http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10379582-54.html
DETROIT--General Motors needs to wring thousands of dollars in cost from its high-profile Chevy Volt electric car before it can compete long term on price, a company executive said on Tuesday.

The biggest challenge relating to the cost of electric vehicles and the Volt specifically is the battery and related components, such as the power electronics and the motors. Compared to other plug-ins, the Volt has a very large battery--sized at 16 kilowatt hours--to ensure that drivers can meet most daily driving needs in electric mode.

For the car to get "traction" in the market, the cost of the battery components needs to drop more than $5,000, said Jonathan Lauckner, GM's vice president of global program management at the Business of Plugging In conference here.

"Clearly if we really want to have these vehicles get traction and want to bring the price of vehicles to a level that's competitive with say, a hybrid today, we got to get battery costs way down from where they are today," Lauckner said.

GM plans to manufacture the battery pack for the Volt, which is scheduled for release at the end of next year, using cells from a division of LG Chem. Lauckner said that the cost per stored energy for that entire pack is several hundred dollars less than $1,000 per kilowatt-hour, a number that's been projected by people outside GM.

The cost for the battery pack needs to shrink substantially to compete with existing auto technology to the range of $250 per kilowatt-hour, Lauckner said.

GM has not yet priced the Volt, which runs on batteries for 40 miles and uses an internal combustion engine to sustain the battery after that. People outside the company have estimated the cost at about $40,000.

There's a potential additional cost if electric car buyers choose to install a 220-volt charger at home, which will essentially cut charge time in half compared to charging from a regular 110-volt outlet. Having a 220-volt charger installed can cost between $300 and $3,000 depending on the complexity of the job, say industry executives.

To offset that upfront cost, Volt buyers qualify for the maximum $7,500 federal tax credit. The tax credit is one way that the federal government has sought to revitalize the U.S. auto industry around electric vehicle technologies. But Lauckner said that long term Volt costs have to go down further because government incentives will go away at some point.

The ongoing operating costs of owning a Volt will be about one-sixth of that of compact sedan, Lauckner said, adding that the savings go higher as the price of gasoline goes up. GM expects that most Volt drivers will be able to do almost all their driving in electric mode.
Damn too bad they didn't make $7,500 credit a slickdeal by stacking it with cash for clunker


Although $40,000 price tag isn't official...if it is true how do they expect to compete with hybrid cars at that price?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10379582-54.html

Damn too bad they didn't make $7,500 credit a slickdeal by stacking it with cash for clunker


Although $40,000 price tag isn't official...if it is true how do they expect to compete with hybrid cars at that price?

That was a no brainer. When I first heard of the price tag of the Volt a year ago, I knew that there was no way the Volt would be competitive. All I heard was that the $40k+ price tag was a generic figure and that it would be lower due to battery technology. I guess not.

That was a no brainer. When I first heard of the price tag of the Volt a year ago, I knew that there was no way the Volt would be competitive. All I heard was that the $40k+ price tag was a generic figure and that it would be lower due to battery technology. I guess not.

I thought it would be competitive because of the 200mpg or whatever it is that it gets.

eta 230 mpg

That high gas mileage figure is misleading if you do long trips. Now if all you do it commute around 40 miles a day then it's doable.

Only chance this has is if gas climbs and stays at $4+ and even then very ify. Reality is it can't compete and will fail in the current market, IMO. I hope I am wrong. I really like the idea of the gas engine not powering the wheels but acting as a generator, kind of like a train.

I don't know how they come by the 230 MPG figure but it's very easy to figure out one for yourself.

I've found via the interwebz that the Volt has 16kWh batteries. If we assume the losses to charge the battery are 20% (e.g. there is a loss in all the transformation that needs to happen from 120V AC home service to charge the battery), that means you really pay for 20kWh to charge the battery fully. Around here, we pay about $0.15/kWh so the battery now costs $3.00 to charge and you get 40 miles out of it. Gas prices are fluctuating quite a bit but if we also assume that gas is $2.60 (current price around here), that $3 would buy you 1.15 gallons of gas. Or, equivalently, the Volt gets appx. 35 MPG.

There is also the Nissan Leaf (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/uptospeed/2009/08/nissan-throws-an-ev-thunderbolt-the-leaf-.html) (yeah that's the real name of the car) which has a 24kWh battery and can travel 100 miles (supposedly). It's gas mileage, with the same assumptions above, is about 58 MPG.

Of course both of these numbers are for battery power alone, and there is some charging that goes on during driving, but the bottom line is that energy is not free, and the capital costs of these cars is so high that it would take quite a while for a payoff, not including the unknown repair costs and lifespans of key components like the batteries.

I don't know how they come by the 230 MPG figure but it's very easy to figure out one for yourself.

I've found via the interwebz that the Volt has 16kWh batteries. If we assume the losses to charge the battery are 20% (e.g. there is a loss in all the transformation that needs to happen from 120V AC home service to charge the battery), that means you really pay for 20kWh to charge the battery fully. Around here, we pay about $0.15/kWh so the battery now costs $3.00 to charge and you get 40 miles out of it. Gas prices are fluctuating quite a bit but if we also assume that gas is $2.60 (current price around here), that $3 would buy you 1.15 gallons of gas. Or, equivalently, the Volt gets appx. 35 MPG.

There is also the Nissan Leaf (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/uptospeed/2009/08/nissan-throws-an-ev-thunderbolt-the-leaf-.html) (yeah that's the real name of the car) which has a 24kWh battery and can travel 100 miles (supposedly). It's gas mileage, with the same assumptions above, is about 58 MPG.

Of course both of these numbers are for battery power alone, and there is some charging that goes on during driving, but the bottom line is that energy is not free, and the capital costs of these cars is so high that it would take quite a while for a payoff, not including the unknown repair costs and lifespans of key components like the batteries.

… Dr J add that to what the Cap and Trade bill is going to do to the electric bill and the cost of charging the batteries, you drop the mileage down to what the average car now gets. Add to that a price tag that will be somewhere north of $35,000 … considering the size of the car it gets very hard to justify the cost.
Right now whether it is a Volt of a Leaf it is going to get real hard to sell to the American public…that is unless with the take over of GM by the government, it becomes the only thing in the show room.

� Dr J add that to what the Cap and Trade bill is going to do to the electric bill and the cost of charging the batteries, you drop the mileage down to what the average car now gets. Add to that a price tag that will be somewhere north of $35,000 � considering the size of the car it gets very hard to justify the cost.
Right now whether it is a Volt of a Leaf it is going to get real hard to sell to the American public�that is unless with the take over of GM by the government, it becomes the only thing in the show room.

I didn't want to speculate on the price of energy. I've posted the above "math" on some other forums and got blasted for assuming that energy will go up by 20% (not that hard to work it into the numbers), but you are right - if the cost of energy went up, it would bring in the lofty 230 MPG to something probably even less than a comparable gasoline-powered vehicle.

For me - I don't care what people buy. If you want to buy a Prius, go for it - if you want to buy a Volt, go for it, but don't kid yourself that you're doing it to save money or the environment, because neither will happen. [hint: people that buy these cars want to "look cool", or they are just oblivious of the facts]

GM, Chrysler Financials 'Shocked' U.S. Task Force
Steven Rattner said that GM had "perhaps the weakest finance operation any of us had ever seen in a major company".

WASHINGTON -- The shockingly poor financial management of General Motors and Chrysler weakened their case for a government bailout, but officials feared letting the automakers collapse would severely harm the U.S. economy, the former head of the Obama administration's auto task force says.

In a first-person account posted on Fortune's Web site Wednesday, Steven Rattner said he was alarmed by the "stunningly poor management" at the Detroit companies and that GM had "perhaps the weakest finance operation any of us had ever seen in a major company."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/21/gm-chrysler-financials-shocked-task-force/

Hybrids are very popular where I live. The Smart car is wildly popular in France. Pickup trucks still rule Montana. And would a Volt make any sense at all in Alaska?

