Welcome to PatsFans.com

GM Volt to get 230 MPG

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by DarrylS, Aug 11, 2009.

  1. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    Hope this is true and something similar comes up in the EPA tests, looks like a better alternative to the Smart Car (anyone who drives it has to be dumb)... if true would put us leaps and bounds ahead of all the rest when it comes to a more fuel efficient design...

    GM says Volt to get 230 miles per gallon in city - Autos- msnbc.com

  2. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    It's definitely exciting, but the government will have to kick in about $15K per car at the current price tag. I'm not about to spend $40K on a car and I've probably got a lot of company there.
  3. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    except that you need to plug it in.........the fuel burned by the power plant to charge the car creates more emissions than a normal car

    it's a good idea, but they need to provide a non plug-in option or it won''t be competitive
  4. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    I forgot to ask about that, the electricity doesn't come free as you stated. I don't care about emissions, it would seem like this would reduce oil consumption - or not ?
  5. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    Think it depends on how the electricity is produced... despite the negativity, still think this is good for the American worker and the American Auto Industry... but some will be skeptical.
  6. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    depends on the power plant.......but I believe emissions is an issue.......or would be if the vehicle becomes popular
  7. Mabeyitstrue

    Mabeyitstrue Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0


    I like to talk out of my ass too, let's see.....The world is flat, gay ppl will infect you with gayness and if we change health care their going to kill your parents.

    Show me a link, cause I would love to see your facts;)


    No its a great Idea and should of be done year and years ago.......

    I don't see how this is a problem, if you don't have a place to park your car or car's indoor run an Extension Cord. Not hard to problem solve here ppl:rolleyes:

    It is alittle costy but once ppl start to buy them and use them the price will go down, plus we can be the leader in the world in terms of car making and we can produce jobs!

    I think a tax break(aka wellfare) would help alot aswell, for familys/business that can't quite afford it atm but need it.
  8. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    There will be a $7,500 rebate for buying the car, getting the price down to $32,500, but it will still take ~150,000 miles to break even on the cost of gas.

    GM's Volt Offers Amazing Mileage, But At What Cost? - The Atlantic Business Channel

    And of course, the emissions from the power plants are still a problem. But we'll be hitting a grand slam if we can ever transition to a decent percentage of wind-powered electricity.
  9. KontradictioN

    KontradictioN Do you even lift? PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    25,448
    Likes Received:
    68
    Ratings:
    +89 / 1 / -2

    #24 Jersey

    It's certainly a start. I won't buy one but we could be seeing the start of something different here. Personally, I think GM should have came out with more fuel efficient, longer lasting, better built cars in the first place to compete with the foreign markets. Maybe (and this is a big maybe) if that had happened, they wouldn't currently be owned by the government.
  10. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    could you act any more like a jack-arse??? you're even worse than apple

    uhhh.......coal-burning power plants and something called cap and trade is plenty of proof



    do your homework.....then get back to me

    but then how many miles does it get per lump of coal? ever stay in a hotel? ever go on a long trip?

    sure......selling cars at a loss woo-hoo!!! british leyland, here we come

    hmmm........the government is bleeding to death, but lets do another tax break

    I'll go out on a limb now and say this car will flop
  11. alvinnf

    alvinnf Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,296
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I hope it's true also, If it is it's a good sign for the auto industry. Which, might provide hope for economy torn Detroit.
  12. scout

    scout Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,625
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    #15 Jersey

    Got to like the fact that we now have a vehicle that says F.U. to the oil companies. Just bought a Prius (Cash for Clunkers) and have no regrets ($2300).
  13. alvinnf

    alvinnf Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,296
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Prius , those are so "Freddie Mercury", you want to stick it to big oil. Roll out one of these bad boys!!!!!!!!!!!![​IMG]
  14. Bigdogx

    Bigdogx Rookie

    Joined:
    May 13, 2007
    Messages:
    428
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    It's a step in the right direction but it still uses fuel and electricity.

