Will the Chevy Volt save the world?

[Javaman]

Please! It isn't even enough to save General Motors.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/22/news/companies/taylor_volt.fortune/index.htm

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Given the prolonged drum roll of publicity that accompanied the unveiling of the Chevrolet Volt electric vehicle last week, it isn't surprising that any number of onlookers got caught up in the enthusiasm. When people begin referring to it as a "game changer" and a "paradigm shift," it's time to inject a bracing dose of reality.

To put the Volt in perspective, it is an expensive, low-volume automobile that will have no visible impact on GM's market share, CAFÉ average or profitability. One cynic calls it "a Viper for tree huggers."

Start with the sales numbers. The best available estimates are that the Volt will sell for around $40,000 and that production volume will be in the "tens of thousands." That gives it more in common with a Cadillac sedan than a Chevy Cobalt. Nor will the Volt make any money. GM (GM, Fortune 500) executives concede that, given the cost of development, the first generation of Volt vehicles will not be profitable. This project isn't going to turn GM into a money spinner.

Second, although GM revealed what the Volt will look like last week, the car is far from ready for production. Developing the advanced lithium-ion batteries required to power the Volt and getting them ready for production is an enormous undertaking. No one has ever built auto-sized batteries of this description in significant quantities. Worse, GM has yet to sign a contract with whomever it is will supply the batteries. GM has promised to get the Volt into showrooms by November 2010, but it could be many months after that before significant numbers are available.

[rurallib]

1. Given the competition to bring a real electric vehicle to the market

I get the feeling the Volt will be too little too late and way too expensive.

[Terry in Austin]

6. Good point - "electric vehicle" vs. "electric car"

GM is just assuming the "car" paradigm, offering just another car with another kind of fuel.

They don't get it. We're under pressure to change the way we get around, not just change our "cars." To the extent that personal vehicles figure into the future transportation mix, electric vehicles of some kind do make the most sense -- but what doesn't make sense is to assume that they will be "cars."

Most people's notion of "car" is what we are familiar with -- a two-ton beast with excessive power from cheap fossil fuel, routinely achieving ridiculously high speeds that not only kills 50,000 people a year, but also sets toxic expectations about where we can live, work and shop.

This assumption needs to be challenged. Rather than try to fit the power-source to the vehicle, we need to fit the vehicle to the power source. Existing, inexpensive electric power technology is nicely suited for moving a light, affordable four-passenger vehicle at urban speeds over realistic distances.

Life at sixty miles per hour is not three times better than life at twenty miles per hour. "Twenty is plenty."

If we frame the issue as "electric vehicle" rather than "electric car," we'll make much better progress!

[CRF450]

14. "Life at sixty miles per hour is not three times better than life at twenty miles per hour."

Uh yeah it is when you live out in the country where I do.

[Terry in Austin]

17. How nice for you to be able to live in the country

I hope you'll be able to keep it up, because it will mean that you'll be able to afford the gas to support your chosen lifestyle. Good luck when it goes over $10 a gallon and gas lines are part of everyday life.

[CRF450]

21. Then create alternative fuels for those of us who want to keep our autos!

So we can maintain our lifestyles. I'm sorry but I am not moving into the city, I will live where its quiet, peaceful, rarely ever any crime, and where I can do whatever I want without constraints put in place by city ordinances or whatever people must abide by within city limits. And think of the housing market. Houses are shit loads more expensive in the city rather than way out in the country.

[Terry in Austin]

24. Best o' luck with that

Who wouldn't want to, after all? Like the man says, "It's good to be da king." As long as you still have a choice, heck, go for it.

You probably will be better off where it's quiet and peaceful -- and you can grow your own food. Just don't bet the farm that there's always going to be fuel -- alternative or otherwise -- at a price that's going to make those autos feasible for regular folks. Chances are, there's going to be a lot more hanging around the old homestead and a lot fewer trips into the big city.

So -- are ya feeling lucky?

[JohnWxy]

29. Ford's ethanol enabled direct injection turbocharged engine will get 25% to 30% better mpg and only

uses 5% ethanol and 95% gasoline. This year the ethanol produced was about 4% of the total fuel supply. Should be producing 5% of total fuel supply in a year or two (max).

Cost? this engine will cost about $600 to $1,000 more to produce. Ford plans on having them on the market in 2010.

By the way just about everybody is using some ethanol in your gas depending on what part of the country you are in. It's being used to replace MTBE.