Different people have different driving needs, depending on their environment and oter factors. I commute 30 miles each way, and if my employer let me plug in, a Volt could be perfect for me. No single car is perfect for everyone, everywhere. I don't know if you've been to Paris, but an Escalade would be a joke there-- you couldn't move it through the streets.

I think it's great that GM is taking this on. My home gets geothermal electricity, so Volt is a very green product for me.

Just as the Prius batteries used to cost an arm and a leg they are significantly cheaper now. I don't see how they can expect this to come out of the gates and compete against the other cars on the road. It's brand new technology. Of course it's going to be expensive, that's to be expected! I imagine though if they release a version that is pricey that a certain green crowd will be more than happy to pay the premium for it and that over time as the battery prices will fall it will become more comparable in price to other cars. I mean, isn't that what they did with the Prius? It's much cheaper now and has more oomph and MPG than the 2nd and especially 1st version (not to mention WAY more interior space!)

For those of you trying to figure out the cost of electricity most electric companies out there have different rate structures. All are different mind you. Out here for example if I have a EV car I get put on a specific rate and it's notably less than the tiered structure we have. Others can get on the industrial rate which is usually much cheaper once they start increasing their usage significantly. Again, may not be the same for all but most companies I've seen in CA and IL do have that option or alternatively you can get the Time of Use meter installed and electricity at night is cheap while during the day it's pricey. Makes for recharging your car at night the way to go :)

� Dr J add that to what the Cap and Trade bill is going to do to the electric bill and the cost of charging the batteries, you drop the mileage down to what the average car now gets. Add to that a price tag that will be somewhere north of $35,000 � considering the size of the car it gets very hard to justify the cost.
Right now whether it is a Volt of a Leaf it is going to get real hard to sell to the American public�that is unless with the take over of GM by the government, it becomes the only thing in the show room.

Not all power comes from fossil fuels.

Get your power from wind or solar and you don't pay anything for cap and trade.

That's sorta the idea... but you knew that, right?

Just as the Prius batteries used to cost an arm and a leg they are significantly cheaper now. I don't see how they can expect this to come out of the gates and compete against the other cars on the road. It's brand new technology. Of course it's going to be expensive, that's to be expected! I imagine though if they release a version that is pricey that a certain green crowd will be more than happy to pay the premium for it and that over time as the battery prices will fall it will become more comparable in price to other cars. I mean, isn't that what they did with the Prius? It's much cheaper now and has more oomph and MPG than the 2nd and especially 1st version (not to mention WAY more interior space!)

For those of you trying to figure out the cost of electricity most electric companies out there have different rate structures. All are different mind you. Out here for example if I have a EV car I get put on a specific rate and it's notably less than the tiered structure we have. Others can get on the industrial rate which is usually much cheaper once they start increasing their usage significantly. Again, may not be the same for all but most companies I've seen in CA and IL do have that option or alternatively you can get the Time of Use meter installed and electricity at night is cheap while during the day it's pricey. Makes for recharging your car at night the way to go :)

When I looked at a Prius several years ago, the battery cost $3500.

How much is it now?

Not all power comes from fossil fuels.

Get your power from wind or solar and you don't pay anything for cap and trade.

That's sorta the idea... but you knew that, right?



When I looked at a Prius several years ago, the battery cost $3500.

How much is it now?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Sources_of_electricity_in_the_USA_2006.png

it seems that only around 25% of our electricity is generated in a non-CO2-producing way. Also I'd think that electricity is a pooled commodity - you do not *just* purchase electricity that came from nukes, or wind, or coal, it's a pool of everything. Besides, if wind/solar is so great, why are we asked to voluntarily buy "credits" to support it and why is it heavily subsidized? At best it seems all cap & trade would do is bring up the price of electricity not generated by wind/solar, effectively a price floor.

Not all power comes from fossil fuels.

Get your power from wind or solar and you don't pay anything for cap and trade.

That's sorta the idea... but you knew that, right?



Actually, I get my power from where ever the city provides it. Right now that is CP&L (Carolina Power and Light). CP&L get the power from the Sharron Harris Nuclear Power Plant. I suppose if I wanted to subsidize my power with solar I could invest in the panels� and put back whatever extra power I generated to the grid.

My subdivision by-laws prohibit me from putting up a wind generator. So� I am sum what relegated to use whom ever is supplying it to my wall outlet. And as such relegated to paying what they charge.


Alternative sources of energy can be very difficult to obtain in established urban areas�but of course you already knew that, �right

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Sources_of_electricity_in_the_USA_2006.png

it seems that only around 25% of our electricity is generated in a non-CO2-producing way. Also I'd think that electricity is a pooled commodity - you do not *just* purchase electricity that came from nukes, or wind, or coal, it's a pool of everything. Besides, if wind/solar is so great, why are we asked to voluntarily buy "credits" to support it and why is it heavily subsidized? At best it seems all cap & trade would do is bring up the price of electricity not generated by wind/solar, effectively a price floor.

Fossil fuel energy is subsidized also.

By not charging for the damage that it's pollution causes.

Cap and trade is a meager attempt to level the playing field.

When I looked at a Prius several years ago, the battery cost $3500.

How much is it now?

Supposedly around 2,000/2,500 now but it depends on the model/size clearly. Not cheap but definitely down from the 8,000 to 10,000 they were back in '01/'02.

http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/toyota/TYT2008092372406.aspx - Kinda old so maybe even cheaper now...

Their lives don't really seem to be just related to miles driven but more a matter of time. Each battery is different but there are cars with more than 300k miles on them that are a few years old and are fine while some 8 yr old Prius' that only have 50k miles have problems. Then again, I personally wouldn't get this car unless I knew I was going to drive a lot and wanted to recoup the costs (atleast some of them) in gas savings.

Random tidbit - looks like the plug in is finally coming but at 12 miles only I'm not really sure that it's even worth it. http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/toyota/2010-prius-plug-in-hybrid-debuts-101822.aspx

Fossil fuel energy is subsidized also.

By not charging for the damage that it's pollution causes.

Cap and trade is a meager attempt to level the playing field.

meaning..... specifically handicap one competitor so that the other inferior ones "have a chance".

I'm all for wind energy or energy from cow farts..... so long as it can compete in the market.

Fossil fuel energy is subsidized also.

By not charging for the damage that it's pollution causes.

Cap and trade is a meager attempt to level the playing field.

what about the pollution from the creation of solar cells? What about the effects of wind power on bird migration?

what about the pollution from the creation of solar cells? What about the effects of wind power on bird migration?

Anything humans makes could be viewed as hurting the environment. When choosing which source of power to use it's important to consider what hurts the environment less.

As for wind power and birds. Same thing, there's always going to be some environmental cost. Besides, birds fly into buildings too, don't they?

Wind and solar require too big of a footprint to be viable. That is why nuke plants are a better option for the time being.

Wind and solar require too big of a footprint to be viable. That is why nuke plants are a better option for the time being.

What's so bad about a big foot print? There is a lot of non-arable land that could be used for solar and wind power.

But, I agree that we need to invest much more in nuclear power.

Anything humans makes could be viewed as hurting the environment. When choosing which source of power to use it's important to consider what hurts the environment less.

As for wind power and birds. Same thing, there's always going to be some environmental cost. Besides, birds fly into buildings too, don't they?

Where are you getting this “when choosing which source of power to use” crap? I don’t know about you but my choice of power to use is made by my municipality.

It is not like I have a magic switch in my house that I can choose the type of energy that is supplied to the wall outlet…my guess is you don’t either.

Where are you getting this “when choosing which source of power to use” crap? I don’t know about you but my choice of power to use is made by my municipality.

It is not like I have a magic switch in my house that I can choose the type of energy that is supplied to the wall outlet…my guess is you don’t either.

