The business case for the Chevrolet Volt hinges critically on the price of gas. Certainly there are a group of us out there who will run out and pay top dollar to drive the latest and greatest technology, and there are also those among us who will pay a premium for the ability to drive will little to no gasoline. However, for the Volt to be embraced by a large swath of the population, it has to make economic sense.
Also for GM to be able to justify a high selling price for the car, making it profitable, consumers need to benefit financially through the use of electricity as a major fuel source.
It has been said many times that $2.50 per gallon gasoline does not help Volt sales.
People surely remember two years ago when oil reached $140 per barrel and gas prices broke the $4 per gallon barrier. Interest in hybrids available at the time skyrocketed as did interest in the Volt, based on the traffic surge seen on this website.
That small peak faded but recently prices are beginning what appears to be a steady sustainable climb. National gas prices have just broken the $3 per gallon mark and oil prices are approaching $100 per barrel again.
John Hofmeister is the former president of Shell Oil, and as such could be considered an authority on the subject. In a recent interview he revealed that it was his opinion the US could see $5 per gallon gas by 2012.
“I’m predicting actually the worst outcome over the next two years which takes us to 2012 with higher gasoline prices,” he told Pratt energy television.
He believes these high prices will result from growing global demand. Sales of gas-powered cars are continuing their dramatic pace in China and India, and as those economies continue to grow so too will oil demand there. The supply of easily accessible oil can only go down. Also with recent reports indicating American gas usage is declining since the 2008 gas price shocks, higher prices will be required to sustain revenue.
At $5 per gallon gas, the Chevy Volt becomes economically viable, and frankly could only be a good thing for the electrification of the automobile. The greater economy, perhaps not so much.
Source (CNN)
This entry was posted on Thursday, December 30th, 2010 at 7:12 am and is filed under Financial. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+30
Dec 30th, 2010 (7:20 am)The cost of gas was not a major factor in my decision to buy my Volt. If gas does indeed skyrocket as suggested, buying a new car will be secondary to keeping jobs and buying groceries. Gen2 and 3 will need to have lower costs and better performance to become more widely accepted.
VOLT 63
+13
Dec 30th, 2010 (7:37 am)I agree with barry252 in that the price of gas is not my major incentive for buying the Volt. I am excited of course to potentially drive most days without a drop of the stuff, but that is icing on the cake. I am excited about the technology (some people might say the geek factor), US engineering and of course the ability to drive with little to no gas.
On the flip side, I am patiently waiting for the Volt to hit my market area and have money down on a wait list, so of course I would rather not see gas prices increase so the demand won’t become so outrageous and the dealers start price gouging.
Hurry up GM and increase production for the Volt and ship to the rest of middle America!
+3
Dec 30th, 2010 (7:42 am)It comes down to public perception. Trucks sell well at $2.50 per gallon for gas. Hybrids sell well at $3.25 per gallon. OPEC would do well to maintain $2.60 +-$.05 per gallon at the pump. But we know OPEC. Greed will be their undoing. And once people start buying fewer gallons. OPEC’s hunger for cash flow will push the price up to $4 per gallon. Auto makers will be driven to raise mpg. Further pressuring OPEC to raise prices. I don’t expect to see $5 gallon gas in the USA anytime soon. Maybe 2016-2017?
NPNS
+6
Dec 30th, 2010 (7:47 am)“Also with recent reports indicating American gas usage is declining since the 2008 gas price shocks, higher prices will be required to sustain revenue.”
Are you implying that a contributing factor to the increasing price of gasoline in America is that domestic oil companies and / or domestic governments are trying to maintain production and / or tax revenues, so they just increase the price?
ALL commodities, especially oil, are increasing in price for two major reasons – the American dollar’s value is falling in relation to other currencies / commodities and worldwide consumption of oil is rising again.
Since ALL commodities are going up, electric propulsion vehicle costs / prices are going to increase too, as they are stuffed with critical commodities like rare earth metals for motor magnets, precious metals used in electronics, heavy metals used in batteries, copper in power cabling, aluminum and steel in frame / body, etc. Even oil is used as a feed stock to much of the plastics and elastic polymers for tires, seals, gaskets, hoses, belts, enclosures, guards, panels, etc. found in electric propulsion vehicles.
If oil alone was going up, that would be good for electric propulsion vehicles, but since ALL commodities are going up, it is very bad for these vehicles.
+3
Dec 30th, 2010 (8:12 am)I paid $3.39 for premium yesterday in Youngstown, OH. $50.00 to fill up the Crossfire. That is the highest it has been in a long time…..
Not a good sign.
Come on GM! Fire up production and get Volts available everywhere!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The last time I looked, my money spends the same as money from NY, CA, and TX.
+7
Dec 30th, 2010 (8:20 am)It’s when shortages occur that true panic happens and the people start lining up at the stations. As long as it’s easily available, drivers will pay. You don’t want a situation where everyone is topping off everyday.
Perhaps the warning from Shell is to get people to think economy when considering a new vehicle. With the Chevy dealers getting swamped with requests for Volt, the timing is right for this kind of warning.
My dealer was swamped with Volts from the train. Caused a day of delay. Delivery is today!
+1
Dec 30th, 2010 (8:24 am)“Also with recent reports indicating American gas usage is declining since the 2008 gas price shocks, higher prices will be required to sustain revenue.”
This seems counterintuitive. Price will be based on the market. If the price goes up, demand will go to down. Americans (and the rest of the world) will simply use less, like they did the last time it spiked and now due to the economy. Yes, there is a bottom level, but I think there’s a lot more conserving that could happen first.
Also, I’d chalk up the “insane gas prices in just 2 years” as a bit of the “world is ending” mentality. I’m not going to start building my bunker just yet.
+13
Dec 30th, 2010 (8:27 am)Well said. I, for one, am rooting for $5/gallon gas prices. Higher prices is one of the few things that will drive down demand for gasoline, and will propel the sale of electric vehicles. Over the longer term, as peak oil really takes hold, gas prices will rise even higher. It is only a question of when.
Incidentally, I’ve been driving my Volt now for two weeks, have driven 350 miles, and have used only 3 gallons of gas. My odometer readout is inching up towards an average of 120 miles/gallon. Driving a Volt makes me never want to buy gas. My tank is nearly as full as it was when I purchased the car — and I’m loving it!
+16
Dec 30th, 2010 (8:28 am)Any way you look at it…the Volt is not priced for the masses. It does not matter if gas is $2 or $20 a gallon…most car owners can not afford to purchase and maintain (insurance) a $40K+ vehicle. Price reduction must happen to gain wider acceptance.
+11
Dec 30th, 2010 (8:47 am)The value of the dollar only affects imports. For example, the price of coal doesn’t go up when the dollar falls, because we don’t import coal. The same is true for domestically produced cars.
When the dollar goes lower, imports generally decrease, and exports increase. That’s why China doesn’t like our current fiscal policies, because the U.S. will end up importing less.
As for oil, the price is rising because demand is growing and supply isn’t. We’re already at peak oil. World output won’t go much beyond what it is today. So as the world economy picks up, demand will rise, which will raise oil prices, which will cause another recession, which will lower demand, which will lower oil prices, …
In other words, future oil prices will yo-yo just as they have over the past 3 years. When gas prices are high, interest in alternative transportation will soar, but when gas prices are very low, fledgling alternative transportation companies will go bankrupt. What we need are policies that help stabilize oil prices in order to avoid these boom/bust economic cycles.
.
+3
Dec 30th, 2010 (8:59 am)Jeff,
As to rooting for prices to go up, Thomas Friedman is also a big proponent of that through taxes from a quasi-market perspective, however I disagree until there is a viable alternative for the consumer to choose, which there never has been. Now if the Volt can sellout, get widely distributed and another automaker or 2 starts mass producing an EREV to most US markets, I too will be rooting for OPEC to hasten their fall through their greed and myopia.
+3
Dec 30th, 2010 (9:05 am)Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you are viewing it) gasoline demand is not inelastic. It, along with the world economy, will suffer and $5/gal gas won’t be reached by 2012 except perhaps for a very short lived spike in prices.
+5
Dec 30th, 2010 (9:14 am)Bad for our delicate economy at large, but risinig commodity prices affect all cars. As long as gasoline prices rise disproportionately with electricity rates, EVs are advantaged. Just look at 2008 buying paterns.
+1
Dec 30th, 2010 (9:17 am)OK. So now we’ll have to see how available vehicles with Voltec will be in the next couple of years. Doesn’t help me at all right now. They’re essentially all sold already.
+6
Dec 30th, 2010 (9:22 am)I went through this exercise yesterday on the forum. Even at 5$/gallon, the Volt will only break even with a Cruze over 8 years if the Volt is driven 40 miles or more every day of the year and electricity is 12c/kWh or less. If you drive less than 40 miles a day or pay more than 12c/kWh, it will take longer to break even, if at all. Take away government incentives, and it makes no economic sense at all.
I think that given similat ownership costs over 8 years, most average drivrs will choose the Cruze over the Volt, simply because there is less cost to absorb up front, and it’s a proven technology they trust. That’s assuming they can still afford a Cruze with gas at 5$/gallon.
But the Volt is still a good start. There are enough drivers out there that aren’t terribly price-sensitive. If it can take some BMW 3-series, Mercedes C-class and other small 6-cylinder cars off the road, all the better.
I am certain gas will reach 5$/gallon in a few years. I’m paying about 4.75$ for premium in Ottawa, Canada today (regular is about 4.35). To Jim I who said it cost 50$ to fill a Crossfire; I pay 50$ to fill up a Nissan Sentra here. Diesel is about 5% cheaper than gas here, so not much savings there either.
Over the medium-term, the world will need to adapt to high gas prices, and I’ll bet it will cause at least one more major economic crash (if not more) before people implement the lifestyle changes needed to become sustainable in a world of declining oil stocks. The economic prosperity of the last 100 years was achieved using a one-time endowment; oil. If we’re going to keep things going, we’ll need to find other ways of getting our energy. Otherwise, we’ll take a big hit in standard of living. Either way, emissions will go down drastically, either because we choose to avoid fossil fuels, or because we can’t afford to buy it. Funny how large systems take care of themselves that way…
+3
Dec 30th, 2010 (9:27 am)Buses, trains, bikes, deisels, more efficient gassers, driving less, moving closer, ride sharing, etc. There are a plethora of alternatives that people have been coosing from (or ignoring) to lessen or eliminate gasoline consumption. Driving is not a fundamental need or right but rather a choice.
We are seeing the beginnings of a more constrained oil supply dynamic along with a world straining to consume more. Unless affordable, non-threatening biofuels come online relatively quickly, we will be forced to make changes regardless and in an unplanned fashion.
+2
Dec 30th, 2010 (9:29 am)The idea that we should heavily tax oil/gas, to more accurately reflect the true cost is something I have waffled on lately.