Even though only about 4% of the fuel supply is being met by ethanol according to Francisco Blanch, Commodities Strategist for Merrill Lynch ethanol is keeping the price of gas about 15% LOWER than it would be if ethanol wasn't in the market (because o fsomething called te Demand elasticity for gasoline/petroleum - someting the OPEC oil ministers are very familiar with. This is why they monitor their production levels of crude so minutely. They know just a small increase in the supply of crude will cause the price of oil/gas to come down - significantly) That means at the top this summer instead of paying about $4.17 a gallon we would have been paying $4.67 a gallon.

Actually, I think it would not have gotten to $4.67. I think around $4.40s people would have so curtailed their buying except for food, housing and gas that we would have ground into a depression with millions of people out of work. Of, course that would have brought down the price of gas with the greatly deminished demand but that's a hell of way to do it. I'd rather use ethanol to bring down the price of gas and avoid a depression.

I know you have heard th e demand for corn to make ethanol has driven up the price of food but this is just hysteria. A study by the OECD (the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) attempted to show that Ethanol's demand for corn has driven up the price of food but the data they presented "showed" that Ethanol raised the price of food about 1% to 6% BUT that study (and actually ALL such studies) didn't consider that ethanol is bringing down the price of oil 15% (by providing some additional supply of fuel). Since petroleum products (gas diesel fuel, and chemicals) represent about 35% of the cost of farm comomodities ethanol therefor is lowering the cost of food products about 5.25%. So even at the high end of the OECD estimate of how much ethanol demand for corn raises the cos tof grains when you consider the fact that ethanol lowers the cost petroleum by about 15% the actual imapct on food prices is just about nil.

[kristopher]

30. You aren't concerned about global warming at all, are you?

[JohnWxy]

32. typically asinine question, from a childish mind. I can't change what people can afford. it would

be nice if GM could make 15 million Volts in two years and we all had the money to buy them but many people will not be able to afford a $37,500 car (actually MOST people can't afford a $37,500 car). And it will take more than 15,000,000 plug-ins to make a significant dent in the total gasoline consumed and several years to manufacture them. No amount of wishing will change that.

Peter Pan really can't fly. And it will take a couple decades before plug-ins will make a significant dent in the total gas consumed. In the mean time we better use every technique and technology we can think of to reduce our consumption of gasoline.

GTG.

[kristopher]

33. It was a direct question. Are you concerned about climate change?

[wuushew]

37. How can you post in an environmental forum when you own two cars?

A truck and high performance sports car?


Materialism is the cancer that is eating away at Amerika. We like our boats, big houses etc, but these all take resources to construct and maintain.


Where is the frugality, where is the thrift that was once more prevalent in this country? It is plain to me the Amerikan dream is in no way sustainable.


What is the point in having the car other than pleasure? Do you drive it enough that the fuel savings outweigh the purchase and ownership costs of driving the Dodge exclusively? Our vehicles should be tools not toys.



The numbers crunchers tell us most Amerikans are in debt, trading money and environmental capital for happiness.

[CRF450]

38. The truck, I need for work and utility purposes. The car, I bought because I like it.

And if you think about it, a HUGE majority of cars on the road dont average much better than mine which is around 22 or 23mpg and 31mpg was the best its ever gotten. Would you say anything different if I drove a Crown Vic? And get this, my dirtbike burns gas no faster than Honda Civic.

I'm all for better effeciency or going totally electric with autos. Current econo cars dont appeal to me at all, there slow, ugly, and they drive like shit. I can easily buy one right now, but I'm not gonna pay $500/month for another vehicle at this time, everything else I own is payed off. The Volt, I can actually consider buying, but time will tell till it hits the dealerships.

[TheWraith]

15. Come on out here and say that twenty is plenty.

I think that 20 minutes to get to the nearest store instead of 6-7 would change your mind fast. Likewise half an hour to get to a hospital.

[Terry in Austin]

16. Several years down the line

Living arrangements that are feasible now aren't going to stay that way forever. When gas is $10 and more, and not always available, living 15 or 20 miles from the nearest store might be a decision worth revisiting.

[TheWraith]

18. Great. Then you can grow your own vegetables in the windowbox.

People who talk about "walkable communities" and mass transit forget that those things are utter jokes outside of urban enclaves. Try coming out to farm country, to the scattered populations centers, to the real rural areas. Unless you just want to kick us all out and let the wolves have the country--and also abandon all large-scale farming--then you're going to have to adjust your plans.

There's a REASON that this country has 100 million cars, and contrary to certain opinions, it's NOT because we just like burning oil.

[Terry in Austin]

20. I'll even let you have a rutabaga, if you're nice

:)

Sad to say, burning oil to keep our cars going is not going to be a feasible option forever. Ten-dollar gas kind of puts a damper on Happy Motoring. And large-scale farming? Big problem.