I was talking about overall energy policy. Regardless, many areas DO have choices in power and you can choose to pay more for wind or solar energy. (the electrons going through your home will be the same, but more wind/solar will be pumped into the grid in your area)

I was talking about overall energy policy. Regardless, many areas DO have choices in power and you can choose to pay more for wind or solar energy. (the electrons going through your home will be the same, but more wind/solar will be pumped into the grid in your area)

I have never seen a municipality where one has had an option of �power� companies.

That is not to say that the local power company � like our CP&L or Charlottes Duke Power may have multiple sources to obtain their power from i.e. the nuclear plant near here or the gas plant near Charlotte.

Either way I think that we are both describing the same thing.

What's so bad about a big foot print? There is a lot of non-arable land that could be used for solar and wind power.

But, I agree that we need to invest much more in nuclear power.

It is geographically limited. There are some areas it makes sense to use solar. However, I have read up on solar, and there are a few things to consider... One of which is that above certain temperatures solar is less efficient.

It is also impacted by weather conditions, and is only good during the day (unless you want huge batteries, which are homogeneously expensive). When you need to keep it from getting too hot, but also keep it in an area of clear skies, that narrows things down quite a bit. This does not take into consideration the cost of the property and the cost of all the solar cells themselves.

I think that solar is a great supplement to other forms of generating power, but where you can use it effectively is pretty limited. Geothermal is cool, too. But again limited in application. We should take advantage of every "clean" source of power we can find, but recognize that there are very few cookie cutter solutions.

Nuke just happens to be the one that has the most options logistically.

Another thing to bear in mind is transmission loss. Even the best conductors have a slight resistance, and the greater the distance the power must travel, the more power is lost to inefficiency.

I have never seen a municipality where one has had an option of �power� companies.

That is not to say that the local power company � like our CP&L or Charlottes Duke Power may have multiple sources to obtain their power from i.e. the nuclear plant near here or the gas plant near Charlotte.

Either way I think that we are both describing the same thing.

Right, we're on the same page. I'm just familiar with some power companies offering the choice of paying more in exchange for them pumping more wind/solar energy into their grid.

It is geographically limited. There are some areas it makes sense to use solar. However, I have read up on solar, and there are a few things to consider... One of which is that above certain temperatures solar is less efficient.

It is also impacted by weather conditions, and is only good during the day (unless you want huge batteries, which are homogeneously expensive). When you need to keep it from getting too hot, but also keep it in an area of clear skies, that narrows things down quite a bit. This does not take into consideration the cost of the property and the cost of all the solar cells themselves.

I think that solar is a great supplement to other forms of generating power, but where you can use it effectively is pretty limited. Geothermal is cool, too. But again limited in application. We should take advantage of every "clean" source of power we can find, but recognize that there are very few cookie cutter solutions.

Nuke just happens to be the one that has the most options logistically.

Another thing to bear in mind is transmission loss. Even the best conductors have a slight resistance, and the greater the distance the power must travel, the more power is lost to inefficiency.

I agree with all of that. Thankfully, there has been a lot of progress in super conductive power transmission that results in minimal power loss over long distances. Hopefully this continues and solar power in consistently sunny areas will be linked up with major metropolitan areas. Ideally, nuclear power would cover the power needs at night and be supplemented by solar power during the day when consumption is at a peak.

Right, we're on the same page. I'm just familiar with some power companies offering the choice of paying more in exchange for them pumping more wind/solar energy into their grid.

But I don't think that happens in reality - e.g. you can opt to pay more but I think it "goes towards the development of" renewable energy or something along those lines. IT does not mean that in that month the electric co buy's more energy from wind power (e.g.). I think it's rather like "carbon offsets" which is essentially a way to give yourself warm fuzzies about "making a difference" when in fact in only lines someone's pockets.

For example here's what CL&P (CT Light & Power, my electric co) says about its initiative:

If I sign up for "CT Clean Energy Options," is the power coming to my house from renewable resources?

CT Clean Energy Options is a program that supports clean, renewable energy produced from natural means such as wind, water and other sources. By signing up to participate, you are supporting the development of renewable energy. Electricity delivered to homes in Connecticut is derived from an electric grid that includes a mix of both traditional and renewable sources.


=============

Which is something you can say about the energy I get right now - it is not differentiated. If you sign up (and pay more), they don't flip a switch and all of a sudden you get all wind power when you used to get coal power. It's all a big pool of electricity.

Wind and solar require too big of a footprint to be viable. That is why nuke plants are a better option for the time being.I don't agree; if you consider how much land AROUND the nuke plant becomes unusable/undesirable... I'd have no concern at all living next door to a solar plant, or having the solar plant next to the water purification plant, etc. Granted, solar doesn't provide 24/7 power, but it does provide power when it's needed most.

But I don't think that happens in reality - e.g. you can opt to pay more but I think it "goes towards the development of" renewable energy or something along those lines. IT does not mean that in that month the electric co buy's more energy from wind power (e.g.). I think it's rather like "carbon offsets" which is essentially a way to give yourself warm fuzzies about "making a difference" when in fact in only lines someone's pockets.

In some cases it "goes towards the development of renewable energy", but in others the equivalent amount of power you use is purchased form wind/solar sources (which will also lead to the development of renewable energy, but you have a more concrete guarantee of what your money is doing) and added into the overall grid. Like I said before, your house will only receive a fraction of its electricity from wind/solar.

what about the pollution from the creation of solar cells? What about the effects of wind power on bird migration?

Don't forget disposal.

Some of the green technology are not better...they just offload the negative to something more obscure.

I don't agree; if you consider how much land AROUND the nuke plant becomes unusable/undesirable... I'd have no concern at all living next door to a solar plant, or having the solar plant next to the water purification plant, etc. Granted, solar doesn't provide 24/7 power, but it does provide power when it's needed most.

I think he might mean physical space. Solar and Wind both need large amount of space.

Don't forget disposal.

Some of the green technology are not better...they just offload the negative to something more obscure.

Some technologies are like that so it's necessary to look at the entire life cycle of the technology. However, different environmental problems is not equivalent to more environmental problems. Solar power has different environmental problems, but overall it seems to be much better for the environment than coal/oil.

Anything humans makes could be viewed as hurting the environment. When choosing which source of power to use it's important to consider what hurts the environment less.

As for wind power and birds. Same thing, there's always going to be some environmental cost. Besides, birds fly into buildings too, don't they?

Do buildings move at several MPH? Do buildings emit ultrasonic waves that distract birds?

I wouldn't mind targeted incentives to alt energy, but the idea of cap and trade, when the economy is still reeling from a major recession (and will be for some time) is just asinine, particularly when many of the emerging economies aren't on board (namely countries like India and China).

Do buildings move at several MPH? Do buildings emit ultrasonic waves that distract birds?

No, but birds still fly into the darn things :lol:. Again, there is no perfectly environmentally friendly way to generate electricity. But you would have a very hard time making the argument that wind or solar are more environmentally damaging than coal.


I wouldn't mind targeted incentives to alt energy, but the idea of cap and trade, when the economy is still reeling from a major recession (and will be for some time) is just asinine, particularly when many of the emerging economies aren't on board (namely countries like India and China).

What incentives do you propose? More subsidies for alt energy? More taxes on fossil fuels? Aren't they more or less the same in the end?

I don't agree; if you consider how much land AROUND the nuke plant becomes unusable/undesirable... I'd have no concern at all living next door to a solar plant, or having the solar plant next to the water purification plant, etc. Granted, solar doesn't provide 24/7 power, but it does provide power when it's needed most.

While I will agree it may become undesirable... Unusable? The area could be used for industrial purposes or other such things. When I was in France, I saw those hourglass shaped cooling towers less than 100yds from the freeway.

