Chevy Volt costs $40,000 to build.

[Lord Blackadder]

Not to mention anything of the Sequoia, FJ Cruiser, 4Runner, Land Cruiser, Armada, Pathfinder, GX460, LX570, QX56. Why do the Asian companies always get a free pass on their giant offerings? They want in on that party just as much as any of the Big Three. In fact, I'd say Toyota is trying way harder than any of the big three brands, with 6 distinct SUV offerings (rav4, fj, highlander, 4runner, sequoia, land cruiser).

Domestic truck sales dwarf those of the Japanese, but you have a point. I'm not giving them a "free pass". Perhaps Toyota's increasing concentration on SUVs and the Prius has something to do with their worsening circumstances.

But the fact of the matter remains: the Japanese car manufacturers do not survive solely based on their truck sales - but the Big Three absolutely rely on strong truck sales to stay in business.

 

[jeffy.dee-lux]

Despite "high hopes" for going green, the current reality of this is that about 45% of a U.S. Volt owners will be using a coal-powered car.

I don't think anybody here is arguing in support of Coal-fired power plants. We're just saying that this is another issue that needs to be addressed, but it would be foolish to wait for 100% renewable electricity before we start electrifying our fleet. A typical car spends 10-20 years on the road before it's retired. Even if every new car sold from today onwards were electric, it would take 20 years before we have a 100% electric fleet. Currently, expectations run from maybe 3-10% of the market (as in new car purchases) being electric (or at least plug-in) by 2020, depending on who you ask. Fleet electrification will be a very long process, and this can happen parallel with renewable electricity development.

Now, besides this argument, just looking at the current situation and ignoring future potential for improvements, you'll find that even a 100% coal-powered car is more efficient than an equivalent, efficient ICE car (not by a lot, but still better).

Cleanliness is another story, that depends on how you define it. CO2 goes hand in hand with efficiency, as its a direct product of fossil fuel combustion, so again, a 100% coal-powered plug in car is slightly better in this regard. The numbers I've run have shown that NOx and SO2 emissions actually go up with a 100% coal-powered plug in car vs a modern ICE. Those emissions have been drastically reduced in cars over the past 20 years to the point that they're actually quite clean. One thing to consider though is that in this case, these emissions cause local-scale problems, so displacing those emissions away from dense populations actually does help, at least in terms of urban air quality. SO2 can cause acid rain though, and that is maybe somewhere between a local, city-scale problem and a global problem. That said, I don't see why cleaning up coal power plants should be any less aggressive than cleaning up vehicle emissions has been in recent years.

Also, keep in mind that it's very difficult for the power supply from power plants to ramp up and down to meet demand, and as such, a lot of energy has to be burned off and wasted at night when demand is low. That's why some places charge a lot less for electricity at night. If most people use their car to get to work and simply charge up for 8 hours while they sleep, the overall emissions per kWh are reduced, and the numbers swing more in the favour of plug-in vehicles.

 

[jeffy.dee-lux]

Domestic truck sales dwarf those of the Japanese, but you have a point. I'm not giving them a "free pass". Perhaps Toyota's increasing concentration on SUVs and the Prius has something to do with their worsening circumstances.

But the fact of the matter remains: the Japanese car manufacturers do not survive solely based on their truck sales - but the Big Three absolutely rely on strong truck sales to stay in business.

Ya i see what you're saying too. I just think far too often the choices made by the buying public are used to fault the automakers. For example, the fact that Ford now sells an excellent, fuel efficient hatchback in the Ford Fiesta doesn't change the fact that, in November for example, 3473 people in the US bought a Fiesta, while 38,541 people decided they needed an F-Series. In this regard, I think it's ridiculous for the government to mandate that a company build a certain number of xx mpg cars, regardless of whether people actually want to buy those cars or not. Instead, the government should create incentives to encourage people to buy more efficient vehicles. You can't blame car companies for building vehicles that satisfy a profitable segment of the market. Unfortunately, GAS TAX is way too scary a concept for any sane politician to touch with a 10-foot pole.

