« Dresden and Leipzig to Buy Buses with GM Hybrid System | Main | France to Accelerate E85 Support and Adoption »
GM’s Lutz: Not All Eggs in Hydrogen Basket, GM Studying Plug-Ins
28 September 2006
Writing in GM’s FastLane Blog, GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz outlined the company’s roll-out plans for the newly announced Equinox Fuel Cell vehicle. The purpose of the 100-plus fleet (earlier post) is to demonstrate the basic capabilities of the system and to raise national awareness.
If progress continues on the cost-target side, Lutz expects the next step to be a 1,000-unit fleet in the 2010-2012 time frame. GM’s goal is to be the first manufacturer to put 1 million fuel cell vehicles on the road—profitably—globally. But, he noted, GM is not just rolling down the hydrogen highway to the exclusion of other advanced electric drive technologies.
The key word there is “global.” Like I said last week, China may be better equipped to switch to the hydrogen economy than the US, since they’re significantly less developed and would have a far easier time of it. To really get the ball rolling in the US, automakers, suppliers, government and the energy companies have to work together and work quickly. There’s simply no other way.
Let it also be known that we’re not putting all of our eggs in the hydrogen basket. It’s going to take time to make the hydrogen economy a reality, and we have several other alternatives in the works in the meantime, beginning with the expansion of our E85 offerings, and the expansion of our hybrid lineup, as you know. That will be highlighted by the addition of our two-mode hybrid full-size SUVs next year.
We are also studying plug-in hybrids, and will have more to say about those soon. The whole key there is the development of significantly improved battery technology. But rest assured I truly believe that electric-drive vehicles have a real future in this country and around the world; the only question is the nature of the power source or sources.
We’ll have architectures that will be flexible enough to accommodate a number of different sources. And yes, believe it or not, this really is Bob Lutz talking! We are sitting on the cusp of an explosion of new technology that will change the automotive industry like nothing since its very invention. I never would’ve believed it, but I must say I’m excited to be a part of it.
—Bob Lutz on FastLane
Among the products GM is showing at the Paris Auto Show that begins today is the Saab Bio-Power Hybrid Concept—an E100 flex-fuel vehicle that incorporates the GM two-mode hybrid transmission and reportedly has plug-in battery capabilities. (Earlier post.)
(A hat-tip to Felix Kramer and CalCars!)
September 28, 2006 in Fuel Cells, Hydrogen, Plug-ins | Permalink | Comments (51) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/6211399
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference GM’s Lutz: Not All Eggs in Hydrogen Basket, GM Studying Plug-Ins:
Comments
Is what GM does even relevant? They seem to be desperately trying to hang onto the FUV market even though the indications are that not many people want those things any more.
All of the hydrogen crap is just a hail Mary pass to try and keep the status-quo going a few more years even though many if not all of the experts have given up on hydrogen as a practical transportation fuel.
I predict that they will be in bankruptcy within a few years - a sad day to be sure, but GM hasn't exactly been a model corporate citizen.
Posted by: eric | Sep 28, 2006 9:54:58 AM
Interestingly, all the comments on his blog mentioning "Tesla Motors" or pointing here get moderated away
Posted by: kert | Sep 28, 2006 9:57:44 AM
They want to put 1000 units by 2010-2012? So why is the H2 car more profitable than the EV1? They only made a couple thousand of those and gave up. Sounds like a bunch of BS to me. GM, just start making the EV1 again and watch your profits rise again. You can make it more expensive, trust me, people WILL buy it! I will!
Posted by: Richard | Sep 28, 2006 10:04:18 AM
GM will be bankrupt before they could go hydrogen. They 35 years to develop decent small cars and could have made all their vehicles Flex Fuel at no cost, yet they did neither. Instead, they are trying to sell Hummers and Suburbans. Garbage company!
Posted by: d a | Sep 28, 2006 10:05:02 AM
Lutz changes his tune like a couch-surfer changes TV channels.
Two months ago:
General Motors Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said in an interview this week that GM doubts the benefits of hybrids, but must build them to improve its public image. "Hybrids are technologically of doubtful benefit, and expensive, but necessary from a political and public relations point of view," Lutz told Just-Auto. "Toyota has said, economically, hybrids make no sense. The reduction in fuel [consumption] does not pay for the technological content and cost of the vehicle so therefore economically it remains fairly nonsensical, so that's the left-brain analytical argument."
