GM Produces the Volt!

[JOZeldenrust]

Nice to see people actually embracing green tech, especially Americans, allegedly Hummer driving petrol heads.

I have seen a dramatic reduction in the gas guzzlers driving around my area. Some people used to go around to the backs of SUVs and slap stickers on them that said "I'm changing the environment. Ask me how!"

Volts are not better for the environment.

One, most of the electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels like oil and coal power plants. Thus, it's actually more inefficient because you have to burn more coal and oil to produce the electricity to produce the same amount of power to move the vehicle the same distance. Chemistry and physics.

Not entirely true. The generation of electricity from fossil fuel in power plants is more energy efficient then converting chemical energy into kinetic energy in a combustion engine, and electrical motors are so much more efficient then combustion engines that the second conversion loses less energy then the gain from the power plant. Still, electrical cars aren't yet really practical, and the Prius doesn't even achieve the same efficiency as small diesel vehicles like the VW Lupo.

[Warren Dew]

Still, electrical cars aren't yet really practical, and the Prius doesn't even achieve the same efficiency as small diesel vehicles like the VW Lupo.

Not a fair comparison - the Prius is not at all a small vehicle, based on internal space.

The Tesla Roadster, while perhaps not everyone's idea of a practical car, does take advantage of the things you mention to achieve a very high effective gas mileage - in the hundreds of mpg.

[JOZeldenrust]

Still, electrical cars aren't yet really practical, and the Prius doesn't even achieve the same efficiency as small diesel vehicles like the VW Lupo.

Not a fair comparison - the Prius is not at all a small vehicle, based on internal space.

The Tesla Roadster, while perhaps not everyone's idea of a practical car, does take advantage of the things you mention to achieve a very high effective gas mileage - in the hundreds of mpg.

Actually, that was my point: Electrical or hybrid cars are more fuel-efficient then similar cars with combustion engines, but the reduction in fuel consumption is small compared to the reduction achieved by reducing the weight (and by extension, size) of consumer cars.

Hybrid cars are nice and all, but the average size of cars in the US will have to decrease as well if we want to substantially decrease our CO2 production.

[Ronja]

Hybrid cars are nice and all, but the average size of cars in the US will have to decrease as well if we want to substantially decrease our CO2 production.

Ramen, brother! Cars are "shrinking" already - also in Europe, BTW - but smaller / lighter still is needed. How that will work re: passive safety (enough crunchable metal around the humans inside) is a very good question...

[Warren Dew]

Hybrid cars are nice and all, but the average size of cars in the US will have to decrease as well if we want to substantially decrease our CO2 production.

Even a 10-20% reduction for the U.S. would be substantial, and hybrids could provide that.

Ultimately, though, we're going to have to let fuel prices increase by a lot - to, say European levels or above - to see a significant improvement. Most people aren't going to buy smaller or otherwise more fuel efficient vehicles unless there's enough of a pocketbook benefit.

[Coito ergo sum]

Still, electrical cars aren't yet really practical, and the Prius doesn't even achieve the same efficiency as small diesel vehicles like the VW Lupo.

Not a fair comparison - the Prius is not at all a small vehicle, based on internal space.

The Tesla Roadster, while perhaps not everyone's idea of a practical car, does take advantage of the things you mention to achieve a very high effective gas mileage - in the hundreds of mpg.

Actually, that was my point: Electrical or hybrid cars are more fuel-efficient then similar cars with combustion engines, but the reduction in fuel consumption is small compared to the reduction achieved by reducing the weight (and by extension, size) of consumer cars.

Hybrid cars are nice and all, but the average size of cars in the US will have to decrease as well if we want to substantially decrease our CO2 production.

I agree. The single most important factor in fuel efficiency is weight.

[Coito ergo sum]

Electric vehicles would be nice, but they are at present impractical. We have the issue of charging them up and range that's a problem. You can drive an internal combusion engine from Miami to Portland and just stop every few hundred miles for five minutes and fill up with fuel. That can't be done with electrics. Then there is the question of the battery, which like a phone battery will have a life span that's limited. So, we're all going to have to buy replacement batteries. Let me guess the marketing ploys that will be used - buy a car inexpensively up front but have a built in obsolescence in the batter requiring them to be replaced, and the replacement will cost an arm and a leg.

Then we have the disposal issues - we've got tens of millions of giant batteries full of acid and other chemicals to dispose of, so there will, of course, be disposal fees charged and environmental issues from such quantities of batteries.