 

[quagmire]

The only thing that needs to be solved though are the dirty practices in both coal and nickel/lithium mining. Yeah, power plants are more efficient at burning coal then an ICE burning gasoline and drilling for oil is no green walk in the park either, but these things need to be solved as well.

Ya i see what you're saying too. I just think far too often the choices made by the buying public are used to fault the automakers. For example, the fact that Ford now sells an excellent, fuel efficient hatchback in the Ford Fiesta doesn't change the fact that, in November for example, 3473 people in the US bought a Fiesta, while 38,541 people decided they needed an F-Series. In this regard, I think it's ridiculous for the government to mandate that a company build a certain number of xx mpg cars, regardless of whether people actually want to buy those cars or not. Instead, the government should create incentives to encourage people to buy more efficient vehicles. You can't blame car companies for building vehicles that satisfy a profitable segment of the market. Unfortunately, GAS TAX is way too scary a concept for any sane politician to touch with a 10-foot pole.

CAFE is set in place for the reason you mentioned, no politician will touch the gas tax issue. Since politicians don't want to tax gas to get Americans to buy more fuel efficient vehicles, they are forced to make the cars themselves more efficient.

 

[jeffy.dee-lux]

Unfortunately, GAS TAX is way too scary a concept for any sane politician to touch with a 10-foot pole.

Lol, just as I was posting this, Autoblog put up this article:
Democrats and Republicans agree on higher gas taxes, just not in public all the time

here's a quote from the article:
"You know who else has apparently been for higher gas taxes? Ford CEO Alan Mulally and Ford chairman Bill Ford, former General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner, former Chrysler CEO Tom Lasorda. And, hold on to your hats... George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

According to two sources who were in the room in a March 2007 meeting with Detroit CEOs, Bush and Cheney both agreed that while higher gas taxes were a good idea for both deficit reduction and driving the sale of high fuel economy vehicles, they ultimately dismissed such moves for political, not rational, reasons. And neither would admit to supporting it in public."

 

[Lord Blackadder]

In this regard, I think it's ridiculous for the government to mandate that a company build a certain number of xx mpg cars, regardless of whether people actually want to buy those cars or not.

Carrot and stick. I think a combination of incentives, taxes and penalties should be implemented to encourage people to buy more efficient cars.

I don't think we should force people to buy efficient cars, but when too many people are commuting in trucks and SUVs it becomes a problem. Also, if all our domestic manufacturers are good for is making full size trucks that only Americans will buy, then we are making ourselves less globally competitive.

 

[obeygiant]

GM’s Plans for Chevy Volt Profitability

The Chevrolet Volt is a heroic and landmark vehicle, and a grand achievement by General Motors. We here have been following the car’s development since its inception as a concept, and along the way have often wished GM would plan to sell many hundreds of thousands of them. The more Volts on the road, the less oil used.
Of course GM shouldn’t build more cars than can be sold, and more importantly for the newly profitable company, they shouldn’t build cars they cannot make money on.
According to multiple GM executives there is little or no profit being made on each Volt built at a present cost of around $40,000. Furthermore, the $700 million of development that went into the car has to be recouped.
GM does have a plan to make the Volt business case profitable, according to vehicle line executive Doug Parks. “In reality, it won’t be profitable at the beginning,” said Parks about the Volt.
The plan to profitability is to reduce cost on a yearly basis as opposed to waiting the full development cycle to a second generation, typically 5 or 6 years for most cars. “It is our hope, every year as we have opportunity to improve the performance and even take cost out, that at the end of the first lifecycle we make money,” he said.
Parks also disclosed GM is trying to improve efficiency with each yearly iteration too, but that itself wont help bring down costs, except if less lithium ion cells are needed to achieve the same range. “We’re developing technology that can lead to minor increases in performance but a big cost reduction,” he said.
“No big changes to range and/or performance, just ongoing tweaks and refinements in many different areas, including battery,” Parks told GM-Volt. ”We will have a strong focus to improve costs, but will make sure we at least maintain performance – or even improve it slightly if possible.”
Parks also reported that the entire 2011 build inventory has already been sold out. Those units, he said, “are gone.”
Despite this high demand and low volume, GM has no immediate production modifications. “There’s really no plan to change that slow ramp-up through next year,” he says. “Then, when we really open it up in ’12, we’ll build our planned volume and see what the market says. If we want to do a lot more, we’ll look at it.”

