GM: Chevy Volt still on track
General Motors high-profile Chevy Volt car program has not been compromised by the company's financial woes, according to a company vice president.
Jon Lauckner, GM's vice president global program management, on Thursday published an update on the Chevy Volt on a GM blog in an effort to dispel rumors and concerns that GM was pulling the plug on the gas-electric Chevy Volt.
"It is one of the highest, if not the highest, priority programs in the company and that hasn't changed, nor has the commitment of resources to fund it. In fact, with the successful completion of each development activity, we have more confidence than ever the Volt will start production as planned in late 2010," Lauckner wrote.
The update was posted on Thursday, one day after GM revealed that it has postponed construction of a new factory in Flint, Mich., that was slated to build an engine for the Volt and Chevrolet Cruz, another fuel-efficient car. Many people read that as a sign that the car itself would be postponed.
GM CEO Rick Wagoner earlier this month in front of a car that has the electric powertrain and battery pack of the Volt in a body of a Cruz.
(Credit: GM)"This has no impact on our production timing for the Volt or the Chevy Cruze. Moreover, our global manufacturing process is flexible enough to construct this plant within a year, and the planning activities that require less cash upfront are continuing in Flint," Lauckner said.
The Volt is being designed to run 40 miles on a charge and have a gas engine that acts as a generator to recharge the batteries for longer rides.
On Friday, the federal government announced an agreement to provide up to $17.4 billion in loans to bring GM and Chrysler to commercial "viability."
GM CEO Rick Wagoner held a press conference on Friday where he thanked President Bush and said that GM can meet the conditions of the loans.
In a statement following Bush's announcement, GM said it is "fully committed to leading in energy-saving vehicles and technologies."
Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin.
Now, keep in mind that the cost of electricity is affected by gasoline prices and the advent of 'green' electricity is still quite expensive. Another interesting note is that switching from a 28MPG car to a 48MPG car only saves you about $400/year in fuel. If you look at the cost difference of most vehicles in this range, the jump is close to $7,000 which is about 18 years in fuel savings.
I'm all for being free from foreign oil, but at what cost? Stop fooling your customers with deceptive advertising and focus on making things better.
That's because the Volt only uses 8 kWh (not 16) to achieve its 40 miles. Only using half the battery capacity on each cycle makes it last twice as long (compared to an 8 kWhr battery) before it wears out. It also eliminates the need to deep-cycle the battery, which would make it wear out even faster. The over-sized battery is necessary so it can last the life of the car (at least $150K miles).
The main downside of the bigger battery is that it makes the car more expensive and a couple hundred pounds more heavy. GM is making the correct design choice IMHO, since most people wouldn't purchase a car that's certain to need a new very-expensive battery each 50K miles. It makes sense to double the size of the battery if will make it last three times as long. There are also performance advantages, but they are harder to quantify.
So a 48 mpg ICE car would need the equivalent of 9.6 kWH. Depending on your utility tiered rates, it could be anywhere from $0.08 to $0.32/kWH, costing the equivalent gallon of $0.768 to $3.072 for the 48 mpg ICE car.
However, if you had installed solar PV, the price of your electricity would be zero after the solar PV has been paid in full by rebates and your installment, the break even point of which is now coming only in about 5 years if you install the PV yourself. While your electricity would cost you nothing to recharge the car, the oil producers would be playing on a whim to fleece you out for that gas needed on a 48 mpg ICE car.
Why compare with the Volt only? There are other choices like Aptera 2e. For about $27,000, it uses only 80 Wh/mile, and could go 120 miles on a charge. If you used the Aptera, the 48 miles would only require 3.84 kWH. And if you are at the lowest tier of about $0.10/kWH, gasoline would have to be priced lower than $0.384/gallon to be competitive with Aptera if you kept on insisting of driving the 48 mpg ICE car.
Can anyone tell me why? I am open to all opinions, comments, wild ideas, positive feedback, negative feedback, rumors, crackpot formulas and conspirancy theories.
Thanks.
But, CNG is still a fossil fuel that will produce lots of CO2. While it is cleaner burning than air, the release of CO2 from fossilized sources is the major culprit of obviously, the unprecedented rise of global CO2 levels since the last major global warming from eons past.
Moreover, we are currently enjoying very low prices of CNG for heating our homes, for cooking food, heating greenhouses, etc., and to augment electricity during peak demands. If CNG vehicles were to proliferate, demand would surge, and expect prices of CNG to sky rocket, and so will the heatiing bills, plus the electricity rates would follow suit, especially where a good portion of the electricity generation comes from CNG powered plants.
So I am not enthusiastic about CNG. Perhaps, would use it sparingly, such as to stabilize the supply from wind power by augmenting it during windless days and storage have been exhausted. Would also love to use CNG for heating and love for the prices to stay low forever. When the other alternative non-fossil based energy sources come online, we should dispense of CNG in much the same way we hate oil. But between the oil from people that hate us and the CNG that we produce or our true friends produce, I'm supporting CNG in that more realistic choice.
also.... cleaner burning than COAL (instead of air)... where is the edit button?
The Volt is being designed to run 40 miles on a charge and have a gas engine that acts as a generator to recharge the batteries for longer rides.
Personally, I think they're pushing the 40 miles on a charge angle WAY too much, and making it a bit confusing. If the engine can recharge the battery while driving, I think they oughta be pushing it as competition to the hybrids that Honda and Toyota are offering with the extra added bonus of being able to plug in and go 40 miles on a charge.
-
by Joe Real
December 21, 2008 8:59 AM PST
- The thing is that the Volt was designed with a powerful electric motor to power the wheels. Toyota will have to use an ICE assist for acceleration or high speed, requiring the burning of gasoline in the first 40 miles.
-
Reply to this comment
-
(11 Comments)The most important thing to note is that the first 40 mile range covers the driving habits of about 80% of the drivers. The first 40 miles will involve a portion of the route that require freeway speeds as part of the commute. Many other trips are short errands, and those burn the most pollutants and very inefficient operation of the IC engines. Replacing that with pure electric mode will dramatically reduce emissions.
If the pure electric range was designed for 120 miles like in the case of Aptera, it would satisfy the driving habits of 98% of the US drivers. But I doubt that 98% of the drivers would want an Aptera-like car, and thus we have the Volt. Many offerings are available, such as those from Think, Chrysler's Minivan, Truck, Phoenix Motors, Mistubishi, BMW, and many more. Tesla's economy sedan would come if they can secure funding and manage the company much better. Of all these, it is only the Aptera which is showing potential to be affordable and profitable.