6 ms·

And never mind the fact that in the vast majority of the US, you'll be burning coal, petroleum or NG to recharge it.

by ax0n 16y ago

ugh 16y ago
Your point being? Electric cars need larger scale infrastructure changes beyond simply changing the cars or providing charging infrastructure but everyone always knew that.
- ax0n 16y ago
  Hypothetically: You just spent $41,000 on a Volt. Let's assume you drive this thing to the very limit of its electric-only range pretty much every work day, or 35 miles (advertised). You'd spend about $225 on electricity over the course of the year to get around like this. Your neighbor just bought a bottom-of-the-line Ford Fusion (non-hybrid, 22 MPG city) for a notch under $20k. Driving the same 35 miles every work day, they'll burn 1.6 gallons of fuel daily and where I'm from that translates to an annual fuel cost of $1,080, or $855 more per year than you. It would take you 24 years (210,000 miles) at that kind of fuel cost advantage to offset the price you paid for the car. You're not saving money. You're not saving the environment.
  - ax0n 16y ago
    Then there's the fact that the Volt's battery pack will likely need to be replaced no less than twice (and likely at an extravagant cost) by the time it gets to 210,000 miles, and we all know that the rest of the car wouldn't last long enough to see this through to fruition.
    - rue 16y ago
      In the EU at least, it seems the offerings are likely to be with a leased battery precisely for that reason. The batteries can also be used for lower-requirement purposes after being retired from vehicle use.
  - ugh 16y ago
    I don’t think electric cars are about saving money. I never heard that as a selling point. And aren’t electric cars all about large scale infrastructure change anyway, not individuals curbing CO2 emissions? Say we find a way to satisfy our electric energy needs mostly without producing any CO2 within the next, say, thirty years. If our streets at that point are still full with gasoline cars we will be unable to reduce their CO2 emissions quickly. We consequently need to change the cars we are driving. As far as I know all proposed ways of doing that – whether hydrogen or electric – require large scale infrastructure changes and development of the right technology. Things like that take time. If we don’t want to have only gasoline cars on the streets I guess we should start rolling out the first alternatives, well, probably right about now.
    - ax0n 16y ago
      If they're not about saving money, why do people get concerned about their effective miles-per-gallon? If people were concerned about the environment, we'd be rallying the EPA to talk about the amount of greenhouse gases being laid out by the car's production and use. We'd also see people riding bicycles or walking to their offices that are a mile away instead of letting their car warm up for 15 minutes and driving. There's noting wrong with wanting a car because it looks cool, because it has some hot new piece of tech, or because the amount of dollars you spend on your car somehow makes you feel better about yourself. And to those people, fuel economy makes little difference.
      - pohl 16y ago
        If they're not about saving money, why do people get concerned about their effective miles-per-gallon? Reducing dependence on foreign oil?
    - ck2 16y ago
      Sure they are about saving money. At least it should be. It gives you options about power source and an electric motor in itself is much more efficient than a mechanical "explosion" based motor. We're just not quite there yet on a good, cheap, source of power. Unfortunately cannot plug in to a solar array for a week or two!
  - ergo98 16y ago
    While an early adopter vehicle like this isn't about saving money at all (there are extremely few hybrid vehicles that economically pay off), a Volt with come with a lot of cachet. Sure there'll be the contrarians (seriously, the griping about the 37 mpg borders on the ridiculous. That is a very decent worst-scenario mixed-use value for a vehicle in the class of the Volt. But contrarians gotta hate), but overall most people will perceive it as a higher esteem vehicle. People pay a lot of money for higher esteem vehicles. It funds most hybrids (which by themselves are seldom a net return).
ck2 16y ago
There are currently no consumer power plants in the USA that burn oil. But yeah coal is a huge problem (and the "clean" coal fallacy must die asap).
- ghshephard 16y ago
  Source? I thought that Diesel was a fuel for peaking plants in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant
  - ck2 16y ago
    I will have to google a bit but Carter phased out oil based plants after the first crisis. I think it was called the "fuel use act". Huh. Well I stand corrected: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Oil-fired_power_stations_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Oil-fired_power_statio... But I also read elsewhere they only make up 8 percent of the total in the USA and are being phased out.
    - ax0n 16y ago
      To counter this, places like Portland and Seattle get their electricity almost exclusively from Hydroelectric. For those who are really willing to subsidize the advancement of our independence on foreign oil, I suppose it could make some sense if they live in areas like that. I still think the Bicycle is a more elegant (and cheaper, more accessible and more disruptive) solution to the problem.
    - uvdiv 16y ago
      >But I also read elsewhere they only make up 8 percent of the total in the USA and are being phased out. A fraction of a percent now. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html It's not a sane choice; burning oil for electricity is absurdly expensive. According to the EPA, it was 20% of NYC's electricity as of 2005: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/how-clean.html http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/how-clean.html
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