An idea that has been kicked around is to put a variable tax that maintains the price of gas at say $5/gal. This would allow alternatives to be developed w/o the looming fear that price of gas will plummet and the project will fail.
So, if the US puts this variable tax on gas, and say for example they set it to maintain gas cost at $5/gal, wouldn’t they (OPEC) just adjust the price of oil to basically track this equivalent $5/gal gas?
It is early and I am probably forgetting exactly how this would ever be administered effectively?
But, if gas price spikes to $5/gal, I think few people will be able to afford a $40k car, and they will likely just find a way to use less gas, as painful as it will be.
We really need an affordable alternative, and I think that GM et al, will work on this, but I think it will be many years before we see a practical EREV/EV that can be massed produced. Your not going to replace the 100′s of millions of cars over night, but you need to start somewhere.
+2
Dec 30th, 2010 (9:31 am)Koz,
I agree with you 100%.
+9
Dec 30th, 2010 (9:34 am)I’m sure EREV prices will fall over the next 10 years, like any other new technology.
As an example, look at flat screen TVs. 10 years ago, most people were still buying CRT TVs and computer monitors. Flat screens were available and desirable, but the price was too high for wide acceptance. Today’s flat screens use the same basic technology as they did 10 years ago (LCD and plasma), but the cost is much lower, quality is higher, and reliability is generally better as well. Nobody even sells CRTs anymore. That’s what can happen with 10 years of optimizations for a given technology.
With EREVs and EVs, some people seem to think that we’ll need new technologies to get the price down. 10 years ago, people were saying the same thing about flat screens. They pointed to limitations with LCD technology, viewing angle, response time, contrast ratio, and said prices would always be too high. But all of these limitations were improved significantly, and prices fell dramatically.
Historically, this is in fact typical for most new new technologies in the market. Prices are high initially, but incremental design improvements and manufacturing optimizations allow the technology to go mainstream.
So within 10 years or so, I believe EREVs will go mainstream, much more so than anyone expects, including GM. Li/Ion cells, electric motors, and other electric parts will all cost 1/4 of what they do today, even less in some cases. EREVs will end up costing 20% more than a normal gas engine car, and will easily save that much in fuel prices over the life of the vehicle. A majority of new cars sold will be plug-ins.
Dec 30th, 2010 (9:48 am)Dave,
I agree the price will come down and likely will fall fairly significantly, BUT your talking the price of a vehicle. The cost of producing a vehicle has been optimized over the last 100 years, and your not going to be able to reduce the price of the base vehicle beyond what any ICE does. The Volt is basically and ICE + EREV, and the Volt is not a cheap BASE model. If you could buy the Volt today w/o EREV, I would suspect your looking at about $22k out the door. So, that means your EREV portion is about $19k.
So, now you might be able to reduce the cost of the EREV portion by even as much as 30-40% in the next couple years, so at 40% reduction, your reducing the price by about $7,600. BUT, eventually that $7,500 credit will disappear, so now your effective cost reduction was $100!
The other option is to build a more basic base ICE at a cost of about $15k, and then with a 40% cost reduction of the EREV, you could buy the car for about $26,000 w/o any rebate. This would be a vehicle that would be more attractive to anyone on a budget, and you could actually see a financial payback with gas even at $3/gal.
I hope this 2nd option is viable, and would be something that could definitely be a game changer for our future.
+6
Dec 30th, 2010 (9:55 am)Future gas prices and the possibility of turmoil in the oil markets is what drives me. History does repeat itself. China and India are rising fast and they are demanding more energy for their economies. It is tough to predict exactly the time line but it is guaranteed that the price of oil will go up. If there was no world wide recession in 2008 the price of gas would not have dipped so far. We are now at a point were the price of gas would have settled down to in 2008-2009 if there was no recession. The steady growth in the price of oil shows that we will should expect about a 1 dollar a gallon growth every one to two years. So John Hofmeister’s prediction I think is good from the worst case side of the prediction. My planning for the purchase of the Volt is predicated on owning it for at least 10 years. Even with the $34,000 net cost, over 10 years the Volt represents very good savings as compared to what I drive now. Just figuring an average cost of 4.50 (on a range of 3 to 6 dollars a gallon over 10 years) I get a differential of about $30,000 in fuel cost. My Chrysler gets 19 MPG average and from what I have seen so far for the Volt will get 74 MPG and yes I did not factor in electricity cost which would probably reduce my gas savings by 25 to 45 % depending how energy cost for electricity play out. They will hopefully not track with OPEC controlled prices since we have some control of that part of the equation. It may mean burning more coal then we should or it will spur the building of more wind, solar and geothermal generation which I think it will. If we as a country are smart and put our money (invest in our selves) and build out the best electrical system in the world then we can beat the world and maintain or regain our energy independence. Gaining independence would also be good for the ecology and would be a good side effect. I plan to do my part, the rest is up to everyone else to make the right decisions.
P
+5
Dec 30th, 2010 (9:59 am)Ahh.. Good Ole 2008 the day when Dodge dealers marked down Brand New Dodge Ram V10′s to $15,000 to get them off their lots, Used SUV’s could hardly be given away, Used Geo Metros were selling for up to $5,000 and I kept cruzing along in my XB at 35 MPG. I look forward for the next gas spike to open the eyes of all those consumers who made the same mistakes all over again in the past 2 -4 years.
Dec 30th, 2010 (10:03 am)“American gas usage is declining since the 2008 gas price shocks, higher prices will be required to sustain revenue.”
I wonder at what gas price is an EREV no longer more appealing than a BEV?
If gas were up to $9 /gallon it would cost about $81 to fill-up a Volt.
NPNS!
+2
Dec 30th, 2010 (10:05 am)Dave G, Jason Hendler is correct that ALL commodities are going up. Some more than others. Check out CBOT sometime, it is all there, with pretty charts.
It isn’t just imports, but global trade interaction that places pressure on commodity prices. Coal is part of the interwoven global energy market. In the end, BTUs are BTUs and the price spreads out globally to meet the market demand in each country (accounting for taxes, margins, etc). So coal-based electricity prices will rise OR the coal or electricity will be sold elswhere. Unfortunately $5 gas will be met with the equivelent rise in electricity. However, this does NOT account for government intervention in the rate that the rates will climb. Electricity IS one of those things closely tied to the government and price change requires gov approval. I predict that oil products will rise much faster than regulated electricity, then the utilities will balk at the rates the government is allowing, and then electricity will slowly rise in the years after.
Interlinked and also important are food prices. In two months or so the spike in grain/food commodity prices from last year will be reflected in the supermarket. Some commodities have a quick reflection at the retail level (oil), some are slower (agricultural, metals). The overall average is trending upward.
+7
Dec 30th, 2010 (10:18 am)The price of solar PV is one thing which has been falling. Are any of you considering the purchase of solar PV?
Dec 30th, 2010 (10:20 am)Yes, well said, +1.
Lower costs for sure, but better performance? GM seems to have nailed it with the Volt. I’m hard pressed to think of what I’d want more of. The 40 mile range is perfect, any more and I’d be hauling around more battery than I need. Acceleration is perfect, any more and I’d probably get speeding tickets. Performance wise, I think the Volt is already there.
Obviously the Volt is not a big car, and I’d like a bit more room for more people and/or more stuff. I’m not looking for an SUV or mini-van, just a little more interior space, like a small MPV or station wagon. So I’m anxious for the Chevy Amp announcement.
But besides lower cost and more models to choose from, there are some other things that could be improved. Here’s my wish-list for future EREV generations.
• FlexFuel
• better battery warranty – 10 years / 150,000 miles
• a trim package with analog gauges and normal controls
• more consistent electric range, especially in cold weather
• 110v outlets inside the car (powered by the Volt’s battery & generator)
+3
Dec 30th, 2010 (10:26 am)It’s too bad we did start taxing gasoline more heavily so that we could have some control over prices and we could adapt to higher prices more gradually. Sure higher gas prices are one of many variable that can have a negative impact on the economy, but the same is true of higher taxes or higher prices for just about any important commodity that impacts most of us.
If you consider that businesses (and the general economy) has to manage energy, people, and material/capital resources and if any of those items get more expensive it can hurt the underlying business. Since our government taxes income and labor heavily, it creates a deterrent to hiring people — in fact it creates an incentive to use capital and energy in order to automate and reduce labor. If energy were taxed more heavily and income & labor were taxed less, we would create an incentive to hire people to help conserve energy. This net effect might be a positive one on our economy.
+3
Dec 30th, 2010 (10:29 am)I hope the gas prices don’t go too high.. but $3+ should be enough to keep interest in the VOLT and similar cars since you can easily save $1,000 per year …. add this to the calculations and it does become economical in the long run even with a premium price. Lyle is probably saving $2000 or more a year.
I don’t want gas to be a source of government “easy money”… to fund ridiculous pensions, pay and benefits for government funded “jobs”. We just gave teachers pensions 60 billion dollars .. rewarding them for what? What competition do they have? Why are their pension funds in such bad shape? Nothing is said in the media about this 60 billion … but they constantly bring up GM being “bailed out” .. and they are not mentioning how much GM has already paid back. We will never see a penny of the 60 billion given without strings to the teachers pensions.
When millions of steel workers pension funds went bad.. they just sent letters to them saying their pension has stopped… and they stopped getting pensions. Why is it that government workers are not sharing the pain of this “recession”?
Don’t start taxing gasoline to fund government .
+4
Dec 30th, 2010 (10:41 am)I’m saying the EREV portion will be 1/4 of today’s price within the next 10 years or so, perhaps even less. Historically, this is typical as a new technology matures in the market.
Also, the Chevy Cruise and Volt are very similar. Both are built on the Delta II compact platform. Since the Cruise only costs $16K, I think a Volt would be closer to $19K, making the EREV portion $22K. Within 10 years or so, that EREV portion will only cost around $5K, so the total price will be around $24K.
That’s why I’m predicting EREVs will go mainstreamin a big way within the next 10 years.
.
+9
Dec 30th, 2010 (11:06 am)____________________________________________________________
Chevy Volt = Energy Snug
I believe there is a general underestimation of the number of people wanting to purchase a Volt irrespective of if today gas is 1$/gal or $10/gal.
A bunch of us folks want to give yo-yoing gas prices the finger.
Happy New Years to all! See you in 2011.
_____________________________________________________________
+4
Dec 30th, 2010 (11:08 am)Wow! That would be quite a price drop.
$5k would include:
Other…
1) 16 Kw-hr battery
2) 2 ac induction motors
3) Generator
4) Charging system
5) Battery conditioning system (hopefully new battery chemistry will eliminate/reduce this significantly)
6) High voltage and high current cabling
7) Battery warranty
That is quite a lot for $5k. I do not see it happening in a few years, even reducing the battery by 50% would still command about $4-5k for the battery alone.
