Chevy's VOLT

[yermom]

um, you might want to rethink that math, or at least show me how you come to that conclusion

the thing with the Volt is that it's the beginning, like Honda's Insight. once the tech takes off it can be improved and mass produced and it will get cheaper

i'm sure enough hippies will shell out the extra cash to make it viable

[ddub0224]

[Sooner_Havok]

"Here at GM, we took a loan from the US government because we were so far behind in research and development that we couldn't produce vehicles people actually wanted to/could afford to buy. We have now repaid or government loan and are proud to say, we are still years behind Toyota, Honda, and even Ford, we are still producing over priced, under developed pieces of crap, but hey, we're not Chrysler.

General Motors, We're not Chrysler"

[Ike]

Originally Posted by ndpruitt03

Seems like something like this would increase ones carbon foot print because you are using both gas and coal to power and you would have to fill up with both more. I would think that the uber-liberals would hate this kind of thing.

Back of the envelope calculation follows:

So only about 15% of the energy produced by burning gasoline is actually used to operate your vehicle (~13% for acceleration, 2% for accessories). Obviously this can be vastly different for various makes and models, but I'd harbor a guess that even on the high side of the most efficient gas burning cars, you are still only putting to use about 20% of the energy in the gasoline...maybe 25%, but not much higher. (see http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml) for a nice diagram.

In an electric car, you get to skip out on the extra inefficiency that comes from idling. Further, regenerative braking allows braking to actually put charge back into the batteries, turning what would otherwise be a 1 to 2% extra inefficiency into a 1 or 2% extra efficiency.

Now, from fuel to driving, you will still have the 60% or so inefficiency from converting a carbon based fuel to electricity. But then from there, you actually get to use about 90 or so percent of the electricity stored in the battery, as opposed to a gas car using about 40% of the delivered energy (40% of 40% is about 15%).

So for a ballpark, a gas car uses about 15% of the energy produced, and an electric car uses about 35% of the energy produced. (ballpark)

So if we imagine two cars identical in every respect except for the mode of power (one gas, one electric) taking the exact same trip, which produces more carbon?

Each requires the same amount of energy actually *used* to get there. So how much energy does each produce? Well, we need to produce 2 times as much energy for the gas car in order for it to use the same amount of energy as the electric car.

Now, assume all that electricity came from the worst possible kind of coal listed here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/ask/environment_faqs.asp
That would be Anthracite coal, which produces a little less than 150% of the carbon per unit energy as gasoline. But since we need about half as much energy to power the electric car, we need to make 200% of the carbon we would make if the electric car got all it's electricity from gas. Which means that even by getting the electricity from coal, we have still at least cut our carbon footprint by about 25%.

[Oldnslo]

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20100728/FREE/100729841

Autoweek's editor on the Volt. Sticker shock on an electric vehicle. heh.

[Ike]

Originally Posted by texaspokieokie

i have a friend that converted a little car to battery power.

last i heard, (he lives in WI) it didn't work that well.

like driving a golf cart.

Then he probably used a very undersized motor.

[jkjsooner]

Originally Posted by KABOOKIE

i.e. GM pockets $7,500 cash courtesy of the US taxpayers for each sale.

Are you saying that the credit get rolled directly into the price of the car? That couldn't possibly be true. ;-)

[KABOOKIE]

Originally Posted by Ike

Then he probably used a very undersized motor.

It could be just one bad cell. Maybe a ESC problem. My friend was able to burn rubber in his 280Z and said he was more likely to break a mechanical part than something in the electrical side of the car.

This car had some get up and go to it. Unfortunatley is was only good for about 30-50 miles.

Originally Posted by jkjsooner

Are you saying that the credit get rolled directly into the price of the car? That couldn't possibly be true. ;-)

No way huh?

[Ike]

Originally Posted by KABOOKIE

It could be just one bad cell. Maybe a ESC problem. My friend was able to burn rubber in his 280Z and said he was more likely to break a mechanical part than something in the electrical side of the car.

This car had some get up and go to it. Unfortunatley is was only good for about 30-50 miles.

Yeah, thats the downside...and in order to burn rubber *and* get 30-50 miles, you need a heck of a lot of batteries. Nothing holds a candle to gasoline for energy density. Well, nothing but a nuclear reactor, but I don't see anyone arguing we should put those in cars.

[ddub0224]

Originally Posted by Ike

Back of the envelope calculation follows:

we have still at least cut our carbon footprint by about 25%.

Go Green:

[ndpruitt03]

Originally Posted by Ike

Which means that even by getting the electricity from coal, we have still at least cut our carbon footprint by about 25%.

That's only because Coal is probably used a lot less, so of course that's true right now. Lets say we get the technology to get all electric/coal based then we'll have to find more areas of using coal. That would suddenly increase the carbon footprint with coal by more.

I think if there's any advancements in getting off of carbon fuels it's in nuclear power which was already decided 40 years ago by the far left. They didn't like nuclear fuel back then so they decided to stop all development there. In the 70s we had plans to have over 1k nuclear plants by the year 2000. Instead we didn't build one after the 70s. There's no way that's a viable alternative anytime soon because of leftest environmentalists in the 70s that decided gas was better at the time.

Or we go battery power and that's probably decades from really being viable.

[KABOOKIE]

Originally Posted by Ike

Yeah, thats the downside...and in order to burn rubber *and* get 30-50 miles, you need a heck of a lot of batteries. Nothing holds a candle to gasoline for energy density. Well, nothing but a nuclear reactor, but I don't see anyone arguing we should put those in cars.