    I like Honda's idea of a fuel cell using hydrogen, it is also a very pricey option and extremely limited but has the most promise IMO. If anyone has not seen top gears review of the Clarity i advise anyone to google it and check it out, new top gear season next Monday woot.:singing:
  15. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,528
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    That depends on the price of gas.

    That is definitely the case, but of course, energy infrastructure is a long-term project. We'll be working on it for the next few decades, not the next few years.

    However, internal combustion engines are 20-30% efficient, whereas the conversion of stored electric to power is 80-90% efficient. I've seen this number quoted as high as 97%, but in any event, you get the idea.

    Now: The question arises, what if I burn a fossil fuel -- we'll say coal -- to run my electric car.

    As Humans and Americans we have 4 concerns:

    1) first and foremost, cost of vehicle/total cost of operation...

    2) Pollution, because we want to breathe oxygen not emissions
    3) Greenhouse gases, because we don't want to contibute to global warming, and
    4) Energy independence, because we don't want petroleum exporters to control our destiny.

    Assuming other concerns to be break-evens, the electric car simply wins on the basis of (4) alone, even we are burning coal to do our driving.

    So the first barrier for (1) to be a "break-even" proposition, and get to the point where (2) and (3) are wins or break-evens, or acknowledge that they are wins or break-evens.

    So: How efficient is burning coal?

    cheaphack: Solar is more efficient than coal

    I've read a 35% number at a couple of other places, 32% at one, you get the picture. So we're indeed in arguable territory, so long as we use only the older plants, never update them, and do not bring any renewables into the mix (which are much more efficient, since we're not producing heat, we're producing electricity by turning a turbine or directly, via photovoltaic cells.)

    Of course, efficiency in terms of solar, while good news, is not quite as important, since we cannot increase or decrease the supply of sunlight, we can only get more or less out of it. So it's cost-effective to get high efficiencies out of solar, but you're not going to produce more GHGs or run out of it if it's less efficient, which it isn't.

    In any event: Using 35% x 85% (again, middle range of the electric car estimates,) we get 29.75% efficiency -- the very top of the range attributed to compared to our other fossil fuel favorite, gasoline burned in an internal combustion engine (20-30% range).

    In other words, you could probably construct a worst-case scenario for the electric vehicle where we use only the oldest coal plants, never update them, send through the energy to the electric car, and we have actually (barely) created more GHGs and pollution than we would have with an internal-combustion car.

    Using the middle of the range for efficiency in the coal plant, you are back to another win for electric on the basis of carbon burned per mile moved. (2) and (3) both depend on this efficiency consideration.

    Now let's look at the problems with the claim that one is actually less environmentally friendly burning coal to run an electric car:

    1) All our electricity does not come from coal. Even nuclear (booooo nuclear waste!!!!) is emission free, and so are solar, wind, hydro, and tidal. I believe natural gas is also considered more efficient (potential energy to electricity conversion.) So the aggregate efficiency number for the general grid is higher than for coal alone.

    2) The newer coal plants are claimed to be 60% efficient at this website. I saw it at "up to 85%" at other sites. I'd lilke to see other numbers. The point here is that stationary power generation is getting more not less efficient, and generating less not more greenhouse gas.

    3) By contrast the internal combustion engine is going nowhere: the 20-30% range (and truthfully most of what I read said 25% under ideal conditions) seems pretty damn carved in stone.

    For my money this one appears to be settled now, but if you go searching for those marginal numbers you barely inch your way to break even territory for our antiquated hero, the internal combustion engine.

    So we're back to (1), which is what will drive, well, what we drive in any event.

    I saw a Chevy guy interviewed today (8/11,) and he said they had not yet determined a price point. It is worth remembering, however, that this price point is eligible for a $7500 tax credit in addition to the sticker price.

    The question is whether we want to get from point A to point B.

    The right will predictably talk about government interference in the market, if the Volt is sold cheaply enough that it is a success. If it is not, it will just be called proof that ya can't beat good ol' petroleum products.

