Images: GM's electric Volt

Anyone that thinks that G.M. is going to come out with an electric car that anyone can afford is smoking some prety good wacky weed. G.M. had a good electric on the road and as it was proving itself as a good car, G.M. jerked it off the road and crushed the whole fleet. A word to any one from G.M. who might be tuned in, Make the volt, and price it the same as anything else in your product line and it will sell,price it out of reach and you will have to eat it. I for one won't buy a G M vehicle because of your wrong doing with the EV1.

Hilltopper,

I am not ging to argue about the specifics of the EV1 errors, but I do agree that it was regrettable to destroy the EV1 prototypes / pre production examples. They should have been donated to museums and universities for further work.

What I will say is that I worked for GM in England and we prototyped hundreds of electric commercial vehicles. They did the job reasonably well in a narrow market nuche, but the costs of build and operation were very high so all the users needed to return to diesel vehicles for economic reasons. The problems then were battery range and life. We simply did not get the required or projected range in real driving and the battery packs all failed very early.

As engineers we also need to look at the sustainability of any electric car where the efficiency from base fuel source to final motion is so very low. If you have spare solar / tidal / nuclear or wind generated electricity then there is some merit in developing electric cars, but as in most of the world you are using fossil fuel power stations, then the electric car adds to global warming over a good diesel car and should be discouraged except where noise and local emissions may be an issue - small streets and indoor use etc.

Do the sums, work through the energy balances and look at the WHOLE picture.

H Mattos Charterd Engineer

The practise of polluting somewhere else is called virtual pollution.

Hendrik,

The term virtual is fine for a software concept where the image or whatever is held electronically but can be viewed, unlike a physical drawing or object which is real and solid etc.

I would argure that all pollution is real and has effect upon the environment - hence we cannot call it virtual.

Just because the pollution caused by our actions is somewhere else, does not absolve us from our responsibility for it. Modern coal fired systems - and even better combined coal and wood chip stations - are getting much better at not emitting so much smoke and gaseous pollutants, but the thermal efficiency of the whole system is still poor compared with a stand alone diesel vehicle.

Hugh Mattos

Chartered Engineer

From the very short linked article:

"It also includes a three-cylinder, turbocharged engine for extended travel."

DUH !!! ..... sounds like they are re-inventing the plug-in hybrid concept to me!

Maybe they should call it the "Dolt". They have been asleep at the wheel for so long, only they could have the balls to tout something like that at an Auto Show.

Dollars to donuts they screw it up big time just like their past big introductions of "innovations" (innovations for them, mature technology for others): the small "economy" car, aluminum engines, front wheel drive (the Toronado), passenger car diesels, etc.

If the past is any guide, they will destroy the market for years.

Regards, Greg

The automakers should design a pure electric-drive vehicle, then add the gasoline-driven generator in the trunk to form the serial hybrid. Over years, this will spur the development of batteries, help refine the electric part of the vehicle, and encourage people to find alternate sources of electricity to charge the batteries. However, I doubt that's their intention. The automakers and oil companies have developed a fantastic money machine over the last 100 years, and now that the end of oil is in sight they are actively engaged in managing the decline. For the automakers, the goal is to retain the money machine without having to invest in substantial changes, and for the oil companies it is to extract the last penny of profit from the last drop of oil they can squeeze out of the ground.

Mike,

A good basic idea since that would start the ball rolling and most of us could use the plain electric in cities without ever starting the genny.

It does not help though with the thermal efficiency problems so lets start looking at tidal and hydro and microgen systems and take the control away from the big companies.

At $50 per barrel there is no shortage of oil now or in the forseeable future. There is enough shale oil in Canada to keep the whole North american economy supplied with oil for the next 200 years at present rates.

The question is whether there will be enough environmental tolerance of all that oil based pollution. Do we really want to pass that legacy on to our children?

Hugh Mattos, Chartered Engineer.

"The automakers and oil companies have developed a fantastic money machine over the last 100 years, and now that the end of oil is in sight they are actively engaged in managing the decline."

The automakers make their money by successfully competing with other car companies to sell more vehicles. Other than institutional inertia, they could care less what fuel or power source they used if it would sell more cars. The oil companies are in the business of finding, extracting, refining and selling oil. They don't make cars, nor do they own stock in car companies. Obviously oil fueled vehicles are a big market for them, but they have no control over automakers, engine developments or power sources.

