6 ms·
Chevy Volt: Is This Our Future?
- jarin 15y agoIn the future, everything is gamified. Actually, you know who really needs to gamify things? Banks.
- BadassFractal 15y agoWe already have credit scores.
- philwelch 15y agoIf you have to pay to see your score, it's not gamified, just quantified.
- randallsquared 15y agoI use creditkarma, which provides a score for free (though it might not always be quite accurate; I think they reverse-engineered the criteria).
- epochwolf 15y agoHave you used mint.com? You can set budgets for things and track your spending from month to month.
- ericd 15y agoThat sounds like a terribly neurotic, obsessive compulsive future.
- spiritomb 15y agoCoal-Burning cars (er.. electric) are the future!
- tophat02 15y agoI've never understood this argument. I mean, yes, I get that all you're doing is moving the energy production somewhere else; but isn't that a GOOD thing? My response to the "you're just moving" argument is that you're doing more than moving it, you're CENTRALIZING it. It's much easier to replace one coal plant with a nuclear plant or a wind farm (or 10) than it is to replace the thousands of cars that plant powers. Am I totally wrong here?
- jacquesgt 15y agoNo.
- sliverstorm 15y agoThere's two sides to the argument. On the one hand, centralizing is big. It allows huge gains in efficiency- steam plants fueled by coal are 99% efficient, and by the time the power reaches the wheels of your car you're still probably around 60-80% (Otto cycle is 25% at absolute best, not counting drivetrain losses) It allows flexibility in source- nuclear, coal, wind, solar- and the source can be 'hot-swapped'. At the same time, it is important to remember the energy has to come from somewhere, and this is something politicians, media, and industry has made a habit of carefully ignoring, so it does seem like a good idea to remind less inquisitive folks electric cars are not powered by free, unlimited energy. (Crazy as it may sound, folks believed that was the case for anything driven by 'renewable energy' a handful of years ago. That's what they were taught; renewable = free/unlimited)
- ugh 15y agoIt’s a good idea to say that but many people will then immediately go to the next extreme: electric cars cannot possibly be useful at all unless all our energy production is already carbon neutral†. The right way to approach this is to offer a detailed explanation, not to only say that electric cars burn coal. It’s a true statement, but it leads to misconceptions. I will say what I always say at this point: electric cars are about enabling large scale infrastructure change. A gas powered car will burn gas now and in twenty years. An electric car burns (mostly) coal now but it doesn’t have to in twenty years. That’s what electric cars are all about. Now, an electric car you buy now likely won’t survive until a large portion of our energy comes from carbon neutral sources. We don’t even know whether we will be able to pull that off at all. Why then buy electric cars? Why sell them? Why subsidize them? The reason for this is that changing every gas powered car to an electric car takes time and requires a lot of infrastructure and testing. We really shouldn’t start building electric cars only in forty years, we should start right now. — † Whether we should work towards being carbon neutral, whether that’s possible at all and makes sense is certainly controversial. For the purpose of this article I just assumed that we should. There are other possible benefits of switching to electric cars. For one it makes us less dependent on oil. Oil is not unlimited (so is coal but it is at least less limited), being dependent only on energy and not one specific energy source makes it easier to react to changing energy source prices.
- Lewisham 15y agoI'm actually most concerned about the lifetime of the batteries. From what I've read, the batteries top out at 8 years, and presumably degrade before that. As the $20k Chevy Cruze is the same chassis as the Volt, I guess the batteries come out at ~$15k. That's a huge amount of money to renew use of your $40k car after 8 years (unless you see that $15k as some sort of investment in the environment). The Volt design could/should succeed. But not with battery tech where it is. Those batteries need to do 10--12 years.
- ckenst 15y agoI wonder how the battery degrading will affect the depreciation of the vehicle which is usually the biggest financial drain of buying a new car.
- Lewisham 15y agoOnce the batteries die, you've basically got a Chevy Cruze + a bunch of weight dragging down MPG, as well as buyers saying "this doesn't work," so I'm expecting it will deprecate through the floor.
- barkmadley 15y agoI think the better place EV business model will help alleviate that problem, since you are technically renting the battery and it will get replaced semi-regularly. http://betterplace.com/the-solution-switch-stations http://betterplace.com/the-solution-switch-stations This will also allow the batteries to improve over time, without having to perform massive upgrades to your existing car.
- fletchowns 15y agoIf you crashed your 2002 BMW M3 ($43k new) and it was then useless to you, like an electric car with kaput batteries, you could be back in business for $15k (current used price of that M3).
