Can a gas-hog really turn into a super model?
August 20, 2009 by Tom GuayPosted in: Latest News & Views, News, Technology
This is a makeover story reality TV would die for, transforming a gas hog like General Motors into a slim, trim automaker building a car that gets 230 miles per gallon (mpg).
It wasn’t that long ago that GM was hawking The Hummer, a vehicle derided by folk singers as an Eco-Destroyer. But that was before GM went begging for federal bailout dollars and was forced to sell the Hummer brand.
Now GM’s revving up the PR machine to introduce its plug-in, hybrid electric vehicle, the Chevy Volt that gets super-high gas mileage. The 230-mpg claim for the Volt is far better than the popular hybrids of today. Honda’s revamped Insight is supposed to get 63 mpg and Toyota’s Prius better than 50 mpg.
However, the Volt will be a niche vehicle because it will cost well over $40,000, perhaps closer to $50,000. It’s not expected to be profitable for GM on the near-term. But it will certainly offer customers greatly enhanced fuel efficiency that helps reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Like all hybrid electrics, the Volt will depend on a mix of gasoline and electric power. The Volt’s supposed to go 40 miles on electric power before the gasoline engine kicks in to power the vehicle and recharge the battery. It’ll have great mileage, but it’s not a zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) because after the first 40 miles, that gasoline engine starts up.
Meanwhile, Nissan is one-upping GM on the super mileage claim as it gears up to mass-market its line of ZEVs. Nissan’s new all-electric Leaf is supposed to get 367 mpg!
However, Nissan’s talking “equivalent” gasoline miles because the Leaf, like all ZEVs, is pure electric. No gas engines, no carbon dioxide emissions, just electric power for 100 miles. Then you need to recharge, presumably at home or for businesses, at a company parking lot. Click here for details.
Nissan’s fuzzy on what the five-seat hatchback Leaf will cost. The company says it’s committed to making mass market ZEVs and hybrid vehicles, so presumably the Leaf would be much cheaper than the Volt. To do this, Nissan’s working up a scheme to sell the Leaf but lease the lithium ion battery. Nissan says its fleet of electrics will account for 10% of vehicle sales worldwide.
For Nissan’s details on the Leaf, click here.
Nissan’s also working on an EV version of its Cube van that would get a 100-mile range. It’ll retail in the $25,000 to $33,000 range. Click here.
Note: All automakers working on all-electric vehicles are touting the same story about vehicle range to buyers. EVs make sense if you drive less than 100 miles a day. You recharge overnight. For long-distance trips, you’ll need a regular vehicle with an internal combustion engine.
Tags: GHG emissions, GM Volt, Hummer, Insight, Nissan Leaf, Prius
GreenandMore.com
Loading ...
August 13th, 2009 at 10:40 am
What these manufacturers neglect to communicate (or if they do, I am missing it, or have not studied it sufficiently) is to tell you what the TRUE energy cost to run these vehicles will be. They seem to negate any reference to the “cost” of electrical energy to charge the batteries, or how much extra demand would eventually be put on the the grid if a significant number of these vehicles. And what will be the extra cost incurred for the disposal of the batteries, and how often will the car require new batteries. Also, how much does it improve the maintenance cost of the vehicle, if it does improve it at all.
Despite the company claims, these vehicles are still quite primitive with nominal gains in battery power storage and life. Consider that the standard lead/acid battery currently in use in most cars today has been with us for well over 100 years, with just modest improvements in recent years. If these batteries are being used in the hybrid, then it is at an extremely expensive cost for what is modest development. What we need to see is an electric power cell breakthrough similar (or better) that has occurred in smaller items like pacemakers and electronic products. Until that happens and a true breakthrough occurs, these interim solutions will remain just that.
Certainly, I doubt that the trade-offs I see required by the GM-Volt will be palatable to an American driver who is used to getting in and driving without regard or concern about “fuel” for 300-400 miles. Other than rich “green” sensitive citizens, it will be destined eventually to become another Ford Edsel and suffer a similar fate.
August 13th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
I’m looking forward to having a true electric car available. I won’t be able to afford a Volt, and I’ve got reservations about buying anything from Chevy, but a moderately priced hatchback from Honda, Toyota or Nissan would be awesome.
