Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Well, if the government was raking in the cash, and taxes were low, I don't think anyone would have a problem with it.
I'm all for tax breaks, as apposed to subsidies. If they want to give a "subsidy" by saying the farms don't have to pay any taxes, I'm all for that.
I just don't like it when essentially, charity becomes the responsibility of the government, rather than the individual.
Huh?? So do you agree with the farm subsidies or don't you?
IP: Logged
05:03 PM
naskie18 Member
Posts: 6258 From: Commerce Twp, MI, USA Registered: Jun 2002
(a) I don't know why you'd expect CR to say anything good about a domestic vehicle.
(b) Hybrids don't make economic sense, but that's not the point. They're "green", so to apply logic to them is a waste of time, they're good and trucks like mine are bad and there can be no further discussion on this point.
(c) GM doesn't (and hasn't ever, even before bankruptcy) expected the Volt to be profitable in the short term. However, the production of the Volt should lead to better ways to produce/apply the components/manufacturing processes required, in the end driving down costs, just like everything else that goes into production. How expensive were flat panel monitors 10 years ago? Did they make economic sense? Now you probably can't find a CRT to buy even if you wanted to.
The Volt does two very important things: Gets people talking about GM (see, here we are doing it) and (in theory) gets people into GM dealers, just like any other niche vehicle; and it will eventually help to decrease costs for the technology used in it.
------------------ Nick www.naskie18.com GoogleTalk: naskie18 AIM: naskie18
[This message has been edited by naskie18 (edited 03-01-2011).]
IP: Logged
06:13 PM
Scottzilla79 Member
Posts: 2573 From: Chicago, IL Registered: Oct 2009
Consumer Reports is awful. VOlt doesn't make economical sense but they recommend the Prius, and various other hybrids which don't make any economical sense either.
IP: Logged
07:33 PM
NEPTUNE Member
Posts: 10199 From: Ticlaw FL, and some other places. Registered: Aug 2001
Everybody in the Media wants the Volt to be "The Car That Saved GM." It won't be. We know that. When the dollars are totalled up ( and that's all that matters), the new CAMARO will be the "The Car That Saved GM"!
I bet they're making money on every one the sell, and selling every one they can build. Same for Corvettes.
IP: Logged
10:09 PM
naskie18 Member
Posts: 6258 From: Commerce Twp, MI, USA Registered: Jun 2002
Everybody in the Media wants the Volt to be "The Car That Saved GM." It won't be. We know that. When the dollars are totalled up ( and that's all that matters), the new CAMARO will be the "The Car That Saved GM"!
I bet they're making money on every one the sell, and selling every one they can build. Same for Corvettes.
While the Camaro looks great and is selling well, I bet you're still wrong and the real surprising savior is the Equinox/Terrain, which have both been selling surprisingly well since launch..heck, they sold more Terrains in February than Camaros, and the Equinox sold over double that. Sure, they're not as exciting as the Camaro....but they're selling well in a segment GM has historically had trouble in.
IP: Logged
10:30 PM
carnut122 Member
Posts: 9122 From: Waleska, GA, USA Registered: Jan 2004
I haven't read the article, but all of the enthusiast mags gave it rave reviews. It occurs to me that the early adopters might be those same enthusiasts. Gearheads and "tinkerers". There may be some quirks that the enthusiasts are more willing to put up with.
Yep, the same Consumer Reports that named Toyota one of the three most reliable brands(after it was the most recalled brand of 2010). To me, that says it all.
While the Camaro looks great and is selling well, I bet you're still wrong and the real surprising savior is the Equinox/Terrain, which have both been selling surprisingly well since launch..heck, they sold more Terrains in February than Camaros, and the Equinox sold over double that. Sure, they're not as exciting as the Camaro....but they're selling well in a segment GM has historically had trouble in.
Well, if it helps GM, I'm happy to be wrong. I want my money back! Not just as a taxpayer, but I used to own "old" GM stock in one of my 401K's. HA! Bye-bye $$$$$!
But I guess this is like an "amicable divorce". You wish the other party well, but you'll NEVER go near them again.