:(

[greenman3610]

2. No the volt will not save the world. Think of it as the Apple 2 of the Electranet

Initially industry observers have taken the same tach as the author of the
article above - the volt won't work, too expensive, money loser, etc

But, what's happening is that the initiative has such power on the
imagination of the public, particularly in light of increasing gas
prices and concern over national security and environment, that
the other major auto makers are being pulled along.
Volkswagon, Toyota, and now, most interestingly, Chrysler.
Chrysler is promising 3 new electric or plug in vehicles, a sports car,
a Jeep wrangler, and a mini van, with the
possibility of electric versions of its entire line.
---
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080924/AUTO01/809240383

Chrysler is going a step further with talk of electrifying every vehicle in its lineup, something no other automaker has proposed.
Advertisement
"We're not talking about a car, we're talking about a full lineup of vehicles that will be electric," said Chrysler Chief Executive Bob Nardelli.

In test drives, the electric Wrangler and Dodge sports car, which still lacks a name, accelerated quickly and were silent on the road. The second-generation prototypes performed flawlessly.
----

biggest barrier to ev production is the cost of batteries.
with mass production, this will quickly fall, paving the way for
massive adoption of the technology.
As for the impact of this technology, Think internet explosion, times ten.

[Auggie]

3. Here we go again with the naysaying. Give GM a chance.

[DCKit]

7. Had they begun development while still a profitable company, it would be different.

As usual, the big three are lining up for a government handout to finance what they should have done themselves. The U.S. car companies have been pulling this same shit for decades.

It's too little, too late. The Asian car companies are going to kick our collective asses on this one.... again.

I can live with the fact that American corporations exist to make a profit for their shareholders. What I can't live with is the fact that they are far more interested in short term profits than long term survivability and have come to depend of the Fed to provide funding whenever they need to change their business model.

[Auggie]

12. You get no argument from me that GM has been one of the worst run,

wasteful, greedy and myopically run companies of the past 40 years. You have a point -- it may be too little, too late. But they're trying. They've seen the handwriting on the wall and it's do or die time. For the sake of our country I'll give them one more chance.

[FREEWILL56]

35. You have more confidence in GM than I do given

their past record on evs. Just watch 'Who Killed The Electric Car'. You are also talking about a company that started the big push for SUVs rather than fuel economic vehicles and soon saw other car companies joining in on that bandwagon with GM. In spite of the GM claims, the demand for the SUVs wasn't all that good and now they have difficulty selling them as they need to bring us deals on them to rid themselves of their overproduction stocks of them. Gee, I wonder why they're not selling? Didn't the people get the message this is what they wanted on our commercials?:wtf: :banghead:

[kirby]

13. Give Bush a chance! He really has changed!

Seriously, I mean come on, based on their track record with the EV-1, the fact that their CEO is still a Global Warming denier and doesn't really believe in the product, their lack of green products in the production pipeline and their short sighted planning everyone should be very very skeptical. Did you see his lame interview with Colbert the other night? Colbert says something like 'Is this car hot? Will it help me pick up the ladies'. A great shot for Lutz to say Hell Yeah and show a picture of it. Instead he said something about it will attact plain looking environmentist ladies who dont like to use makeup or something similar.

Considering it takes several model years for 'bugs' to be worked out of a new car, this vehicle wont even be practical for the mass market until 2012. I have a feeling their will be other better options before that.

[roscoeroscoe]

4. i've been working on a related project

and of course, it's a good metaphor to call it the apple 2. it's a step along the way. very good step, to be encouraged, and of course long overdue. but we want to see every little baby step we get! come on detroit!

really, they're working like devils on alternate energy vehicles. even chrysler. look up the california clean air project for info on hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, look up betterplace.com for info on their electric car project.

there's lots of stuff happening!

[ElectricGrid]

5. No but an overall move toward and ele car offering

will. Look, nearly every major car maker is working on an ele plug in car. Someone will get it right and make a ton of money with it.

[kristopher]

8. The author is typical

The author is typical of the short-sighted, nose-buried-in-next-quarter's-profit-sheet corporate mentality that has so handicapped US car makers in the changing energy environment.

He is an idiot that doesn't understand the infrastructure changes mandated by an energy constrained landscape.

As to remarks about leaving cars behind - that isn't going to happen. Other nation's have responded in the past by developing around rail transport. We can't get there from here in the time frame that is dictated by rising energy prices. If EVs were not a viable solution to our dispersed lifestyle, then the economics would eventually push us to spend the massive sums needed to develop rail and abandon the huge quantity of suburban and rural houses that now shelter us.