Our commute is about 5 miles and it’s rare for us to drive more than 30 miles in a day, so a car that gets 100 miles on a charge would be our everyday car. Like just about everyone in California, we’ve got one car per driver in the household, so we’d just use the other car for longer drives.
The new lithium batteries are better than the nickel metal hydride batteries that the current hybrids use and those work pretty well. Toyota offers a 200 bounty for each hybrid battery to ensure they are disposed of properly. And the materials in the battery make it worthwhile to recover and recycle them.
Everything I’ve seen suggests that maintenance costs would be lower for an electric vehicle – no oil, oil filter, air filter, belts, timing chain/belt, starter, water pump, or alternator to change; fewer moving parts; no exhaust system to rust out, shake loose or leak…
August 13th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
I have a 40-mile each-way commute to/from work. So a 100 mile range before recharging would be great! This would be ideal for my work commute and for around-town driving. We would still have another vehicle for longer trips. The cost has to be right, but considering the mileage I put on my car, it wouldn’t take long (depending on electricity vs. gas prices) to hopefully make up in gas savings any additional purchase cost for the vehicle.
August 13th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
GREEN???? What a joke. Let’s all note that in order to even getting close to achieving the 238mpg that they are falunting, one would have to charge the batteries on these vehicles daily. So, how much electricity will that use? Can you say Brownout? Additionally, what’s needed to create that electricity?, Can you say coal? So, exactly how environmentally friendly is this lame attempt to a greener vehicle? Please, give me a break! As long as all you fools out there continue to buy into this whole global warming schtick, and let them, (those in government and special interests), govern your decision making and tell you what’s better for you rather than you making educated choices, this garbage will continue to fester. And around every corner there will be another loyal “good” american drinking the look-aid offered to the last drop.
‘Tis a pity, what has happened to this onjce great nation of ours?
August 13th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Amen to that.
August 13th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
A recent article I read about the Chevy Volt says it will cost approximately $88 cents per day to charge the battery. If a person spends $40 on gas every two weeks ($20/week), that means they are spending approximately $2.86 cents a day. Compare almost $3 a day on gas to less than $1 per day to charge the battery. And that is assuming you need a FULL 8 hour (40 mile) charge.
Climate Change (Global Warming) is most definitely happening. Anyone that says otherwise is a complete idiot.
I don’t believe in not trusting an entire LINE of cars just because of one bad experience you may have had with ONE car in the past. Foreign cars used to last longer and thus be seen as “better” cars. That was the past. Today, American cars are just as high in quality. So be cautious when someone says something like “I don’t trust Chevy” or “I don’t trust American cars.”
My issue is that I won’t be able to get an electric car until I move into a townhouse or condo or house. Living in an apartment doesn’t give me the option to plug in and re-charge. But I guess most people in my living situation couldn’t afford an electric car anyway.
Congrats to Chevy for selling Hummer and greatly improving the gas mileage in their line-up. It’s a win-win for customers and the Earth.
August 14th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Wes: First of all, Global Warming MAY OR MAY NOT be happening. If it is happening, climate change is cyclical and has been going on for as long as the planet has existed. Lastly, Al Gore’s self-serving disinformation campaign notwithstanding, there exists no settled science proving or disproving a connection between any perceived or real climate change and the expanded carbon footprint of the human race. Anyone that calls someone a complete idiot for not agreeing with their OPINION on the subject is intellectually dishonest.
Back on topic, the numbers for electric and hybrid vehicles don’t impress in terms of energy conservation. Unless the energy used to recharge batteries comes from a non-carbon based source such as wind, nuclear, solar, etc., it turns out to be at best a break even proposition, and plenty of research and science exists to show that break even has yet to be achieved. The advantages at the current time tend toward the personally economic, but even that takes quite a while to achieve break even on the initial investment. There may also be longer term benefits in terms of less reliance of foreign petroleum sources.