IP: Logged
10:37 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
E85 is horrible in many other ways, not the least of which is raising the cost of food to the point that the average person has to strain to afford it, or making a product that was once plentiful on the verge of being imported. All brought to us by Government subsidies proving it's not a viable solution to our fuel problem.
Brad
Oh, I agree. It helps with one problem, but creates problems of it's own. E85 itself isn't bad - it's how we make it. We need to come up with a better bio-alternative than corn, and it will only truly make economic sense once oil prices are high enough to make Ethanol cheaper without subsidies. The good thing is the subsidies in place are getting our infrastructure able to make use of it. But if oil hits $200 a barrel and stays there - which it will one day - ethanol becomes a much more attractive option. That may not be for a while, and hopefully by then we've found a better source for creating it than food.
I don't know the circles of friends that you hang out with, but I do not know many INTELLEGENT middle income earners dropping $80K for an SUV or any car. During my earning years the most expensive car I purchased was about 30% of my annual income. That was probably my 87 GT.
That's right, you don't know my circle of friends, but that's ok, I don't know yours, and in any case it's not relevant. However, I do look on the roads around me and see lots of 80K SUVs. And Mercs. And BMWs. Fact of the matter is, based on what I see on the roads there are lots of people who can afford to blow real-estate prices on vehicles that wear out and will eventually wind up in a crusher. Is it dumb to spend that much on a car when a 25k or even 15k car will do the same job? I guess that's a matter of perspective and opinion more than anything. I think it is, but then again, I couldn't do it anyway. FWIW, the most expensive car I purchased was the only new car I ever bought, in highschool. Since then the most I've paid for a daily driver was $1,200. I haven't made a car payment since 1983.
Now back to the Volt, what this topic is nominally about. It doesn't appear to be a bad car, it's just being marketed poorly. If my income was sufficient I'd buy one for sure, just like I'd have leased an EV-1 if it'd been available in my area, or bought one of the Rav4 EVs. More importantly, I think that it is a technology leader, just like the first gas-powered cars were. If GM has the will to stay on this path I think it will pay off well in the long term. This is our chance to wrest the automotive technology leadership role back for the first time in years, if not decades.
IP: Logged
10:02 AM
PFF
System Bot
Isolde Member
Posts: 2504 From: North Logan, Utah, USA Registered: May 2008
Oh, I agree. It helps with one problem, but creates problems of it's own. E85 itself isn't bad - it's how we make it. We need to come up with a better bio-alternative than corn, and it will only truly make economic sense once oil prices are high enough to make Ethanol cheaper without subsidies. The good thing is the subsidies in place are getting our infrastructure able to make use of it. But if oil hits $200 a barrel and stays there - which it will one day - ethanol becomes a much more attractive option. That may not be for a while, and hopefully by then we've found a better source for creating it than food.
We already found a better way than using food, it's called sawgrass. It grows where corn won't, doesn't require petroleum-intensive fertilizers and machinery to grow and harvest, is very drought-tolerant so doesn't require water supplies like corn does. However, it's been politically stigmatized since Gore is a proponent of it so development of it is being atrophied. There is not enough land available in all this nation to grow enough corn to make enough ethanol to keep us supplied at current rates of gasoline consumption, not even close, but as long as ADM lobbiests pour millions into promoting corn for ethanol that's what we're stuck with.
I expect to see oil hit $1,000 per barrel in my lifetime, perhaps $500-600 in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars.
Only way Id buy an electric car is if its price compatable with a motorcycle or I move to a downtown condo.
E85 saves you a few cents at the pump to use up to 30% more of it than you would gasoline. Ya like that makes great sense. Ive seen stuff that says the E85 gets 10-30% less gas mileage than gas. Its still not great if it falls at the 10% level.
If you want to feel good that your saving oil, go buy one if you want. Its a free country. Just remember an oil or coal fired powerplant is having to crank out the power to recharge it in most cases.
Big SUVs are what killed the US manufacturers in the first place 3 years ago. Gas is getting close to that magic $4 @ gallon where people unload all those gas hogs in droves, just like they did the last time. If anyone is boosting their sales in their minds selling them now , theyre going to be in for another rude awakening...apparently they didnt learn anything before.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 03-02-2011).]