But, we can all dream…I hope your right, and I am wrong on this one.
+4
Dec 30th, 2010 (11:11 am)Here’s quite a different look at how prices will play out. Basically the facts show that the world is ending scenarios and gas is going to $5 next year are invariably wrong. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/science/28tierney.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=bet&st=cse The critical point is that over time there are many substitutes for commodities. The biologists lost their bet because they didn’t understand that as the price of commodities goes up people shift to other commodities.
I think EVs will take off and find a good sized niche for all kinds of reasons. Other technologies like CNG and perhaps even Dave G’s biofuels will also flourish. For example, while gas prices have not increased by huge amounts, for 100 years the price of electricity has been falling in real terms. Move the trend lines out another fifty years and and it will cost you 50X times more to run an ICE vehicle than an electric one. The departure point for me is that unlike those who are willing for the markets to make this happen — and it will eventually — for national security and economic reasons I think we need the government to make is happen sooner rather than later.
Oil is strategic commodity which poses more political than economic questions and it must be destroyed.
+2
Dec 30th, 2010 (11:12 am)Lyle writes “At $5 per gallon gas, the Chevy Volt becomes economically viable, and frankly could only be a good thing for the electrification of the automobile. The greater economy, perhaps not so much”
I think the opposite is true. There has been paradigm shifts in our economy that most people just haven’t come to grips with. They are simple to understand but few people think outside of the paradigms that were always true in the past.
Importing cheap energy always made sense because it was cheap. But now that it is obvious the future can only mean ever increasing costs of importing energy, we simply need to change our economy to use cheap domestic energy. And this is a good thing because it will create jobs. Hence $5 gas is a good thing for the economy (if it happens gradually). It will lead to the creation of jobs to create more electricity and electric cars and electric infrastructure. Once this is in place it will lead to the next future boom as we’ll have cheap domestic electricity. We need to build out Nuclear, Wind, geothermal to go along with the currently cheap coal and Natural gas, and once the renewables are in place they will create cheap energy for generations.
The other paradigm that will need to change is the idea of exporting jobs to save a few bucks that corporations are doing now. I’ve seen first hand that the savings are an illusion in the first place. Sending jobs overseas (i.e. IT, engineering etc.) saves money on paper initially, but over the long run the companies lose knowledge, initiative and productivity and have to cover extra layers of managment, while undergoing significant risk to turnover etc. Further corporations and our economy as a whole are bearing the hidden cost of lost demand and higher taxes that cover the unemployment (coupled with lost tax revenue from these lost jobs).
It will take time but I feel the 3 most important things to save our economy are
1) Stop importing energy. Lyle has begun this revolution. He has bought an american made car that mostly uses domestic energy.
2) We must place heavy taxes on companies that send high paying jobs overseas that can be done here. This is a huge distinction between sending low paying jobs overseas, because low paying jobs don’t pay taxes, and our government needs the tax base.
3) Unfortunately we need a period of austerity that cuts medical costs that corporations are paying as we need to help companies be competitive globaly. This can be done in many ways, from reducing mandates, to getting rid of the tax break on corporate provided health care altogether and instead just giving everybody an FSA for instance where the company puts in a few thousand a year to match what the employee puts in.
+2
Dec 30th, 2010 (11:15 am)We neede a gas tax with the proceeds 100% going to converting EXISTING cars ,vans and trucks to ELECTRIC. It would not take a very high tax at all.Perhaps a quarter to start. Simply converting tens or hundreds of thousands of vehicles to electric will in and of itself help regulate gas prices.
+2
Dec 30th, 2010 (11:16 am)In this case one has to consider the source when discussing the price of fuel.
I do believe the price of gas will rise. The levels he is predication appears to contain a lot of FUD. I believe his real reason for the forecast is to make a case to drill for more OIL.
That does not fit with the idea of buying a VOLT where we are trying to get off a dependence on oil, foreign or domestic.
Other energy group watchers are indicating this may be Shell’s real motive.
Dec 30th, 2010 (11:18 am)You will NEVER NEVER convert the majority of the transportation fleet to electric just offering BRAND NEW electrics. We MUST Convert to get meaningful numbers.
Dec 30th, 2010 (11:19 am)The price spikes suggest that both supply and demand are inelastic in the short run. If demand were elastic people would shift to alternatives as prices rose and we wouldn’t experience the exploding prices like we saw in 2008. Supply is slightly different. What we may be seeing is that with expectations of rising prices there isn’t any reason for suppliers to pump — if the asset in the ground will be worth more next year than this year why not wait to pump?
Everyone would have to agree with you that In the long run the demand for any commodity is elastic.
+3
Dec 30th, 2010 (11:20 am)Will be very interesting to see how the supply/demand dance plays out. My guess is that long gas-powered trips would be among the first to get squeezed, which is fairly unique to the US. A five-mile trip to work and back? No problem, even with gas at way beyond $5/gal. But that 150-mile trip, or for long commutes, ouch.
OT, nice article about electrics:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_02/b4210048400234.htm
+5
Dec 30th, 2010 (11:22 am)$5 is a big thing ?
We already pay $4.50+ for regular and $5+ for premium. Are we away – no just 30 minutes north of the border ( Vancouver , BC , Canada ). We are worried it will be $10 in summer.
The requirement of cars are bit different but would like if some one can make them.
Fuel economy
small/compact
Ondemand 4×4
last day,i was counting the no: of pontiac sunfires on road and still i can counted a lot. I was reading reviews and it said it was cheap and lot plastics inside. This make business sense when fuel economy is not considered.
If Fuel economy is also weighted in the business case, i am sure there is a lot possibility for Small/Compact, aerodynamic, fuel economic, ondemand 4×4 decent ( i didn’t say premium but better plastics etc ) commuter cars and small SUVs/crossovers. The same may sell well in all places except America ( where people are still worried on $5 for gas ).
Dec 30th, 2010 (11:34 am)I think as many do, the ideal is one EREV and one BEV for a family. But once there are fast charging stations spread out at all truck stops and many gas stations, an EREV would be a luxury, and BEVs like the leaf could get you where you need to go if you couldn’t afford the EREV. BEV costs will be much lower than EREVs in 5 years when battery costs fall. I expect the issue of pre-conditioning batteries in cold weather can also be done in the garage while still plugged in. BEV only’s will need decent thermal management.
+3
Dec 30th, 2010 (11:34 am)lol, yup, here’s what you’ll need to get by……
+3
Dec 30th, 2010 (11:41 am)+1!
I’ve seen knuckleheads scoop up New SUV’s in the past couple of months. WTF are they thinking? Many are parent of the kids my son goes to school with and none are in the construction or whatever that would require a large vehicle. They work downtown in an office.
Dec 30th, 2010 (11:50 am)That’s how it works in normal competitive markets. In monopolies or oligolopies like we have, the price is manipulated. Big oil will just shut down production and refining as they have been doing for the last 2 years and the price will stay high. Gas stations are barely making enough to keep the last lights on in most cases so they will have to raise their markup if they’re stay in business, and most of the road wear is due to semi trucks, and passenger vehicles have to subsidize the taxes to rebuild the roads, so the gas taxes will go up, they’ve already decided to raise it here in Oregon beginning Saturday Jan 1 2011.
+1
Dec 30th, 2010 (11:58 am)He’s the former President and I don’t think he expects his speculation is going to change national policy on drilling for oil, I think he just would rather see us be prepared instead of maxing out our credit buying SUVs again like we were doing in 2005 – 2007.
+1
Dec 30th, 2010 (11:58 am)We need diversity in transportation fuels. Hanging your hat on electricity only is just as bad as gas for 96% of all fuels.
+2
Dec 30th, 2010 (12:05 pm)It’s not really that the prices came down because of a recession. There was a huge recession because oil prices went way up. Americans have no alternative. They either pay more, cut back, or go bankrupt. It will happen again since we’re just as dependent on oil as we were three years ago. We will never really experience sustained economic prosperity until we become much less reliant on oil. Environmentally speaking, the results are the same: less emissions. Whether it’s because we voluntarily get off oil or because our standard of living gets reduced due to being dependant on a scarce commodity, it’s all a wash to Mother Nature.
+5
Dec 30th, 2010 (12:06 pm)off topic:
Just saw a truck load of Volts heading South from Santa Barbara County to Ventura County. White, gray, and silver. They looked sweet! The others must have been off loaded in SB.
=D-Volt
+1
Dec 30th, 2010 (12:09 pm)First off, the national averages in Lyle’s AAA graph does not reflect actual prices in the Bay (SF) Area. (The highest in U.S.) I recall paying well over $5/gal at peak. If John Hofmeister forecasts bear out, prices in this area will be over $6/gal. I certainly agree with the experts – it was $5/gal. fuel prices that precipitated our travel/housing/banking (manifesting gross unemployment) crisis compelling jillion-zillion-dollar bailouts following 2008 elections.
We cannot simply do nothing watching our country regress once again. Hofmeister’s reasoning is irrefutable. Indeed, its not so much a glum-and-doom vision as it is a warning if we sit and do nothing what’s very likely to happen.
By now we know our options; either produce sufficient supply here in North America or compete against China and India. Put another way, the US at 400 mil consumes 20%. Just think about competing for oil against 6-8 times our population. That’s John Hofmeister’s point.
Dec 30th, 2010 (12:10 pm)The one thing I am worried about and which climbing oil prices produce if present for an extended period of time is inflation. If we go into a period like that, and I am betting it will. Don’t bet on the Volt coming down in price, even with economy of scale in production. The various commodities present in the Volt and it’s battery will be affected. This is all a reason why I am buying now.
P
+4
Dec 30th, 2010 (12:12 pm)Surprise….surprise. I am of the opinion that the cartels will milk us for all we have, so the sooner American consumers are forced off oil the better. Let them swim it!
+5
Dec 30th, 2010 (12:32 pm)Some fallicies need to be corrected:
1) “gas taxes will stimulate the consumption of hybrid cars”. Did you see what happened to the economy in 2008 when energy prices spiked ? Many prople are lucky to still have a job in 2010, and another price surge may cause the firing of many more people, as businesses cut back on costs. Why cut back? Because their energy prices went up with eneryone else’s, and people cutting their budgets to afford gas will buy less, causing businesses to cut back even further. That means less people can afford a Volt, not more.
2) An artifical energy price increase (tax) would hurt the poor the worst. We’re talking the single mother of two who works two low paying jobs, and drives a old rusted out 78 Lebaron because she can’t even afford a new Kia, much less a Volt. Every dime increase in gas prices means less food on the table. A gas price increase does nothing but cause more suffering.
