GM Volt Forum banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,340 Posts
That will likely reduce the number of EVs on the road:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/business/energy-environment/automakers-pruitt-mileage-rules.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share

Why sell a complex car like the Volt when carmakers can make more profit selling simple SUVs....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They were mighty quick to send a letter to Trump, right after he won the election. Now, this same auto group which represents every manufacturer except Tesla, is lobbying the new head of the EPA to back off on MPG requirements. If those Federal CAFE requirements are reduced, there's no reason for GM to make the Bolt or Volt for states, other than CARB states. CAFE requirements will be met with their existing portfolio, minus EV and Hybrid offerings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
Make an ev that people want and it will sell. Look at the TM3. Part of the problem is people for the most part won't pay for efficiency over other desirable traits. Also fuel is cheap. If you only drive 10k per year that's only $800 per year with a car that gets 25 mpg. So double the milage to 50 and you only save $400 per year, barely a car payment.
Personally I think the cafe standards were set far too high to be achieved. Most of the easily achieved increases happened long ago. Now it's simply small increases that are becoming harder and more expensive to achieve. There are no magic carburetors out there waiting to be found. Look at the volt, it only gets 42 on gas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,520 Posts
Fortunately unless they actively try to trample on California, the CARB states will keep up the pressure, there's China, and the EU. (Although the UK could change post-actual-Brexit, the Conservative government in the UK is still a strong proponent of electrification).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,340 Posts
Fortunately unless they actively try to trample on California, the CARB states will keep up the pressure, there's China, and the EU. (Although the UK could change post-actual-Brexit, the Conservative government in the UK is still a strong proponent of electrification).
CARB requirements tend to keep fuel efficient and electric cars in CARB states. Hooray for CARB states, and they get to dump more, polluting vehicles in the rest of the states.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,468 Posts
CARB requirements tend to keep fuel efficient and electric cars in CARB states. Hooray for CARB states, and they get to dump more, polluting vehicles in the rest of the states.
But the good news is at least they'll continue to develop and improve because of the global and carb regs...

But these regs are far more than EV or even hybrids, comes down to buying someday buying a Silverado with a 1.0L twin turbo with the Bolt EVs seats and LLR tires...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
145 Posts
In 12 months, my husband plans to replace our 2002 Nissan Maxima. He has two thoughts. One is to purchase a second Volt. The other would be to purchase a Ford Edge "sport" that comes with a 305 horsepower 2.7 liter twin turbo engine that he is convinced would be infinitely more fun to drive and will have all wheel drive and high clearance for winter driving and off-road excursions. The Edge Sport is rated at 17mpg in town and 24mpg on the highway.

I'm not sure what "new Technology" environmental groups believe will be discovered to get to "the 2025 targets, which require an average fuel-economy rating of 54.5 miles per gallon across a company’s entire fleet sold in the United States." Ford and Chevy sell mostly half ton and three-quarter ton trucks, to working people who need those big trucks. Electric cars are a novelty. We come here to read stories about people who find ways to get extra range in their volts by the way they drive. It's all very interesting and entertaining. It doesn't relate to how the world around us works. Truckers haul loads up and down highways every day. Solar City showed up at our home two days ago in a large van, to make repairs to our solar system. Today, a large truck from an insulation company showed up to blow insulation into the attic. The giant trash trucks came through on Monday morning. Several landscape crews are working down the street. They are driving Chevy 3/4 ton trucks, pulling large cage trailers. I need to go to Lowes later to buy some potting soil. The lot will be full of pick-up trucks loading lumber and appliances and all sorts of other stuff.

We saw a political agenda coming from politicians in Washington that destroyed the coal industry and created impossible burdens for the auto industry, all because President Obama was selling the fear of catastrophic climate change to the public. The administration was picking winners and losers, sometimes based on the level of campaign contributions and private visits to the White House by owners of Solyndra Solar, a major campaign bundler and contributor to President Obama. So taxpayers ended up on the hook for sweetheart government loan guarantees, when the company went out of business.

