GM admits that the Volt is not an electric vehicle

[txlibdem]

Despite GM making up the term E-REV (Extended-Range Electric Vehicle) specifically for the Volt we now find out (thanks to Motor Trend) that the internal combustion engine in the Volt actually does drive the wheels under certain situations.

Until today, talking about whether the internal combustion engine (ICE) in the 2011 Chevrolet Volt should have a direct mechanical connection to the wheels was an interesting thought experiment. Sure, there were hints and patents that suggested that the ICE could drive the wheels, but General Motors kept saying its "extended range electric vehicle (ER-EV)" was just that: an electric car with a gasoline-powered generator on board. Guess what?

GM has now confirmed, late in the game, that the Volt can, in some situations, use the ICE to power the wheels. This came to light after Motor Trend was allowed to test the car for three long drives and discovered:

However of particular interest, when going above 70 mph in charge sustaining mode, and the generator gets coupled to the drivetrain, the gas engine participates in the motive force. GM says the engine never drives the wheels all by itself, but will participate in this particular situation in the name of efficiency, which is improved by 10 to 15 percent.

This is exactly the opposite of what GM has been saying for years – most recently in June, when GM spokesman Rob Peterson told AutoblogGreen that there was no mechanism in the Volt to drive the wheels even if the engineers wanted too. Or, at least, that's what we heard.

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/10/11/gm-yes-the-volts-gas-engine-can-power-the-wheels/

[BrklynLiberal]

1. oops.

[Schema Thing]

2. gigantic non-issue ahead.

[GKirk]

6. I would have to

agree. A question I have is why is an electric car more economical than a gasoline powered one? It seems to me that electric powered anythings are always more costly than alternative fueled ones. For instance you would never heat with electric if you had any other choice.

[gateley]

9. I'm more focused on the lack of emisssions than cost.. nt

[GKirk]

11. Transferred placement of emissions...

...would be more correct. If the Volt was operating in my neighborhood the emissions would now be coming from the mouth of the Saginaw River where the coal fired generator is located.

[txlibdem]

14. My electric company allows me to choose to get my power from renewable sources

It might be an option where you live, too.

Or you could put a few solar panels on your roof and drive on the rays of the sun...

[gateley]

18. I'm not following - Do you mean that a coal generated factory would

be producing the batteries?

[wtmusic]

26. There would, however, be less of them.

A car powered by 100% coal-generated electricity is still cleaner than the same car powered by an internal combustion engine.

And while your ICE car gets dirtier as it gets older, an electric car gets cleaner as its source of power gets cleaner.

[DrGregory]

35. WRONG WRONG WRONG

A car powered by 100% coal-generated electricity is still cleaner than the same car powered by an internal combustion engine.
---------------------------

An electric car is actually dirtier with a natural gas fueled power plant
because of all the losses between power plant and car.

However, coal is REALLY dirty - because you put MORE CO2 into the atmosphere
per unit energy generated than you do with natural gas.

If memory serves, it's about a factor of TWO!!

You NEVER win with coal - you should believe your own logo.

Dr. Greg

[wtmusic]

41. Nonsense.

"The Efficiency Advantage of EVs and Power Plants

EVs recharging from fossil-fueled power plants such as coal and oil have unique efficiency advantages over ICE vehicles. As a system, EVs and power plants are twice as
efficient as ICE vehicles and the system that refines gasoline. See Table 4. Although there are losses associated with generating electricity from fossil-based fuels, EVs are significantly more efficient in converting their energy into mechanical power."

http://www.evdl.org/docs/powerplant.pdf

Line losses are included in this assessment.

[TheWraith]

48. It's useful to make a distinction between thermal energy and mechanical energy.

An internal combustion engine burns fuel to derive mechanical energy from it, i.e. physically pushing the engine pistons. Most of the potential energy in the fuel is lost as waste heat.

A combustion power plant burns fuel to produce heat energy, which is then converted via steam turbines into electricity. In this case, the heat is the desired effect, meaning vastly less of the potential energy is lost as waste.