- haribilalic 15y agoSure, but the insurance excess would only be $0–$2,000.
- chrismealy 15y agoEven better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omafiets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omafiets
- daimyoyo 15y agoI've said before and I'll say again: Electric cars will not gain widespread acceptance until you can travel the equivalent of a tank of gas on one charge. Tesla motors is close, but you need at least 300 and closer to 400 miles per charge.
- sliverstorm 15y ago400 miles? You kidding? I have never driven anything that can go 400 miles per tank- I typically refill at 200-250, and some of my bikes I'd refill at 80.
- daimyoyo 15y agoWhen I'm on the highway, I tank my car up and it'll be roughly 200 miles at halfway and 300 at 1/4. Granted, I've never driven my car to vapors on the highway but it seems logical that a tank of gas will get me around 400 miles. It's a 14 gallon tank so that translates to around 30mpg highway. I don't think it's unrealistic to ask for an equivalent efficiency in an electric car.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- sliverstorm 15y agoWhat makes you think that's a realistic expectation?
- georgieporgie 15y ago30mpg highway is really good and does not reflect the average experience of a consumer. That said, I think you're (sadly) right, but not for the reason you're stating. Because electric cars can't be recharged in five minutes, consumers will suddenly think they have to go even further on a charge. They will completely ignore the fact that they commute 15 miles each way, every day, and the fact that they already have that minivan they use for long trips anyway. That said, your argument doesn't really apply to this car. "The EPA official all-electric range is 35 miles (56 km), and the total range is 379 miles (610 km)." (Wikipedia) That qualifies as, "closer to 400 miles per charge."
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- bbg 15y agoI want to love electric cars, but I see two big issues: (1) if they go mass market, all that electricity will still have to be generated somewhere. Coal? Nuclear? (2) The batteries need rare-earth minerals, which are brought to market through environmentally-degrading open pit mining. Furthermore, at this point, most rare-earths are available almost exclusively from China.
- billpaetzke 15y ago#2 is not an issue for Tesla or Toyota. There are no rare-earth materials inside Tesla's motors [1]. Toyota is also using Tesla's common-earth motors [2]. [1] http://www.autoobserver.com/2010/10/tesla-opens-rd-labs-and-test-shops-to-reporters-unveils-model-ss-flat-battery.html http://www.autoobserver.com/2010/10/tesla-opens-rd-labs-and-... [2] http://alttransport.com/2011/01/toyota-is-developing-electric-cars-without-rare-earth-metals/ http://alttransport.com/2011/01/toyota-is-developing-electri...
- ugh 15y agoThere are, however, plenty of rare earth minerals around. China is only supplying nearly all of them because they are mined nowhere else. A mine in California will, for example, reopen soon. It’s simple supply and demand, really. I’m not terribly worried about getting rare earth minerals. I’m worried about the environmental impact. Looking into alternatives (which seems very possible) certainly looks like a good idea.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- ChuckMcM 15y agoAn internal combustion motor is, at best, about 20% efficient [1], whereas if you burn the same fossil fuel in an electric power plant using a combined cycle configuration you can reach 60% [2]. Now the electric company loses some of that by sending over wires to your house (or where ever the charger is) but its still a big win. What that means in mathematical terms is that if you took the same fossil fuel we burn today in cars and instead made electricity out of it and ran our cars on the generated electricity, we could either have nearly 3x the cars for the same fuel, or the same number of cars using 1/3 the fuel. The win here is that if you have room to build a big heavy specialized machine to convert fossil fuel to electricity you can invest in all the things that make that really efficient. Whereas if you have to put an engine in every car, there is a financial and weight limit to how complex you can go (not that some of the extreme low sulfur diesels aren't wicked complex, they are). Also you don't need rare earths. You only need them for permanent magnet motors. A fully electric car can by built with practically none, they are available locally if you need them[3]. [1] "Most steel engines have a thermodynamic limit of 37%. Even when aided with turbochargers and stock efficiency aids, most engines retain an average efficiency of about 18%-20%.[11][12] " - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine [2] "In general in service Combined Cycle efficiencies are over 50 percent on an on a lower heating value and Gross Output basis. Most combined cycle units, especially the larger units, have peak, steady state efficiency efficiencies of 55 - 59%. " - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle [3] The US used to be the world supplier of rare earths, China just did a Wallmart on us and drove domestic suppliers out of business, the DoE has put them back into business - http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/12/us-rare-earth-mine-reopened-as-doe-plans-for-shortages.ars http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/12/us-rare-earth-mi...