The free markets work. Some people want to drive Volts and some people want to drive trucks and SUV's. We already subsidize Volt sales to generate interest. Do we want the government punishing auto makers for making trucks that don't get 50mpg? Who benefits? More importantly, who suffers?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,405 Posts
CARB requirements tend to keep fuel efficient and electric cars in CARB states. Hooray for CARB states, and they get to dump more, polluting vehicles in the rest of the states.
Don't count on it. H2 today is more GHG per mile than hybrids today by a wide factor, some believe 9:1. It is expected to achieve parity in 20 years per the US dept of energy. California is focused on the H2 technology even though it denies global warming and puts a huge burden on the taxpayers and car buyers. California is the least scientific state today.

Another misnomer is that domestic SUV and light trucks continue to get dirtier. It's the opposite. The Beast (V8 Suburban) is the largest chassis SUV in mass production. It is does not have a Large model, only an Extra Large version. It gets far better economy than the older BMW small V8 station wagon. 19% better fuel economy. That's huge when you consider the EPA Test Cycle got tighter in 2008.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=37678&id=23040&id=38185&id=22878

And the EPA rating became more pessimistic over time.

The fuel savings on the large GM SUVs and trucks reduces the GHG emissions today more than all gasoline hybrids combined sold in the USA combined due to sales numbers and improvements in technology.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,520 Posts
In 12 months, my husband plans to replace our 2002 Nissan Maxima. He has two thoughts. One is to purchase a second Volt. The other would be to purchase a Ford Edge "sport" that comes with a 305 horsepower 2.7 liter twin turbo engine that he is convinced would be infinitely more fun to drive and will have all wheel drive and high clearance for winter driving and off-road excursions. The Edge Sport is rated at 17mpg in town and 24mpg on the highway.

I'm not sure what "new Technology" environmental groups believe will be discovered to get to "the 2025 targets, which require an average fuel-economy rating of 54.5 miles per gallon across a company’s entire fleet sold in the United States." Ford and Chevy sell mostly half ton and three-quarter ton trucks, to working people who need those big trucks. Electric cars are a novelty. We come here to read stories about people who find ways to get extra range in their volts by the way they drive. It's all very interesting and entertaining. It doesn't relate to how the world around us works. Truckers haul loads up and down highways every day. Solar City showed up at our home two days ago in a large van, to make repairs to our solar system. Today, a large truck from an insulation company showed up to blow insulation into the attic. The giant trash trucks came through on Monday morning. Several landscape crews are working down the street. They are driving Chevy 3/4 ton trucks, pulling large cage trailers. I need to go to Lowes later to buy some potting soil. The lot will be full of pick-up trucks loading lumber and appliances and all sorts of other stuff.
The CAFE target is actually equivalent to 40mpg EPA. Hybrids can already beat it handily and plug-ins beat it easily and by an increasing margin.

We saw a political agenda coming from politicians in Washington that destroyed the coal industry and created impossible burdens for the auto industry, all because President Obama was selling the fear of catastrophic climate change to the public. The administration was picking winners and losers, sometimes based on the level of campaign contributions and private visits to the White House by owners of Solyndra Solar, a major campaign bundler and contributor to President Obama. So taxpayers ended up on the hook for sweetheart government loan guarantees, when the company went out of business.
Coal is dying because natural gas and renewables are much, much cheaper. Even without CO2 targets, coal won't recover. CCGT levelized costs are much lower, it's easier to build, and CCGT continues to improve efficiency and ramp rates. There are estimates of slow recovery in production in the USA over the next two years, but with solar, wind and storage prices all all continuing to fall, will it? Coal use for electricity in the USA has already dropped from 50% to 30% in 15 years. It'll be kept alive in the USA by existing plants.

Outside the USA, renewable prices are _cheaper_. Last year there was a solar project with a price under $30/MWh. At this point coal has become the power of last resort and if renewable and storage costs continue to fall there's really not going to be anywhere for it to go.
as possible.