Then we will have the power generation issue - which must be addressed if we are going to go electric. One, the grid can't handle millions of cars being charged up every night - brownouts happen here and there already - put that kind of pressure on the grid and their will have to be huge amounts of upgrades done on the electrical grid.

Plus - we have the simple economic fact that demand puts upward pressure on prices. So, while electricity is cheap now, and seems like it would be so great to be able to charge up at home for the kilowatt rate of my electric bill - as soon as everyone with a car in my town is doing the same thing, the price of electricity will skyrocket. Kinda like what happened with the brainfart known as E-85 Ethanol - that shit is less efficient, pollutes just as much, and costs more, and wound up pulling corn supplies out putting upward pressure on corn prices and increasing the price of food, since corn is in just about everything these days.....

[Warren Dew]

I agree. The single most important factor in fuel efficiency is weight.

Actually air resistance is more important. Since electric vehicles use regenerative braking, weight becomes even less important relative to air resistance for them.

Range and expense are the main issues for electric vehicles. Battery disposal isn't, because batteries contain enough valuable materials to be worth recycling. The power grid may eventually be an issue, but since electric vehicles can usually be charged up during off peak hours, it won't be an issue until electric vehicles become much more common.

[Coito ergo sum]

I agree. The single most important factor in fuel efficiency is weight.

Actually air resistance is more important. Since electric vehicles use regenerative braking, weight becomes even less important relative to air resistance for them.

Weight is the most important factor, until a vehicle reaches highway cruising speed (at which time air resistance increases in importance). But, weight is the single most important overall factor.

Range and expense are the main issues for electric vehicles.

Agreed. I would love an electric car if the damn thing would charge up in under 10 minutes.

Battery disposal isn't, because batteries contain enough valuable materials to be worth recycling.

It's not a "main" issue, but it is an issue. You have to manufacture them, and you have to dispose of (including recycling) them.

The power grid may eventually be an issue,

Oh, it's an issue. Not eventually. The power grid is an issue now even without 20 to 100 million electric vehicles being charged up.

but since electric vehicles can usually be charged up during off peak hours, it won't be an issue until electric vehicles become much more common.

Well, right - it's not a major issue when hardly anyone has one, but they're pointless in the extreme if hardly anyone has them. The only reason we need them is if most everyone will drive them. That way we're off a lot of the oil, and the pollution from auto exhaust is gone. If they're only going to be a novelty for a few thousand or even one million out of all the US drivers, then they're a big fat waste of money and time. More power to those who want them - lots of cars are big fat wastes of time, but if people like 'em - so be it. I don't see the point of the government subsidizing a toy, though. Either the damn thing is going to be marketable and driven by a major portion of the drivers out there, or it ought to be left to fend for itself. And, if people started buying this thing in droves, the price of electricity would follow it up.

[Warren Dew]

Weight is the most important factor, until a vehicle reaches highway cruising speed (at which time air resistance increases in importance). But, weight is the single most important overall factor.

Sorry, but you're just mistaken. When I bought my last car, three of the candidates were the S2000, the Z4, and the 330i. All had comparable performance. The S2000 was lightest and got the worst gas mileage; the 330i was heavier by 20% but got 20% better gas mileage. The Z4 was in between on both. The inverse relationship between weight and gasoline use was because aerodynamics are more important than weight.

For hybrids, which recover 80-90% of the kinetic energy, weight matters even less. That's why they get better city mileage than highway mileage.

Oh, it's an issue. Not eventually. The power grid is an issue now even without 20 to 100 million electric vehicles being charged up.

Well, true, it's an issue now, but 20 million electric vehicles charging up off peak would not make it more of an issue than it is now. 100 million vehicles, yes.

I don't see the point of the government subsidizing a toy, though. Either the damn thing is going to be marketable and driven by a major portion of the drivers out there, or it ought to be left to fend for itself.

Well, I certainly don't think the government should be subsidizing them, especially not with the deficit as it is. I'd be happy with the government raising fuel taxes, though, which would encourage fuel efficient vehicles of all types while decreasing, rather than increasing, the deficit.

[Coito ergo sum]

With all due respect to your car search, weight is the single most important factor going into fuel efficiency. I have that from the authority of those who manufacture vehicles. And, I have this authority too: http://books.google.com/books?id=-UCfTQ ... cy&f=false - as I noted, once a vehicle hits cruising speed on a highway, air resistance becomes the primary force the vehicle has to overcome. However, overall, weight it the biggest factor.

And, http://auto.howstuffworks.com/buying-se ... t-car2.htm Vehicle weight is the biggest single enemy of fuel economy.