 

[iJohnHenry]

GM’s Plans for Chevy Volt Profitability

I'll match that with Who Killed The Electric Car, and why.

Where would we be today, if the lawmakers had not relented on the Clean Air Standards at that time, and the EV1 had continued to develop?

The film deals with the history of the electric car, its modern development, and commercialization.

The film focuses primarily on the General Motors EV1, which was made available for lease mainly in Southern California, after the California Air Resources Board passed the ZEV mandate in 1990 to combat urban air pollution.

Nearly 5000 electric cars were designed and manufactured by GM, Toyota, Honda, Ford, Nissan, and Chrysler; and then later destroyed.

Also discussed are the implications of the events depicted for air pollution, oil dependency, Middle East politics, and global warming.

The film details the California Air Resources Board's reversal of the mandate after relentless pressure and suits from automobile manufacturers, continual pressure from the oil industry, orchestrated hype over a future hydrogen car, and finally the George W. Bush administration.

A portion of the film details GM's efforts to demonstrate to California that there was no consumer demand for their product, and then to take back every EV1 and dispose of them. A few were disabled and given to museums and universities, but almost all were found to have been crushed.

GM never responded to the EV drivers' offer to pay the residual lease value ($1.9 million was offered for the remaining 78 cars in Burbank before they were crushed).

Several activists, including actresses Alexandra Paul and Colette Divine , are arrested in the protest that attempted to block the GM car carriers taking the remaining EV1s off to be crushed.

The film explores some of the motives that may have pushed the auto and oil industries to kill off the electric car. Wally Rippel offers, for example, that the oil companies were afraid of losing their monopoly on transportation fuel over the coming decades; while the auto companies feared short term costs for EV development and long term revenue loss because EVs require little maintenance and no tune-ups.

Others explained the killing differently. GM spokesman Dave Barthmuss argued it was lack of consumer interest due to the maximum range of 80–100 miles per charge, and the relatively high price.

The film also showed the failed attempts by electric car enthusiasts trying to combat auto industry moves, and save the surviving vehicles. Towards the end of the film, a deactivated EV1 car #99 is found in the garage of Petersen Automotive Museum, with former EV sales representative, Chelsea Sexton, invited for a visit.

The film also explores the future of automobile technologies including a deeply critical look at hydrogen vehicles, an upbeat discussion of plug-in hybrids, and examples of other developing EV technologies such as the Tesla Roadster (released on the market two years after the film).

 

[jeffy.dee-lux]

I'll match that with Who Killed The Electric Car, and why.

Where would we be today, if the lawmakers had not relented on the Clean Air Standards at that time, and the EV1 had continued to develop?

I've worked for a struggling electric car company in the late 2000's, and that was in Europe where fuel prices are really high. I don't think there was any business to be made selling EVs in the 90's in the US. Can you really hold a company accountable for backing out of a money-losing venture? Nobody else was doing it, and even now, with batteries that can hold about 4 times as much energy per kg as the first EV1's batteries, it's not exactly straightforward for GM or Nissan to make a business case for these vehicles. I'll happily blame the oil companies, the government, and the buying public for killing off EVs, but I don't blame any of the car companies. Like I said, you can't just mandate that a certain type of vehicle be made, you have to include incentives to make people actually want to buy these vehicles. I'm knee deep in the technology, and I'm a huge proponent of it, but I don't have any delusions about it being a perfect technology that's only being held back by conspiracies. Based on the current cost of fuel, EVs just aren't attractive enough. This was much more so when GM and Toyota discontinued their EVs in the 90's.

 

[iJohnHenry]

< GM apologist >

Then will you address the thousands that wanted the EV1 at that time?

Perhaps it was people with money, or say, people with the future in mind.

And not profits based on fossil fuels, and planned obsolescence.

 

[jeffy.dee-lux]

Then will you address the thousands that wanted the EV1 at that time?