In America, San Onofre is right next to the freeway, as well. Just like San Onofre has Camp Pendleton next to it (actually, right across the freeway from it), place military bases near them. Dual purpose of protecting the power supply, and having essentially guaranteed uninterrupted power for military bases.

I think he might mean physical space. Solar and Wind both need large amount of space.

That is correct, I was discussing the actual footprint of the facility.

I think that solar is a great supplement to other forms of generating power, but where you can use it effectively is pretty limited. Geothermal is cool, too. But again limited in application. We should take advantage of every "clean" source of power we can find, but recognize that there are very few cookie cutter solutions.

Nuke just happens to be the one that has the most options logistically.

Another thing to bear in mind is transmission loss. Even the best conductors have a slight resistance, and the greater the distance the power must travel, the more power is lost to inefficiency.

Agreed.

In addition, I also like the idea of decentralizing the power grid, which would cut down on transmission losses. This also makes the infrastructure less susceptible to attack and disaster.

However, there are economies of scale that make it a smart move to have just 1 giant plant that produces all of the power for a given area. The benefits of decentralizing are hard to outweigh the benefits of economies of scale.

I agree with all of that. Thankfully, there has been a lot of progress in super conductive power transmission that results in minimal power loss over long distances. Hopefully this continues and solar power in consistently sunny areas will be linked up with major metropolitan areas. Ideally, nuclear power would cover the power needs at night and be supplemented by solar power during the day when consumption is at a peak.

Are there super conductive transmission lines in use? I found this interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperGrid

Are there super conductive transmission lines in use?

I'm not sure. But, here's an AP article from a week ago about planned super conductive transmission lines:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5giMkwo6cFPWD1X-zXg4cgE7v_lIAD9BAGI080

"This is going to be the largest power converter in the world, making New Mexico the meeting place for America's electricity needs," he said at a news conference to unveil the project.
The transmission hub would be located across 22 square miles in eastern New Mexico near the Texas border. Clovis was chosen because it is nearest to where the nation's three power grids — called the East, West and Texas interconnections — come closest together.
Tres Amigas would build a triangular pathway of underground superconductor pipelines, combined with AC/DC converters that synchronize the flow of power between the interconnections. The equipment allows electricity to be transferred from grid to grid.
Construction could begin in 2011 or 2012, and the hub could be running in 2013 or 2014, said Phil Harris, chief executive of the Santa Fe-based Tres Amigas.
The pipelines, 3 feet in diameter, contain hair-thin ceramic fibers developed by Devens, Mass.-based American Superconductor and can carry enough electricity to power 2.5 million homes.

I'm not sure. But, here's an AP article from a week ago about planned super conductive transmission lines:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5giMkwo6cFPWD1X-zXg4cgE7v_lIAD9BAGI080

I may be wrong about my assumption, but a superconductive transmission line might allow for lossless DC power transmission. If that were the case, power wouldn't necessarily have to be delivered in AC. I don't know what the full implications would be, but I'm sure there are some.

What incentives do you propose? More subsidies for alt energy? More taxes on fossil fuels? Aren't they more or less the same in the end?

Something more targeted like a scalpel than a hatchet. Cap and Trade is way too broad, and in the grand scheme of things, will do nothing IMO to help the world move to a different mix of energy sources. It will however, make energy costs more expensive for the average US household.

Something more targeted like a scalpel than a hatchet. Cap and Trade is way too broad, and in the grand scheme of things, will do nothing IMO to help the world move to a different mix of energy sources. It will however, make energy costs more expensive for the average US household.

How do you give alt energy an incentive (one that actually works) without having households pay more?

How do you give alt energy an incentive (one that actually works) without having households pay more?
By finding one that is viable enough to make money on its own.

How do you give alt energy an incentive (one that actually works) without having households pay more?

Reducing government spending, so that you free up enough revenue to target the incentives to those specific industries?

Ideally, the market would decide things, but in this regard, I don't believe the transition from fossil fuels to AE using a free market approach will be a smooth one, considering that oil has to get well into the triple digits to make AE competitive from a purely free market standpoint.

By finding one that is viable enough to make money on its own.

How can it make money? The problem is that there are environmental costs inherent in fossil fuel energy that are not accounted for in the price of that energy. You can't turn coal into gold and then use that to fund alt energy.

You can either:

A. Tax fossil fuels to make alt energy more competitive
or
B. Subsidize renewables to make them more competitive

Either way results in higher costs for consumers.

How can it make money? The problem is that there are environmental costs inherent in fossil fuel energy that are not accounted for in the price of that energy. You can't turn coal into gold and then use that to fund alt energy.

You can either:

A. Tax fossil fuels to make alt energy more competitive
or
B. Subsidize renewables to make them more competitive

Either way results in higher costs for consumers.

We have all gone off topic in this discussion, but now we are beginning to repeat stuff that has already been mentioned in the global warming thread.

That said, I will continue off topic by saying that both of your options do not reduce fossil fuel consumption in the long run unless you are somehow able to globally increase taxes or globally subsidize renewables to make them more competitive. A reduction of fossil fuel consumption will eventually translate into an increase of fossil fuels elsewhere. Cheap energy will always be preferred over expensive energy, and will continue to be used until it either:

A. Becomes more expensive than other sources of energy (without taxation).
B. Other energy sources become cheaper (without subsidization)

You can either:

A. Tax fossil fuels to make alt energy more competitive
And how exactly would this make them more competitive? By being cheaper? Then you are simply exchanging one negative for another and we all still have expensive energy.

B. Subsidize renewables to make them more competitive
That's already happening, and it's going horrible for ethanol.

Either way results in higher costs for consumers.
When you set up a false dichotomy, sure that would be the result.

That said, I will continue off topic by saying that both of your options do not reduce fossil fuel consumption in the long run unless you are somehow able to globally increase taxes or globally subsidize renewables to make them more competitive. A reduction of fossil fuel consumption will eventually translate into an increase of fossil fuels elsewhere. Cheap energy will always be preferred over expensive energy, and will continue to be used until it either:

A. Becomes more expensive than other sources of energy (without taxation).
B. Other energy sources become cheaper (without subsidization)

For one thing, fossil fuels pollute in localized ways as well as global. So in those ways, it doesn't matter if other countries will use more fossil fuels if prices drop as the US consumes less, we'd benefit by having less localized pollution.

For another, more competitive alt energy (through taxes or subsidization) will lead to more rapid development of alt energy technology (making it cheaper than fossil fuels sooner). Nuclear power is only competitive today due to massive subsidization early in its development.

And how exactly would this make them more competitive? By being cheaper? Then you are simply exchanging one negative for another and we all still have expensive energy.

The problem is that our energy is too cheap because the environmental costs are not included in the price.

For another, more competitive alt energy (through taxes or subsidization) will lead to more rapid development of alt energy technology (making it cheaper than fossil fuels sooner).
Not necessarily, see corn ethanol.

The problem is that our energy is too cheap because the environmental costs are not included in the price.
And they never will be; for FF or for alt. energy.

Nuclear power is only competitive today due to massive subsidization early in its development.

And yet we don't utilize it.

Not necessarily, see corn ethanol.

Subsidizing ethanol production was a dumb idea because we're already subsidizing corn production.


And they never will be; for FF or for alt. energy.

Why can't they be? You can put a price on the environmental costs and then tax accordingly.


And yet we don't utilize it.

Because of dumb anti-science people on the left.

Why can't they be? You can put a price on the environmental costs and then tax accordingly.
True you could, but I see that as getting abused too much. IMO, that would open up too many doors to obscenely tax things; and in turn could have a net negative affect of what you are getting at.

Because of dumb anti-science people on the left.
I'm guessing it's dumb anti-science people all around, not just the left :D

True you could, but I see that as getting abused too much. IMO, that would open up too many doors to obscenely tax things; and in turn could have a net negative affect of what you are getting at.

It's worked pretty well for sulfur dioxide and other pollution controlled by emissions trading through the clean air act.


