build an alternative to the ICE that is comparable in reliability, power, affordability, and range all the while being able to achieve mileage that is equivalent to double what we are currently averaging.

The winning solution garners the designer $10M tax free.

That's really all the involvement the government need have (if that much even, which is debatable)

[Psychoblues]

If the government REALLY wanted to make this happen. Here is what they would do.

Simply have a contest to see who can build an alternative to the ICE that is comparable in reliability, power, affordability, and range all the while being able to achieve mileage that is equivalent to double what we are currently averaging.

The winning solution garners the designer $10M tax free.

That's really all the involvement the government need have (if that much even, which is debatable)

If the estimated R&D costs were only the $10M of which you speak the technology would have been here long ago. That and much more has already been spent many times over by a number of battery research entities. Nukeman is correct. We need a Manhattan style project to make this happen and that is not going to happen in anyone's garage or small business. It is going to take a a large government commitment or another entity that accepts the proposition of the common good being superior to profit expectations. We have a number of examples of that in our history. Also, as I said earlier in this conversation, I believe the most of the R&D has already been done by NASA and others associated with the space programs worldwide. If we could harvest that knowledge I think we could go a long way towards solving the energy dependence problems that we face.

Psychoblues

[Nukeman]

Also, I happen to disagree with John Glenn. Batteries don't create energy, they store it; Where did he suggest we create that energy? If you really want to change our dependence you should defund highway construction.Actually he was way ahead of his time. If the power can be stored it can be generated in a NUMBER of ways. One big hurdle with wind is the storage of power on NON-windy days.. That is where batteries come into play the same could be said for cloudy vs sunny days for solar. Its all about the storage of the power. We can generate a bunch of power that is wasted because once produced if not used it's lost... If the battery technology is there to capture any and all extra power production than we have NO WASTE. That in and of its self will reduce our dependence.

[Psychoblues]

Actually he was way ahead of his time. If the power can be stored it can be generated in a NUMBER of ways. One big hurdle with wind is the storage of power on NON-windy days.. That is where batteries come into play the same could be said for cloudy vs sunny days for solar. Its all about the storage of the power. We can generate a bunch of power that is wasted because once produced if not used it's lost... If the battery technology is there to capture any and all extra power production than we have NO WASTE. That in and of its self will reduce our dependence.

Exactly spot on, Nm.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

Simply have a contest to see who can build an alternative to the ICE that is comparable in reliability, power, affordability, and range all the while being able to achieve mileage that is equivalent to double what we are currently averaging.

The winning solution garners the designer $10M tax free.

Or, now stay with me, they could patent the thing and make billions. But that's just me.

[fj1200]

Actually he was way ahead of his time. If the power can be stored it can be generated in a NUMBER of ways. One big hurdle with wind is the storage of power on NON-windy days.. That is where batteries come into play the same could be said for cloudy vs sunny days for solar. Its all about the storage of the power. We can generate a bunch of power that is wasted because once produced if not used it's lost... If the battery technology is there to capture any and all extra power production than we have NO WASTE. That in and of its self will reduce our dependence.

Granted but I had to modify part of your post. That also ignores the capital costs of creating those batteries.

[logroller]

Chevy Volt has a 300 mile range, doesn't it?

First 40 miles on the electric motor, then the rest on the internal gasoline engine.

Once you switch over to the gasoline engine, can it recharge its electric batteries as you drive? Or do you have to wait until you stop for the night and plug it in?

I know you can recharge by plugging it in... but is that the ONLY way you can recharge?

Nissan Leaf, OTOH, has batteries ONLY. It has no gasoline engine, no gas tank, no exhaust pipe or gasoline filler door. You drive it as far as it will go on its batteries... then you have to get out and walk.

Nissan Leaf is advertised as having more than a hundred miles range, I believe. But that is under ideal conditions. People in Minnesota in the winter report getting maybe 30 miles out of it before it dies, when the temps are below -10F or so.

A $40,000 car that will restrict me to 30 miles range under some conditions, is completely useless to me. Why on Earth would anyone buy such a thing?

Quite right; my statement was in comparison to the next best (non-plugin) alternative-- ie Prius. I mean, what's the point of a plug in if it is, in a practical sense, an overpriced hybrid. Where's the advantage to the personal consumer, cost/benefit-wise? I think that's why hybrids never really took a foothold (Porsche developed a hybrid a hundred years ago) until regenerative braking (among other technologies) made up for the inherent energy losses of personal cars and ICE. Same thing with plug-ins IMO, the technology has to deliver a real benefit-- for example, taking advantage of the higher efficiency of electric generation over that of ICE. In comparison, assuming a internal combustion engine gets ~20% of the energy from gasoline, which is generous; while electric generation/distribution delivers at about 50% (again, being generous) -- it boils down to a mathematical formula to establish a payback period. Not to mention the external costs associated with the process, as I believe the costs associated with the whole process are greatly misrepresented-- I mean, just look at the costs associated with bringing a gallon of gas to the market-- its mindblowing-- and likely to increase as the costs of bringing new extraction technologies on-line, fracking, oilsands etc, drive the costs of fossil fuels higher. So I have to look first at the direct costs for sure, like you said, why on Earth would anyone buy such a thing; but to be fair in comparison, I have to look at all the associated costs which are masked by government subsidies and regs, which I certainly pay for, just not directly. 30-40 miles per charge would suffice for 90% of my driving, so I could use an electric car for most of travels, and just keep a 'gas hog' on hand for that 10%.


Altough I agree with you kath.. the facts remains that for those companies it doesn't make sense for them to make a durable, easily rechargeable, and very slow discharge battery. It would break them. They are after all about "DISPOSABLE" batteries.

If they were to make a battery that could recharge in less than an hour and get 300 mile range on a charge and could be replaced by hand in a car that could carry a couple of spares to go on a long trip they would be out of business.

Any company that makes a better battery is going to put people out of business, that is why it needs to be a govt initiative. They should be the ones that have NO money at stake in success... Only the betterment or the common good... That is what they are there for isn't it the common good of the community...??

This is ONE area I feel the govt is lacking in support of our country, this is ONE area that could benefit EVERYONE and should be a primary research program of the govt....

I buy "rechargeable" batteries from duracell, and you can (and should) recycle chemical batteries after they're no longer productive-- so they not necessarily disposable. But I understand your point; which is people aren't willing to pay very much out of pocket; preferring savings now, over savings later. There are some pretty irreconcilable differences in what it takes to bring such a product to market-- govt doesn't change that, it just has deeper pockets. We're still trying to dispose of thousands of tons of highly radioactive waste the "best and the brightest" produced in haste during the manhatten project; so those costs aren't covered automatically because govt funds development. More to the point, we have the technology for better 'batteries' (e.g. H fuel cells), but the materials and electronic controls necessary to take advantage of those technologies cost more than the market will bear; as are the external environmental costs of the production itself, which we, the public, end up bearing regardless-- but that is hard concept to convey to someone struggling financially to fill their gas tank with an already highly taxed income. Of course, there's the under-investment in mass transit as well; as culturally, we have a love-affair with personal transport-- and electric cars don't fit well with our car-nation constitution.

[ConHog]

Or, now stay with me, they could patent the thing and make billions. But that's just me.


The government could ? I suppose you're right, they COULD, but how much would the government spend to develop it versus what private enterprise would? They can't even build an office building on time and within budget.

[fj1200]

The government could ? I suppose you're right, they COULD, but how much would the government spend to develop it versus what private enterprise would? They can't even build an office building on time and within budget.

Are we on the same page? The investor could. You correctly identify the fallacy of government creating a "Manhattan Project" to find the next best thing.