It is idiocy to think that such an demographic shift would be undertaken when a renewable infrastructure with EV for personal transport is a demonstrated viable alternative.

http://www.wecansolveit.org/

[Greyskye]

9. You really seem to hate this car.

2nd negative article posted in as many days. What's the beef? :shrug:

[DainBramaged]

22. America haters, Union haters, change haters, godless Toyothondanissan lovers

Their lives are empty, so they bash what they can never have.

[Terry in Austin]

25. Ooooh! A twentieth-century visionary

Do tell us how full our lives can be, if only we acquire the right kind of car.

:eyes:

[DainBramaged]

26. Go stick your head in a blender

[Terry in Austin]

27. And would that be set on "whip" or "puree?"

:)

[DainBramaged]

28. Crush!

:hi:

[tinrobot]

10. The first MacIntosh was underpowered and expensive

It was also done in a rush to change the fortunes of a troubled company.

That computer completely changed people's view of how computers worked. It changed the paradigm and forced every other manufacturer to steal ideas from it.

I think the Volt will perform a similar function. It may have limited range and be expensive, but it will change the way people view automobiles. People will start moving away from the pump and towards the plug. It's inevitable.

[kristopher]

11. Well stated. nt

[codjh9]

19. $40,000? That won't cut it.

[Indenturedebtor]

23. No it wont. But cars like this will get cheaper

First editions always cost a fortune. I'm surprised it's not 80k.

Plus this vehicle is still wedded to gasoline. that's a lot of extra weight and components. WIth increases in battery technology, etc, the next gen should get cheaper and better.

[JohnWxy]

31. This will take some time. It could take two decades before plug-in hybrids have a significant

impact on total gas consumption. Now, you have to make some assumptions such as how many miles per gallon the plug-in users get (on the average), and how many units are sold the first year and how much annual growth in sales they achieve but this speadsheet allows you to test various assumptions and see how long it takes to get to a given fraction (entered by thert user) of the total gasoline consumption is saved by the plug-in hybrids (including, hopefully, the Volt).

The spreadsheet at the link allows you to enter a starting price too. I started with a $37,500 price tag. As you can see from the spread sheet if you assume 100,000 units sold the first year, with a 20% per year growth in sales and the Volt (or all plug-ins) getting 100 mpg (on the average) at teh star and finishing up with 433 mpg - it will take 19 years to save 3% of the total gas consumption and require 15,000,000 volts or plug-in hybrids (at cost of $217 Billion - not inflated and allowing for some 23% cost reduction). To save 20% of te htotal gas consumptin it will take 29 years and 104 million plug-ins.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=160775

as the post at the link says you can vary the assumptions to see how it changes your results. If you go with 30% annual growth in sales it changes the years to reach 3% savings of total gas consumption in 15 years, for example. There is a table on the left side of the window split (wich you can move over to make right side bigger) which shows times to reach 20%, 30%, 50% savings (and more). Even at 30% annual growth in sales it takes 25 yrs to get to 50% (of total gas consumed) savings.

This just shows it takes time to build up enough cars on the road to make a significant impact on the total gasoline consumed. Not everybody goes out and buys a new car every year and not everybody can afford a $37,000 (or more) car either. This slows the process down.

[kristopher]

34. EPRI disagrees with you.

They made a conservative estimates in 2006 that by 2023 50% of all new vehicles sold will be electric, and at that time 25% of vehicles on the read will be electric.

Their timeline posits 2010 as initial market introduction, sales accelerating through 2015 with "widespread adoption" by 2020.

About the Electric Power Research Institute

The Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. (EPRI, www.epri.com) conducts research and development for the global electricity sector. An independent, nonprofit organization, EPRI brings together experts from academia and industry as well as its own scientists and engineers to help address challenges in electricity generation, delivery and use, including health, safety and the environment. EPRI also provides technology, policy and economic analyses to drive long-range research and development planning, and supports research in emerging technologies. EPRI's members represent more than 90 percent of the electricity generated and delivered in the United States, and international participation extends to 40 countries. EPRI's principal offices and laboratories are located in Palo Alto, Calif.; Charlotte, N.C.; Knoxville, Tenn.; and Lenox, Mass

http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=210&&PageID=781&mode=2&in_hi_userid=2&cached=true



Please stop peddling that twaddle you are calling a "forecast". It is junk.

[Dover]

36. No, but the $25 Billion bailout they just got certainly should save their butts and

provide them with what they need to live long enough to run themselves into the ground again in another few years. How many bailouts is that for GM? Are they any more deserving than the banks who want to be bailed?