The Solyndra failure was ultimately a result of a government that realized that solar was going to continue to grow and that it would be very valuable for the USA to have manufacturing. The government placed a bad bet.

The free markets work. Some people want to drive Volts and some people want to drive trucks and SUV's. We already subsidize Volt sales to generate interest. Do we want the government punishing auto makers for making trucks that don't get 50mpg? Who benefits? More importantly, who suffers?
The free market not only doesn't exist (because lobbying will always have some success, and because of externalities), but it really _doesn't_ work. People act in self-interest and everybody acting in self-interest does not result in the best overall result. It's the Prisoner's Dilemma acted out by hundreds of millions of selfish prisoners. And, truly, in a free market you would end up with cartels and monopolies that hang around causing harm until something can disrupt them. What does work is _effective_ _competition_, but that's hard both to have and to maintain without intervention.

The vehicle market is actually a great example of the _failure_ of free markets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,992 Posts
Ditto with what "itsnotaboutthemoney" says.

- NG killed coal and China is taking the lead with renewables. So costs will continue to come down.
- Coal will never recover IMO because of this.

- Free markets did fail long ago even though the term is still used. Only regulated markets work. Markets are like games, there has to be a referee or someone will cheat. Imagine an NFL game without rules and referees. It would end up like the 1970s movie RollerBall (James Caan version).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,763 Posts
... a political agenda coming from politicians in Washington that destroyed the coal industry and created impossible burdens for the auto industry, ....
The free markets work. ..... Who benefits? More importantly, who suffers?
"Destroying" the coal market is a good thing, right?
Who likes that smelly stuff? The turd miners can find new clean jobs that they can be proud of!

And the 'Free Markets' should allow people to choose cars without emission controls, seat belts, airbags, crash resistant structures?
Bring back the good ol'days of Smog and cars that might get into the 20's mpg on a downhill.?

The Gobmint has no right trying to protect people and making the country a better place for all.?

Sis, maybe you should get a job you can be proud of instead of spewing forth this version of a darker, dirtier future.
Think about it. Who suffers? Who benefits, in your version of the future?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
145 Posts
The CAFE target is actually equivalent to 40mpg EPA. Hybrids can already beat it handily and plug-ins beat it easily and by an increasing margin.

Equivalent to 40mpg across the entire fleet, not just hybrids and econoboxes. The CAFE target is unrealistic.



Coal is dying because natural gas and renewables are much, much cheaper. Even without CO2 targets, coal won't recover. Coal use for electricity in the USA has already dropped from 50% to 30% in 15 years.

Outside the USA, renewable prices are _cheaper_. At this point coal has become the power of last resort and if renewable and storage costs continue to fall there's really not going to be anywhere for it to go.

___________________________________________________________________________________________



...in 2014 fossil fuels produced 82% of the energy in the world. Fossil fuels have produced more than 80% of the energy used in the US for over 100 years according to the EIA. They predict that in 2040 fossil fuels will still produce 78% of the world’s energy. Oil will grow at a 0.7% annual rate and natural gas will grow 1.6% per year. Coal will slightly decline.


The leading export of North Korea is coal. China and India are building coal fired power plants at a rate of something like one a week. China is more than happy to manufacture solar panels for export to the U.S., at plants run by coal fired power plants, and even use a small percentage of them, but they do not mind burning coal and polluting their air. Neither does India. Coal will be widely used for some time to come.



The Solyndra failure was ultimately a result of a government that realized that solar was going to continue to grow and that it would be very valuable for the USA to have manufacturing. The government placed a bad bet.

Evidence clearly suggests that Solyndra executives made 40+ visits to the White House and raised large sums for the Preidents' election campaign. It was less a bet and more a return of a favor, paid for by taxpayers.

The free market not only doesn't exist ... but it really _doesn't_ work.

Yes, we have the worst form of government...except for all the rest.