- tectonic 15y agoWhat's the environmental impact of making the batteries?
- yardie 15y agoThe polymer in a li-poly battery is ethylene glycol. It's relatively stable, relatively non-toxic (don't drink it, its can kill you but not the way hydrochloric acid will). Its almost the same stuff used as coolant in ICEs. Unlike NiCad and NiMH its probably the most environmentally friendly battery around. The other anode and cathode is lithium and lithium-manganese. These aren't rare metals (which I find ridiculous when people think they are made of exotic materials) but manufacturing is high because of the cost of research and the quantities produced. As far as recycling is concerned, over time the electrolytes breakdown and need to be replaced. So you delaminate it and attach the anode and cathode to a new PEG laminate. That is basically how a li-poly battery is recycled.
- dstein 15y agoI've always thought the Volt sounded way over-engineered. Why bother with a fancy hybrid engine rather than concentrating on making a lightweight, affordable all-electric car? The simple approach is always going to win. Zenncars.com was taking this approach but I'm not sure of their progress.
- oldstrangers 15y agoThat's exactly the concept behind the Nissan Leaf, which they discussed in the article. For me, the Leaf isn't the answer. I drive from Houston to Austin regularly. It's a 200 or so mile drive. The Leaf gets 70 miles to a charge. What good does that do me? I would barely make it out of Houston before having to recharge for hours. Ultimately, Hybrids like the Volt are the best answer for the moment. They provide a practical, non-scary transition into eco friendly vehicles. Eventually, cars like the Prius and Volt will be commonplace, paving the way for more radical solutions.
- rubinelli 15y agoDepending on how frequently you travel, renting a car may be much cheaper than the difference in depreciation between a Prius and a LEAF. And an all-electric makes even more sense as the family's second car.
- gamble 15y agoIt's all marketing. One day we'll look back and be amazed that people felt they needed to own two-ton 4WD land tanks with 500-mile gas tanks to buy groceries. ZENN, however, won't be the ones to bring it about. Years back they abandoned producing vehicles for a weird penny-stock scam deal with EEStor.
- meemo 15y agoI'd like to see the reviewers electricity bill.
- nhebb 15y agoThe $7500 tax credit is getting gamed by some dealers who resell the car to other dealers and take the credit for themselves. I don't know how widespread this is, but it's the kind of thing that makes my blood boil: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43243050/ns/business-autos/t/some-volt-dealers-take-tax-credit-themselves/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43243050/ns/business-autos/t/som...
- pitdesi 15y agoThat turned out to mostly be a hoax: http://jalopnik.com/5806946/chevy-dealers-are-not-scamming-taxpayers-on-volt-tax-credits http://jalopnik.com/5806946/chevy-dealers-are-not-scamming-t...
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- Derbasti 15y agoCan someone explain to me, why, exactly, this should be better than a hybrid design? A hybrid design can use a comparatively tiny combustion engine together with an electric motor, which saves fuel consumption and does not need to be plugged in ever. The Volt needs both a full-fledged combustion engine and a full-fledged electric engine and needs to be plugged in after each drive. That sounds basically like combining the disadvantages of electric motors and combustion engines in one car. Why would anyone want that? (And electricity is not exactly free, either)
- JoeAltmaier 15y agoWell, 80mph as the article indicated.
- Derbasti 15y agoAre you saying the Prius (for example) does not reach 80 mph but the Volt does?
- JoeAltmaier 15y agoAhgh! 80mpg! mpg! I hate it when I do that.
- sliverstorm 15y agoI don't think the idea is that it is better than a hybrid. I gather that idea is consumers get to "test-drive" the electric concept for the first 40 miles of every "tank", and that they will begin to realize that's all they need. Currently a hybrid like the Prius is largely indistinguishable to the driver from a gas-only car. It sounds to me like GM is aiming to give drivers the electric car experience, with the gasoline as a safety net.
- stellar678 15y agoIn discussions about electric cars there always seem to be two arguments that end up head-to-head: 1. That average or mode of distance traveled per day is less than X miles. (60 or something, a distance many electric car designs have no problem achieving) 2. That people won't accept a car that can't do long-distance trips. The Volt/serial hybrid (which Volt actually isn't) design responds to both of these arguments. If we transitioned all cars on the road to this, the average drive wouldn't consume any gasoline at all but people could still take their infrequent longer road trips. That's the premise I've seen at least.
- rokhayakebe 15y agoThe US should invest in high speed rails, better inner city transportation systems, and encouraging people to use bicycles . Electric cars aren't the solution.