IP: Logged
11:05 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
the Volt is supposed to be a flexable platform to make adoption of newer tech (specicfly, batteries & fuel cells) easier which I hope would also mean a reasonable price reduction yearly
I'm seeing these things on the road, tho not as many as Prius's.
IP: Logged
11:21 AM
Marvin McInnis Member
Posts: 11599 From: ~ Kansas City, USA Registered: Apr 2002
We already found a better way than using food, it's called sawgrass. It grows where corn won't, doesn't require petroleum-intensive fertilizers and machinery to grow and harvest, is very drought-tolerant so doesn't require water supplies like corn does.
As an engineer, I've been involved with alternative energy research for 40 years, and I'm still skeptical about cultivated biofuels. Biofuels derived from agricultural and municipal waste are another matter, but that's not what we're talking about here.
Beyond the food issue, cultivated biofuels have two significant issues that aren't often considered: water requirement and soil depletion. For a stark example of what soil depletion means, visit northern and northeastern New Mexico some time. Large areas of what was a vast, lush grassland 200 years ago is now marginal scrub desert. Using range management techniques developed only recently, some of the grasslands are slowly coming back but it's going to take hundreds of years to reverse the damage from a few decades of soil depletion due to overgrazing. Soil depletion renders it useless for future food production, possibly forever.
There are no easy choices. What we need is not one solution for all of our energy needs, but 50 solutions, each of which satisfies 2% of our needs. There is no silver bullet.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 03-02-2011).]
....I do look on the roads around me and see lots of 80K SUVs. And Mercs. And BMWs. Fact of the matter is, based on what I see on the roads there are lots of people who can afford to blow real-estate prices on vehicles that wear out and will eventually wind up in a crusher.
I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of these vehicles are leased, (as will likely be the case with the Volt) which is why you see so many of them tooling around.
If it was a still a "buy only" world I would think you would see alot less of them. (Although people do goofy things when it comes to their perceived status.)
[This message has been edited by FrugalFiero (edited 03-02-2011).]
As an engineer, I've been involved with alternative energy research for 40 years, and I'm still skeptical about cultivated biofuels. Biofuels derived from agricultural and municipal waste are another matter, but that's not what we're talking about here.
Beyond the food issue, cultivated biofuels have two significant issues that aren't often considered: water requirement and soil depletion. For a stark example of what soil depletion means, visit northern and northeastern New Mexico some time. Large areas of what was a vast, lush grassland 200 years ago is now marginal scrub desert. Using range management techniques developed only recently, some of the grasslands are slowly coming back but it's going to take hundreds of years to reverse the damage from a few decades of soil depletion due to overgrazing. Soil depletion renders it useless for future food production, possibly forever.
There are no easy choices. What we need is not one solution for all of our energy needs, but 50 solutions, each of which satisfies 2% of our needs. There is no silver bullet.
I agree whole heartedly. One of the main reasons I'm for EV isn't performance or "green-ness", etc. Mainly I want to see EVs become mainstream because they open up our choices from where to get the energy to move butts around. With gasoline and diesel the choice is pretty simple: imported oil with all the baggage that comes with it. With EV predominant we can get the energy from anything that can create a surplus electron condition. Wave energy, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, wind, Peltier-thermal, etc, all can power the same electric car. EV also has the side effect of being far more efficient in terms of energy used per butt-mile moved. I honestly believe that freeing ourselves from fossil fuel energy is the key to surviving as a species long term. Like you said, there is no silver bullet, there never was.
I wouldn't count GM out just yet. According to Fortune Magazine Online, GM's profits were up 49% last quarter. That was the best of ANY major auto maker, including Toyota, Honda and Ford. That is, of course, relative to where they were a year ago....which was in the crapper.
Their cars sales aren't their "bread & butter" anyway. Light duty trucks still rule the roost.
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 03-02-2011).]
IP: Logged
06:34 PM
Isolde Member
Posts: 2504 From: North Logan, Utah, USA Registered: May 2008
I wouldn't count GM out just yet. According to Fortune Magazine Online, GM's profits were up 49% last quarter. That was the best of ANY major auto maker, including Toyota, Honda and Ford. That is, of course, relative to where they were a year ago....which was in the crapper.
