GM Engineer Says Rechargeable Car Is On Schedule

[Guest]

Early versions of the Chevrolet Volt's battery packs are powerful enough to run the high-stakes rechargeable car, but dozens of issues remain before General Motors Corp.

GM Engineer Says Rechargeable Car Is On Schedule : Read more

 

[Claimintru]

So instead of killing you at the pump, it raises your electricity bill? The point is..?

 

[admiral_grinder]

[citation][nom]Claimintru[/nom]So instead of killing you at the pump, it raises your electricity bill? The point is..? [/citation]

The point is that is helps the reduce the reliance on gasoline, and improve the environmental impact. You plug the car in to charge the batteries for a 40 mile trip. At the end of that a small gas engine fires up to keep the batteries going. However, you can replace the gas generator with a different fuel source.

You will probably find that for the given output, a single power plant is more efficient and cheaper than a group of gasoline engines. It is easier and more effective to improve the power plant than it is talking several thousand people to bring their car in for upgrades. Any upgrades, or improvements to the power grid are felt immediately for all users.

When the cars are running electric, they are not expelling exhaust thus making the air around them cleaner. While the power plant is still working harder to recharge them at home, it is generally out away from the populace and under tighter environmental requirements.

I haven't checked but I'm willing to bet that your electric bill is cheaper and more stable than your gasoline bill (for the same output).

 

[bounty]

Perhaps that electricity is cheaper than gas? Maybe electricity can be made green? Or someone would rather be killed at home than at the pump.

 

[koehlerd]

There are several points:

1. You don't have to personally buy so much gas. For a commuter who drives less than 40 miles round trip to work each day, you don't have to buy any gas.

2. Electricity is cheaper than gas. You will spend less money on electricity than you would on the equivalent amount of gas for this car.

3. Electricity can be produced with less environmental pollution than would be produced by burning gas directly in this car. It moves the pollution to the power plant, which reduces overall pollution. This is huge for smog areas like LA.

4. The biggest advantage is that it reduces our country's need for oil! Come on, that is HUGE!

 

[Guest]

Its good to see that the Volt is still vaporware. GM advertises it like it's for sale already and they've been working on it for like 10 years.

Sad sad sad.

By the time they get this out, Honda will be selling solar powered cars.

 

[Guest]

WOW. Does anyone remember the EV-1 came out 12 years ago ago and was pulled from the market by the manufacturer for unknown reasons, not a single working model exists to this day.

It was a GM product, and it was electric, and it was destroyed by its creators. Just think how much foreign oil we could have avoided it they had actually proceeded with the product, released other electric cars, and built a market for the product they spent a billion dollars on.

The EV-1 did everything the volt should do and it did it 12 years ago. 14 years after the working production models were built, tested, and destroyed they want to try again, after a billion wasted on development for 2334 cars and they still need 2 years to get the thing out the door. I thought glaciers were slow. Here we are 14 years later, gas has tripled, petroleum companies continue to post record numbers and my asshole hurt from all the corporate rape.

The Chevy volt is 14 years too late to do any real good for our country. Far too little, Far too late.

The sad thing is people will buy it out of green guilt, as I recall everyone who leased an EV-1 wanted to purchase the car, GM said no and had all but one shredded, the lucky survivor was rendered non-functional.

Green electricity is called solar, and nuclear. The mojave Desert gets enough sunlight in one year to provide all of Americas power needs. The 154MW Victorian project(http/www.solarsystems.com.au/154MWVictorianProject.html) cost 475 million dollars. Thats alot of money for 45000 carbon free homes. Or is it? America is spending 720 million dollars a day in Iraq, and that is for oil, not democracy.

So for the same money we have already spent on the oil war, we could have been completely energy independent. Not to mention the thousands of people who would still be alive, soldiers and civilians alike.

The point of my Rant is that we, the people who bitch about everything, DO NOT want these things: electric cars, energy independence, and oil free world.

If we did we would have made more of a stink about the EV-1, we wouldn't elect an oilman president and bitch when the price of oil skyrockets (tripled in 8 years). We would not elect the same lying bastards election after election. The world has changed and we cannot continue to do business the old world way.