3) If you put an extra federal tax on gas, what do you think Congress will do with those taxes? Invest it is renewable energy research ? WRONG ! They will spend every cent they get on their pork barrel earmarked projects, so they can “buy” more votes at home. The Congress has about a 0.00 percent record for acting responsibily. You’re better off giving your wallet to Jesse James.
Creating a new “tax” is always – always – ALWAYS – a bad idea. Just ask Congress to cut back on spending, and see what kind of reception you get. Budget cuts are usually temporary – new taxes are forever.
+1
Dec 30th, 2010 (12:54 pm)At first blush this seems true. Although in the longer run it may have made more sense to use more expensive domestic alternatives and keep those dollars circulating in the US. More so considering the costs of maintaining security to allow global oil production to flow unfettered.
+2
Dec 30th, 2010 (1:01 pm)Right on! Preach on brotha!!!!
That’s what I have been saying all along. Increasing fuel prices affects everything. All life necessities are trucked/courier’d in. Inflating taxes on fuel will increase the cost of everything else. I recall back then when gas was crazy high and a TV crew interviewing a “Vendor” of grocery goods and them saying the prices of their products are going to go up to adjust for the fuel costs to get it there.
So if all life necessities go up and you need them to survive, where does the typical Pat Q. Public get the $$$$ to purchase a $41,000.00 Volt? Or even a brand new Prius 2010?????
IMHO, that really doesn’t make cents………but that’s just me.
+1
Dec 30th, 2010 (1:04 pm)I also agree with Berry252. I did not buy this car in anyway based on gas prices. I want our economy to recover. I did this because I want to make a move away being so oil dependent. I live in a state that doesn’t always go along with that sentiment. Our association won’t let us install solar panels. We are hoping our Texas Legislature will approve a move to not allow them to do that to us. We shall see. Eitherway, I do think that higher gas prices will make people that are hurting or on the fence consider a more eco-friendly car. However for it to become a truely viable move in that direction, there must be affordable options. We have to have usable, family sized cars under 25,000 and for the younger generation small and sporty ones under 20,000. (Payments need to be available under 250/mo). Auto companies keeep working on the battery technology and in time we will hopefully get there.
+3
Dec 30th, 2010 (1:04 pm)That’s right people today just don’t get it. And the the people who heard it when Moses brought it down from the mount didn’t get it either. And the folks who won WWII blew it badly.
My bad, I’ve got to get that sarcasm button fixed on my keyboard
Actually, how do we even know what a new tax is? Since government makes it’s own accounting rules. And does it’s own enforcement. And insures that saying government accounting practices are as clear as mud would be an understatement to the extreme. The true nature of government accounting will be a frontier of exploration for future generations, with far greater technologies than ours.
Dec 30th, 2010 (1:17 pm)OK, someone help me out here n help me understand this. Now if my sorry ass went into business, I’m going into to make the almighty $$$$ and retire in hog heaven in a cabin in the woods and a big ass stainless steel fridge full of beer. Isn’t that why peeps go into business?
Now while in your biz, your profit margin for local whatever your selling has shrunk to little or none, then an opportunity to source your stuff outside of local for less presents itself thus an increase your profit margin to much higher, wouldn’t you take it? I know I would. Why stay in biz using local source making no $$$ and busting your azz and growing grey hairs over it?
Seriously, what company that is non profit (yeah right non profit huh) or Govt stays in biz to not make $$$$? What would be the purpose?
/That’s just me so consider the source here, a broke azz trailer park maggot living in broke azz Kahl-eee-for-neeeya….
Dec 30th, 2010 (1:18 pm)I forgot one other thing. In Texas things have changed some over the last few years that is promising. SUV’s and Trucks are king here. Our gas prices are some of the cheapest in the nation. And yet I have noticed the SUV’s have gotten smaller. You don’t see very many Suburbans and the like (supersized SUV’s) on the road as much. Yesterday, I noticed several Prius, other hybrids and smaller new cars on every parking lot. I am super proud that Texas is a test market for this car. I wish the Leaf was going to launch here too for people that might want that. I do not want to see the Alternative few cars competing for our business (just yet), I want to see the whole movement compete well enough to convert traditional market people over.
Dec 30th, 2010 (1:20 pm)I gotsta get me oneadem buttons.
Where’d you get it? eBay?
Dec 30th, 2010 (1:23 pm)When the US cut oil use in the past the prices have dropped. If there’s a surplus, the price will drop.
I thought gas stations didn’t make any money on the gasoline and all the profit was in the concessions? Similiar to movie theaters.
How much are they raising your taxes? Right now Michigan pays 35cents/gallon in tax, which is on the higher side, especially for the standard of living here. I think as electric vehicles catch on, our electricity rates will go up. It’s dirt cheap now.
+1
Dec 30th, 2010 (1:23 pm)That’s how things are now. That will most likely change over the course of the next generation. Fruits, vegetables and meat will come from local farms. Manufacturing will return as the cost of shipping from China outweighs the labor savings. For an interesting view of the topic, read Jeff Rubin’s “Why Your World is About to Get Much Smaller”.
Dec 30th, 2010 (1:24 pm)In OH – I understand you also have a low kWh cost for electricity. Isn’t it below 0.12 per kWh? This is the market for the Volt – where the discrepancy of the gas price to electric price is highest.
Dec 30th, 2010 (1:31 pm)Wow, that would be nice. In Ontario, gasoline is taxed in the following way (for reference, there are 3.81 litres in a US gallon):
10c/liter – Federal Excise Tax
14.7c/liter – Provincial Fuel Tax
and
13% sales tax on top of it all
According to Petro-Canada, the Canadian average is 32% of gasoline prices are taxes.
Dec 30th, 2010 (1:41 pm)Some “what-if’s”
What if the move to a more efficient mode of transportation offset the price of the gasoline increase?
What if a gas tax was added but income tax (and/or corporate tax) was lowered to offset the cost?
What if people bought their goods from local sources instead of shipping them from cheap labor sources on cheap fuel?
What if everyone (this includes the “poor”) conserved a bit more, instead of taking joy-rides, or maybe used public transportation instead, or carpooled?
What if due to gas price increases, and a move towards more efficient transportation, we reduced our independence on foreign oil enough to be energy-self-sufficient, and the 300billion/year (approx 10% of the GDP) spent on energy can be home-grown. And we can cut the $145billion on “the war on terror” (aka oil security) from the budget and mail everyone (including the “poor”) a fat check for $1000 per year?
I wont comment on Congress. That’s a different debate/subject.
+2
Dec 30th, 2010 (1:51 pm)Dude, this one aint gonna happen. Whatever current tax it is were talking about decreasing has an already spent budget/staff/dept/organization. Govt will just scream bloody murder and say they’ll lose jobs etc…..
That’s what happens with tax, you can never get rid of them. I can’t ever recall a tax that got “Eliminated” or PERMANENTLY reduced.
Decrease Govt spending. I know many of you work for State or Local or even Fed Govt. I personally see many Govt waste in our area. I see many things that can be improved upon for effeciency but the montra is always, spend all so we get more the next year. All BS if you ask me.
Dec 30th, 2010 (1:52 pm)That’s why I usually see lines in Sault Ste. Marie & Sarnia/Port Huron & Windsor/Detroit, full of Candians coming to the US to buy gasoline & groceries/clothes.
Sales tax in Michigan is 6%.
Ontario is still cheaper than most places I’ve travelled. Your current prices are around $4/gallon. One of the few places I saw really cheap gas was in Venezuela. I think it was like 3cents or 5 cents a liter. Talk about subsidizing! The US is pretty ridiculous w/our subsidizing too. In reality our gas prices should be closer to yours if not nore.
Dec 30th, 2010 (1:57 pm)Sarcasm begins at home. Yeah, right.
.
+1
Dec 30th, 2010 (2:03 pm)SIGH
JEC I respect your opinion (and most others here for that matter) but have you thought through the *other* consequences on people and our economy of $5/gal gas? Putting those aside, do we really want the govt trying to “price fix” anything??? Carter tried it and we had inflation out the whazooo and mortgage interest in the mid to upper teens. I know there were a lot of variables contributing there, but it was still a very difficult time. If it happened now with my fixed income retirement, my standard of living would decline dramatically. Buy a Volt? How about food….
Be well,
Ragamet
Dec 30th, 2010 (2:12 pm)Just a note that I have to be afk for a couple hours. I’ll weigh in again later.
Be well,
Tagamet
Dec 30th, 2010 (2:14 pm)Ragamet?
Who ‘R’ U?
Dec 30th, 2010 (2:26 pm)The guy worked for Shell, so consider his motives. Threatening $5/gallon gas is one really good way to open more land for drilling.
Still, I’m weaning myself off of petroleum sooner rather than later.
Dec 30th, 2010 (2:44 pm)Knowing the mentality of our public, we all can anticipate with near certainty that when those gas prices jump, the first headlines from our brainless newspapers and briefings from our equaly brainless White House occupants, we be to assume price manipulation on the part of Big Oil.
No one will question why those price manipulators waited 5 years thru low prices before
performing their manipulations. That would require logic far beyond the capabilities of the public and Feds, always looking to shift blame for anything unpopular away from the government.
Sudden high gas prices last hit this country during the early 70′s during the oil embargo.
The results were rather dramatic – no one could give away a big block Corvette, you know, the ones that later came to be worth a small fortune, and THAT was also the big opportunity for the Japanese automakers, and they took advantage of it and never looked back. Such an event can only help the sales of electric anything, including the Volt. It would also likely lead GM to offer a larger battery pack as an extra cost option.
Dec 30th, 2010 (2:50 pm)Simpson Sarcasm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggXmKPMaHMo&NR=1
and for the Gen-X’ers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Pje34fUgLQ
Dec 30th, 2010 (2:51 pm)But…but…The idea would be to raise the gas, but lower other taxes proportionately, so that the overall net tax increase is zero (I am not a big believer that this can be done, but stay with me). You want to shift the tax to reflect the true cost of gas, which should include the cost of defending and fighting for oil.
The goal has several key points:
1) Encourage development of alternative energies
2) Slow down the transfer of our wealth to foreign countries, especially those that would rather harm us than help us.
3) Help the environment by moving to cleaner and renewable sources.
4) Create jobs in US in the development of new technologies to deliver on alternative energy sources.
I understand the impact on someone with a fixed or low income. Maybe some provision could be put in place to make the tax a graduated tax based on income.
I am just attempting to find an answer to our countries problems. Do nothing seems like a bad idea, so if someone has a better plan I am all ears (Ok, eyes, since I would read your post and not listen to it)
PS: Whats up with Ragament?
+1
Dec 30th, 2010 (2:55 pm)I blame the Rlamas.
.
Dec 30th, 2010 (3:00 pm)huh? whats that?
Dec 30th, 2010 (3:03 pm)It’s Ragamet…..get it wrong correctly.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH!!!!!