Their cars sales aren't their "bread & butter" anyway. Light duty trucks still rule the roost.
Damn right. But is it a case of keeping up with the Joneses? I suspect this is all female buyers, and half of male buyers. Or, is it the TORQUE? I prefer to believe this drives half of male buyers.
IP: Logged
06:49 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Internal combustion engines are relatively inefficient at converting on-board fuel energy to propulsion as most of the energy is wasted as heat. On the other hand, electric motors are more efficient in converting stored energy into driving a vehicle, and electric drive vehicles do not consume energy while at rest or coasting, and some of the energy lost when braking is captured and reused through regenerative braking, which captures as much as one fifth of the energy normally lost during braking. Typically, conventional gasoline engines effectively use only 15% of the fuel energy content to move the vehicle or to power accessories, and diesel engines can reach on-board efficiencies of 20%, while electric drive vehicles have on-board efficiency of around 80%.
Internal combustion engines are relatively inefficient at converting on-board fuel energy to propulsion as most of the energy is wasted as heat. On the other hand, electric motors are more efficient in converting stored energy into driving a vehicle, and electric drive vehicles do not consume energy while at rest or coasting, and some of the energy lost when braking is captured and reused through regenerative braking, which captures as much as one fifth of the energy normally lost during braking. Typically, conventional gasoline engines effectively use only 15% of the fuel energy content to move the vehicle or to power accessories, and diesel engines can reach on-board efficiencies of 20%, while electric drive vehicles have on-board efficiency of around 80%.
You have to include the efficiency of the power plant you get your electricity from, the losses in distribution, and the losses in putting it into, and taking it out of, your battery.
Comparing engine efficiencies directly is like comparing electric motor efficiency to drivetrain losses.
IP: Logged
09:56 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
You have to include the efficiency of the power plant you get your electricity from, the losses in distribution, and the losses in putting it into, and taking it out of, your battery.
Comparing engine efficiencies directly is like comparing electric motor efficiency to drivetrain losses.
I should have added that electric drive in cars is dependent on battery storage. We need far better batteries to make electric cars more useful and practical. In that way, the gasoline engine works much better, at least for now.
Not looking great for their stock either. General Motors (GM), which went to great lengths to proclaim a success for themselves and the taxpayer when they went public (IPO) at $33/share in November 2010--now sees their company valued now at $32.88/share.
IP: Logged
10:31 PM
ryan.hess Member
Posts: 20784 From: Orlando, FL Registered: Dec 2002
Originally posted by fierobear: We need far better batteries to make electric cars more useful and practical.
We don't need better batteries. Today's technology does quite well. Look at the Tesla roadster. It has a range of 200 miles - which is damn near gasoline-equivalent. The issue and achilles heel that is preventing mainstream adoption is cost. The Tesla battery pack is $36,000.
We DO need much better batteries. The Tesla does 200 miles under ideal conditions. How far will it go at night in a snowstorm? Sure as heck not 200 miles. And recharge time measured in hours is totally unacceptable.
IP: Logged
10:44 PM
Mar 3rd, 2011
Wichita Member
Posts: 20657 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
I think what is keeping Electric vehicles from moving mainstream is the cost of the batteries (rare earth metals are becoming very scarce), and the infrastructure needed to make it through the masses.
Plugging it in an outlet will take forever. Special electric connections for your home to plug in electric vehicles cost money. Charging stations need to be out there also, much like gasoline stations.
It will take time, but I foresee a future when gasoline engines are a thing of the past.
IP: Logged
01:55 AM
PFF
System Bot
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
We don't need better batteries. Today's technology does quite well. Look at the Tesla roadster. It has a range of 200 miles - which is damn near gasoline-equivalent. The issue and achilles heel that is preventing mainstream adoption is cost. The Tesla battery pack is $36,000.
We do need better batteries, but the technology is improving. One drawback is capacity, although 100 miles or so between charges would be great for a lot of commuters. The real problem, as you mentioned, is cost. The initial cost is quite high, and those batteries will need replacing after a few years.
IP: Logged
02:14 AM
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
You have to include the efficiency of the power plant you get your electricity from, the losses in distribution, and the losses in putting it into, and taking it out of, your battery.