For a sense of perspective, when burning coal 1.9 pounds of CO2 is released to create one kilowatt of energy. Run through an electric vehicle that eats 250 watts per mile, that's 0.475 pounds of CO2 per mile.

One gallon of gas, when burned, releases 20 pounds of CO2. Put into a car that gets 30 miles to the gallon, like mine, that's 0.66 pounds of CO2 released per mile. A gas-driven car would have to get more than 42 miles per gallon in order to be competitive with even a basic electric vehicle driven entirely on coal-electricity.

Add to that the fact that very few people get their electricity solely from coal, and that most EVs would charge at night when the coal plants have surplus wasted capacity, and it's hard to argue that an EV is not cleaner than any gas fired car.

[DrGregory]

50. Nobody gets their electricity SOLELY from any one source...

Add to that the fact that very few people get their electricity solely from coal, and that most EVs would charge at night when the coal plants have surplus wasted capacity,
------------------------------------------------------------

Nobody gets their electricity SOLELY from any one source.

However, in the USA; about 50% of the electricity is derived from coal.

Additionally, if you charge your car at night; then electricity demand
is lower at night - so the power companies throttle back or shut down
the NON-BASELOAD plants, and let the baseload plants carry the load.

Coal power plants are BASELOAD. So the fraction of coal-produced
electricity GOES UP at night; not down.

So if you charge your EV at night; MORE than 50% of that cars
energy will be derived from COAL.

Dr. Greg

[txlibdem]

13. May I recommend Google for your research

Suffice to say, there are dozens of credible sites where it is explained much better than I can do. In short, your question involves the economics of driving an electric car versus driving a gasoline powered car. There are two angles to that economics argument, the first is the initial purchase price and next is the cost of fuel and maintenance over the life of the vehicle.

Only you can do the math to determine if it would benefit you to pay a little more up front but then save on every mile you drive after you leave the lot at the dealership. So you have to ask yourself three questions. 1.) How many miles do you need to drive each day? 2.) How much does gasoline cost now and in the future? and 3.) How much does your electricity cost (per kWh, or kilowatt hour)? Then and only then can you compare the relative economic value of an electric vehicle versus a gasoline vehicle.

Oh, and the comment about heating is exactly the reverse when talking about vehicles. The internal combustion vehicle wastes around 80% of the energy in the gasoline and turns it into wasted heat. An electric vehicle wastes almost none of the energy as heat.

[GKirk]

15. Yeah but...

"An electric vehicle wastes almost none of the energy as heat."

Electric heat is 100% efficient because none of the heat goes up a chimney, but it's still the last choice for economy.

[FiveGoodMen]

17. Can you explain how the most efficient would be the least economical?

You'd expect to pay less it less is wasted.

[GKirk]

19. As an example...

...let's say copper and gold were your fuel sources.
And we'll say copper is 50% effiecent and gold is 99.9% effiecent.
But Copper costs one tenth the amount gold does. That would make copper
the less expensive fuel source.

[wtmusic]

25. If you're talking about heating a home

gasoline is significantly less economical than electric.

There are many reasons why natural gas is more economical than electric, but for other reasons natgas is unsuitable for most vehicles (fleet vehicles are the exception).

And both natgas and gasoline are CO2 polluters of the highest order. Time to move away from that entire line of thinking.

[FiveGoodMen]

45. When it comes to electricity v. gasoline, though, you'd expect the final cost to reflect

the cost of production.

Much electricity starts life as oil just like gas does.

It seems odd that the cost of the finally-delivered energy wouldn't reflect the money it takes to bring you that energy.

And that ought to be directly linked to the efficiency of the whole process.

[wtmusic]

46. About 1% of the country's power comes from oil

A much higher percentage in Europe.

There has been a lot of focus on "well-to-wheels" analyses in recent years, you can do your own by downloading Argonne Laboratories' GREET spreadsheet (Windows only).

http://greet.es.anl.gov/

The efficiency of providing motive energy to the public in various forms isn't necessarily proportional to the cost of providing that energy, so IMO you're bringing up two different issues.