2 trillion dollars is what we have spent in Iraq, that could have purchased 4210 Solar plants like the Victorian project, and employed thousands, while securing our energy future.

but I'm just a fruitcake who rants on the web

 

[Guest]

The ranting fruitcake is dead on. This whole mess is our (Americans) fault. Time and time again, we American's can somehow be duped into giving up all advancement, our futures, when we here the nationalistic cries of our government.
My asshole, too, is throbbing, but the raping delivered upon it was not done by a money hungry corporation, but unknowingly by my fellow countrymen.
Recall Nietzsche's ire towards nationalism: "it is a sickness that must be overcome"...causing "relapse into old loves and narrowness" from "Beyond Good & Evil".
These petty ideals, nationalism as well as religion, have ALWAYS served to take away the people's power by narrowing their thought. Period

 

[gm0n3y]

Stepping away from the controversy here...

I'm wondering how they're going to solve the problem of gas going stale in your car. Think about it, if your commute is less than 40 miles round trip (or 80 if you can charge it at work) and you have a second vehicle for other driving (i.e. > than 40 miles distance) then the gas could stay in your tank for years without being used. Now this is probably only going to apply to one in ten thousand people, but its still a problem. Gas does go bad over time (periods longer than a year or something like that).

 

[kittle]

The stale gas will probably get used up when you forget to plug it in one nite. so instead of the quiet electric engine you have the noisy gas engine the next morning.

 

[gm0n3y]

Yeah, I'm just saying that it will probably happen to at least a handful of people and its something they should be thinking about.

Also, will there be separate odometers for both of the engines? I'd want to know when buying the car used, how much wear had been put on the gas generator, since it is way more likely to wear out than the electric.

 

[the associate]

I second that the ranting fruitcake is dead on. I never knew about that electric car they created before, your words have made a difference here today. Were far to behind than we should be...

 

[Luscious]

I have to totally agree with the ranting fruitcake. If the technology of the 90's could build the EV-1, there's no excuse for today's technology to not build the same vehicle or better. Then again, in the 90's gas didn't cost $5/gallon, corporate greed had yet to emerge as it has today, and Dick Cheney wasn't the guy in charge.

From what I've heard, a handful of corporate A-holes in the US have secured patents on the specific battery technology and deliberately refuse to license it or allow access to that technology, preventing auto manufacturers from developing vehicles like the EV-1.

It is also clearly evident that the EV-1's were destroyed by GM so that no one else would get access to the technology or develop the vehicle further. The public outcry was certainly enough to remind Detroit that the oil cronies they have been in bed with all along still pull the strings, and they can and will prevent newer technology from challenging their monopoly.

I'm kind of amazed nobody had the balls back then to sneak an EV-1 out of the country or hide it somewhere.

The Mojave isn't the only place suitable for large-scale projects like the Victorian. Nevada, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico all have vast areas with ample sunlight throughout the year. Problem is, the governors of these states are getting their pockets filled by yours truly, and in turn politically motivated to reject project like the Victorian.

Don't be surprised if by 2030 Australia overtakes the USA and becomes energy independent.

Yes, the EV-1 will return, but only after the oil monopoly is destroyed.

 

[nekatreven]

According to your link the Victorian Project aims to power 45,000 homes.

Recent U.S. Census Bureau numbers suggest the U.S. has over 150 million households.

It would take over 3,330 installations of the Victorian Project to power them.

3,330 times 420 million equals ~1.4 trillion.

1.4 trillion dollars approaches three times the price that the Bush critics currently put on the Iraqi war so far. (~565 billion)

So in fact, based on the numbers from today, it would cost three times the Iraqi war to power the U.S. with Victorian Project installations. We could not do this instead of the war.

Also 3,330 divided by 365 is 9. Which means it would take 9 years to accomplish this IF one Victorian Project was installed EVERY DAY for the next NINE years.

You notice that the Victorian Project site isn’t very verbal on the LAND REQUIREMENTS of such a system.

Good luck finding a barren desert and installing the world’s most massive solar array in it EVERY DAY for the next 9 years.