I'm guessing it's dumb anti-science people all around, not just the left :D

True, true. :lol:

I'm guessing it's dumb anti-science people all around, not just the left :D
Another vote for the stupid tax :woot:

It's worked pretty well for sulfur dioxide and other pollution controlled by emissions trading through the clean air act.

I was thinking more that it could have a negative impact for some alt. energy sources too; such as hydroelectric dams.

I was thinking more that it could have a negative impact for some alt. energy sources too; such as hydroelectric dams.

Well, yeah, of course. Why should alt energy get a free ride if coal gets taxed for its environmental damages?

Well, yeah, of course. Why should alt energy get a free ride if coal gets taxed for its environmental damages?

I don't think they should; my point was, that seems to contradict (for the lack of a better word) your point of taxing FFs to gain monies for alt. energy. If everything is taxed additionally, FFs could end up still being cheaper.

I don't think they should; my point was, that seems to contradict (for the lack of a better word) your point of taxing FFs to gain monies for alt. energy. If everything is taxed additionally, FFs could end up still being cheaper.

If fossil fuels and alt energy are taxed for environmental damages and FF turn out to still be cheaper, then we should continue to use fossil fuels. The money from the tax would go towards remediating the environmental damages.

At present, alt energy's big advantage over fossil fuels is that they are less damaging to the environment. But, without that tax that would close the gap in relative costs, FF has an unfair advantage.

All I want to know is why is it business as usual for GM. The gov. incentives were supposed to (also) be used to make more environmentaly friendly vehicles.. Look at the Sierra.. 16mpg/20mpg.. my money at work.

All I want to know is why is it business as usual for GM. The gov. incentives were supposed to (also) be used to make more environmentaly friendly vehicles.. Look at the Sierra.. 16mpg/20mpg.. my money at work.
People still need trucks. You want them to stop making trucks? A heavy truck designed to tow heavy loads will get low mileage, it's no mystery. If you want a high mileage truck, expect it to be very expensive, just look at how expensive the Volt is.

GOP Senator Bob Corker's daughter was carjacked this morning. The car was recovered quickly because she was driving a 2005 GM SUV. Corker led the attack on the auto bailout because his state is home to non-union Toyota factories, but had his daughter been driving a 2005 Toyota or Lexus or Honda, he would have been SOL!

That's irony for ya!

http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/12/03/a-senators-daughter-car-jacked/

GOP Senator Bob Corker's daughter was carjacked this morning. The car was recovered quickly because she was driving a 2005 GM SUV. Corker led the attack on the auto bailout because his state is home to non-union Toyota factories, but had his daughter been driving a 2005 Toyota or Lexus or Honda, he would have been SOL!

That's irony for ya!

http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/12/03/a-senators-daughter-car-jacked/

No --- the irony is that you have no clue that Lexus has their own onstar type system, Lexus Link ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexus_Link

No --- the irony is that you have no clue that Lexus has their own onstar type system, Lexus Link ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexus_Link

Lexus Link didn't have GPS tracking in the 2005 model year, but nice try. :lmao:

Lexus Link didn't have GPS tracking in the 2005 model year, but nice try. :lmao:

1st generation Lexus Link did, in fact have it, but nice try :lmao: Anything to defend your overpaid union buddies, huh?

http://www.lexus.com/models/allModels/lexus_link_firstgen.html

The First-Generation Lexus Link� system was available as a factory-installed option on the following vehicles in Model Years 2001-04: LS 430 ('01-'04), GX 470 ('03-'04), LX 470 ('03-'04), SC 430 ('03-'04) and RX 330 ('04).

Throughout your travels and during emergencies, Lexus Link is there to help. Press the Lexus Link Services button located in your Lexus Link-equipped vehicle [1] and you'll immediately be in contact with a Lexus Link Advisor who can provide you with safety, security and convenience services. When appropriate, your Advisor can also use Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) technology to inform emergency personnel of your location [2].

Why did this get bump? It has nothing to do with Volt.

1st generation Lexus Link did, in fact have it, but nice try :lmao: Anything to defend your overpaid union buddies, huh?

http://www.lexus.com/models/allModels/lexus_link_firstgen.html

A few comments:


First gen Lexus Link has been disabled, so it wouldn't have worked in this case.
First gen Lexus Link is simply a rebranded OnStar service.
WTH does this have to do with the Volt?


On topic: http://www.autoblog.com/2009/11/30/2011-chevrolet-volt-quick-spin/

Leaf and Prius stomp the Volt on greenest car list (http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/15/autos/aceee_volt_green/index.htm?hpt=C2)

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The Chevrolet Volt didn't rank as one of the top-ten "greenest" cars in America, coming at no. 12, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy's annual list.

The fully electric Nissan Leaf ranked second among all 2011 model year cars on the same list. First place went to the compressed natural gas powered Honda Civic GX.

Vehicles are ranked according to a "Green Score," factoring fuel economy and emissions, including emissions from electric power plants. The relative impact of a vehicle's manufacture and disposal, based on the car's weight, was also considered.

"As a gasoline vehicle, the fuel economy's not stellar," said Shruti Vaidyanathan, a spokeswoman for the ACEEE.

Leaf and Prius stomp the Volt on greenest car list (http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/15/autos/aceee_volt_green/index.htm?hpt=C2)
Their list makes no sense. Quite a few vehicles with worse mileage ranked higher than it and they assumed that because it is heavy it must be wasteful during manufacturing. If that's not bias...

Leaf and Prius stomp the Volt on greenest car list (http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/15/autos/aceee_volt_green/index.htm?hpt=C2)

That article is F'ing annoying. Is it hard to fathom that an all electric vehicle like the Leaf is a "greener" car? Hell no, but it isn't gonna work for everybody.

"As a gasoline vehicle, the fuel economy's not stellar," said Shruti Vaidyanathan, a spokeswoman for the ACEEE. Yet they go on to say When operating under gasoline power, the Volt gets EPA-rated fuel economy of 35 miles per gallon in the city and 40 on the highway.

That's not too shabby for a mid/full sized sedan that is lugging around a heavy battery pack. It then goes on to say - That's not as good as the third-ranked Smart ForTwo, which gets 41 mpg on the highway, 33 in the city

What's funny is that the combined MPG of the Smart For Two (which mind you is a rolling death trap for two) is 37 MPG while it's actually 37.5MPG for the mid/full sized sedan capable of carrying 4 people. Is it just me or is that actually better? And are we really squabbling about a car that gets 1MPG less on the highway and can carry 4-5 passengers and their luggage while the Smart for Two can only carry 2 and a deflated beach ball?????????????

That article is F'ing annoying. Is it hard to fathom that an all electric vehicle like the Leaf is a "greener" car? Hell no, but it isn't gonna work for everybody.

"As a gasoline vehicle, the fuel economy's not stellar," said Shruti Vaidyanathan, a spokeswoman for the ACEEE. Yet they go on to say When operating under gasoline power, the Volt gets EPA-rated fuel economy of 35 miles per gallon in the city and 40 on the highway.

That's not too shabby for a mid/full sized sedan that is lugging around a heavy battery pack. It then goes on to say - That's not as good as the third-ranked Smart ForTwo, which gets 41 mpg on the highway, 33 in the city

What's funny is that the combined MPG of the Smart For Two (which mind you is a rolling death trap for two) is 37 MPG while it's actually 37.5MPG for the mid/full sized sedan capable of carrying 4 people. Is it just me or is that actually better? And are we really squabbling about a car that gets 1MPG less on the highway and can carry 4-5 passengers and their luggage while the Smart for Two can only carry 2 and a deflated beach ball?????????????
:highfive:

the Smart for Two can only carry 2 and a deflated beach ball?????????????

:roll:

The Volt is greener than two Smart cars when transporting 4 people, but too often cars are only carrying one person to work.