[DrGregory]

54. Here's a nice graphic courtesy of Lawrence Livermore

About 1% of the country's power comes from oil
--------------------------------------------------

You can see graphically where the USA's energy comes from and
where it goes to in the graphics in the following:

https://str.llnl.gov/Sep09/simon.html

About 1% of the "electric power" may come from oil.

However, oil is a very major player in its share
of the TOTAL power.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

60. I wouldn't expect it..

It seems odd that the cost of the finally-delivered energy wouldn't reflect the money it takes to bring you that energy.
------------------------

Gasoline is sold as a commodity; in an open market.

You want gasoline; you pay what the local service station
has posted.

Electricity has been a regulated utility.

I wouldn't expect the same amount of energy in the form
of gasoline to cost the same as the equivalent amount
of energy in the form of electricity.

Dr. Greg

[tinrobot]

22. Apples and oranges - an electric motor is not an electric heater.

You don't use a space heater to power a car.

Electric cars are much more efficient than gas-powered cars, regardless of where the power is generated. Even an EV powered by coal-produced electricity is more efficient than an equivalent ICE powered car.

[txlibdem]

29. Apples, meet oranges

We're not talking about heat. We're talking about which of two energy sources is more efficient at producing mechanical force of turning the wheels on a vehicle.

Electric vehicles are even now several times as efficient as a fossil burner vehicle. Wait another 10 years or so when the 4th generation batteries come out and nobody on the planet will be talking about continuing with internal combustion, IMO.

[DrGregory]

33. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says NO!!

Electric vehicles are even now several times as efficient as a fossil burner vehicle. Wait another 10 years or so when the 4th generation batteries come out and nobody on the planet will be talking about continuing with internal combustion, IMO.
--------------------

Where did you get the idea that they are several times more efficient?

Currently electric vehicles are LESS efficient from fuel to wheels.

You can't get around the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

The ONLY way electric cars make any sense is if you have a
pollution free method of generating the electricity. With an
electric car, you have to generate MORE energy to compensate
for all the losses between power plant and car.

I know - you are going to charge the car with your rooftop solar
collector. Consider that a LARGE rooftop solar collector is about
2 kilowatts and it does that only for a few hours each day. That
2 kilowatts is the equivalent of 3 horsepower.

Ratio your driving horsepower to the 3 horsepower of the solar array;
and that will tell you what fraction of the few hours of max sun you
can drive your car each day, on average.

However, most charging will be from the current fleet of power plants;
and they are far too dirty to obtain a net benefit.

Dr. Greg

[wtmusic]

42. You are just a wealth of misinformation.

Internal combustion vehicles well-to-wheel are about half as efficient as battery-electric vehicles.



http://www.stanford.edu/group/greendorm/participate/cee124/TeslaReading.pdf

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. And, to finish off the comparison, we'll work out the CO2 for a Tesla using 100% coal as the source

Since the original question was 'cleaner' (for which I think we mean CO2 emissions, rather than any other gases).

Also in that PDF we find the CO2 emissions for a Tesla (via natural gas electricity) and a Prius (the next most efficient option for CO2 emissions); they are 130.4 g/km for the Prius, and 46.1 g/km for the Tesla. Then we work out the relative emissions for coal v. natural gas generation; this site says it's 0.313kg CO2/kWh for coal, and 0.184 kg CO2/kWh for natural gas.

So the Tesla 'on 100% coal' is 46.1*0.313/0.184 = 78.4 g/km.

So, if those Tesla efficiency figures are still correct (they are from 2006), yes, a 'coal-powered' Tesla still comes out ahead.

However, another study on this, from 2009, gives:

Prius: Nominal Well-to-Wheel emissions of CO2: approximately 122 g CO2/km
Tesla: Nominal CO2 emissions Well-to-Wheel: 56 g CO2/km with the average EU energy mix

Now, that paper says, on page 13, that the most inefficient electricity generation in the EU15, in Luxembourg, produces 1080g CO2/kWh, compared with the 443g CO2/kWh EU15 average used in the calculation. That would push the Tesla, using Luxembourg electricity, up to 137 g/km, and thus slightly worse. Who knows how Luxembourg were generating electricity to get that figure, because other sources say coal averages 966g/kWh, or 950g/kWh, so they seemed to be less efficient than all-coal generation at that time (old plants? Really dirty brown coal? Who knows). But using that 966g/kWh figure, the Tesla comes out, when 'coal-powered', at 122g CO2/km - exactly the same as the Prius.