August 15th, 2009 at 1:56 am
Chris: Climate Change (Global Warming) is not an opinion. It HAS been scientifically proven. As such, you are simply wrong to suggest anything to the contrary. A reasonable person would most definitely agree that humans are playing a HUGE role in climate change. You are simply not a reasonable person. People that do not believe in global warming fall into at least one of the following categories:
1. Ignorant / Closed Minded.
2. Conservative / Republican
3. Rich / Working for a company that directly benefits from disbelief in Global Warming
4. Crazy / Mentally unstable
So Chris… which of the above applies to you???
August 16th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
I have to agree with Wes. Just look at the melting glaciers that have been around for hundreds of years, and the accelerated melting of the poler ice caps. But even if you don’t believe in Global Warming just look at the air around any major city, the smog and pollution that is caused by cars and industry should be enough for any sane person to look for other options.
Several years ago I saw several studies that compared electric motors for boats vs. diesel, the electric being 3 – 4 times more efficient. I would assume the efficiency would be similar for cars, plus the lower maintenance.
August 17th, 2009 at 7:32 am
Wes, Calm down. Global warming / climate change is real and is happening as we speak! It has happened since the dawn of the earth, it has caused the iceages and will continue to happen over and over. All Chris is saying is that there is no definitive evidence that human related cabon foot prints are the cause or accelerant. If you have research or can lead us in the direction of the information you are basing you opinion on I would greatly appreciate it. I also agree with Chris, you should not judge so rashly as some one may be privy to information you do not have. You are intellegent only when you listen and realize you do not know every thing. Listen to what others have to say, question thier opinions, ask for thier objective evidence then formulate an opinion of your own. To act rashly is to show your own ignorance, remember “It is better to remain silent and be thought an idiot, than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt!”
August 17th, 2009 at 7:49 am
Wes, people that respond with such defensive retoric are usually the ignorant idiots. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and the “scientific evidence” for “global warming” is theory at best. Do we need to take care of our planet? Absolutely. But jumping into something without global participation won’t do any good. Electric cars are a great idea and more are coming. However, if the cap and trade bill passes, we won’t be able to afford the electricity to charge the cars. Then what???
August 17th, 2009 at 10:14 am
So you don’t like the way I say things – I get that. But you cannot dispute WHAT I am saying. Climate change / global warming is happening. And it is happening at an extremely faster rate that directly connects to the transportation choices of humans.
Why not be happy that GM and other automakers are taking steps to create alternative solutions that will most likely slow the rate of global warming? Everyone is so quick to criticize. Small steps, people.
August 17th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Even the best small engines are not very efficient. Power plants are much more efficient than a car. Powering a car using electricity produced by a power plant uses far less energy, produces less carbon dioxide and produces less pollution, even when that power comes from our traditional sources. And, yes, that is still true when you take into account the power that is lost during the distribution and storage of the electricity.
And, yes, global warming is happening, and, yes, it’s because of us. It’s certainly impolite to call someone else stupid, but it is also frustrating when people cling to ‘doubt’ about a problem and use that as an excuse to avoid addressing that problem. I’m reminded of the tobacco company execs testifying to congress that there was no conclusive proof that cigarettes are bad for you because some study they financed a few years back was inconclusive. It’s a bit ironic that the tobacco execs blamed the rise in lung problems on the pollution caused by industry and our little internal combustion engines…
August 17th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Esully & Cindy,
It’s interesting that people that don’t believe in global warming are bothering to read a Green newsletter. You state that the “scientific evidence” for “global warming” is theory at best”, where are you getting your info, because everywhere I turn I see a new article, study or documentary stating the opposite. Organizations like NASA, National Geographic, The Smithsonian, The Weather Channel, and many other scientists, etc. are all believers in Global Warming is being accelerated by man’s current actions.
I’ve seen several of the scientists that were in the Bush administration come out stating that they were forced to promote the “no Global Warming” lie. I’ve seen an interview with the guy who coined the phrase “Climate Change” in which he explains that it was a “political tactic by the Bush administration to defuse and distract everyone from the real issue, because doubt causes paralysis and if people believe that the issue of Global Warming is undecided then nothing will change.” and that was done for the benefit of the oil, auto and other industries so that they wouldn’t have to make any changes and thus could maximize profits.