And, http://www.procarcare.com/icarumba/reso ... y-own1.asp Weight -- If maximum fuel economy is your goal, weight of the car is the single most important factor. Roughly, each 500-lb gain in weight over 2,000 lbs. will cost you 2-5 mpg. On the other hand, the fuel economy penalty for heavier cars is less if most of your driving is at sustained highway speeds.

I beg to differ on the off peak charging - one - there is no telling that vehicles will be charged "off peak" - many folks will drive to work, most likely, and want to charge there. So, employers will see that and put meters on electric outlets there and allow employees to charge while at work. That makes the most sense. Moreover - add 10 or 20 million vehicles charging even "off peak" and it will make a difference - if the grid can bear it, and if we have enough present production capacity - it will still jack the price of electricity way up.

The problem with the government raising fuel taxes is that as the price of fuel goes up, so goes he price of everything else. Most stuff we buy in the stores entails truck transportation. Moreover, one of the PROBLEMS we're trying to solve is high fuel costs. It makes no sense to raise fuel costs in order to encourage the development of other higher cost fuels. We should be encouraging the development of LOWER cost fuels and power systems. I don't actually care if we move to electricity qua electricity. There is nothing inherently better about it. Either it is cheaper per mile or it isn't. If it is - sign me up, because electric cars would be awesome - quiet - nice potential for superior acceleration - I'm all for it. But, I'm not all for it "just because."

[JOZeldenrust]

The problem with the government raising fuel taxes is that as the price of fuel goes up, so goes he price of everything else. Most stuff we buy in the stores entails truck transportation. Moreover, one of the PROBLEMS we're trying to solve is high fuel costs. It makes no sense to raise fuel costs in order to encourage the development of other higher cost fuels. We should be encouraging the development of LOWER cost fuels and power systems. I don't actually care if we move to electricity qua electricity. There is nothing inherently better about it. Either it is cheaper per mile or it isn't. If it is - sign me up, because electric cars would be awesome - quiet - nice potential for superior acceleration - I'm all for it. But, I'm not all for it "just because."

It very much does make sense. Fossil fuel is running out. New wells will require more expensive technology to exploit, so the price of fossil fuel is going to go up anyway. It's smart to artificially raise the price of fossil fuel now to create an incentive to develop alternative energy sources. You're creating an economic buffer to bridge the gap between the moment it would become economically viable to develop alternative energy sources in a completely unregulated market, and the moment that technology becomes available to the general public.

That's what the function of government as an economic agent is. Markets aren't perfect, and some imperfections are known. Governments can be "black box" economic machines that compensate for the known imperfection in the market. It might not be quite as effective as a hypothetical market without the imperfections, but it has the benefit of not being hypothetical.

[Warren Dew]

With all due respect to your car search, weight is the single most important factor going into fuel efficiency.

Lots of repetition of widespread myths from questionable sources, but no real world numbers, I see. I'm sure the auto industry is actively spreading that myth, to give them the freedom to use big engines and aerodynamically inefficient styling to help sell cars. Meanwhile, compare cars today with cars from the 1960s. Fuel efficiency has roughly doubled. Guess what else has changed between weight, aerodynamics, and engine power? Hint: it's not weight.

I beg to differ on the off peak charging - one - there is no telling that vehicles will be charged "off peak" - many folks will drive to work, most likely, and want to charge there. So, employers will see that and put meters on electric outlets there and allow employees to charge while at work. That makes the most sense. Moreover - add 10 or 20 million vehicles charging even "off peak" and it will make a difference - if the grid can bear it, and if we have enough present production capacity - it will still jack the price of electricity way up.

I think it's more likely that people will charge at home, at night. If employers put daytime metered stations in, they're going to be more expensive than charging at home. However, I doubt employers will bother putting in meters until penetration gets much higher than 10%.

The problem with the government raising fuel taxes is that as the price of fuel goes up, so goes he price of everything else. Most stuff we buy in the stores entails truck transportation. Moreover, one of the PROBLEMS we're trying to solve is high fuel costs. It makes no sense to raise fuel costs in order to encourage the development of other higher cost fuels. We should be encouraging the development of LOWER cost fuels and power systems. I don't actually care if we move to electricity qua electricity. There is nothing inherently better about it. Either it is cheaper per mile or it isn't. If it is - sign me up, because electric cars would be awesome - quiet - nice potential for superior acceleration - I'm all for it. But, I'm not all for it "just because."

Increasing fuel taxes only increases the price of things in the short term; after the fuel efficiency has increased, the prices will come down again. That's what happened after the oil shocks of the 1970s. Or, if you're really worried about that, give up the deficit reduction by decreasing other taxes to make up for the increased fuel taxes. Then the prices of everything will stay stable in the short term, and actually come down in the long term.