I think this means that the exact test for the efficiency of the car matters a lot (are the gasoline powered car and electric car given exactly the same test? Is it a realistic one?), but we can still say the Tesla, using electricity only produced from coal, is at least as efficient as a Prius; and with the mixture of electricity generation in reality, it's more efficient, and, as you said, will become more efficient still as our electricity generation improves.

[wtmusic]

63. Thanks, good info.

Disappointed that the GREET model no longer works on a Mac. I could go in and twiddle parameters for a couple of hours, and come away with a better understanding of the "big picture".

[tinrobot]

47. Cars need radiators for a reason.

It's because approximately 80% of an internal combustion engine's energy is lost to heat, making the engine about 20% efficient.

Conversely, electric motors are up to 85% efficient, only 15% of the energy is lost.

The laws of thermodynamics favor electricity because more energy is converted to motive power and less energy is wasted as heat.

[DrGregory]

51. WRONG - it's Apples and Oranges.

It's because approximately 80% of an internal combustion engine's energy is lost to heat, making the engine about 20% efficient.

Conversely, electric motors are up to 85% efficient, only 15% of the energy is lost.
==========================================================

You evidently do NOT understand the thermodynamic difference between
an "engine" and a "motor". Otherwise, you would NOT compare their
efficiencies - because it's an apples and oranges comparison.

The job of "engine" for an electric car is NOT done by the motor;
it is done by the POWER PLANT.

Yes - an ICE is only about 20% efficient. A power plant is
about 40% efficient.

But that is NOT the whole story. Electric cars have ADDITIONAL
LOSSES that ICE cars DO NOT HAVE. There are transmission line
losses, charger losses, battery charging losses, battery discharging
losses, as well as the 85% efficiency of the motor.

Those losses combine MULTIPLICATIVELY - so that the power plant
has to generate energy IN EXCESS of what it takes to run the
car by GREATER THAN a factor of 2.

That overbalances the 20% ICE efficiency vs 40% power plant efficiency
advantage of the electric car.

This was all very capably calculated by Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
when they got the California legislature to REPEAL a provision that
2% of the cars sold each year in California had to be electric cars.

It would be counter-productive since the additional energy to power those
cars would come from out-of-state COAL plants. The only CLEAN power
plants in California, the two nuclear plants, the hydro plants, and the
pittance of geothermal; were already subscribed.

Dr. Greg

[wtmusic]

64. WRONG - it's Bananas and Kumquats.

Dr. Greg, do you have a link to your claim that "Lawrence Berkeley National Lab...got the California legislature to REPEAL a provision that 2% of the cars sold each year in California had to be electric cars"? If you're talking about the 1990 CA Air Resources Board Zero Emission mandate, that was a concerted effort by automakers and the American Petroleum Institute, and solely the result of financial concerns.

Also, I think we agree that electric power line losses are in the neighborhood of 7-9%. How are you calculating that a "power plant has to generate energy IN EXCESS of what it takes to run the car by GREATER THAN a factor of 2"? :shrug:

On a side note - ALL CAPS is considered the equivalent of shouting. Do you really want to shout at people you're trying to convince? If you dropped the caps and provided more links IMO people would be more open to your ideas. IMHO.

[DrGregory]

31. When will people learn the difference between motor and engine.

The internal combustion vehicle wastes around 80% of the energy in the gasoline and turns it into wasted heat. An electric vehicle wastes almost none of the energy as heat.
=========================================================

You just don't know the difference between a motor and an engine!

A motor converts one form of zero-entropy work like electricity
into another zero-entropy form of work like mechanical motion.

An engine converts potential energy in a fuel to mechanical motion.

In the case of an all electric car, the motor is NOT the engine.
For an all electric car, the engine is the POWER PLANT that
charged the battery of the car.