But even if you don’t believe in Global Warming all you have to do is look at the amount of pollution that we are dumping into the air and water and the resulting rise in cancer and other diseases. I would hope that these facts would encourage you to be open and look for other options.
August 17th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Wes: Your “arguments” contain so many fallacies that it’s not worth the effort to engage you. I suspected as much when I made my first post, but held out hope that you might rise above it. For the record, none of the four categories you listed applies to me.
August 18th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Chris: For the record, I don’t know you. I have no way of judging you as a person. My comments are in direct reference to what you have written on this website. I apologize for implying that you are an idiot. What I should have said is that I don’t understand how it is possible for ANYONE to not believe in Global Warming and also not believe that humans are playing a huge role in the speed at which our planet is heating up.
I honestly do not believe it is reasonable for anyone to ignore the fact that Global Warming is happening. It makes me question WHY they are choosing to ignore what I see as clear facts. From my perspective, it is like people are saying the sun revolves around the earth and the earth is flat. Which, understandably, causes an intense reaction to opposing comments. True, I have not personally participated in the scientific research that has been conducted to prove Global Warming (also true for a majority of people). But what I have done is extensive reading/studying on the subject and have easily concluded that yes, it is in fact happening and yes, humans do in fact play a major role in the speed at which our planet is heating up. I am highly educated and qualified to assess research from an objectionable standpoint.
I would be interested to hear the opposing argument. Explain the extreme changes in weather or the past 30+ years. Explain the increased rate in which our polar ice caps are melting. Explain the increased magnitude of weather (hurricanes, for example). State the primary non-human reasons behind “climate change.”
August 18th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
*over (not or)
August 20th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
FYI. Without slinging any mud either way, here’s a link to a blog the “civilly” discusses some of the pros and cons of one potential natural explanation that has pretty much been ignored as far as I can tell. The affect of cloud cover on the models being used to support the global warming advocates. Apparently, there still is some debate amoung the scientific community even if the pundits want you to think otherwise.
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/11/cloud_cover_and_its_role_in_cl.html
August 20th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
How often will you need to replace the batteries? I know the lithium battery in my computer needs replacing at the very least every two years (if not sooner). I do not think people are thinking of the maintenance costs for the new vehicles. Heck I do not like paying the $20 to have my oil changed, and now I am going to have to pay hundreds to have my battery changed out? The costs do not outweigh the advantages yet. Global Warming may or may not be truly happening (you still have prominent scientist showing proof either way) and it may or may not be due to man (even more proof that any temperature increases are a natural phenomenon), but regardless everyone needs to take a step back and see how much these green improvements are actually costing. And instead of restricting the companies that are making the electricity, give them more free reign to improve there facilities, to build new improved facilities instead of updating older ones (when was the last time a new refinery was built in the United States). Stop being scared and reacting to the blogs and start being proactive. How many of the people making comments about how we should do more for ‘green power’ (which is what, a bunch of Kermits on a treadmill??) have alternative power sources at their house? How many have installed solar panels or windmills or (dare I say it) supported the building of a nuclear power plant in their community? Stop talking about global warming, look at all the data yourself, analyze it and make your own determination. You might be surprised to see all the excitement is for naught.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:49 am
More research needs to be done. But let’s focus that research.
The question that we need to be answering is: what do we do about CO emissions without having an adverse impact on economic conditions?
The developing world has demonstrated that they will not adopt environmental controls that hamper the economic development of their countries. I don’t blame them.
The general populace in the USA will not stand for environmental improvements that do not also maintain or better the current standard of living. When the real costs surface, there will be an adverse reaction.
Let’s make this practical, shall we.
August 24th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Wes,
You certainly have displayed your high education and “objectionable” analysis in your stated position.
An “objective” look would however reveal that perhaps the warming we are undergoing and the rise in various human emissions could be coincidental.
Consider the “Medieval Warm Period” (from about 800 to 1200) which was followed by the “Little Ice age” (1300 to 1850) that engulfed the northern hemisphere. During the medieval warm period the vikings were able to roamed from Scandinavia to the new world. That all stopped during the ‘Little Ice Age”. All of this occurred without help from man. Scientific evidence has shown that the earth’s has constantly changed over history.