And yes, electricity is more efficient. Modern gas turbine generation plants run at 60% efficiency; nonhybrid automobiles run at about 20%. Electric motors are around 90%, so even without regenerative braking, electric cars are well over twice as efficient. When you take regenerative braking into account, that can double again in city driving.

[.Morticia.]

I don't look down my nose on gas guzzlers (well, maybe just a little bit). My wife drives a minivan. Since we have three kids, it's a necessity.

I look down a little on people with long commutes.

It's not a necessity. Lots of people with three kids don't have minivans or SUVs. It's what you prefer because it makes your life a little easier and you can afford it.

And, how do you justify looking down your nose at someone with a "gas guzzler" when you have one as well? (minivan) Maybe those other people also find their guzzler to be a "necessity?"

My commute cannot be shorter. Period.

I beg to differ. Above you posted the reasons why you choose to live where you do. You could choose to live within walking distance of your work and schools and stores and not own any cars. ( sorry if I seem harsh, nothing personal, just used your post to respond and introduce a different view, could have been any other post )

Hence the Prius.

The minivan isn't exactly a luxury SUV. It's a Hyundai Entourage. Nor does she put a lot of miles on it. If it was just her and three kids she could make do with something smaller (and she used to own a little convertible before the kids came). But the difference between a 4-person family and a 5-person family is huge when purchasing a car, especially when three carseats are involved. When the whole family travels together, we squeeze ourselves and our belongings in there very tightly, thank you. It's not merely about "easier". I'd say that makes it a necessity.

My "looking down my nose" comment goes for people who drive giant cars and yet have little or no practical need for them. My mother-in-law owns a giant Tahoe and has absolutely no need for it; she just likes a big car. Quite a different category from my wife.

[Coito ergo sum]

The problem with the government raising fuel taxes is that as the price of fuel goes up, so goes he price of everything else. Most stuff we buy in the stores entails truck transportation. Moreover, one of the PROBLEMS we're trying to solve is high fuel costs. It makes no sense to raise fuel costs in order to encourage the development of other higher cost fuels. We should be encouraging the development of LOWER cost fuels and power systems. I don't actually care if we move to electricity qua electricity. There is nothing inherently better about it. Either it is cheaper per mile or it isn't. If it is - sign me up, because electric cars would be awesome - quiet - nice potential for superior acceleration - I'm all for it. But, I'm not all for it "just because."

It very much does make sense. Fossil fuel is running out.

Not really. Talk to Norway, Brazil, Russia....

New wells will require more expensive technology to exploit, so the price of fossil fuel is going to go up anyway.

So? When it does, it does. That doesn't mean we ought to artificially raise the price now so that we can begin paying higher prices for other fuels. Why not develop fuel or power sources that cost less than oil?

It's smart to artificially raise the price of fossil fuel now to create an incentive to develop alternative energy sources.

It would be smarter to simply fund a project to develop that alternative energy source, and when it's developed market it. It's wishful thinking to raise the price of fuel $1.00 on the if-come that someone will develop a fuel that costs 50 cents less.

You're creating an economic buffer to bridge the gap between the moment it would become economically viable to develop alternative energy sources in a completely unregulated market, and the moment that technology becomes available to the general public.

Frankly, it's obvious what the alternative energy source for vehicles is. Electricity. The only issue is how we generate it. The best thing to do is spend money to increase the viability of the electrical grid and build hundreds of nuclear power plants. That would actually keep energy prices low in the long term.

That's what the function of government as an economic agent is. Markets aren't perfect, and some imperfections are known. Governments can be "black box" economic machines that compensate for the known imperfection in the market. It might not be quite as effective as a hypothetical market without the imperfections, but it has the benefit of not being hypothetical.

They can be, sure. But, not everything they do is a good idea. I think that when they do something it ought to be pursuant to the equivalent of a business plan that is published. Government thinks its a good idea to raise gas prices $1 or $3? O.k. - let's see the numbers. What's expected to happen? How do they know? What assumptions are used? Frankly, if it's just some generalized notion that raising the price of gas makes it more expensive and that that means that it will be a little easier for a fuel to come in a little cheaper than that - well, we all know that's a valid principle, but before the action is actually taken someone ought to have an evidentiary basis for suggesting that a new fuel WILL or is reasonably likely to develop. What fuel? Solar? Wind? Nuclear? Hydrogen fuel cell? What? What will the increase in gas price make room for?