Since an ICE is an engine - it puts out waste heat as REQUIRED
by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. In the case of the electric
car, the true ENGINE - the power plant put out the waste heat
when it made the electricity - as in keeping with the 2nd Law
of Thermodynamics.

Even if your power source is photovoltaic or wind - there is
STILL waste heat.

GADS - is it a requirement of this forum NOT to take high
school physics???

Dr. Greg

[txlibdem]

38. GADS! Are you familiar with the term "almost none?"

Not arguing an inane point today.

[DrGregory]

55. Yes - and it doesn't apply to waste heat for electric cars.

GADS! Are you familiar with the term "almost none?"
===============================================

Yes - and "almost none" doesn't apply to the waste
heat for an electric car.

If your electric car requires an amount of energy "X"
to go somewhere. Then the power plant needs to
generate about 2X worth of electricity.

The power plant is about 40% efficient - which means
that for every 40 kwh of electrical energy - the plant
dumps about 60 kwh in waste heat; which is 1.5X the
amount of electrical energy.

Therefore, in order for your electric car to use an
amount of energy "X", the power plant had to generate
2X in electricity; and in order to do that, the power
plant had to dump 3X in waste heat.

Your electric car is responsible for a LOT of waste
heat being dumped into the environment. You just have
to know where to LOOK for it.

You don't look for it coming from the electric car;
you look for it coming from the power plant.

Dr. Greg

[elocs]

16. Actually, I heat with electric and I prefer it and I have a choice.

Never say never.

[joshcryer]

20. Your intuition would be incorrect, electric vehicles are far more efficiency joule for joule.

Gasoline engines are heat engines, and car engines have historically never broken 40% efficiency (some big diesel train engines can get 50% but those aren't going in a car any time soon, if ever).

An electric car can, with regenerative braking, get upwards of 80% efficiency, even if they can't go super far, that's only because the energy density of current batteries is so pathetically low. They'll get better.

[DrGregory]

32. Sorry - it is YOUR intuition that is WRONG!!

Your intuition would be incorrect, electric vehicles are far more efficiency joule for joule.
--------------------------------------

This doesn't make sense! Joule of what for joule of what?

True the regenerative braking is an offset in favor of the all
electric car; but there are more downsides that actually make
the electric car LESS efficient.

Transmission lines losses are on the order of 7%; which is an
average for the USA. Battery chargers are only about 60% to 80%
efficient. Lithium ion chargers LESS efficient than lead acid
because of the tighter control of voltage as a function of
charge state required by lithium ion.

Batteries are about 80% efficient charging, and about 80% efficient
discharging. Motors are about 95% efficient.

Until fairly recently, California had a law passed by the legislature
that required about 2% of vehicles sold in CA to be all electric starting
about now. The legislature repealed that law when the Dept of Energy's
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory proved that with the current mix
of energy sources in CA - all electric cars currently would pollute MORE
than their ICE counterparts. The Lab's Director at the time was
Dr. Steven Chu - our current Secretary of Energy.

Electric cars are no cleaner than the power plants used to charge them.

The clean power plants in California are the two nuclear plants, and the
hydro plants. However, their energy is already fully subscribed. The
increase in electrical load would be supplied by out of state coal power
plants at the margin.

Therefore, it made no sense to go all electric now.

Electric cars will have their day - but we have to have a cleaner power
grid before we can take advantage of electric cars. With the current
grid - electric cars pollute MORE.

Dr. Greg

[txlibdem]

39. Electric vehicles are NOT less efficient

Dr Greg states, "Transmission lines losses are on the order of 7%; which is an
average for the USA. Battery chargers are only about 60% to 80%
efficient. Lithium ion chargers LESS efficient than lead acid
because of the tighter control of voltage as a function of
charge state required by lithium ion.

"Batteries are about 80% efficient charging, and about 80% efficient
discharging. Motors are about 95% efficient."

The only thing you are correct about is the 7% for long distance transmission lines but even that is incorrect when used as a blanket statement as you have written it. It depends on the distance "along the wire" between your EV and the electric power plant where the power is generated. If both are in the same city then the loss is less than 7%. IOW, 7% is usually the worst case scenario.

What is your source?

