It seems that, with few exceptions, 2010 is going to be the magic year for many developments in alternative energies to reach mass market. Has anyone wondered why?

The conspiracy theorist in me can't help but think that something beyond techincial and manufacturing limitiations is generating the extended wait. I mean, isn't it just too much of a coincidence that we have to wait for more or less everything until 2010.

Thoughts?

It seems that, with few exceptions, 2010 is going to be the magic year for many developments in alternative energies to reach mass market. Has anyone wondered why?

The conspiracy theorist in me can't help but think that something beyond techincial and manufacturing limitiations is generating the extended wait. I mean, isn't it just too much of a coincidence that we have to wait for more or less everything until 2010.

Thoughts?

I've heard a theory tossed around that a lot of this has to do with the inevitability of 2 things:

1) Obama will be the next president of the United States

2) Obama's $150 Billion Clean Energy Act will pass through the Dem controlled House and Senate like a hot knife through butter and be signed into law by early 2009.

Therefore, if you're developing a new green technology (like our beloved Volt) you might want to make it appear that you need help from the Gov getting over the hump. I mean who wouldn't want a piece of that pie?

Obama is going to make and break companies depending on where that money goes.

So maybe GM for example might think that if they get the Volt done now, there will be no need for help but if they seem to be struggling to get it to market, they might be included in the bill.

Makes sense. Doesn't mean its true.

The reason is simple. The Congress passed new CAFE standards in late 2007, and new vehicle design platforms generally take 36 months to deliver to market.

That is why I am stunned that Ford won't offer anything until 2012.

Anything that Ford does or does not do does not stun me. Bring back the Pinto !!

The reason is simple. The Congress passed new CAFE standards in late 2007, and new vehicle design platforms generally take 36 months to deliver to market.

I think we have a winner!

The reason is simple. The Congress passed new CAFE standards in late 2007, and new vehicle design platforms generally take 36 months to deliver to market.

That is why I am stunned that Ford won't offer anything until 2012.

That is basically what I was going to say. It takes time to develop cars. It can take 6 months to a year to make the dies to stamp out the sheetmetal and get them certified for production. Engine development can take time. Finding suppliers and getting the componets ready for a production vehicle.

The cobalt replacement set to come out in '09 was probibly started in '06.

I don't think it's going to happen, when opec sees where going to breakaway from them they will make oil so cheap it wont be worth doing anything else, again.

I don't think it's going to happen, when opec sees where going to breakaway from them they will make oil so cheap it wont be worth doing anything else, again.

Considering that supply is barely keeping up with demand, I doubt that OPEC is capable of dropping prices. Moreover, why would you sell oil cheap, when the Western world is accepting your prices without the threat of economic or military retaliation?

Don't count on 2010. In fact, don't even count on 2015, at least not from GM. GM is back to their old tricks.

http://www.gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?p=7778

The NHTSA just suggested a 25% increase in fuel efficiency for 2011 to 2015 model years because they saw the potential of the EREV system. GM responded by saying that the NHTSA shouldn't consider the EREV technology when calculating these standards, because they won't be produced in significant volume to make enough of a difference, and that it would cost them $17.3 billion.

In the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?", we saw quite clearly:

1) GM unveils the EV1.
2) Government seeing the potential of the EV1 and increasing standards because the technology exists. <--we are here
3) GM fighting the standards.
4) GM crushing the EV1.

If GMs recent response to the NHTSA is any indication of GMs future moves, we should simply trust the old saying that history always repeats itself. They will see a better value in it dieing than it succeeding.

Because 2010 is the year we make contact ;)

Don't count on 2010. In fact, don't even count on 2015, at least not from GM. GM is back to their old tricks.

http://www.gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?p=7778

The NHTSA just suggested a 25% increase in fuel efficiency for 2011 to 2015 model years because they saw the potential of the EREV system. GM responded by saying that the NHTSA shouldn't consider the EREV technology when calculating these standards, because they won't be produced in significant volume to make enough of a difference, and that it would cost them $17.3 billion.

In the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?", we saw quite clearly:

1) GM unveils the EV1.
2) Government seeing the potential of the EV1 and increasing standards because the technology exists. <--we are here
3) GM fighting the standards.
4) GM crushing the EV1.