The Volt is greener than two Smart cars when transporting 4 people, but too often cars are only carrying one person to work.
:bulb:

I'll be the greenest person on earth and buy myself a one-seater when I drive to work, a two-seater when it's just me and a friend, a four-seater when I've got several friends and an SUV for when I need to carry a lot of stuff or something large. I'll always go out in the smallest possible vehicle for what I initially plan to do and drive all the way back home if I change my mind and decide I need a larger car. And I'll put a sign on the window explaining why my seemingly larger than necessary car has only one person in it.

:vomit:

Or I could own just one vehicle that always meets my needs. Forget anyone else that sees me in my SUV going to work, yes I do put a bunch of stuff in it and no I'm not going to rent something when I do. :mad:

:bulb:

I'll be the greenest person on earth and buy myself a one-seater when I drive to work, a two-seater when it's just me and a friend, a four-seater when I've got several friends and an SUV for when I need to carry a lot of stuff or something large.

No, you won't. Cause it takes a lot of energy to manufacture those 4 vehicles which won't be used much.

What's funny is that the combined MPG of the Smart For Two (which mind you is a rolling death trap for two) ...

I hate to defend the FourTwo, but, it did get a 5-star crash rating from the IIHS (http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-9944458-48.html). I'm not saying it's a tank but I wouldn't classify it as a "deathtrap".

:bulb:

I'll be the greenest person on earth and buy myself a one-seater when I drive to work, a two-seater when it's just me and a friend, a four-seater when I've got several friends and an SUV for when I need to carry a lot of stuff or something large. I'll always go out in the smallest possible vehicle for what I initially plan to do and drive all the way back home if I change my mind and decide I need a larger car. And I'll put a sign on the window explaining why my seemingly larger than necessary car has only one person in it.

:bulb: Or buy whatever you want and car pool?

No, you won't. Cause it takes a lot of energy to manufacture those 4 vehicles which won't be used much.
I was being sarcastic, but I think you got my point. :D

:bulb: Or buy whatever you want and car pool?
No one here around me to carpool with.

I was being sarcastic, but I think you got my point. :D


I did if your point was that you don't give a crap about being green. :P

I travel most of the time at speeds in excess of 40mph. Not to mention but they also "found a tendency of the ForTwo's driver door to unlatched during testing, increasing the likelihood of occupant ejection."

Also - ForTwo's maximum ratings for front and side impact, the IIHS did point out that the absence of a front-end crash zone means that drivers involved in accidents in the two-seater undergo a different kind of experience than those in cars with a longer frontal crush structure. Instead of relying on the car's crush zone to weather most of the impact, the ForTwo relies more on its internal restraint system to protect the driver. "We recorded a high head acceleration when the driver dummy's head hit the steering wheel through the frontal airbag". So in other words how about I just classify this as a rolling whiplash machine instead of a rolling deathtrap.

Here - these guys get it - http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/05/smart-crashtest.html

And again, all this for what is a combined worse MPG. How in the world does that tiny ass car not get 50mpg. I mean, if the Geo Metro can why can't this a decade + later!

Going up against a block wall is also kind of a poor accident test IMO. More often than not a considerably larger vehicle is going to be involved in the accident and as they have more weight you're gonna likely lose out more against them than a stationary object in a head on. Not to mention more often than not in a head on the impact is at a lot more than 40MPH because they're driving at you where the block is just stationary.

I'm not advocating everyone going out and getting a Humvee but to even compare the Smart ForTwo and the Volt and say it has worse MPG (as the author has done), when it's actually on par if not better is laughable. I'm surprised he didn't compare the Volt to the Honda Elite Scooter. I mean, DAMN that thing gets 100+ MPG and can also carry two passengers and a deflated beach ball!

IAnd again, all this for what is a combined worse MPG. How in the world does that tiny ass car not get 50mpg. I mean, if the Geo Metro can why can't this a decade + later!

I might be wrong, but I've heard that in order to make the Smart more efficient they would have had to make the engine bigger.

So, higher costs and lack of space.

I might be wrong, but I've heard that in order to make the Smart more efficient they would have had to make the engine bigger.

So, higher costs and lack of space.

Heard the same. The shocker is that the base model has a MSRP of $12.5k. Here I thought they'd come in cheap and all.

For that coin I'd get a Chevy Aveo or a Yaris, or go crazy and get one of practically half the Hyundai line. But then again I wouldn't be trendy :(

I think the car is kinda cool, it's just expensive for what it is. And again my whole point in bringing it up was that the author found it acceptable to somehow compare a tiny two seater against a mid/full sized sedan and claim it gets worse fuel economy. Let's compare apples to apples. The Volt still gets far better or comparable mileage than a comparably priced Accord, Camry, Civic, Taurus, etc.

I gotta really hand it to the American car companies. They all of a sudden seem to have really caught up on the MPG game (where they want to...).

I did if your point was that you don't give a crap about being green. :P
I do my part in other ways. I feel that I use an SUV enough to warrant owning one (plus I am not ever comfortable in anything less than a full size sedan). I get tired of greenies complaining about people in larger vehicles when there's only one person. It's like their brains are stuck in first gear and they don't realize that the person uses the car more than they see.

I travel most of the time at speeds in excess of 40mph

Most of the time I'm going 75-85 MPH. That thing would be a rolling deathtrap for me.

And again, all this for what is a combined worse MPG. How in the world does that tiny ass car not get 50mpg. I mean, if the Geo Metro can why can't this a decade + later!

Added weight of modern vehicles. That Metro was a rolling deathtrap at practically all speeds!

I do my part in other ways. I feel that I use an SUV enough to warrant owning one (plus I am not ever comfortable in anything less than a full size sedan). I get tired of greenies complaining about people in larger vehicles when there's only one person. It's like their brains are stuck in first gear and they don't realize that the person uses the car more than they see.

Strangely, I am 6'6" 235lbs and am perfectly comfortable in my Civic.

Strangely, I am 6'6" 235lbs and am perfectly comfortable in my Civic.
I cannot drive a Civic. The design is such that my knee gets wedged between the steering wheel and dashboard and utterly prevents me from turning the wheel.

Also, do you have size 18 EEEE shoes?

I cannot drive a Civic. The design is such that my knee gets wedged between the steering wheel and dashboard and utterly prevents me from turning the wheel.

Really? Have not had that problem. You must have freakishly long legs. How tall are you?


Also, do you have size 18 EEEE shoes?

Nope, 12D. No jokes about small feet, please. I can still kick butt with 12Ds. :D

Really? Have not had that problem. You must have freakishly long legs. How tall are you?

6'1"

Nope, 12D. No jokes about small feet, please. I can still kick butt with 12Ds. :D

I end up clipping the brake and accelerator unintentionally in smaller and medium cars. :(

Most of the time I'm going 75-85 MPH. That thing would be a rolling deathtrap for me.

I hate to break it to you but that SUV you drive (which model btw?) is still a rolling deathtrap at 75-85mph.

I hate to break it to you but that SUV you drive (which model btw?) is still a rolling deathtrap at 75-85mph.
:nono:

My SUV has much larger crumple zones that will protect me in many circumstances that the Smart won't. I don't drive my SUV like a sports car, so rollover risk is drastically reduced.

:nono:

My SUV has much larger crumple zones that will protect me in many circumstances that the Smart won't. I don't drive my SUV like a sports car, so rollover risk is drastically reduced.

As long as you don't have Firestone tires. :D

As long as you don't have Firestone tires. :D
Michelin. :D

Nice

http://nation.foxnews.com/chevy-volt/2011/12/22/each-chevy-volt-costs-taxpayers-250000

IMO, the Prius is a much better car. It's cheaper, has a solid history of reliability and is the gold standard of the hybrid world. I could be wrong, but I think President Obama even owned one. Though, this is somewhat of a slam, but a lot of liberal politicians when they want to move up the ranks seem to trade in their trucks and SUVs for Prii's to appease the environazi crowd.