[DrGregory]

53. Evidently you don't understand the concept of "average"

If both are in the same city then the loss is less than 7%. IOW, 7% is usually the worst case scenario.
====================================

WRONG!! Evidently you don't understand the concept
of an "average".

It is correct that 7% is an AVERAGE.

Contrary to your ill-founded mathematics; if 7% is
the average - then it is NOT the "worst case".

Yes - it depends on how far the power has to be transmitted.

However, for every case where you have someone who lives
near the power plant and has essentially low losses; there
is someone else that lives far away with 14% loss or more.

That's why the AVERAGE is 7% - the worst case isn't 7% if
the average is 7% - the worst case is 14%.

However, you even got THAT wrong. The only thing that scales
with the distance are the actual LINE losses. But that's NOT
the biggest factor. The biggest factor is all the losses in
TRANSFORMERS which prevent the line losses from being even
higher by boosting the voltage.

However, EVERYBODY'S electric power goes through the same
step up / step down in voltage from power plant to household.
THAT part of the transmission DOES NOT SCALE with distance.

There are just as many TRANSFORMERS between you and the
power plant INDEPENDENT of how far away from the plant you
are.

Dr. Greg

[IDemo]

49. Please take your argument to Argonne National Laboratory

Which created the "GREET" study (Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation), widely considered the definitive source for well-to-wheel impacts of various fuel/vehicle systems. Note the difference between internal combustion vehicle using 'reformulated gasoline' on the far left at about 5,000 BTU/mile, versus the electric vehicle at the far right with 3,000 BTU/mile.

[DrGregory]

52. Funny - because Argonne SUPPORTED LBNL.

Please take your argument to Argonne National Laboratory
------------------------------------------------------------

Funny - because Argonne SUPPORTED Lawrence Berkeley.

There's another factor that is NOT in the data you
display.

The amount of POLLUTION per unit energy for COAL is about
TWICE what it is for gasoline.

Even if a coal-sourced electric car and a gasoline ICE
car were dead even in their energy efficiency; the coal-sourced
electric car would be putting out TWICE the pollution as the
ICE car.

Dr. Greg

[IDemo]

62. "Even if a coal-sourced electric car and a gasoline ICE car were dead even in their efficiency"

The graph in my prior post demonstrates that the EV has much greater energy efficiency. The link I provided to the Argonne GREET study will provide you with all the data on greenhouse gases and other pollutants on a mile per vehicle type basis. Argonne is not alone in their assessment that electric vehicles offer the best path forward for transportation. Google "Pacific Northwest Lab" or "California Air Resources Board".

[TheWraith]

37. I'll try to explain this as best I can...

Short answer: in a gasoline engine, or one burning any type of combustible fuel, most of the energy from the fuel is converted into heat, which is worse than useless in terms of energy. For instance, there's 33 kilowatt-hours worth of thermal energy in a gallon of gas. Put that gas into a car getting 33 miles to the gallon, and you're talking about 1 kilowatt hour of gas being used to drive one mile. The Tesla Roadster, a completely electric car, uses about 250 watt-hours to drive the same distance, one quarter of the energy used by a gas engine. That's because there's vastly less loss from fuel source to motor: the electricity is converted into work without also generating excessive heat.

It's like the difference between an old lightbulb and a CFL: less energy is being wasted as heat, so you get the same output with less input. More efficient.

Now the reason you don't heat a home with electric is because it takes a LOT of electricity to produce significant heat. Again for the same reason: electricity doesn't turn into heat easily, whereas combustible fuels do.

[DrGregory]

56. Heating a home with electricity makes sense - if you do it right.

Now the reason you don't heat a home with electric is because it takes a LOT of electricity to produce significant heat. Again for the same reason: electricity doesn't turn into heat easily, whereas combustible fuels do.
----------------------------------------------

Sure you can heat a home with electricity - if you do it right.

I agree - it's wasteful to use electricity and resistive heating.

However, if you use that electricity to drive a ground-sourced
heat pump - then heating your home with electricity makes a good
deal of sense.

Dr. Greg

[tridim]

3. Who cares?

Except oil companies of course.