Hah, you just reminded me that he did have a switch in it. UP for cruise power for 30-50 miles and DOWN for burn rubber for 30-60 seconds.

[Ike]

Originally Posted by ndpruitt03

That's only because Coal is probably used a lot less, so of course that's true right now. Lets say we get the technology to get all electric/coal based then we'll have to find more areas of using coal. That would suddenly increase the carbon footprint with coal by more.

No. You are wrong. It's not very complicated math. Due to needing less total energy, even if you burn more coal, you are reducing your carbon footprint, because the carbon from the extra coal you burn is less than the carbon from the gas you are no longer burning. Has nothing to do with how much coal is used right now.

I think if there's any advancements in getting off of carbon fuels it's in nuclear power which was already decided 40 years ago by the far left. They didn't like nuclear fuel back then so they decided to stop all development there. In the 70s we had plans to have over 1k nuclear plants by the year 2000. Instead we didn't build one after the 70s. There's no way that's a viable alternative anytime soon because of leftest environmentalists in the 70s that decided gas was better at the time.

Or we go battery power and that's probably decades from really being viable.

Or, as I suggested in another thread, instead of batteries, you have the roads actually power the cars. It's a long term kind of solution...not feasable now, but maybe a long way down the road (no pun intended). Anyway, the whole purpose of electric cars being the 'wave of the future' kind of thing is that they are uniquely well suited for whatever energy creation methods we come up with. Nuke, fusion, solar, wind, whatever. Electric cars can use energy from any source.

Where to get the energy is a seperate question though.

[SCOUT]

I am a little surprised by the general tenor of this conversation. Is the Volt the answer to all of our energy concerns? No, of course not. It is however, an innovation in the way cars use energy. Traditional hybrids use a gas engine with a battery assist. This car uses the reverse. It is a battery powered car that can use a gas engine when necessary.

During traditional use, it was estimated to get 230 mpg though that has been challenged. Even if the more conservative estimate of 100 mpg were correct isn't that a step in the right direction?

Generally speaking, most people do not drive more that 40 miles in a day. In fact, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics says that the average American drives 29 miles per day. In that instance, the average American would not use any gas.

Yes generating electricity is still an issue but new solutions are developing each day. Solar cell technology is currently in the early adopter stage of the technology lifecycle and is only going to increase in practicality.

With all of that said, IMO this is a car that is a step in the right direction. It isn't perfect, but it has potential.

Signed,
A card carrying Republican whose favorite book is "Ronald Reagan, In His Own Words."

[Ike]

I'll also add that as far as reducing your carbon footprint goes, there are better ways than electric cars (for as long as we are burning coal for electricity anyway)...and we could already have them if there was demand for it. That option is actually a hybrid. Except in the maximal energy efficient hybrid, the engine is not connected to the drivetrain at all. It's sole purpose is to provide charge to the batteries. It always runs at it's peak on the power curve, so there's minimal inefficiency from idling or driving at less than peak rpms. You could even do this with CNG engines too. For all intents and purposes it's an electric car, just with onboard electricity generation. Anyway, that reduces the carbon footprint by at least half. More if you do it with CNG.

[Ike]

Originally Posted by SCOUT

I am a little surprised by the general tenor of this conversation. Is the Volt the answer to all of our energy concerns? No, of course not. It is however, an innovation in the way cars use energy. Traditional hybrids use a gas engine with a battery assist. This car uses the reverse. It is a battery powered car that can use a gas engine when necessary.

During traditional use, it was estimated to get 230 mpg though that has been challenged. Even if the more conservative estimate of 100 mpg were correct isn't that a step in the right direction?

Generally speaking, most people do not drive more that 40 miles in a day. In fact, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics says that the average American drives 29 miles per day. In that instance, the average American would not use any gas.

Yes generating electricity is still an issue but new solutions are developing each day. Solar cell technology is currently in the early adopter stage of the technology lifecycle and is only going to increase in practicality.

With all of that said, IMO this is a car that is a step in the right direction. It isn't perfect, but it has potential.

Signed,
A card carrying Republican whose favorite book is "Ronald Reagan, In His Own Words."

I absolutely agree with you. It would be nice to see more innovation in this direction too. If oil were still above $100/barrel, we probably would.

[SCOUT]

Originally Posted by Ike

I absolutely agree with you. It would be nice to see more innovation in this direction too. If oil were still above $100/barrel, we probably would.

I agree. The reason I am high on the Volt, ironically is only loosely tied to the Volt. There are 100 ways better to use battery/combustion technology available today. Mass production is the key to adoption and cost reduction. Given that criteria, I find the Volt to be a great car.

Sorry if this sounds like Caveman Lawyer, but I am working on a screen type keyboard.

[yermom]

Originally Posted by Ike

I'll also add that as far as reducing your carbon footprint goes, there are better ways than electric cars (for as long as we are burning coal for electricity anyway)...and we could already have them if there was demand for it. That option is actually a hybrid. Except in the maximal energy efficient hybrid, the engine is not connected to the drivetrain at all. It's sole purpose is to provide charge to the batteries. It always runs at it's peak on the power curve, so there's minimal inefficiency from idling or driving at less than peak rpms. You could even do this with CNG engines too. For all intents and purposes it's an electric car, just with onboard electricity generation. Anyway, that reduces the carbon footprint by at least half. More if you do it with CNG.

i've kinda wondered about the math on this

[SoonerInKCMO]

Originally Posted by SCOUT

I am a little surprised by the general tenor of this conversation.

Are you new here?

[SoonerInKCMO]

Also, some well-to-do hippies must be diggin' the Volt as Chevrolet increases projected 2012 production