And never mind the fact that in the vast majority of the US, you'll be burning coal, petroleum or NG to recharge it.

by ax0n 16y ago

And never mind the fact that in the vast majority of the US, you'll be burning coal, petroleum or NG to recharge it.

ugh 16y ago

Your point being? Electric cars need larger scale infrastructure changes beyond simply changing the cars or providing charging infrastructure but everyone always knew that.

ax0n 16y ago
Hypothetically: You just spent $41,000 on a Volt. Let's assume you drive this thing to the very limit of its electric-only range pretty much every work day, or 35 miles (advertised). You'd spend about $225 on electricity over the course of the year to get around like this. Your neighbor just bought a bottom-of-the-line Ford Fusion (non-hybrid, 22 MPG city) for a notch under $20k. Driving the same 35 miles every work day, they'll burn 1.6 gallons of fuel daily and where I'm from that translates to an annual fuel cost of $1,080, or $855 more per year than you. It would take you 24 years (210,000 miles) at that kind of fuel cost advantage to offset the price you paid for the car. You're not saving money. You're not saving the environment.
- ax0n 16y ago
  Then there's the fact that the Volt's battery pack will likely need to be replaced no less than twice (and likely at an extravagant cost) by the time it gets to 210,000 miles, and we all know that the rest of the car wouldn't last long enough to see this through to fruition.
  - rue 16y ago
    In the EU at least, it seems the offerings are likely to be with a leased battery precisely for that reason. The batteries can also be used for lower-requirement purposes after being retired from vehicle use.
- ugh 16y ago
  I don’t think electric cars are about saving money. I never heard that as a selling point. And aren’t electric cars all about large scale infrastructure change anyway, not individuals curbing CO2 emissions? Say we find a way to satisfy our electric energy needs mostly without producing any CO2 within the next, say, thirty years. If our streets at that point are still full with gasoline cars we will be unable to reduce their CO2 emissions quickly. We consequently need to change the cars we are driving. As far as I know all proposed ways of doing that – whether hydrogen or electric – require large scale infrastructure changes and development of the right technology. Things like that take time. If we don’t want to have only gasoline cars on the streets I guess we should start rolling out the first alternatives, well, probably right about now.
  - ax0n 16y ago
    If they're not about saving money, why do people get concerned about their effective miles-per-gallon? If people were concerned about the environment, we'd be rallying the EPA to talk about the amount of greenhouse gases being laid out by the car's production and use. We'd also see people riding bicycles or walking to their offices that are a mile away instead of letting their car warm up for 15 minutes and driving. There's noting wrong with wanting a car because it looks cool, because it has some hot new piece of tech, or because the amount of dollars you spend on your car somehow makes you feel better about yourself. And to those people, fuel economy makes little difference.
    - pohl 16y ago
      If they're not about saving money, why do people get concerned about their effective miles-per-gallon? Reducing dependence on foreign oil?
  - ck2 16y ago
    Sure they are about saving money. At least it should be. It gives you options about power source and an electric motor in itself is much more efficient than a mechanical "explosion" based motor. We're just not quite there yet on a good, cheap, source of power. Unfortunately cannot plug in to a solar array for a week or two!
- ergo98 16y ago
  While an early adopter vehicle like this isn't about saving money at all (there are extremely few hybrid vehicles that economically pay off), a Volt with come with a lot of cachet. Sure there'll be the contrarians (seriously, the griping about the 37 mpg borders on the ridiculous. That is a very decent worst-scenario mixed-use value for a vehicle in the class of the Volt. But contrarians gotta hate), but overall most people will perceive it as a higher esteem vehicle. People pay a lot of money for higher esteem vehicles. It funds most hybrids (which by themselves are seldom a net return).

ck2 16y ago

There are currently no consumer power plants in the USA that burn oil. But yeah coal is a huge problem (and the "clean" coal fallacy must die asap).

ghshephard 16y ago
Source? I thought that Diesel was a fuel for peaking plants in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant
- ck2 16y ago
  I will have to google a bit but Carter phased out oil based plants after the first crisis. I think it was called the "fuel use act". Huh. Well I stand corrected: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Oil-fired_power_stations_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Oil-fired_power_statio... But I also read elsewhere they only make up 8 percent of the total in the USA and are being phased out.
  - ax0n 16y ago
    To counter this, places like Portland and Seattle get their electricity almost exclusively from Hydroelectric. For those who are really willing to subsidize the advancement of our independence on foreign oil, I suppose it could make some sense if they live in areas like that. I still think the Bicycle is a more elegant (and cheaper, more accessible and more disruptive) solution to the problem.
  - uvdiv 16y ago
    >But I also read elsewhere they only make up 8 percent of the total in the USA and are being phased out. A fraction of a percent now. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html It's not a sane choice; burning oil for electricity is absurdly expensive. According to the EPA, it was 20% of NYC's electricity as of 2005: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/how-clean.html http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/how-clean.html

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]