Non human climate change is the norm. It has been going on for a billion years. We have had four ice ages. No one can really explain it and the more I looked into it the more complex I realize it is. Volcano eruptions, Solar flare activity, Meteor collisions all have affected the climate in the past.
Besides you can not prove a point by failure to prove another.
August 24th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
One person challenges me by saying that global warming isn’t even happening. Then the next person challenges me to say that humans aren’t playing a role (but at least believes that it IS in fact happening).
Progress. : )
Sam: You remind me of a guy that believes he can fix anything that is wrong with a car just because he knows how to change the oil on it. Small steps, Sam…. small steps.
August 25th, 2009 at 7:47 am
Fiery topic. I like it. People shouting over the fence at each other. Each believing, whole-heartedly, he/she is right.
Well, I am a believer in ‘global-climate-change’. The data is there. Are we responsible? Probably not. Are we hurrying it along? You bet!
It’s hard to imagine that we send so many thousands of tons of pollution into our air and water and there are people still turning a blind eye.
Whether or not you believe in the whole darn deal, consider this. We, the humans, habitants of this beautiful blue planet have a responsibility in our stewardship of this awesome, unique place.
You’ll never hear me say, “Save the planet!”. But you will constantly hear me saying things like, “Recycle, reuse and reduce.”
It’s the right thing to do, and it’s the right time to do it. Seems pretty simple to me. The devil’s in the details kids.
Have a great day.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Wes,
Excuse me , but I think you are describing your self, not me, with your car analogy. I truly recognize that there is a great deal I don’t know and not every thing can be fixed. I also recognize that because I remember harsher winters in the Fifties and sixes that is not scientific evidence of global warming.
Besides, whether there is global warming or not is not the issue to me. It is the arrogant attitude that someone is at fault. And even if it doesn’t work, we should at least “do something”. I have investigated many problems in the businesses I have worked in. I have learned many lessons in analysis, including to be sure to differentiate between the obvious and less obvious causes. Often, careful analysis has revealed that the outcome of any changes that would solve the “current problem” would create issue more objectionable.
August 25th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Sam: I don’t care how old you are or what life experience you have. There is factual data to prove that humans are speeding up the process of global warming. Period. “Turning a blind eye” is a very nice way to put it. I bet you voted for George W. Bush at least once, didn’t you?
August 25th, 2009 at 10:31 am
…. or (Sam)…. are you someone with a strong opinion that simply doesn’t vote??? Cause that’s even worse.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Roland has hit the nail on the head! Yes, climate change is a natural phenomenon that has occurred over time, but to think that recent (Industrial Age going forward) human activity has no impact on accelerating this natural phenomenon goes against basic science. Put a jar over a burning candle and what happens? Our world is a similar closed environment, so what you put into the environment is going to have some impact.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Why not make electric golf carts legal on public roads designated for non carbon dioxide emitting vehicles only until every one who wants an electric car gets their fill of the maintenance. I figure these new found roads would be existing bike paths, cart paths at golf courses, and low traffic public streets plus the the great number of new bike paths being built with stimulus funds which by definition would no longer be available for use by carbon dioxide spewing bicyclists who emit much too high a ratio of CO2 to normal air to be considered legal on low carbon roads.
Have a nice day!
Jack
August 27th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Wes – and you sound like someone who voted for Al Gore… but I won’t hold that against you either…
From my perspective, I’m all for being a reasonable steward of the environment and agree we should take reasonable steps to have a reasonably positive impact on the environment. However, let’s not bankrupt our country chasing something that may turn out to be ephemeral. One thing I learned as an engineer is that history is fraught with instances where our intended “positive” corrections ended up causing negative reactions. We need to be careful about how we react to the data. Sound “reasonable”??
August 27th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
For all you out there that believe the whole Global Warming Malarkey
GREAT VIDEO, HAVE A LOOK AS YOU SIP YOUR KOOL-AID
Prius More Environmentally Damaging Than BMW M3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKTOyiKLARk
November 6th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Wes- Remember in the 70s when the ice age was coming??
January 6th, 2010 at 10:23 am
[...] Can a gas-hog really turn into a super model? [...]