China ‘the coal monster’ fuel dominated energy use overwhelms Obama’s EPA CO2 reduction schemes

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/12/china-the-coal-monster-fuel-dominated-energy-use-overwhelms-obamas-epa-co2-reduction-schemes/

China’s energy consumption is climbing so rapidly that it’s energy use, which already exceeds ours, will be double U.S. levels by 2040 as shown from EIA data below. (1)



Furthermore the astounding growth in China’s energy consumption is dominated by coal fuel energy resources.(2)



Coal fuel use provided more two thirds of China’s 2012 total energy consumption requirements.(2)



Obama’s EPA proposal seeks to reduce U.S. CO2 emissions by mandating reductions in our use of coal fuel in the production of electricity. But the U.S. is already in the process of reducing the use of coal fuel for the production of electricity with free market energy forces driving the increased use of natural gas with declining use of coal to meet both our present and future growing needs for electricity as shown in EIA data below. (4)



While the U.S. is expected to have little increase in future coal use (see EIA Figure ES-5 above) for electricity the same cannot be said for China. China is expected to see about an 80% increase in its 2012 level of coal fuel use for electricity by 2030 as shown below from EIA data. (5)

This increased coal fuel use by China results in its CO2 emissions climbing from 2012 levels of 8,994 million metric tons to 14,029 million metric tons in 2030 (EIA data shown below) which is an increase of 5,014 million metric tons of CO2. The Obama EPA CO2 reduction proposal amounts to a maximum reduction of about 500 million metric tons of CO2 by 2030 which is overwhelmed by the China’s increase which is 10 times larger than Obama’s EPA proposed reduction. (5), (6)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
242 Posts
The "FREE MARKET" is a lie. It always has been. Adam Smith's Free Market ideologies are just as non-practical (in real life conditions) as Marx-Engels Communist ones. On both sides this is because many people are assholes.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
145 Posts
Ditto with what "itsnotaboutthemoney" says.

Coal is dying.... coal won't recover.
Outside the USA, renewable prices are cheaper. At this point coal has become the power of last resort...
- NG killed coal and China is taking the lead with renewables.
I have t ask 2VoltFamily and ItsNotAboutTheMoney, where do you get your information? Coal is dying? China is taking the lead with renewables? Outside the U.S., coal is the power of last resort? You do understand that is almost the exact opposite of the facts, don't you? We all love our Volts, but what does it serve us here to post demonstrably false information?

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,520 Posts
I have t ask 2VoltFamily and ItsNotAboutTheMoney, where do you get your information? Coal is dying? China is taking the lead with renewables? Outside the U.S., coal is the power of last resort? You do understand that is almost the exact opposite of the facts, don't you? We all love our Volts, but what does it serve us here to post demonstrably false information?
China adds coal power plants, but the utilization rate of those coal power plants is _fallling_. As the leaders of China's electricity distribution said at the CERA summit in Houston, they don't believe in baseload power. Their policy is to use their cheap renewables and fill in the gaps.

In the last couple of years, China has blocked imports of brown coal and signed a massive natural gas supply deal with Russia. They're going to transition a bunch of other energy use away from coal to natural gas.

In 2015 China invested $60B in fossil fuel generation. (And remember that every time China adds new coal, it shuts down old coal.) In 2015 China invested _$90B_ in renewables.

Your graph is 1965 to 2013. That's history. Major cost shifts have happened in the past 2 years and they are continuing.

In the USA, 90% of coal use is for electricity. For new generation natural gas, wind and solar are all much cheaper and their prices continue to fall. Doesn't matter what the policy is on CO2 emissions when it can't compete on price.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,405 Posts
China adds coal power plants, but the utilization rate of those coal power plants is _fallling_. As the leaders of China's electricity distribution said at the CERA summit in Houston, they don't believe in baseload power. Their policy is to use their cheap renewables and fill in the gaps.

In the last couple of years, China has blocked imports of brown coal and signed a massive natural gas supply deal with Russia. They're going to transition a bunch of other energy use away from coal to natural gas.