The Volt has its place, but is frankly too expensive to be practical and is more of a status symbol. If they were half the price, they would be selling like hot cakes.

Nice

http://nation.foxnews.com/chevy-volt/2011/12/22/each-chevy-volt-costs-taxpayers-250000

A GM spokesman, Gary Martin, responded to Hohman’s study by declaring that there is nothing wrong with government subsidies as everyone else is doing it. In fact, these subsidies for the Volt are “much less than the hundreds of billions of dollars that Japanese and Korean auto and battery manufacturers have received over the years [and these ‘investments’] provided … match the foresight and innovation that other countries are exhibiting.”

Do we want to compete with Japan, China and Korea? Or just ship all the manufacturing jobs there?

I might start a thread with this article, because it completely defeats everything the Tea Partiers have been saying about American unions. :
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2011/12/21/germany-builds-twice-as-many-cars-as-the-u-s-while-paying-its-auto-workers-twice-as-much/
In 2010, Germany produced more than 5.5 million automobiles; the U.S produced 2.7 million. At the same time, the average auto worker in Germany made $67.14 per hour in salary in benefits; the average one in the U.S. made $33.77 per hour. Yet Germany’s big three car companies—BMW, Daimler (Mercedes-Benz), and Volkswagen—are very profitable.

I might start a thread with this article, because it completely defeats everything the Tea Partiers have been saying about American unions. :
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2011/12/21/germany-builds-twice-as-many-cars-as-the-u-s-while-paying-its-auto-workers-twice-as-much/
In 2010, Germany produced more than 5.5 million automobiles; the U.S produced 2.7 million. At the same time, the average auto worker in Germany made $67.14 per hour in salary in benefits; the average one in the U.S. made $33.77 per hour. Yet Germany’s big three car companies—BMW, Daimler (Mercedes-Benz), and Volkswagen—are very profitable.
Probably because two out of those the brands probably command higher profit margins than anything the big three can put out

Do we want to compete with Japan, China and Korea? Or just ship all the manufacturing jobs there?
So you're ok with a subsidy that costs tax payers 6x the price of the car. Got it

I might start a thread with this article, because it completely defeats everything the Tea Partiers have been saying about American unions. :

Then we shouldn't have bailed them out since obviously the Europeans can make it work, right?

Another difference beyond RRC's point is that what constitutes the bread and butter of American domestic auto production profitability is large SUV and truck sales. Unfortunately, with oil where it's at, those tend to hurt the most during times of oil spikes.

So, since Obama really has no true energy policy with oil, he's somewhat shooting American auto production in the foot.

Personally, if I wanted a fuel efficient vehicle for pure mileage performance, like you Rebound, I would go with the Prius. You get Toyota's legendary reliability with top of the line fuel efficiency. American autos would not be high on my list.

Probably because two out of those the brands probably command higher profit margins than anything the big three can put out.The VW Beetle, the Mini Cooper? The little 1.4 liter BMW? Don't think so.

Another difference beyond RRC's point is that what constitutes the bread and butter of American domestic auto production profitability is large SUV and truck sales.

Personally, if I wanted a fuel efficient vehicle for pure mileage performance, like you Rebound, I would go with the Prius. Merry Christmas!

On the issue of bailout, let me say this: It is more cost-effective for the government to bail them out, considering all their tax revenue. Just on a cost basis of tax dollars earned, it's a sound investment. If you were running the government like a business, would you let an automaker go under, and lose all that tax revenue? I think it would be a bad investment.

As for vehicle types, my opinion, which you probably agree with, is that the Big Three should have seen it coming with oil, they should have planned, and they didn't. In Japan and Europe, gas costs double/triple, so high mileage has always been a priority. And a lot of streets are old and way too narrow for SUV's and Caddy's.

The VW Beetle, the Mini Cooper? The little 1.4 liter BMW? Don't think so.
The mini Cooper is pricier than a Chevy Aveo or a ford focus. The Germans have cornered the premium market at every level. Even a vw jetta, until they cheapened it recently was a moor premium and pricey car than the compact offerings from the big 3

The mini Cooper is pricier than a Chevy Aveo or a ford focus. The Germans have cornered the premium market at every level. Even a vw jetta, until they cheapened it recently was a moor premium and pricey car than the compact offerings from the big 3Merry Christmas!

But labor unions aren't the reason why, because they "cornered the market" with drastically higher labor rates, according to Forbes Magazine, which I believe to be a conservative source.

Merry Christmas!



Merry Christmas to you as well!

So you're ok with a subsidy that costs tax payers 6x the price of the car. Got it

Are you under the impression that our foreign competitors are not subsidizing new markets when they see that it's necessary?

Merry Christmas to you and GM execs and workers.

Are you under the impression that our foreign competitors are not subsidizing new markets when they see that it's necessary?

Merry Christmas to you and GM execs and workers.
To that degree?

Merry xmas

I still believe GM's problems are with a management culture that believes in designing cars by committee, which too often compromise to offer 1/2 of what some people want, 1/3 of what others want, and 1/4 of what others want. I saw their new Cadillac "crossover," and I just can't believe anyone will buy that ugly thing. Anybody here think that car's cool?

In the case of Volt, they came up with a great idea: A plug-in electric car that can use a gas engine to charge the battery as it depletes, providing the range and rapid refillability of a gas car. They had a hit on their hands!!! Then they did the focus groups, and decided it needed to be bigger and faster. This killed gas mileage, required a bigger battery, and drove up the price.

Now, people who will buy those cars want the high mileage. They don't look at 0-60 performance because they don't drive that way. I rented a car on business travel a few weeks ago, and they said Prius rents for an extra $20/day! Why? Because the extra $20 is worth the gas it saves. THAT is what those buyers are looking for.

Volt is not suffering because of labor unions, it's suffering from classic bad American auto company decision making. If you take the unions out of the picture, Volt might cost $2,000 less... And that doesn't solve it's problem.

I used to work as an engineer for an auto parts manufacturer.

Once our customer (Big 3) asked how much a new feature on a part would cost and was told $1.

His response: "Do you know how much chrome we can put on a car for a dollar?"

This was back when chrome was still in fashion.

IMO, the Prius is a much better car. It's cheaper, has a solid history of reliability and is the gold standard of the hybrid world. I could be wrong, but I think President Obama even owned one. Though, this is somewhat of a slam, but a lot of liberal politicians when they want to move up the ranks seem to trade in their trucks and SUVs for Prii's to appease the environazi crowd.

The Volt has its place, but is frankly too expensive to be practical and is more of a status symbol. If they were half the price, they would be selling like hot cakes.

You really can't compare the Volt to a Prius (or a Leaf). You would need another series hybrid to compare the Volt to, and that doesn't exist. You can compare the Prius to cars like a Camry Hybrid, Fusion Hybrid, Insight Hybrid, etc.

Using your reasoning it would be fair to compare a Pruis to a Cruz, Focus, or Corolla.

Volt is not suffering because of labor unions, it's suffering from classic bad American auto company decision making.

The costs to make the first series hybrid car also make it more expensive than it otherwise would be. That and the jack of all trades. The Volt would be cheaper to make if it had a smaller battery or no gasoline engine at all. Those versions of the Volt may exist eventually, and once they do, then it would be more fair to compare a Volt with a smaller battery to a Prius and a Volt with no gasoline engine to a Leaf.

It's the whole apples VS apples. If the Volt came out ten years ago (which IMO it should have) and the design costs where already paid for and the variants of the car already existing we could have a more meaningful comparison.


If you take the unions out of the picture, Volt might cost $2,000 less... And that doesn't solve it's problem.

At $2000 less, there will be more buyers.

Then they did the focus groups, and decided it needed to be bigger and faster. This killed gas mileage, required a bigger battery, and drove up the price.