Almost time to leave till next year. 28 mo minutes!
Dec 30th, 2010 (3:05 pm)You mean we would be like Europe and Canada? Wow, how do those guys survive in that kind of armageddon? (some more sarcasm)
The “poor” people excuse doesnt hold any water.
Gas is way too cheap in the US. If there is no other option, I’d rather just have the government cut a check for “poor” people and raise the gas prices to a reasonable level (or let the market actually decide w/out subsidies). Something has to motivate the US to get it off its oil addiction, and i’m tired of the excuses. We are paying ~$10/gallon gas wether we know it or not. It might as well actually be priced at what we are paying so we can make a concious decision about our energy use.
http://www.icta.org/doc/Real%20Price%20of%20Gasoline.pdf
+5
Dec 30th, 2010 (3:06 pm)kdawg,
http://retail.petro-canada.ca/en/fuelsavings/2132.aspx
Dec 30th, 2010 (3:16 pm)No, I’m holding Beer!!!!!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!
/i get your point though. through it all……we’ll evolve.
Dec 30th, 2010 (3:16 pm)I suspect a cat took over teh kbrd.
+3
Dec 30th, 2010 (3:38 pm)Welp, I’m outta here yall. Prolly one of the best reason to work for Govt. You get New years eve day off and you get to leave 4hrs early the day before.
Now I know summa yall are going to celebrate with Tekillya on new years eve so, I will leave yall with a parting gift on “How Tequila works…..”
/Party on Lyle!!!!
Dec 30th, 2010 (3:39 pm)Well, the former Exxon president who left Exxon something like 5 years ago said that if gasoline use was reduced by just 10 percent, the market would be flooded with inventory, and the price would drop.
I don’t think at all that the price of gas is really as relevant to the future of EREV propulsion demand as was once thought. It will indeed take over the market, because people are tired of all this “price of gas” controversy as it already is. People are tired of hearing about it. They’ll just buy and EREV when they can afford one. Just get to have an opportunity to drive the Volt, you’ll see what I mean.
The Volt drive is an astounding luxurious peacefulness that the higher end vehicle brands will be forced to incorporate in order to continue to call themselves “luxury”.
On yesterday’s electric range thread, this really brings to bear another consideration for BEV, being stuck in a snow storm.
Also, last week I had talked to an EE friend of mine about the Nissan Level 3 charger at $700.
The problem is that while it would be OK all along an Interstate highway on presumably separate substations from residential demand, he mentioned that the instantaneous demand for Level 3 charging is ***FIFTY THOUSAND WATTS***.
The only problem I have with that is that if several are installed in a residential neighborhood, and, charging is demanded at when the outside temp is over 100, everyone’s central AC supply voltage could be brought down toward a tolerance-minimum. My contention here is that there is far more workloading at 220 volts than at 240 volts, which would most certainly add to the strain on fully-thermally-loaded home air conditioner condensers, not to mention an instantaneous added strain to the system right up the line. This would represent a seriously unpredictable demand. So, I don’t think I like the idea of Level 3 charging in the neighborhood, since it can impact the higher level of voltages available to all.
Have a luxuriously-peaceful New Year everyone!!
+2
Dec 30th, 2010 (4:03 pm)Level 3 chargers require voltage levels (440V) that are not available in typical residential neighborhoods (220V/240V), so there’s little to worry about.
Dec 30th, 2010 (4:05 pm)koz,
All of your “alternatives” were available in 08, and the economy tanked as much from transport costs as mortgage failures. It’s inherently unfair and selfish to claim that prices should go up because “we” think people are ignorant of alternatives. All of them are irrational to varying degrees on a macro scale. I stand by what I said, until a viable alternative is available to all Americans, raising gas prices is cruel and hurts the economy.
Dec 30th, 2010 (4:24 pm)Gas tax could be raised over a 10 year period to reflect the true cost to our economy. If we didn’t import oil we could mothball 2 Carrier task groups, thats a fact. Or we could charge the Chinese to protect their oil from the mideast for them. But right now we are paying high military costs to protect the oil, which we are sending more dollars overseas to buy.
Gas Tax should definitely be higher, but it should be raised gradually. Say five cents per year indefinitely. That way the car companies know where the future is but consumers aren’t wiped out in the short term.
+1
Dec 30th, 2010 (4:38 pm)It will be a good thing when Americans start paying the same a amount at the pump as the rest of the world. Maybe some of those ridiculous SUVs and enormous trucks will be retired. Nothing changes peoples habits like a hit in the hip pocket.
In Australia fuel has been over $1 a litre for years but government gouging and fuel company price fixing has a lot to do with that. Life does go on. Fortunatley there are plenty of economical cars available to buy here. Small Diesels are a good option.
I’m looking forward to the volt when it comes here in 2012 (if that happens)
+1
Dec 30th, 2010 (4:40 pm)Peak Oil is real, all the major Oil Fields are in decline.
What they’re drilling for in the Gulf of Mexico, what they call ‘oil’ is not the good s h i t that people in the industry know as Light Sweet Crude, oh no.
What they’re taking out of the Gulf is the same thing they taking out of Athabasca: TAR
Why?
Because Peak Oil is real, all the major Oil Fields are in decline.
+1
Dec 30th, 2010 (5:00 pm)omnimoeish,
Point taken. I would hope lessons learned from the past would protect most of us from making those mistakes again.. (at least for awhile).
The better auto news, in addition to the VOLT and other electric car introductions, is most of the new cars are rated at higher miles per gallon and the car companies are committed to keep raising that number… with the help from new MPG laws. ;+}
+6
Dec 30th, 2010 (5:12 pm)Electricity is the most flexible option out there. You can generate it by burning coal, harnessing the power of falling water, harnessing the wind, collecting the power of the Sun, through fission of heavy elements, fusion of light elements (hopefully someday), burning natural gas or petroleum, harnessing the power of the tides; and if that ain’t enough, who knows what someone, somewhere, may be dreaming up at this very moment?
Electricity isn’t really a fuel. It is an energy-carrying commodity created by burning fuel or otherwise utilizing energy in other forms. By comparison, ‘hanging our hat’ on electricity alone beats any scheme for actually creating energy onboard a vehicle (in terms of economic sustainability, and flexibility). This is what electrification of the automobile is all about.
.
+3
Dec 30th, 2010 (5:50 pm)It would be cool if someone came up with a counter that estimated the amount of Volts delivered and miles driven and showed the gallons of gas not used… to replace the Volt List.
+3
Dec 30th, 2010 (6:00 pm)BREAKING: OT but timely…
Volt is a Successful Solution – Detroit Free Press – 12/30/10
“The 2011 Chevrolet Volt solves a problem that stumped the auto industry’s best minds for a century.
“It combines the emissions-free operation and efficiency of an electric car with the quick refueling time and long driving range of a gasoline car.
“An onboard generator gives the Volt an EPA-rated range of 379 miles. That’s from Detroit to Milwaukee on a full charge and a tank of gas.
“The Volt’s 16 kilowatt-hour lithium-ion battery charges from a 240-volt outlet in a reasonably convenient four hours.
“The EPA says a fully charged battery will carry the Volt 35 miles before the car’s gasoline-powered auxiliary generator kicks in to produce more electricity.
“My all-electric range tended to be closer to 50 miles, but it’s the generator that makes the Volt revolutionary.
“Most Volt owners will probably use battery power alone for most of their driving. However, the Volt can go as far as any conventional vehicle when needed.
“The Volt eliminates the long charging times and limited range that make electric cars impractical for most drivers. Its battery-only mode also trumps hybrids — including the plug-in hybrids other automakers boast about but have yet to sell.
“The Volt’s $40,280 base price puts it out of reach for most buyers, but the $350-a-month lease price is a terrific value.
The Chevrolet Volt gets my vote for 2011 North American Car of the Year. — MARK PHELAN
Read more: | freep.com | http://www.freep.com/article/20101230/BUSINESS02/12300391/Volt-is-a-successful-solution#ixzz19db9yozr
Dec 30th, 2010 (6:09 pm)Jimmy Carter? I think you mean Richard Nixon. He was the one who implemented wage and price controls. Carter opposed them as president (in fact Ted Kennedy ran on a platform of wage and price controls against Carter). As you mention it didn’t work and just made the problem worse. Bad idea. On the other hand, Ronald Reagan campaigned on the theory that the federal government caused inflation and it could make it go away by cutting deficits. After he was elected he spent like a drunken sailor and ushered in a period of deficit spending never before imagined in our history … and inflation went DOWN even as the deficits went UP. So much for empty political rhetoric vs. Paul Volker and the Federal Reserve. Guess which matters?
Gas taxes aren’t happening so it doesn’t matter, but worrying about how higher gas prices will impact people brings to mind that great philosopher Mao Tse Tung, who pointed out that “you can’t make an omelette without breaking an egg”. In the context of having our transportation dependent on oil, you can’t expect the dependency to magically disappear. Someone somewhere will have to make sacrifices. Right now the price of gas doesn’t include the military efforts needed to keep the oil flowing, so in my mind we’re sacrificing young people’s legs, arms, heads and lives so that other people can save a few cents when they go to the grocery store. That seems to be shifting all the sacrifice onto those willing to serve their country, which seems to have priorities backwards, but that’s probably just me.
+1
Dec 30th, 2010 (6:13 pm)This article appeared on CBSNews.com so I posted the following reply- “Don’t like high gas prices buy a Chevy Volt or Nissan Leaf. You now have a choice. Below are the replies I received. How come when I talk to people about electric cars it’s like talking to brick wall? They remind me of the people who said “you wasted your money” when I bought my first personal computer the Apple II in the 80’s.
Reply to this comment
by larsthor December 29, 2010 9:16 PM EST
or walk, or bicycle, or golf cart it.
or just stop living.
by dot92141 December 29, 2010 9:17 PM EST
Or smoke dope—–You can take a trip and never leave town.
by larsthor December 29, 2010 9:27 PM EST
hi dot,
i am sure you & willie will straighten our country just as soon as you finish your tripping.
by jimbom121 December 29, 2010 9:36 PM EST
or just stop living??? that’s a solution? funny how other countries who’d gas prices are higher than ours seem to innovate and do quite well.
by j40405 December 29, 2010 9:40 PM EST
Sure, if you want to drive 100 miles and wait ten hours. And for those of you that didn’t know, the battery in the volt or leaf will get weaker the more you charge it. This means even shorter trips. So batteries are not the answer. Besides, with no new power plants coming online due to Al Gore what did you plan on using to charge those batteries? A magic wand?
by j40405 December 29, 2010 9:43 PM EST
Sure, buy one. Drive to your neighbors house to visit,plug it in, wait 8 hours before you can go home. Yep that’s a game plan.
by daffy64 December 29, 2010 10:32 PM EST
Sure, if you want to drive 100 miles and wait ten hours. And for those of you that didn’t know, the battery in the volt or leaf will get weaker the more you charge it. This means even shorter trips. So batteries are not the answer. Besides, with no new power plants coming online due to Al Gore what did you plan on using to charge those batteries? A magic wand?