[gateley]

8. I do. I want us to have all electric cars. nt

[DrGregory]

59. It depends on you...

I do. I want us to have all electric cars.
==========================================

It all depends on you. If your usage of the
Volt is such that you don't exceed the storage
capacity of the batteries - then you will have
an all electric car.

If you exceed the battery storage capacity; then
you will run on the internal combustion engine;
but through an electric drive - like a locomotive;
the engine turns a generator and the electricity
produced powers a motor.

However, at speeds of 70 mph or so; it's more
efficient to use a mechanical linkage rather
than the electric drive - and the Volt will do
that.

If you never exceed the battery capacity; and
never drive 70 mph - then you won't be using
the direct drive option in the Volt.

So why should you care?

It's just there for you in case you need it.

Dr. Greg

[flvegan]

4. A car with ICE that doesn't turn the wheels? I give you the Hammerhead Eagle i-Thrust

a/k/a Geoff.

[NBachers]

5. stop the presses- this one is hugh

[gateley]

7. Sigh. Guess it's still just Tesla for American all electric?

Again, Detroit will lose out to a Japanese company when Nissan brings us the Leaf. Will they ever learn to give us what we want? At least the Leaf is being built in America.

[joshcryer]

21. Yeah, but sadly, Tesla's low end cars won't be available for 5 years or more.

They have some in the woodwork but you won't be able to get one until they build some more manufacturing plants.

[IDemo]

27. Or Phoenix Motorcars

Which would be my choice were I in the market for another vehicle:

http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/vehicles/index.php

[chaska]

10. HERE'S THE AUTOMOTIVE FUTURE....

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/09/automotive-x-prize-winner-gets-102-5-mpg/

Electric cars are not environmentally friendly when you consider the batteries, etc. And hybrids are a joke.

[wtmusic]

24. Um, yeah.

Someone's future would look pretty bleak if they got hit by a truck in one of those.

Regarding electric cars and their batteries:

95% of the lead in lead batteries is recycled.
98% of lithium in Li-Ion batteries is recycled.
What else about the batteries should I be considering?

My Ford Escape Hybrid gets about twice the mileage of similar SUVs.
What was the joke again? :shrug:

[txlibdem]

28. Whoops, your coal/oil shill slipped out of hiding for a second

Your claim doesn't stand up to the facts.

Nissan has an 8 year / 100,000 mile warranty on the battery pack in the Nissan Leaf. GM shortly after that announced that the battery pack for the Volt will also have an 8 year / 100,000 mile warranty.

What happens after that? The battery packs won't be dead or "empty" or unusable. They just won't have the ability to propel an electric car the promised number of miles. GM has recently stated that they are working with utilities to give a second life to the Volt's batteries once they are out of warranty.

It is known that the Volt's battery will still have very significant energy storage capacity after the warranty period has ended. The new partnership with ABB is looking at ways to best utilize that energy storage capacity. "The Volt's battery will have significant capacity to store electrical energy, even after its automotive life," said Micky Bly, GM Executive Director of Electrical Systems, Hybrids, Electric Vehicles and Batteries. "That's why we're joining forces with ABB to find ways to enable the Volt batteries to provide environmental benefits that stretch far beyond the highway."

ABB is the world's largest supplier of power grid systems and a leading power and automation technology provider. Their technologies allow utilities and industry to improve performance, while at the same time reducing their environmental impact. "Our relationship with ABB will help develop solutions that optimize the full lifecycle of the Volt battery," said Bly.

http://gm-volt.com/2010/09/21/gm-announces-partnership-to-explore-opportunities-to-reuse-chevrolet-volt-batteries/

Only all the useful electricity storage capabilities are wrung out of the batteries they will be recycled. How many years after they've been manufactured will that be? I don't have that answer and I suspect neither do you.

Electric vehicles are the only viable answer to our dependence on foreign oil and dirty fossil fuels. They will be in everyone's driveway in 1 or 2 decades at the latest. Sorry coal and oil industries!

[hunter]

43. Hybrids are not a joke. Pedals AND optional electricity!

http://electricbikecar.com/tumtumcarv4.aspx

I'd like a two seat "pickup truck" model please.