I do agree with this part. The focus group people are stupid. I've seen people interviewed on TV and they never want to sacrifice performance for gas mileage, and I always want to hit my TV when I hear that. Cars like my Escort sold by the millions in the 80's and 90's, even with a 0-60 > 10 seconds. Try to convince any automaker to do that now and the marketing department won't allow it. The Volt is intended to perform like a 6 cylinder car where it should have been designed to perform like a 4 cylinder car. They all do the same thing with regular non-hybrid cars too though.

Now, people who will buy those cars want the high mileage. They don't look at 0-60 performance because they don't drive that way. I rented a car on business travel a few weeks ago, and they said Prius rents for an extra $20/day! Why? Because the extra $20 is worth the gas it saves. THAT is what those buyers are looking for.


How much are those people driving?? Seems like you'd have to drive a good bit to make it work financially. The good thing about the geniuses getting the compact cars to save $0.50 a day on gas means that the small cars are usually all rented out and you can get a full size or SUV for the same price! :nod:

The Volt is intended to perform like a 6 cylinder car where it should have been designed to perform like a 4 cylinder car. They all do the same thing with regular non-hybrid cars too though.

The volt at least speed wise is virtually identical to 4 cylinder Ford Focus. Same w/ the Chevy Cruze both which happen to be more than 10k cheaper (actually it's much closer to 20k). The Volt is even a stretch to compare to a mediocre 4 cylinder car (against at least speed wise).

There was a thread discussing the technical of cars some time ago. Your issue plain and simple is weight. The ultimate car for gas mileage was the 3cylinder Geo Metro xfi. A car from 20 years ago still demolishes the volt and every other hybrid out there.. (I'm going on memory on the specs) if I recall correctly, you couldn't have power steering, A/C was an option, I believe all were manuals and it was somewhat of a fight to get up big hills. The big difference.. it weighed around 1600lbs (or about half the weight of the Chevy Volt). Why the big difference.. 1. safety features 2. convenience features.

How much are those people driving?? Seems like you'd have to drive a good bit to make it work financially. The good thing about the geniuses getting the compact cars to save $0.50 a day on gas means that the small cars are usually all rented out and you can get a full size or SUV for the same price! :nod:
And the next time we send American boys to die in a war in the Mideast, you can smugly fill your gas tank and smile at how cute it is to burn as much gas as you can.

Admiral James Woolsey, former head of the CIA, drives a Prius, out of his patriotic belief that gas we buy funds pro-al Qaeda governments. His car had a bumper sticker that said "bin Laden hates this car." But go burn all the gas you want and call yourself patriotic. It's very cute.

Now, people who will buy those cars want the high mileage. They don't look at 0-60 performance because they don't drive that way. I rented a car on business travel a few weeks ago, and they said Prius rents for an extra $20/day! Why? Because the extra $20 is worth the gas it saves. THAT is what those buyers are looking for.

You'd need to drive about 210 miles per day in that rental just to break even vs an average sedan with 20mpg. Thats some serious driving for a rental.

You'd need to drive about 210 miles per day in that rental just to break even vs an average sedan with 20mpg. Thats some serious driving for a rental.

Its well worth the smug factor for some people :lmao:

Its well worth the smug factor for some people :lmao:

So now not wasting resources is "smug"?

So now not wasting resources is "smug"?
They are wasting resources. Money.

They are wasting resources. Money.

That's renewable. Oil is not.

That's renewable. Oil is not.
Paying more for the "privilege" to waste less resources is silly.

Paying more for the "privilege" to waste less resources is silly.

No it's not silly. Self sacrifice for the common good is noble.

They are wasting resources. Money.

Along with strip mining rare metals, and the pollution caused by producing the batteries, but nooooo, we dont see that. :lmao:

If anybody in this country really wanted to do anything about gas consumption, we would switch to diesels like most of Europe already has done. Diesel is a much more concentrated power source, and burning it is also more efficient. A VW diesel gets as good as, if not better, than virtually any hybrid, without having to resort to any crazy concepts.

But, the EPA is either retarded, or in the pocket of oil companies, so they do their darnest to destroy diesels. :vomit:

Along with strip mining rare metals, and the pollution caused by producing the batteries, but nooooo, we dont see that.Every car is made out of metal.

Every car is made out of metal.

I guess you missed the "rare" in rare metals.

Along with strip mining rare metals, and the pollution caused by producing the batteries, but nooooo, we dont see that. :lmao:

If anybody in this country really wanted to do anything about gas consumption, we would switch to diesels like most of Europe already has done. Diesel is a much more concentrated power source, and burning it is also more efficient. A VW diesel gets as good as, if not better, than virtually any hybrid, without having to resort to any crazy concepts.

But, the EPA is either retarded, or in the pocket of oil companies, so they do their darnest to destroy diesels. :vomit:

Youve been misled by others who are diesel fanboys.

1) european diesel mpg figures are rated differently. The tdi certainly doesnt get anywhere near the mpg of a prius. Where have you heard this?
2) "burning it also more efficient", what does that even mean? The co2 output from diesels is ENORMOUS. The reason why america doesnt see more diesels is not because people dont buy them (golf tdis sell out almost instantly) its because they cant cope with co2 emission regulations.

Along with strip mining rare metals, and the pollution caused by producing the batteries, but nooooo, we dont see that. :lmao:


Why is strip mining rare metals worse that other strip mining?

Do you have evidence that pollution from battery production is worse than from other auto and fuel production?

Can't NiMh and Li-Ion batteries be recycled?

I guess you missed the "rare" in rare metals.
There aren't any particularly rare metals in a Prius. The batteries use NiMh, which are mostly nickel. Now, nickel is commonly used in steel. About 60% of nickel production goes into steel, and much of that is used in automobiles, particularly the hardened engine components like gears, crankshafts an the like. So just because you read a paper that says Prius uses a lot of nickel, it doesn't mean that Prius is some sort of standout in metal use.

I just took my family from SF to LA in our Honda Ofyssey. I tracked mileage, and we got 23 actual MPG each way. Had we taken Prius, fully laden with family and luggage, I estimate we would have gotten only double that, about 46 MPG. I spent about $150 on fuel for the 900 mile trip. My Prius would have saved me about $75. So I basically spent an extra $75 to make my family comfortable, which is fine, but for commuting to work, I travel 80 miles a day and Prius saves me a lot of money and gas. It works for me as a commuter car. It doesn't need to work for everybody. Different cars for different people. I wouldn't have bought it if my commute weren't so long.


Can't NiMh and Li-Ion batteries be recycled?Definitely. Toyota pays $200 for the used batteries and recycles them.

Its well worth the smug factor for some people :lmao:
I like the ones with multiple, huge homes, who have a total carbon footprint of a small town, and then they drive an electric car "to save the environment." It's like the ol' joke about eating a couple Big Macs and fries but having a diet soda with it.

I like the ones with multiple, huge homes, who have a total carbon footprint of a small town, and then they drive an electric car "to save the environment." Yup, that's me alright. How'd you know?

In the case of Volt, they came up with a great idea: A plug-in electric car that can use a gas engine to charge the battery as it depletes, providing the range and rapid refillability of a gas car. They had a hit on their hands!!! Then they did the focus groups, and decided it needed to be bigger and faster. This killed gas mileage, required a bigger battery, and drove up the price.

Now, people who will buy those cars want the high mileage. They don't look at 0-60 performance because they don't drive that way. I rented a car on business travel a few weeks ago, and they said Prius rents for an extra $20/day! Why? Because the extra $20 is worth the gas it saves. THAT is what those buyers are looking for.

BMW did the plug-in sports car hybrid right :drool:

http://www.ensightlopedia.com/countdown//HLIC/2c87d86e603236ced6c976dbc17e611a.jpg

Shutting down production for several Weeks secondary to a glut on dealer lots. Great

http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/02/autos/volt_production_stopped/index.htm?iid=HP_LN