These conspiracy theories fall flat with only the most cursory examination, yet they live on in myths like the 100 MPG carburetor that was kept off the market, or the 200 MPG engine "they" bought the rights to, and buried.

The simple fact of the matter is that the gasoline or diesel powered car or truck has many advantages from the perspective of the consumer in terms of cost, range, power, and ease of refueling, but that doesn't make it a conspiracy, or a money machine for the automakers or oil companies on average.

As the supply of "cheap" easy to get at oil declines, that doesn't mean in any way that energy company profits will decline also, and they will just as likely increase in real terms, regardless of changes in automotive fuel use over time. As automotive power sources move to sources using things other than fossil fuels, a likely scenario is that some oil companies will diversify into alternate power supplies, and some will stick entirely with fossil fuels, since the fact of the matter is, it has so many uses as a raw material we shouldn't even be burning it if we have a viable alternative. In any case, the market will sort these issues out.

Here in the US, last year was a banner year for the oil companies, with record profits, while the three (if we include the Chrysler Motor Division) domestic automakers lost billions, and are against the ropes financially, in large part from making fuel guzzlers that consumers turned away from, at the same time the foreign owned makers of fuel efficient vehicles sold here did just fine.

What kind of conspiratorial money machine is that?

Greg

Greg,

Well done.

A reasoned and reasonable reply.

Thanks

Hugh Mattos

Hugh,

Thank you for your agreement and compliment.

I just get so tired of the intellectually lazy thinkers who fall back on these worn out "If it wasn't for ...... evil conspiracies" to explain the workings of the market place or the exercise of choice by consumers etc, or even the lack of success of concepts or products that violate the laws of physics.

But then, in their minds, I must be a shill for the energy companies.

Regards, Greg

GM's "VOLT" - Reading between the line

NEW NEWS: GM apparently doesn't want to build the VOLT because the battery packs are not adequate to support "plug-in electric" 40 mile range.

"There's just one problem: The Volt may never get built.
Production depends on advances in battery technology that could be years away.;GM tries to unplug Volt hype", by Sharon Terlep / The Detroit News 3/23/07
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070323/AUTO01/703230356/1148-
Volt Description

Now, let' read between the lines.

The "VOLT" is said to achieves 50 mpg using the ICE when the battery charge is depleted, then, it stands to reason that EVEN WITHOUT the "advances in battery technology" GM's "VOLT" is ALREADY AN EXCELLENT "MILD/MID" HYBRID TODAY! The "VOLT" would be far better than any of GM's or any of the other "US Domestics' " present (or forseeable future) offerings both fuel economy and emissions. Since Volt uses motorized wheels eliminating the traditional transmission, this should further improve drive train efficiency and reliability while removing weight and cost.

As a 50 mpg hybrid (producible today), the "VOLT" CO₂ emissions (should be similar to the Prius at about 104 g/km) would result in a reduction up to 170 g/km compared to the average vehicle on USA roads today.

Soooo, it can't do 40 miles "all electric" ... BIIIG DEEEAL!

A CO₂ reduction of 170 g/km is a significant impact worthy of serious consideration. Further, so would the about a 50% (or more) reduction fuel consumption over the average USA domestic vehicle.

To GM ~ WHY THE DELAY?

All GM has to do is "reserve" the space for a field retrofittable battery pack when the proper battery is available (in the future or never) and for current production use a smaller/less expensive battery pack. This can be done as quickly as it can be tooled up and tested.

S Houston,

A very good argument, which I agree with.

However, having worked for a GM division in England, I well remember the disdain with which the Corporation saw the customer afer the date of sale.

GM mentality could not cope with the thought that they may have to deal with that car again to fit the upgrade battery pack.

My view is that all the manufacturers should look at the option of leasing battery packs when they sell the car. Thus the technology could move forward every two or three years when the packs come to the end of their lives and are sent for recycling.

The customer gets a new design of pack for more range and the company get back the old pack to re-manufacture. We could even envisage a scheme where the packs may conform to one of say 10 designs to allow economies of scale between all manufacturers.