Perhaps it was people with money, or say, people with the future in mind.

And not profits based on fossil fuels, and planned obsolescence.

Would those 1000s of people still wanted an EV1 if GM was charging enough to break even on them? Or charging enough such that within 5 or 6 years GM could turn it into a profitable business? Or was it a case of government forcing a company to make a product that nobody wants to pay the real price for and then sell it at a loss? Heck if you think ANY vehicle could make money with "thousands" of sales, you don't pay enough attention to the auto industry. You could put the most sincere person with the greenest of intentions at the top of any company, but if they can't make money doing the green thing, it's not going to be a company for very long.

Look, I've been developing and building electric vehicles for 5 years, don't think I'm not aware that some people have the future in mind and have enough money to do the right thing. But these things need to make economic sense if they're gonna do any substantial good in the world.

 

[iJohnHenry]

Would those 1000s of people still wanted an EV1 if GM was charging enough to break even on them? Or charging enough such that within 5 or 6 years GM could turn it into a profitable business?

I will agree that the price would have to be 'front-loaded', because there would be less than the usual new buys after that 5 or 6 years.

The vehicle would last long enough for people to actually get tired of driving it, and want something new. Unlike now, when they are forced to buy new, due to mechanical wear and tear.

Plugging the sales numbers 10 years out, into their computer models, would scare the bejesus out of everyone in the industry, and the share-holders too.

 

[obeygiant]

Outside the door to General Motors' Washington office is a photo of the Chevy Volt framed by the U.S. Capitol.
GM loves to market the Volt, the 2011 Motor Trend Car of the Year ("A car of the future you can drive today.") It's an engineering breakthrough, a darling of the "green" media and evidence that stodgy old GM knows how to innovate.
So why, I asked Mike Robinson, GM's vice president of environment, energy and safety policy, is GM selling so few Volts? Just 321 in January, 281 in February, according to GM's monthly sales report. By comparison, Chevy sold nearly 70,000 Silverado pickup trucks during those two months.
"We're on target," he assured me. "We've probably got orders for every one we can build in the next year." Chevy plans to sell 10,000 Volts this year, and another 45,000 next year and, if all goes well, a lot more after that.

link


so, only about 600 volts this year? seems low.

 

[quagmire]

link


so, only about 600 volts this year? seems low.

600 Volt's so far. Production is still ramping up. A dealer in my area I know has sold out of his allotment for the year.

 

[takao]

link


so, only about 600 volts this year? seems low.

also GM simply hasn't quite found a clue yet in terms of brand positioning: in europe they are not only launching the Volt based Opel Ampera this fall (looking better IMHO) but also just recently anoucned that they will also launch with the Volt
looks like they never heard of "cannibalizing sales"

since this fall will also see the first diesel hybrids hitting the market it's gonna be interesting to this which way customers will decide

 

[quagmire]

also GM simply hasn't quite found a clue yet in terms of brand positioning: in europe they are not only launching the Volt based Opel Ampera this fall (looking better IMHO) but also just recently anoucned that they will also launch with the Volt
looks like they never heard of "cannibalizing sales"

since this fall will also see the first diesel hybrids hitting the market it's gonna be interesting to this which way customers will decide

Yeah, I think that is idiotic of GM to do unless the Volt is launching in markets where the Ampera won't have a presence in.

And I do agree Ampera>Volt in looks.

 

[Ace134blue]

GM sucks, who cares.

 

[iJohnHenry]

GM sucks, who cares.

Who killed the EV-1?

Case closed.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Who killed the EV-1?

Case closed.

If I recall, GM actually designed and prototyped a series hybrid version of the EV-1 that had excellent fuel economy. Had they pushed this vehicle though development, they would have had a huge jump on the market. Instead, they killed the entire program and it was Toyota and Honda who finally made the hybrid practical. The Prius was a money losing proposition at first but Toyota perservered with it and now it is a (modestly) profitable car.