Comparing engine efficiencies directly is like comparing electric motor efficiency to drivetrain losses.
Fixed source efficiencies are much higher than mobile source. A typical power plant is far more efficient at generating usable energy than any internal combustion mobile source could be, mainly because size and mass aren't issues with a fixed power plant. Full end to end needs to be figured, but it shouldn't overshadow the benefit of being able to utilize a wide variety of energy sources, many of which don't require importing fuel (solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, photovoltaic, natural gas, wave, downhole Peltier, etc.). To me, and I've been saying this for longer than the 8 years I've been on this forum, becoming self-sufficient in energy is the only way we can survive as a nation. Anything that moves us toward that is a plus in my book, and EV for routine commuting is right smack dab in the middle of that. IMHO it's critical enough that without it we have no hope of achieving the goal of energy independence.
IP: Logged
10:25 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by JazzMan: IMHO it's critical enough that without it we have no hope of achieving the goal of energy independence.
That might be correct. The problem is, until the EV is more flexible and usable to a wider range of people, we will be stuck in a conundrum of needed to get away from oil but not having an alternative.
IP: Logged
10:35 AM
ryan.hess Member
Posts: 20784 From: Orlando, FL Registered: Dec 2002
We DO need much better batteries. The Tesla does 200 miles under ideal conditions. How far will it go at night in a snowstorm? Sure as heck not 200 miles. And recharge time measured in hours is totally unacceptable.
All of those problems can be solved with changes in the infrastructure. If gas stations started to carry "battery exchanges", range and charge time would be a non-issue. Both would be solved with a 5 minute battery exchange. If you can go 200 miles on a battery, and there is always a gas station within 20 miles of you, no problem, right?
[This message has been edited by ryan.hess (edited 03-03-2011).]
I should have added that electric drive in cars is dependent on battery storage. We need far better batteries to make electric cars more useful and practical. In that way, the gasoline engine works much better, at least for now.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:
That might be correct. The problem is, until the EV is more flexible and usable to a wider range of people, we will be stuck in a conundrum of needed to get away from oil but not having an alternative.
Electric cars today would meet the needs of 90% of the commuting public with existing battery technologies such as SLA, LiIon, and LiFo. The vast majority of commuter miles driven are single-butt less than 30 miles each way each day.
However, the best use of an EV would be as a primary vehicle for daily commuting with a secondary multipurpose vehicle for tasks such as moving large families, towing boats, and long road trips. I don't think EVs would make a good sole vehicle in the household unless one were to realign their needs to more closely match the capabilities of EVs. With regards to addition electrical demand caused by EVs, new electrical demands from housing, business, and apartment building construction completely dwarfs even the most optimistic projections for EV/plug-in adoption, by orders of magnitude.
[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 03-03-2011).]
IP: Logged
10:50 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
All of those problems can be solved with changes in the infrastructure. If gas stations started to carry "battery exchanges", range and charge time would be a non-issue. Both would be solved with a 5 minute battery exchange. If you can go 200 miles on a battery, and there is always a gas station within 20 miles of you, no problem, right?
That could be workable, but will require HUGE amounts of infrastructure to be created. If the government does it, we're talking huge spending and therefore huge taxes. The private sector won't do it unless it's a slam dunk, which will require government backing, which leads back to the previous premise.
All of those problems can be solved with changes in the infrastructure. If gas stations started to carry "battery exchanges", range and charge time would be a non-issue. Both would be solved with a 5 minute battery exchange. If you can go 200 miles on a battery, and there is always a gas station within 20 miles of you, no problem, right?
For various reasons a battery exchange program won't be viable. Batteries are too expensive, long-range packs will be fairly heavy and hard to handle, and there will be issues with scams, known but hidden defects, etc. This doesn't even deal with the fact that all of the major manufacturers with competitive electrical designs will somehow have to agree to a common battery interface standard, otherwise each "station" would have to stock multiple expensive batteries of different fitments. It looks good on paper but only if there's only one kind of car on the road.
IMHO the battery exchange idea, at least on a public basis as opposed to an owner having multiple packs at home, is a non-starter.