If GMs recent response to the NHTSA is any indication of GMs future moves, we should simply trust the old saying that history always repeats itself. They will see a better value in it dieing than it succeeding.

One of the possible conspiracy theory that is floating my mind is that the oil companies would lower their prices and GM would be able to switch back to their guzzler technologies very quickly if the standards are not in place. With the standards in place, they can't go back to their old ways, and they don't like it.

While all the other EV hybrids or plug-in manufacturers have leapfrogged GM and become hotsellers, consumer demand might swing back timed with the lowering of oil prices. So just in case the consumer changed minds, they can go back quickly. They may advertise to the effect that your big buzzler will naturally have a big safety advantage if all the other cars out there are itty bitty tiny EV's, and it feels good to plow the roads.

Another simply is that as per order of the oil companies that hold majority stock of GM and other car manufacturers. This is in response to the non-binding G8 summit. The oil industry would want an option to fight back.

One of the possible conspiracy theory that is floating my mind is that the oil companies would lower their prices and GM would be able to switch back to their guzzler technologies very quickly if the standards are not in place. With the standards in place, they can't go back to their old ways, and they don't like it.

How immature to assign an emotional driver to GM's cautioning regulators - you've just told on yourself. GM is just indicating that yearly sales of their REEV's and hybrids won't equal more than a few percent of their entire fleet sales until 2015.


While all the other EV hybrids or plug-in manufacturers have leapfrogged GM and become hotsellers, consumer demand might swing back timed with the lowering of oil prices. So just in case the consumer changed minds, they can go back quickly. They may advertise to the effect that your big buzzler will naturally have a big safety advantage if all the other cars out there are itty bitty tiny EV's, and it feels good to plow the roads.

There are NO large scale plug-in hybrid sellers in the US. GM is the leader in that development. Toyota's introduction of the Prius is a modest improvement over an efficient ICE vehicle like the Civic in mileage, and a drastic reduction in performance and styling.


Another simply is that as per order of the oil companies that hold majority stock of GM and other car manufacturers. This is in response to the non-binding G8 summit. The oil industry would want an option to fight back.

The oil companies will be making coin on the world markets, regardless of what the US does. We are now in the era of peak oil, so nothing will change.

How immature to assign an emotional driver to GM's cautioning regulators - you've just told on yourself. GM is just indicating that yearly sales of their REEV's and hybrids won't equal more than a few percent of their entire fleet sales until 2015.

explain immature. Perhaps Jason can't take a hint that the post was intended for tabloid press.



There are NO large scale plug-in hybrid sellers in the US. GM is the leader in that development. Toyota's introduction of the Prius is a modest improvement over an efficient ICE vehicle like the Civic in mileage, and a drastic reduction in performance and styling.

There may not be at the moment but GM's low volume production figure up to 2015 will give other manufacturers the chance to leap frog their supposedly game changer technology. I am disappointed with GM's statements. The way the report on how GM has implied to the Standards Body is that it is like to the tune of 1,000 vehicles, and not this: 10,000 first year then 60,000 the next and geometric take off from there providing that the market sustains it (demand remains). There are 42,000,000 vehicles on the road, and these initial production numbers are insignificant. But they have to treat that the 42,000,000 vehicles out there are the potential market. Thus there will be great opportunities for other manufacturers, should any of the EV technologies and their hybrids hit critical mass demand. Moreover, the mpg's are based on what are currently being sold and not the mpg of those that have been sold for the year's past. By intending to backpedal from the higher mpg standards, GM's credibility is in doubt.




The oil companies will be making coin on the world markets, regardless of what the US does. We are now in the era of peak oil, so nothing will change.

you meant nickels and dimes?

:D

GM's low volume production figure up to 2015 will give other manufacturers the chance to leap frog their supposedly game changer technology. I am disappointed with GM's statements. The way the report on how GM has implied to the Standards Body is that it is like to the tune of 1,000 vehicles, and not this: 10,000 first year then 60,000 the next and geometric take off from there providing that the market sustains it (demand remains). There are 42,000,000 vehicles on the road, and these initial production numbers are insignificant.

I'm sure that if they sell out of the initial production batches quickly, they'll find a way to make more if it's profitable enough.