This does not consider that attempting this would absolutely flood the solar panel industry with unsustainable order levels, destroying the market and raising prices beyond belief…and this is just for one country. With this in mind, it will cost much more than 3 times the cost of the war.

This does not consider that in 9 years solar technology would be so much more advanced that you’ll have wasted your time, and that attempting this would starve the research into newer solar tech.

Don’t get me started on the fact that trying to do this instead of defend the country would give the people who planned 9/11 nearly a decade to kill us all while we build our outdated solar panels.

Never mind raising prices for solar panels and destroying their market (costing jobs), never mind starving solar tech innovation, never mind the fact that you didn’t know what it would cost so you lied, never mind the fact that there isn’t enough land to do any of this, never mind getting us all nuked.

Go ahead and do it.

That’s the problem with you “fruitcakes”. Your suggestion is RIDICULOUS in every IMAGINABLE way, and yet EVERYONE agrees with you and bitches about our current leaders.

As for the EV-1…market research showed that no one would buy the damn thing. We all wanted SUVs and fast V8s. We made a choice and the market followed. So go bitch at your neighbor, your brother, your barber…everyone you know including yourself. Don’t go bitch at GM or our leaders because all of our stupid asses wanted our Suburbans.

So that covers your first two stupid points. You want to keep going or are you ready to shut up?

 

[Guest]

Folks should go rent the documentary "Who killed the electric car?" While everyone wants to play the blame game, there was actually plenty of blame to go around on this one (not just the 'evil' oil and car companies).

And please stop with the solar let's 'just use the sun' argument there are still plenty of TECHNICAL issues to be solved including how to store the energy efficiently when the sun is not around (which unless you live near a pole at certain times of the year, tends to be a 'minor' issue). There is also the environment cost of making the solar cells or how about the environmental impatc of the batteries? The US runs on 120V (as opposed to Europe); how much does that cost in lost efficiencies? The power for the "volt" in the US will primarily be coal for now - is that more or less environmentally friendly than gas?

This is a complex problem when you look at the subtleties and while it is nice to see folks explain how easy it is, I would like my car to run on kisses from puppies... but that ain't gonna happen either.

There are no magic solutions, yes governments need to support and ecnourage solutions - but if they are ultimately not free market driven (look no further than the corn based ethanol SCAM being perpetrated on the tax payers of the US), then it won't be an efficient or sustainable solution.

 

[nekatreven]

[citation][nom]Luscious[/nom] From what I've heard, a handful of corporate A-holes in the US have secured patents on the specific battery technology and deliberately refuse to license it or allow access to that technology, preventing auto manufacturers from developing vehicles like the EV-1.[/citation]

So you're saying that if you write the next best selling book, or the next hit song, I can demand that you allow me to sell it too?

I'd love that man. I'll pay you a license fee, and then I'll resell it and make money off of your work when I didn't actually do jack shit.

You don't care that it would significantly undercut your income to develop the NEXT big thing.

No, not you, not your ideas, not your work. You're not greedy, we'll all get them, we'll share. Never mind making money or supporting an economy. We should all do this; just give shit away. That will fix the world economy in no time. We'll call it the USSR number two.

 

[Guest]

Ready and willing to keep going!!

http/www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/washington/19cost.html

I was using this article as a guide for the total war, and 2 trillion dollars is the low estimate of the total cost, with 4 being the high number.

quote: "1.4 trillion dollars approaches three times the price that the Bush critics currently put on the Iraqi war so far. (~565 billion)"
Interesting. Please site source reference. which bush critics, if you want to quote tell us at least who you are quoting.

"Only one economist, William D. Nordhaus of Yale, seems to have come close. In a paper in December 2002, he offered a worst-case estimate of $1.9 trillion, ?if the war drags on, occupation is lengthy, nation-building is costly.?" (http/www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/washington/19cost.html)

quote:"This does not consider that attempting this would absolutely flood the solar panel industry with unsustainable order levels, destroying the market and raising prices beyond belief?and this is just for one country. With this in mind, it will cost much more than 3 times the cost of the war.