He’s right. Electric cars are a stupid idea. They use 100% American power while gasoline is mostly imported from Canada. Keep your friendly neighbours to the north employed.
BUY GAS!!!!!
Dec 30th, 2010 (6:15 pm)Nice write-up JEC. Now what if a refund for higher fuel costs were baked into the personal deductions for income taxes, and for non taxpayers it would be a refundable credit? This would be a big reward for everyone that saved energy and a wash for those who don’t even try. With higher costs more would try though. Apply it to businesses also, and it encourages saving gas/energy a lot. A whole lot.
Dec 30th, 2010 (7:20 pm)Recent video featuring our own VoltGuy ~ Austin demo drive and review.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWOYeChhHIg
=D-Volt
+1
Dec 30th, 2010 (7:22 pm)Ya my dislike of OPEC is the very reason I want a Volt so much. They look for any small reason to increase the price of oil, but when they have a reason to drop it they don’t. Unless they have ships full of oil floating in the gulf with no where to go after a Huricane hits Houston knocking out the refineries.
The Volt is great, but id also like to see some alternative fuels for the ICE. Do they plan to add a fuel cell in the future to produce electricity? or some other biofuel generator?
+1
Dec 30th, 2010 (7:40 pm)Matt above has it correct, that should be the sole reason americans should buy volt ,,but I have very little left faith in the US citizens to do the right thing … they all want cheap stuff from China – the nick knacks, plastic toys etc etc … Today at a dealership I saw Ice SUV medium size cars like Volt being sold for $30k… so for extra 10k we have Volt equiped with the latest equpment, well built and car which will reduce gas consumption but nah they will only buy Volt when gas reaches $5/gallon .. How short sighted this nation can be! and sending all those $$$ to our enemies in arab world .. Buy Volt Buy american so we can keep jobs here even if it costs a few $ more .. that is the right thing to do but …..
Dec 30th, 2010 (7:42 pm)It’s me before my coffee.
Be well,
Tagamet
+2
Dec 30th, 2010 (8:05 pm)Did you even READ my post? Sorry, but I sure failed to communicate very well. I’ve consistently been anti-govt intervention in anything other than defense and infrastructure. I was against the GM bail-out (I was probably wrong on that one) and I continue to be against the tax credits for the Volt. I really thought that I’d posted that pretty often. Contrary to DonC’s description of my views as naive or pro-”free-market”, I’d like to think that they are neither. I KNOW that there are no “free-markets”, but I’m talking about something totally different – the Federal govt’s role in my life. Did you live through Jimmy Carter’s debacle?
I never played the “poor folks” card, I just stated a fact that inflation hurts folks on fixed incomes (like me). BTW, where exactly does the govt get the money to “cut a check” for the $10 gas you support? They either suck it out of the economy (tax), print it, or cut spending on something else. Those are your only options. Even if NO ONE drove cars, they’d likely still need to eat – food that needs to be fertilized, grown/harvested, and transported with fuel.
I understand your passion, but I think that you’re looking at the problem through a soda straw.
At the very least, the end (though noble), does not justify the means you suggest. JMO.
Be well and God Bless,
Tagamet
Dec 30th, 2010 (8:29 pm)Like the Flat Tax?
Are We The People really able to prevent tax after tax being layered on top of one another? I believe the answer is, “No”. If the answer is no. Should we be in favor of the forced taxation that benefits our financial position? If members of government are truly honest and working FOR the People. The current system of revenue and distribution would be just fine. We know this isn’t the case. Would any one of us here in this forum be able to maintain honesty and integrity if voted into office?
The answer may be to deal very harsh penalties to elected officials when found guilty of misappropriation, theft, or treason. Not tennis court prison yards. Cement cells with TV dinners.
=D-Volt
Dec 30th, 2010 (8:33 pm)If the price is going to be $5/gallon based only on what he says then we’re in for a world of hurt when the Federal Reserve goes into “quantitative easing 3″ printing even more money and devaluing our dollar.
+3
Dec 30th, 2010 (8:41 pm)Carter said to the price of goods, freeze thyself. This is just a bit different. If gas is at a buck fifty, then the amount needed to take it up to 3 bucks or $3.50 or what ever your floor is would go to the tax man. After April 15th that money would be used to offset your taxes, or if your fixed income is too low for taxing (my mom retired from a school district in Ca and the way the COLA’s are rigged that may happen some day, comforting huh?) you’d get a check from the monies collected.
The whole thing; 1) encourages people to use less gas, 2) rewards people who are successful at using less gas, 3) compensates people who currently can’t save on energy costs, 4) provides a floor that investments in fuel saving technology companies won’t crash through when fuel costs are temporarily in free-fall mode(commodities do that at times), 5) keeps technology and investments going that provide alternatives to gas, 6) keeps more fuel dollars at home instead of stuffing as many empty supertankers full with greenbacks for the return voyage.
We may hate taxes deep in our guts, but the fact is, this would reduce taxes and increase American incomes over the long term. And by the way, I tend to agree, actually choosing to set gas prices as high as $5 could just be economically fatal. At $10 a gallon I figure most transportation, besides rickshaw’s and tanker trucks to fill the BMW’s driven by CEO’s of major companies, grinds to a halt. And maybe the vehicles used by gangs of street toughs to hijack the tanker trucks supplying those CEO’s.
Dec 30th, 2010 (8:48 pm)+1
Dec 30th, 2010 (9:16 pm)There are strange forces at work in the world. Please do your own research from many sources and remember to check out who that source works for.
Take for example the IEA (International Energy Agency) and the EIA (Energy Information Administration).
The reports coming out from these to heavily funded and respected (by the governments of countries) are looking more like propaganda and fortune telling than what is based on facts.
For the past several years the IEA said things will be fantastic, and that we will peak oil production in 2050 or so with more than 50% more total production. Thus, the global economy can grow as before for several more decades. Each year their numbers come down and the talk is a bit more realistic. Yes, they are covering their butts but that is not their job! Important policies are drawn up based on their reports, they must follow real data, not their ideas of how to let the world know we are in trouble. What was their latest report? It says that we already hit Peak Oil for crude in 2006! Finally! They are using the real numbers. However, they said there will be no problems for decades because we will simply find more oil and use gas liquids! This is horse shit! One only needs to look at the graphs of global discoverers to realize we are not finding the multiple Saudi Arabias anymore. Their reports make absolutely no sense based on the real data. It is only to make us feel better and to reduce their embarrassment when reality finally hits.
What about the EIA? Now this is so ridiculous as to make it an obvious joke. It must be! They are saying we won’t hit $100 / barrel oil until 2017! It’s already $92 and rising steadily. Are they nutts? Additionally, they are far off from what the IEA says and that alone should make people wonder what is going on. If they are using real data, how come they are not closer, like in the past? What is going on!?
You can Google the reports or head down to The Oil Drum to get all the discussions. TOD makes the caption:
EIA: Don’t worry, be happy
Yes, it is really that bad, folks.
+1
Dec 30th, 2010 (9:34 pm)I’ld feel a little better (not enough to change my mind because of all the other issues) if most of our oil came from Canada but that isn’t the case. The are just the largest on a long of countries that our oil comes from. We get a lot from the mid-east, Russia, and Venezuela too.
Don’t sweat those ignorant replies to much. The Volts’ (and Leafs’) wheels on the roads will change more than enough minds. The rest will follow in time as they’re accustomed to.
Dec 30th, 2010 (9:36 pm)Slightly off topic, but this afternoon I saw my first privately-owned Volt in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Congrats to the happy owners!
Dec 30th, 2010 (9:38 pm)It’s not just my dream. Dr. Prabhakar Patil is the CEO of Compact Power, Inc. (CPI), the division of LG that built the Volt prototype battery packs. Here’s what he says about Li/Ion prices:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/02/profile-li-ion.html#more
“From a historical perspective over the past 17-18 years the cost has come down by a factor of 15x. In the next 5-10 years we should be able to come down by an incremental 2-4x and we will have to do that to accelerate the penetration of the technology.”
And again, historically, it’s fairly common for a new technology to drop to 1/4 of the original cost within 10 years. For example, 10 years ago, DVD players started around $200, now they’re around $50. We’re seeing a similar price trend with BluRay today; it won’t be long before these cost $50 as well. If the raw materials are plentiful, then it all comes down to labor costs. As unit volume rises, the manufacturing process becomes more and more streamlined, and labor costs per unit go down dramatically.
I’m not a psychic, so I don’t know for sure that battery packs will cost 1/4 of todays price in 10 years. I’m just saying that its entirely possible, and its happened with many other new technologies in the past.
In the end, it all comes down to unit volume. In order to get battery pack prices that low, they will have to make millions per year. In other words, it will take more than just GM selling EREVs. It will require the other car makers to make EREVs and EVs in significant numbers as well. In other words, the Volt will need serious competition to get the price where is needs to be for mass adoption. I believe this is what Fritz Henderson was trying to say here:
http://gm-volt.com/2009/10/29/gm-ceo-says-help-needed-to-achieve-mass-adoption-of-electric-cars/
+1
Dec 30th, 2010 (9:55 pm)Thanks for the explanation, but unfortunately, I DO understand the concept. I’m afraid the point at which we part ways is where you trust the govt to actually *use* tax monies in some responsible manner. I don’t think that they could even *account* that setup, let alone use it well. There’s just too much room for mischief. Again we have the same goal – get off foreign oil. But the govt’s history of playing “pick a winner”, isn’t in much cause for optimism. How’s that hydrogen working out?
If we could trade in the Income Tax for a consumption tax, we might have a shot. MAYBE a flat tax, though I’m leaning toward the former. Regardless of how they collect the money, we better cut spending significantly, and soon, we are in for a world of hurt.
Sheesh, and I try to be the *optimist* around here! (lol). Comfort comes from knowing that it will all play out the way it was meant to.
Be well and God Bless,
Tagamet
Dec 30th, 2010 (10:00 pm)+1000 but you forgot the hampster wheel.
Dec 30th, 2010 (10:00 pm)WOW! How cool is THAT. Seriously, just today I was sitting in a parking lot and watching cars closely, in hopes that I’d see a Volt in the wild. No Joy. Someday soon, I hope.