    Regardless, it is ultimately the direction we're going. The energy budget appears to cost out. The GHG budget appears to cost out. The zero-fuel-import nature of electricity is certainly attractive.

    So it's a matter of whether the price point will be attractive enough to sustain mass production, and lead to a conversion to these vehicles.

    This will be driven by both the initial cost of the vehicle, and its operating costs (to the consumer,) electricity (or gas) included.

    Is gas going to get more or less expensive, long term? Most people say more expensive. Is electricity going to get more or less expensive? It is subject to supply and demand, yes, but it is also subject to technological advances coming on line.

    PFnV
  16. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,229
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -3


    As a compassionate Libertarian it is always a pleasure to educate scientifically illiterate liberals. Here is the short version:

    Coal 49%, Natural Gas 21%, Nuclear, 20%, Petroleum 2%. So the total from evil fossil fuels and nukes is 92%, Hydro electric is about 6%, everything else is 2%. Wind & Solar are <1%.


    Building Hydroelectric plants will draw screams from the Sierra Club, Coal will kill us all, no licenses being issued for nike plants, so where do you get the watts?


    See there are 5,800,000 Btu per barrel of oil, the us consumes >20,000,000 barrels per day and 3.414 Btus/watt.

    The US consumes 116,000,000,000,000 BTUs of oil per day, to run cars & trucks, or ~34,000 mega kilowatts each day, 12,500,000 mega kilwatts per year, the us produced from all sources 4,156,745 mega kilowatts per year.


    IOW we would have to quadruple our electrical capacity to convert our oil & gas burning vehicles to electrical.......

    Were are the watts, btw the climate bill to solve the non existant climate change problem is going to increase electrical cost by 25%.





    Easy problem to solve if you don't know anything about the problem...:singing:

    You libs are so silly.
  17. alvinnf

    alvinnf Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,296
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I hope everyone buys one of these, thus driving down the cost of gas! So I can continue to take up two spaces in my redneck rig!!!!!
    [​IMG]
  18. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ~~~Out of Order~~~ PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,491
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +24 / 1 / -0

    #87 Jersey


    Wind power is a myth ... sounds good and green but it's a myth.
  19. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,528
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    Number 1 concern is price, which, after all, is manipulable and as yet unannounced. We'll leave it aside; if people don't buy the car, the question's moot.

    Secondary concerns: emissions, oil dependency (as in, which resources we have.)

    If I have a car that costs the same, but instead of using saudi oil, has a big old coal-fired steam engine (and of course has comparable performance,) and its big old coal-fired steam engine has the same carbon footprint...

    All else being equal, being an American and living in a country with a bunch of coal, I think I prefer that to continuing to rely on the middle east, venezuela, and other oil exporters for my future economic livelihood.

    Now, moving on: We've established that electricity from present sources in all likelihood has a lower carbon footprint, vehicle mile for vehicle mile, than internal combustion. But the ranges overlap; it is possible that one could construct a scenario in which the electric vehicle "ties" with the internal combustion vehicle.

    We know that newer coal plants are 2+ times more efficient than older coal plants (the ones from which the comparable efficiency numbers come.) So: our coal production will provide more miles per emission partical than gasoline overall; it is established that burning coal in the new plant, sticking it in the battery, and powering the motor is vastly better than burning gas in an internal combustion engine, even if burning coal in an old coal fired plant produces a tie or a slight benefit.

    We also know that our current electrical supply produces a gain, because it includes some newer coal plants, as well as nuclear and alternative power sources, both of which are emisssion-free.

    Internal combustion continues to be what it is: inefficient.

    Now then, given that time does pass, and that we do have a future, and that our children will one day grow up, it would seem like the advent of vehicles that store the energy batteries rather than in foreign oil is good just in and of itself. Add to that that the go-juice favored today is widely assumed to become more expensive long-term, and we have on our hands a pretty simple case: Be efficient, or be inefficient.