 

[takao]

it needs to be said that GM even had small car hybrid projects planed and designed during the late 60ties (i have a german magazine outlining those smart sized cars, perhaps i can scan them tomorrow)

the first actual commcerical sold hybrid vehicle was in fact an Audi Duo ... which they even developed to production level but sales were too low for them to continue afaik around 100 vehicles only
ironically they dropped the hybrid approach jsut the year toyota started with the prius in japan. Typical case of having the wrong product at the wrong time

side note: on saturday the local newspaper puplished the "new cars registered" statistic from january/february of my home state in Austria (population: 350.000) including 39 brands

Chevrolet managed to outsell Chrysler 10 to 1
which sounds not that bad ... except those are the actual numbers... i feel really sorry for that jeep, chrysler, dodge dealer in my hometown selling a total of _4_ cars in 2 months.. luckily now they can add lancia to that list with it's 3 cars
and Porsche(24) actually outsold Honda(20)

 

[Lord Blackadder]

it needs to be said that GM even had small car hybrid projects planed and designed during the late 60ties (i have a german magazine outlining those smart sized cars, perhaps i can scan them tomorrow)

It's true, the hybrid concept has been around for a very long time in cars, much longer even when you consider the drivetrains used in diesel-electric locomotives and all non-nuclear military submarines.

Chevrolet managed to outsell Chrysler 10 to 1
which sounds not that bad ... except those are the actual numbers... i feel really sorry for that jeep, chrysler, dodge dealer in my hometown selling a total of _4_ cars in 2 months.. luckily now they can add lancia to that list with it's 3 cars
and Porsche(24) actually outsold Honda(20)

Yikes. With those sales numbers, how do they stay in business?

 

[takao]

Yikes. With those sales numbers, how do they stay in business?

keep in mind it's only a small 350.000 population market

i have no idea though ... it is even more funny because i actually know the person who registered that new Chrysler Voyager (he is using for his business).
if you are interested i can easily post the rest of the numbers

 

[dime21]

Currently, 45% of the electrical power generated in the U.S. is produced by burning coal. Even if cars like the Volt are successful, increased demand for more electric power would likely result in more greenhouse gases being emitted.

Exactly. It's really funny to me when self-professed Greenies buy these electric cars in the name of saving the earth. Where do you think that electricity to charge up your car comes from? Well, if you live in the US, it's most likely coal. So your electric car is actually a coal powered car. lol.

Sure, but you have to make the switch to electric at some point.

No, you don't. Renewable bio-fuels like biodiesel are the way forward. Not clumsy inefficient electric cars that only go 80 miles at a time.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Exactly. It's really funny to me when self-professed Greenies buy these electric cars in the name of saving the earth. Where do you think that electricity to charge up your car comes from? Well, if you live in the US, it's most likely coal. So your electric car is actually a coal powered car. lol.

That is true. However, the potential efficiency is higher with electrics or plug-in hybrids. Thus, they have the potential to pollute less even when the electricity comes from a coal-fired power station.

There's no carbon-neutral solution out there, unless Toyota starts planting a million trees for every Prius they sell. But electrics and hybrids are generally cleaner.

No, you don't. Renewable bio-fuels like biodiesel are the way forward. Not clumsy inefficient electric cars that only go 80 miles at a time.

Increased biofuel production causes food prices to skyrocket. That pretty much guarantees that biofuels will be a niche market for the forseeable future. They are great if you are the only person in town filling up his or her Merc diesel from restaurant oil - but when everyone wants to do it there just isn't anywhere near enough fuel.

Do you want to know what the "way forward" really is? Drive less. There isn't enough energy in the world for everyone to tool around in their cars as much as they do now. But nobody wants to believe it.

i have no idea though ... it is even more funny because i actually know the person who registered that new Chrysler Voyager (he is using for his business).
if you are interested i can easily post the rest of the numbers

Now I'm curious; what's the best selling brand? Funnily enough, my family used to have a Voyager years ago. It was actually a very solid van, if a bit crude. We don't get the diesel option in the US though, so we had to make do with a gasoline 2.4L with 20mpg.

 

[Counterfit]

Algae. There's a type that can be used to make liquid fuels, and another that produces hydrogen from photosynthesis.