Be well and God Bless,
Tagamet
Dec 30th, 2010 (10:23 pm)We are going to net out about the same amount for oil regardless. Are the current receivers of those funds more trustworthy. I’m not saying your concern with regards to the efficient use of funds or the affects of taxation are not merited, but the idea that our money is better placed into the oil purveyors pockets via direct and indirect subsidies because they are more trustworthy isn’t very reasonable. I realize your position is that the money is better in the taxpayer’s pocket than the governments. I don’t think many would argue against this, but that is not the choice being made IMO. I believe the oil industry will find the maximum you are willing to bear regardless since the supply is constrained. So, IMO, the choice isn’t one of keeping the $ in the taxpayers’ pockets vs the governments’ but rather the oil industry’s vs the governments. Additionally, we now collectively pay the health care expenses, the security expenses, the uncollected revenue for subsidized leases of public lands, as well as other industry perks.
Concerns about the cost to commercial uses of oil and those of low or fixed income are legitimate but they can be addressed. Oil is going to find the highest cost regardless because…well..we are currently over a barrel.
Dec 30th, 2010 (10:41 pm)$5.00/ gallon oil will bring meltdown #2, are y’all ready for that? You better hope this post is a pile of misinformed crap.
Dec 30th, 2010 (11:00 pm)NPNS
Dec 30th, 2010 (11:01 pm)The economy was tanking long before gas hit $4 and a barrel of oil went north of $120. The “sustainable” economy had been in recession since the internet bubble bust. It was only the false of trillions of contruction dollars fueled by a bubble that hid this fact. Those issues are realestate are still unwinding and will be for years. If the government haddened stepped in the financial system and it’s supporting insurance insdustries would have collapsed and we would be in a depression with or without the price of oil going up or down. This is evidenced by the bi-partisan and accross the board economists’ support for the basic bailout (how often does that happen). As much as I dislike the current situation with Wall Street and the National Banks and wished they all could be allowed the potential of a natural demise, it was not an option at that time thanks to foolish deregulation and a total lack of planning for what was seen as an inevitable situation by many (me included). All the rise in oil prices did was throw salt in the wounds. Not that high oil prices can’t cause serious economic issues but in this case it was coincidental and was just one of many commodities that bubbled up following the construction bubble.
Dec 30th, 2010 (11:06 pm)koz,
I can see the choices as you describe them, I just don’t agree with them.
Just for fun, let’s pretend that you are correct on all counts and your “floor” is established. If I was selling gas, why wouldn’t I (and all my “competitors”) just charge the “floor price”? Just curious.
Be well and God Bless,
Tagamet
+1
Dec 30th, 2010 (11:10 pm)I didn’t check today’s link, but the one that was referenced yesterday and links *on the same page* said that the $5 prediction was bullsh.., er, very unlikely.
Be well and God Bless,
Tagamet
+1
Dec 30th, 2010 (11:15 pm)Hey Frank Weber. How’s the Ampera coming along?
NPNS
+1
Dec 30th, 2010 (11:22 pm)…and consumption did go down substantially. Actually, it was already falling even as the price was still running up. Of course there are futures, world markets, etc. The ability to adjust consumption (elasticity) does not immediately affect price since the oil does not go immediately from the well to your car with you paying the oil provider. It takes time to filter through and prices can spike quickly. This doesn’t change the fact that demand can adjust with price and time TO A POINT. After that it gets very painful.
+1
Dec 30th, 2010 (11:43 pm)The floor discussion has taken place here more than once and I’m not really advocating it, although in the long run I don’t think an $80/barrel floor indexed to today’s dollars would be doing the oil industry any favours in the long run. I’m in favour removing the hard subsidies and putting the soft ones into a tax that is gradually implemented. I’ld be more in favour of moving or current security (a.k.a. defense) costs to the companies and contries that benefit from these services but I don’t see that happening. I’ld also be OK with the oil industry funding a health fund to treat the resperatory and other oil burning health issues but that seems highly unlikely. BTW, federal gas tax has been $0.184 since 1993 so indexed for inflation this tax has effectively been reduced 50-66% since 1993 depending on how you look at it. Has the cost of road construction come down by a corresponding amount in that time? Some if not all of the current federal gas tax goes straight to a highway fund.
The federal government has backed a lot of dogs just as private industry has but it has also funded a LOT of basic research that has been very beneficial. BTW, I was never and am still not in favour of the federal funding for hydrogen beyond basic research. The pilot programs and all the other smoke screen programs have always gnawed at me. Don’t forget that was not the brain child of the government. It was the pressure from big auto and big oil that pushed that boulder up the hill, with some weak and ignorant governance as an accompliss.
Dec 30th, 2010 (11:48 pm)LOL, which one is real? Looks like boilermaker glasses to me.
+1
Dec 30th, 2010 (11:56 pm)The replies suggest 2 things:
1) People don’t realize how bad the problem really is.
2) They don’t realize the Volt is a real solution with no limitations.
Many still don’t realize the Volt has a gas range extender. No matter how many times you tell them, they just don’t hear it. It is like a brick wall – no other way to describe it.
And most people still seem to think driving electric is about saving the planet. They have no idea what’s coming.
It’s going to take $5/gal to shake people out of their trance. Hopefully the economy won’t be in the toilet by then, and EREVs will be somewhat more affordable. Otherwise, things could get really bad for a while.
+2
Dec 31st, 2010 (12:02 am)Implementing the idea of passing on the military costs to big oil would be….. well it’d be really interesting. Once it’s passed on to the oil company, I wonder if it wouldn’t just be passed on to Joe Sixpack at the gas pumps. Big oil is there to make a profit, and I’m guessing that they are pretty good at it.
At the very least there are an awful lot of our people stationed overseas who ought to be home with their families, IMO. They sure aren’t all there to protect oil interests.
Be well and God Bless (and goodnight),
Tagamet
Dec 31st, 2010 (12:16 am)The ability of freedom from price fluctuations, and the ability to drive oil free for 90% of my driving, is what makes me want a Volt.
Dec 31st, 2010 (12:34 am)First, I would implement the floor price on crude oil. In the world oil market, it would be essentially impossible for all oil exporters to collectively fix the world price of oil according to the U.S. floor price, especially considering the U.S. only consumes 25% of the world’s oil.
And besides, gasoline only accounts for 44% of our oil consumption. We need to attack the whole problem.
Also, I would advocate a floor significantly below the current price, around $70/barrel. The problem is that a short-term decrease in demand can dramatically decrease oil and gasoline prices, like we saw at the beginning of 2009, and that can bankrupt investments in alternative transportation.
And by the way, OPEC didn’t decrease output in early 2009 to match demand. They kept pumping at full output even when gas was $1.50/gal. Why was that? Because OPEC knew that 6 months of cheap gas prices would really hurt investments in alternatives. So that’s what the floor is really about – keeping a foreign cartel from messing with our free market. It’s not about collecting taxes.
Dec 31st, 2010 (12:35 am)I don’t think charging the oil companies and countries is a feasible option but it would be fair. Sure they would try to pass the cost along if they could but what I’ve trying to explain in several comment this thread is that the oil industry does not price from cost. In general, it is priced by what the market will bear since supply is constrained. They are going to charge the most they can without destroying demand. That is the balance they are seaking. The ceiling is and will be constantly tested, tax or no tax, security fee or no security fee. We will pay the same regardless unless the cost is forced further into demand destruction. The pain is unavoidable, IMO. That is another reason why I think the Volt is a better value than many give it credit for. The Volt (or Leaf) buyer is getting to choose his form of pain, so to speak (/I hope this doesn’t make me a masochist).
Dec 31st, 2010 (2:24 am)No need for floor taxes or any other action. It is not like we have any good options.
As the global economy chugs along and reaches the same amount of energy production as it did back in July 2008, we will hit that same old plateau. Prices will become more unstable as the reserves run low.
That is when things get really interesting. The bottom line is that some people think you can manipulate paper money, taxes, or any other human intervention. Reality is that we need exponentially growing energy production to maintain our global economy. We don’t have that anymore. Energy is needed for economic activity. Period.
So, what do we do? I really doesn’t matter. We have to go through this as humans to gain the knowledge for our next phase in development. We must crash from the addiction of unsustainable resource use. After that, the masses will remember that we don’t want to do that again, no matter how fun it was in the short-term. I don’t see a short-cut here.
It’s all about gaining knowledge and what better way to gain it than through real world experience and failures?
Afterwards, we will divert our energy (mental and physical) towards developing sustainable technologies and that will become a grand new era. After we figure that out and learn to control our populations, we can live in balance. All this takes time.
Dec 31st, 2010 (2:42 am)That is only the case if the population keeps growing. That will not happen indefinitely. Population is stable or already shrinking in industrialized countries. Climate change and the limited global food supply will take care of stabilizing population in developing and regressing countries. The planet can only support so many people. Either we take care of the problem by decreasing fertility rates, or nature will take care of the problem by increasing mortality rates.
Dec 31st, 2010 (4:43 am)Forget about more taxes, we simply need to produce more fuel here in the US, what is left besides more ethanol?.. More drilling/exploration and more synthetic gasoline made using coal and NG. Start slow and have the Fed mandate 5% into the mix.. and increase it slowly to lets say 20%. This develops the industry, guarantees a minimum demand, creates jobs and stabilizes the cost of fuel a bit since its independent of the cost of oil.
The Fischer-Tropp process for making synthetic gasoline/diesel is competitive at oil over $40 a barrel..
Under Obama, permits and leases for oil exploration have dropped to very low levels.. the republicans will change that.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obamas-oil-lease-foot-dragging-killing-jobs-investment-in-the-west/
“According to the Associated Press, the Obama administration’s foot dragging on oil leases isn’t confined to off-shore drilling. Western oil developers are complaining that a paucity of lease approvals for drilling is killing development and jobs in their part of the country as well.”
-1
Dec 31st, 2010 (5:47 am)That is not correct. Our global economic model counts on growth to pay back investments. Without growth, your investments would fail. Why would I loan you $10 for $9 in the future.
Population will take care by increasing mortality rates?! lol. That’s just like animals. Take rats for example. If there is a boom crop one year the population of rats will grow exponentially because the baby rats have food to grow up to have more baby rats. This follows a nice bell curve. When all the food is gone guess what happens? Here is a hint, not what you first expect.
Yes of course it goes down but it follows the exact same bell shaped curve. Why? Because when the food runs out, the rats turn to eating their own dead. Hey, it is energy and animals including humans will do exactly that to survive.
That is why we will burn everything we can, regardless if that means no more polar bears. This is why the Climate Change debate is a waste of time. Humans have painted themselves into an energy corner and there is no easy way out. Unless we figure out something as good as black gold, that is just as scalable, inexpensive and full of energy (energy density) then we are in for a rough ride down that curve. Rats and yeast are good models for us because we have not yet learned how to use our intelligence for effective planning on a global basis.
The solution is extraordinarily simple and our ancestors got along great without fossil fuels but not with 7 billion people on the planet. For those numbers, 86 million barrels per day of petroleum is needed to keep it going. If that drops, so does the population. Life needs energy and physics cannot be bargained with.