    These are presently available technologies, which result in a net reduction in emissions for every plug-in and hybrid sold (because remember, only half our electricity comes from the worst case, the old coal fired plant.)

    As time passes, the efficiency budget only gets better, as we build future coal plants on the more efficient designs, and progressively increase solar, wind, tidal, and hydro investment.

    We had this discussion in 1974 people, and we didn't do jack. That's why we're having it again now. We lost 35 years twiddling our thumbs and saying "well, since we're at point A presently, point B can't ever happen, so it's not worth even discussing. Fill 'er up!"

    35 years later we're realizing it's not the wisest thing in the world to transfer vast amounts of wealth to countries that aren't our biggest fans. And the same arguments are made: "Well, since we're at point A at present, point B can't ever happen, so it's not worth even discussing..."

    Except now, we have the technology on the shelf available to make the transition. We can do it as fast as we want or as slow as we want, but realize that every hybrid or plug-in electric on the road does, in fact, help solve two long-term problems: emissions and foreign oil dependence.

    Next point: I hear two contradictory arguments on the anti-progress side of the aisle.

    One argument is that our electric power is at present insufficient to support the immediate replacement of all the nation's automobiles with electric cars tomorrow morning. This is true.

    However, we would not do that.

    The other argument, almost laughably, is that you could not sell enough electric vehicles to make a dent in our emissions problem.

    Okay. Hope I'm not the only one who sees the contradiction here.

    If we were to adopt new technology over years or decades, as has happened let's see...ALWAYS in such cases, what we produce is a steady, relatively predictable movement over time away from less efficient internal combustion vehicles and toward more efficient electric vehicles.

    Similarly, over time, we can increase the use of alternative energy sources, and away from coal. In any event, as time passes and new plants come on line, nobody is going to purposefully choose old-design plants when the newer ones squander less of their product (energy) on meaningless heat production. Newer-design coal plants make the efficiency gap between the old and new technology a chasm. An appreciable percentage of alternative source power generation would make it whatever comes after a chasm.

    Still don't get what's not to like here.

    PFnV
  20. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,229
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -3

    We don't have the watts abailable to power a lot of these things, how do your dispose of the batteries?

    You have no data to support you arguments about coal being more efficent than gas...
  21. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,528
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    That coal/gasoline budget information looks pretty widely available, with some variance in the range of efficiency percentage. Mid-30s seems pretty standard out there for old-design coal-fired plants. Internal combustion of gasoline is typically quoted as "low 20s", "20-25% efficient," or in one instance "25% efficient under ideal circumstances." All told, that puts the efficiency budget at about equal between old-design coal plants (some fraction of the 49% of our power generation,) and internal combustion.

    The Need for Additional U.S. Coal-Fired Power Plants - Position Statements

    Siemens AG - Coal-fired Power Plant with 50% Efficiency Rating

    You'll note that efficiency is a universal value. Regardless of whether China or India are really interested in the environment, they are no doubt interested in efficient power generation, as witnessed below:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/asia/11coal.html?_r=1

    The remainder of our power generation, as you have stated, comes from gas/oil plants, nuclear and renewables. Nuclear and renewables are zero-or near-zero emissions fuels. Say what you want about nuclear power; it is GHG-emissions free.

    [Note: this quick survey puts 44-50% at the present upper efficiency range of coal-fired plants. That still puts "newer" coal power well ahead of the I.C.E. in terms of that outdated technology, and to the extent that we even naturally replace older coal plants going forward, even if we relied solely on the oldest design coal plants right now with no nuclear or renewables in the mix, the availability of the electric vehicle would become a net "win" on carbon emissions grounds, even if the rosy "tie" scenario currently pertains for the I.C.E. vs. electric.]

    Your question about depleted lithium batteries is valid. After some thousands of charging cycles the LIons do indeed need to be disposed of. Since I did the legwork on the efficiency budget why don't you look into disposal of LIon batteries, and let me know what dangers arise from that need.

    PFnV

Share This Page