In 2015 China invested $60B in fossil fuel generation. (And remember that every time China adds new coal, it shuts down old coal.) In 2015 China invested _$90B_ in renewables.

Your graph is 1965 to 2013. That's history. Major cost shifts have happened in the past 2 years and they are continuing.

In the USA, 90% of coal use is for electricity. For new generation natural gas, wind and solar are all much cheaper and their prices continue to fall. Doesn't matter what the policy is on CO2 emissions when it can't compete on price.
What is the Chinese ROI on for the 60B on fossil vs 90B in green tech? Normally it falls into the Greek Fkg Tragedy line on the balance sheet. Also be aware that the Chinese Government does carpet testing. They lie like a rug to outsiders.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
145 Posts
I feel as if I'm listening to the Peoples Propaganda Minister. From 2000 to present, China's use of coal has more than doubled. Renewables account for 1% of their energy consumption in 2012. That's not leading. At Paris, they signed on to an agreement that suggested they do something about pollution and emitting greenhouse gasses by 2035, if they feel like it. But they do not feel like it, nor does India. And just wait and watch India as they gear up and expand energy production and use, which will be primarily coal, oil, and any other fossil fuels they can afford.

In order to claim solar and wind are cheaper than coal, you have to do some mathematical gymnastics, and try to avoid discussing subsidies and pretend coal plants do not currently exist and you need to factor the cost of building them. You also have to assume the sun shines 24 hours a day and the wind blows strong all the time and that installing solar systems will be cheap simply because the price of panels has dropped. I found out it is not so cheap and that my local utility is billing me to use my new solar system.

Solar power has been growing like crazy. Last year the solar industry installed a record amount of solar capacity. The impact can be seen in the data. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2012 there were 3.5 million megawatthours of electricity generated by solar photovoltaic panels. In 2013 that more than doubled to 8.3 million Mwh. And to think that a decade ago the U.S. generated just 6,000 Mwh from solar PV. Solar is closing in on price parity with the likes of coal -- with full-cycle, unsubsidized costs of about 13 cents per kilowatthour, versus 12 cents for advanced coal plants.

So is the solar revolution finally here? Not quite. Even after a decade of rampant growth solar energy still barely moves the needle in the U.S. energy mix. In fact, solar merely equals the amount of electricity that the nation generates by burning natural gas captured from landfills. And it's only slightly more meaningful than the 7.3 million Mwh we get from burning human waste strained out of municipal sewer systems.

Indeed, when you factor in all the sources of energy consumed in this country, captured solar power amounts to well less than 1 quadrillion Btu out of an annual total of 96.5 quadrillion.

The biggest sources are the old standbys. Oil still reigns supreme at 36 quadrillion Btu, natural gas at 26 quads, nuclear 8. Hydropower and biomass bring up the rear at 2.6 and 2.7 quads. Wind is just 1.5 quads. And coal -- the great carbon-belching demon of the global energy mix -- its contribution is 19 quads. That's nearly 8 times all the nation's wind and solar generation combined. https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2014/04/24/solar-is-booming-but-will-never-replace-coal/#55b409476ebb
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
675 Posts
Today the average car is about 25mpg; it sounds like from this thread the 2022 EPA number is 40mpg? That's only achievable if the public is willing to change the sales mix so there's far fewer SUV's and pickup trucks in the sales mix and mostly hybrids and a lot more PHEV's/EV's in the sales mix. At the same time, you need to convince the public they're doing what's in their interest to do. It doesn't help that gasoline is under $2 a gallon.

I guess for the pure EV's and PHEV's you use mpge instead of mpg? But mpge is a strange number.... For the gen2 Volt I would guess it would be 75% at 106mpge and 25% at 42 mpg or 90mpge?

It would help if the cost overhead for a voltec like vehicle in 2022 was a lot smaller. EV's won't meet people's highway driving needs for a long time. The average family isn't going to put up with a best case no wait scenario of 30 minutes of supercharging to get 150 miles of range. And that assumes probably >80kw charging rate?
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top