[txlibdem]

44. I don't think I'd drive that on the roads around here

Here in Texas you'd be more apt to get run off the road if you tried to get to the store in that thing. I have too much trouble just riding a bicycle with and electric assist motor.

I like the cool looking seats though!

[madrchsod]

12. big deal....not

makes a lot more sense than just using electricity.

[DrGregory]

34. Very Good.

makes a lot more sense than just using electricity.
=====================================================

GOOD!! Someone here is thinking!!!

For transporting mechanical energy to the wheels;
NOTHING is more efficient than a direct mechanical
link.

Dr. Greg

[tinrobot]

23. Slightly better than a gas car, but worse than a BEV

The first 30-40 miles are good, but after that, it's no better than a Camry in terms of efficiency.

[DrGregory]

30. Why would that be a problem?

Despite GM making up the term E-REV (Extended-Range Electric Vehicle) specifically for the Volt we now find out (thanks to Motor Trend) that the internal combustion engine in the Volt actually does drive the wheels under certain situations.
========================================

GADS!!! For Heaven's sake - a direct mechanical
connection is THE most efficient way to connect
the engine to the wheels.

So when the engine is providing the motive force;
it's only good engineering to connect it mechanically
to the wheels.

Why oh Why oh WHY would you want the engine to drive
a generator ( LESS than 100% efficiency ) to convert
the mechanical energy to electricity only to run that
through a motor ( LESS than 100% efficiency ) in order
to drive the wheels.

GEEESH - put on your thinking cap.

Dr. Greg

[tinrobot]

36. It's not as clear cut as that...

Why oh Why oh WHY would you want the engine to drive
a generator ( LESS than 100% efficiency ) to convert
the mechanical energy to electricity only to run that
through a motor ( LESS than 100% efficiency ) in order
to drive the wheels.

Because gas engines are most efficient at very specific RPM ranges.

If you only use a gas engine to drive the wheels, then you run the engine at reduced efficiency as the speed of the car goes above or below the optimum power band of the engine. This is why hybrids use electric motors to get the car up to speed before the gas engine kicks in. Hybrids can get up to a 50% efficiency gain using this method, and it involves using the gas engine to run a generator.

So driving the wheels directly is not always the most efficient solution. The Volt is not quite the same as a hybrid, but similar theories apply.

[txlibdem]

40. Gas engines are most efficient at very specific RPM ranges

Great point! The range or band of RPMs inside which the fossil burner engine is most efficient is very narrow. I seem to recall that the Volt's is at 5500 RPM.

[DrGregory]

58. Why do people think automotive engineers are dumb?

Great point! The range or band of RPMs inside which the fossil burner engine is most efficient is very narrow. I seem to recall that the Volt's is at 5500 RPM.
============================================

Which is why GM included a planetary gear set
to adjust for that.

The planetary gear set is a transmission;
and lets the engine run at near optimum RPM.

Did you think the GM engineers don't know
what range their engine operates most efficiently
in?

http://www.mlive.com/auto/index.ssf/2010/10/is_the_chevrolet_volt_a_true_e.html

"However under certain circumstances — speeds near or above 70 mph — in fact the engine will directly drive the front wheels in conjunction with the electric motors.

As in the Prius, the Volt's drivetrain includes a planetary gear set that acts as a transmission. The intricacies of planetary gears are many, but in rough terms each element (electric engines and internal combustion engine) of the Prius or Volt drivetrains are hooked up to different elements of the gear set..."

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

57. I know that - and so does GM

Because gas engines are most efficient at very specific RPM ranges.
==========================================================

Yes - I know that - and so do the GM engineers.

You evidently haven't looked at GM's plan to drive the
wheels. Part of that direct link is a planetary gear
set. It's a type of transmission. ( Planetary gear
sets are the foundation of most, if not all, automatic
transmission ). The GM direct link goes through a
planetary gear train so that the Volt can run the
engine at a near optimal RPM range.

The "direct link" is NOT a 1:1 ratio; which is what
you evidently are inferring - there is a planetary
gear set in the drive train.

Dr. Greg