The victoria project does not use photovoltaic cells, how would a solar project that has no photovoltaics flood the photovoltaic market. The war is still ongoing and total cost estimates keep rising. photovoltaics are solar panels, Victoria project uses mirrors primarily, I think the mirror market could handle the demand.

quote:"Don?t get me started on the fact that trying to do this instead of defend the country would give the people who planned 9/11 nearly a decade to kill us all while we build our outdated solar panels."

Again no solar panels read freaking article! protect us from what, the Saudis, who planned the attacks, why are we in Iraq, had nothing to do with american attack. The presidents father was having dinner with Bin Laden family during the attack. So please protect me from george bush, both of em.

quote:"?Taking both immediate and long-term factors into account, the overall past and future costs until year 2016 to the USA for the war in Iraq have been estimated at $2,267 billion,?" (http/www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/11/1807/)

quote:"As for the EV-1?market research showed that no one would buy the damn thing."
Let the record show that GM would not sell them, the demand was high as every leasee wanted to purchase them outright and GM said, well they said nothing then destroyed the cars.

Where are you getting your information, I have showed where I got mine.

quote:"No, not you, not your ideas, not your work. You're not greedy, we'll all get them, we'll share. Never mind making money or supporting an economy."

New technology will destroy the economy? I don't think so, but monopolies sure do. Giving shit away like we are now, American Coffers are hemorrhaging for the sake of a country we should not be in so rich a-holes can gouge most of the world and make another 500 million dollars. Oh and the rich a-holes are mostly the saudi's, who as we all know attacked us on 911, not Iraq, not Saddam, they are excuses to keep foreign oil prices higher. Hows that for your beloved economy.

Please stop blowing hot air and read something other than Mad magazine.

 

[Guest]

The Victoria project does use photovoltaic cells, as focal points, at the focal points only. Were not talking miles and miles of solar panels, mirrors concentrate light onto small hi-output cells, total project will need an order of magnitude fewer cells than covering the floor of the Mojave with standard photovoltaic cells, that would put far too much demand on the solar tech increasing the price. Covering the floor with tracking mirrors concentrating all that light on to a select few solar panels is the way to go.

 

[Guest]

quote: "Good luck finding a barren desert and installing the world?s most massive solar array in it EVERY DAY for the next 9 years."

Hello We put a major City in the middle of a desert along with all the infrastructure, and buildings for several times the actual city population, I go there for vacation and it is called Las Vegas.

 

[nekatreven]

lol...yes and vegas took decades to build up to what it is. So you still won't be able to install the world's largest solar array every day for the next 9 years, if you manage to find the space.

As far as the war cost issue. The sites that say 2-4 trillion admit that they are including long term costs. Some have the nerve to include things like retirement and the GI Bill as 'long term'. This is not fair because a lot of the costs they are counting would be incurred anyway regardless of where those service men and women had served. You are also not counting the cost of maintaining your 3,300 outdated solar arrays for Lord knows how long.

Unless you're going to count those long term costs, don't count war long term costs. We haven't spent either yet. Most of the direct costs counters I've seen on the web put the direct cost of the war just under 600 billion. That compares to a direct cost of ~1.4 trillion for your idea. I looked at so many sites for that number that I couldn't tell you which ones; but they were definitely not pro bush sites judging from all of the other crap they had posted.

As far as the EV1 research, its called an economics class. Smaller cars are being made and marketed now because we want efficiency to counter higher fuel prices. In the past bigger cars were made because we thought we were all big shots and wanted to tow around our boats.

In fact, part of the reason US car makers are in trouble is that they didn't catch it soon enough when this shift occurred. They make what the market demands, simple as that. You don't need some third party source to confirm simple economics.

I'm pretty much done arguing with you cause this will never get anywhere. My main point was that you were spouting your mouth off about all these great ideas that weren't feasible and bashing corporations that made more SUVs instead of electric cars simply cause thats what people were buying at the time.

I don't have time to argue with you anymore so rant away...you can all conjure up your tree planting and communism and solar arrays; I won't bother you. I have to go invest billions in new technology to finish developing a product that most people won't buy so that years later when they do want it, I'll be out of business and won't be able to give it to them.