All we have to do is figure out how many renewable resources do we have and figure out how they are going to be distributed to what number of humans. If we could all agree on that, we would all live like kings. Obviously, we have not reached that level of social development.
Education is the only way out. If every living human above age 20 had a PhD or equivalent in earth sciences then we would all be very open to such mass planning. Freedoms would be preserved because you can do a lot withing those well defined, and logical limits.
Until then, we will just use this age of oil as another good base of human knowledge for future decisions.
Dec 31st, 2010 (6:02 am)Even if gas doesn’t hit $5/gallon which it should preferably around 2015 or so, the cost of Oil drilling is rising.
Every gallon of gasoline burned represents Oil that is not in the ground containing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
I don’t think $5/gallon gas makes the Volt pan out. Let’s say a typical car has a 15 gallon gas tank and that
gas costs $45/fill at $3/gallon. At $5/gallon, that same fill will cost $75. A 60% price hike. Still, one can buy
an awful lot of fuel for $20k. If you spend an extra $30/week on fuel for 12 months, that only costs you $1440.
It will take 14 years at $5/gallon to spend an additional $20k on fuel. The Volt is only good for maybe 10 years.
If gasoline hits $20/gallon, the Volt, especially the hydrogen Volt, is definitely a good idea.
Obama didn’t subsidize the Volt because it is the answer. He subsidized it because he thinks the Volt is a short term solution to the environmental disaster of the ICE. The only solution is a lower cost ZEV, zero emission vehicle. The technology to make affordable hydrogen fuel cell vehicles that emit only water vapor exists already.
Landfills and waste water treatment plans alone could be outfitted to provide hydrogen for 200 million vehicles.
Dec 31st, 2010 (8:15 am)This is the way I look at the cost of the VOLT…
$41K – $7.5K (tax rebate) -$3.5K (GM card money)= 30K – $10K ( savings in fuel at $3/gal for 8 years) = 20K that’s not bad for owning any car. That’s $2500 a year even if you get nothing for the car after 8 years…. if gas goes up this car will only be less to own….
+1
Dec 31st, 2010 (8:23 am)U guys are lucky down in the US. 5$ a gallon of gas is still cheaper than where I live (Switzerland): Here, gas is around 6.1$ a gallon (95 octane is standard).
I believe that having the price of gas going up strongly will bring a lot of trouble in an economy which it’s mechanics are firmly depending on it. Without any proper, economically viable and realistic alternative, I only see serious damages towards.
This is where I believe government gas taxes plays a critical role. I don’t know exactly how it works in the US. But if the taxes are calculated upon a given gas market price threshold, let’s say 6$ a gallon, the tax rate will adapt itself around it, absorbing the shocks when they are needed, and permitting to free important resources when prices are low, in order to reinvest these tax money exclusively in the purpose of oil independency, nationwide. For the common user, prices will be high, ok, but at least it remains more stabilized in the long term.
If oil is one of the main resource of an economy, oil has the power to kill it whenever it wants.
Dec 31st, 2010 (10:38 am)DonC,
While Mao said a lot of things that folks have quoted over the years, I don’t think that omelette making is one of his quotes. Often this quote is attributed to Robert Moses as a response to angry folks as he tore down their homes to build the Long Island Expressway (the LIE). (See “The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York” by Robert Caro, 1975, Alford Knoph Publisher, 1974, ISBN 0394480767). I suspect that Moses was only repeating a phrase that has been used by others. I’m pretty sure that Moses came to power in New York before Mao came to power in China, and I doubt Moses would ever have been be caught quoting Mao.
This note doesn’t mean that I am not in complete agreement with your sentiments regarding our spending the lives of soldiers for cheap oil, because I am. One thing that has always shocked me is the survey of users of a certain expensive, low mileage vehicle who said they bought their vehicle to show their patriotism after 9/11. I guess I see the world through a different color of lens…
WVhybrid
+1
Dec 31st, 2010 (11:15 am)It sure would be nice if GM and its battery suppliers like LG Chem could get the price of their batteries down to $200 per kilowatt hour like Tesla is saying they can deliver. I think GM and Nissan batteries are still around $700 per kilowatt hour.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-30/tesla-says-electric-car-battery-plan-means-profit-at-low-volume.html
Imagine how much the electric car industry would take off if the batteries got down to $50 or $100 per kilowatt hour. Imagine if these batteries also had improved acceleration performance, the same or better durability, and quick charge capability. Buying a 16 kilowatt battery like this for the Volt for $800 to $1,600 would definitely be world changing.
One can dream I suppose. I’m sure some battery researchers out there have the same hopes. They’ll make a gazillion bucks if they can make it happen.
Dec 31st, 2010 (2:02 pm)Where did you grt thst picture of my gurlfren, fren?
Dec 31st, 2010 (5:52 pm)If were ever going to get to $5.00 a gallon or more and something like my guess $200.00- $220.00 for a barrel of oil than maybe we will see more people shifting to Plug-in hybrids and pure electric cars. Only time will tell let’s hope so?
Dec 31st, 2010 (6:18 pm)Also if prices for gas and oil are ever going to go up this high maybe my Mom,Dad,and my Sister will shift to either a plug-in hybrid or electric car? Though my sister does not like the performance of a hybrid but if they could increase the performance without sacrificing the high MPG and by giving it a bigger battery than maybe in the future? But even in a world of high prices like this I’m sure my family would want to shift to them for sure wouldn’t you have to agree when it comes to pain stalking gas prices at the pump especially if there $5.00 a gallon or more!
Dec 31st, 2010 (6:31 pm)But that doesn’t mean we drive the biggest cars out there and I wouldn’t even mind seeing super fuel efficient micro and medium size plug-in hybrids getting 47 to 62 MPG or higher and even some electric cars getting a higher range than 100 miles in the next few years?
Jan 1st, 2011 (10:43 am)I think you will find that if gas hits a sustained $5+/gallon that cars like the volt will quickly become affordable. This will be due to a combination of increased production (thus increased commoditization) and lending companies willing to provide longer than 5 year loans on very high efficiency automobiles.
Now, I’m just hoping Volt gen 2 or a similar vehicle will actually get substantially over 50mpg on the highway. Perhaps 60-65mpg would be an ideal spot for Americans.
-1
Jan 3rd, 2011 (3:09 am)Please folks, do a little math. At $5/gallon, that isn’t enough of a price hike to make the Volt worth owning for 8-10 years.
The reality is, the Volt still needs too much fuel for anyone who has more than 60 miles to travel round trip where a lot of rural Americans do. Most suburbs are 30 miles away. Most garages you park in aren’t outfitted with plugs and even if they were, who knows what you’ll be charged to plug in. Even at $10k extra, you are still looking at 7 years to spend enough on fuel to justify the higher cost of the Volt and that is being optimistic. I’m not figuring in that you will be using some fuel and not saving all the time. The Volt has to be looked at in terms of how much fuel is being paid for up front, something most people can’t afford to do by the way. Next, you have to look at the battery technology.
Please realize, 300 pounds of battery or half the weight of the battery will become dead weight over the life of that battery. A smaller battery and a hydrogen fuel cell is a better way to go. A hydrogen fuel cell car can still be a plug
in, just add water. Split that water and microwave it onto compact discs. When the hydrogen is needed, laser it off of the discs using energy stored in a small Lithium ION battery. With GM fuel cells down to 60 grams or less
of platinum, the price of fuel cell vehicles will be lower than the price of similar electric vehicles built around large
clumsy batteries. GM has the technology to make cheaper longer range plug in fuel cell vehicles now, but GM is putting off producing them commercially for five more years. This is too bad.
Barring a major price drop and a good substitute for Lithium ION battery chemistry, battery only electric cars are a passing fad.
I for one am not convinced that people will be able to get $10k off of the $40k price of the Volt, a lot of folks don’t have a GM credit card for starters. Talk is cheap and pointless until it is backed up by the math and by what is actually happening on the ground.
I’m seriously curious what it would cost to have the equipment on board a vehicle to split water and microwave it onto storage discs? This storage technology will remove the objection to fuel cell vehicles, which isn’t valid by the way, that they are bombs on wheels.
I agree with the guy from Switzerland that gas should cost $6/gallon now and that it should be kept at that price to stabilize price fluctuations and at the same time force people to consider alternative fuels. The proceeds of a gas tax should go towards accelerating commercialization of fuel cell vehicles, not battery electric vehicles.
With laser metal hydride technology, you are replacing an expensive and environmentally questionable battery chemistry, Lithium ION, with a battery that produces hydrogen instead.
Another question about the cost of the Volt, what will it cost to insure one? There isn’t much crash history for the Volt and it is sporty. Worse, most states have failed to give purchasers of hybrids and other alt fuel vehicles a break when it comes to registration and tags.
Jan 3rd, 2011 (5:21 pm)TheRFMan,
That’s one of the points that they didn’t cover at the Leaf test drive preparations, BTW.
Jan 3rd, 2011 (9:29 pm)TheRFMan,
Excuse me? What gives you the right to change mortality rates through Obama care or something similar? Mortality rates change naturally along with the size of people. Know any 6′ Japanese person? How many do you know? Many Asians are shorter than Europeans and Americans because of higher population density. Population based pressure on resources is only a concern if we stick with Oil indefinitely and the world won’t because it can’t. Technology is keeping pace with population growth, what is not keeping pace is the political will to make important decisions today so that the masses can be well supported tomorrow.
As far as synthesizing gasoline from coal or methane, why? The technology to use hydrogen instead exists.
Hydrogen when put through a fuel cell produces electricity, steam, and nothing else. Even if you use methane
directly, which is better than burning gasoline or diesel environmentally, the miles per gallon equivalent isn’t all that great. It would cost more for people to use methane than gasoline because more has to be used. With hydrogen and current fuel cell technology, 68 miles per gallon equivalent has already been achieved.
Hydrogen does not have to come from coal or methane. Waste water treatment plants and garbage dumps alone in the U.S. could produce enough hydrogen to support 210 million vehicles. There are only about 270 million registered vehicles in the U.S. No natural gas, no coal, still a lot of hydrogen. And when we stop using fossil fuels for transportation purposes, the carrying capacity of the planet will increase significantly.
Obama is doing one thing right, he isn’t handing out drilling permits. On the issue of promoting hydrogen use though, he is an abysmal failure. People who want domestic drilling are misguided and are going to do more harm than good. There isn’t domestic oil that can be reasonably retrieved with minimal environmental impact to support cars/trucks for any reasonable length of time. The last thing that is needed is another offshore spill. The Oil drilling needs to stop. The Oil that can be retrieved should be saved in case of war and when it is used it should used to produce plastics and other essentials that can’t be produced without it.