"The right brain is it's the popular thing to do, many people believe that if we all drove hybrids the world would suddenly get cooler again and then it's the patriotic thing to do because if you drive a hybrid you will no longer be funding the Arab terrorists, and so forth."
"So, with all those beliefs out there, you have to do a hybrid for public policy reasons."
"I don't care how much money you get out but when you've got two drivetrains, the sophisticated electronics and a big lithium-ion battery, you've got cost."
Lutz says diesels are also problematic. "The modern diesel is becoming more and more expensive as we have to have to gear up to meet Euro 5, which is very difficult."
"Let's not forget, a diesel engine is always going to be more expensive than a conventional petrol engine, that's the laws of physics."
In March, Lutz said GM is most enthusiastic about ethanol. "We think running the nation on E85 makes more sense than all the hybrids in the world," he said.
Posted by: jw | Sep 28, 2006 10:09:18 AM
Well, common sense would have it that if a non-plug-in hybrid gets 50 mpg and a regular non hybrid (just petrol) gets 50 mpg, the pollutants are about the same, but the cost of the vehicle is much cheaper than the hybrid version. What GM is missing here, is the fact that a plug in hybrid should be able to be charged by plugging it in and consequently not burning any fuel while driving on electric only. This is in effect an electric car with a petrol backup! If GM would get on the ball with this, they could change their position real fast! I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: Richard | Sep 28, 2006 10:16:01 AM
I keep saying, a HFC is just an electric vehicle with a fuel cell charging it. Use the same architechture and put 20mi-40mi worth of batteries and an efficient generator, using any fuel, as backup. When fuel cells and storage are solved, you could drop it right in.
Posted by: Abraham | Sep 28, 2006 10:19:04 AM
Since I now know that GM just considers hybrids good PR, how likely is it that I or anyone else would buy their hybrids. I will buy from a company I know is committed to the hybrid, including continuous improvement and cost reductions. That would be Toyota and maybe Honda.
E85 better than all the hybrids in the world? Total BS.
No, we don't hate America. It's just too bad that America's leading automaker is GM. Pathetic.
Posted by: t | Sep 28, 2006 10:35:13 AM
wow
Posted by: earl | Sep 28, 2006 10:50:07 AM
Couple of comments. First, it's not practical to turn a hydrogen car into an EV. The physical layout of the components would be very different. The H2 car has the fuel cell which needs to be a certain size, shape and orientation. Apparently performance critically depends on these aspects. Then it has the enormous H2 tank, maybe on the undercarriage. You can't just rip those out and replace them with batteries. Batteries have their own size and shape requirements, and environmental limitations. You can't necessarily put a battery in the same spot you were going to put a super-strong H2 tank. Yes, both kinds of cars have electric motors, but there will be substantial systems engineering challenges to solve in switching from one to the other. It's likely that in the end the two designs won't look all that similar.
The other point is with regard to the EV1. I looked into getting one of those and test-drove it but there were a lot of problems with that car. GM only sold 800 of them (leased actually) over the years, despite an active sales program. You had to build a special charging station in your garage to be able to charge it. It was only a 2 seater, and frankly even by the standards of back then the car felt cheap. Cars are much nicer today IMO, my kids have an 04 Civic which is so much more comfortable and pleasant to sit and drive in than the EV1 was that there is no comparison. The EV1 barely had an air conditioner, and people never got the rated mileage. You had to be in love with the idea of that car to love that car. As a practical vehicle it just didn't cut it.
Posted by: Hal | Sep 28, 2006 10:57:28 AM
I just started writing a post that argued this point:
- Shifting the power production from each car (i.e. burning gasoline) to the grid (i.e. burning oil and coal to produce energy for plug-ins and electrics) will only result in a marginal increase in overall energy efficiency and thus a marginal decrease in CO2 emissions.
Although I do feel that this would occur (due to lower costs to build powerplants that burn consumables), I realized that this would nonetheless be a step in the right direction.
Right now, we've got over 600 million cars each burning their own fuel. Phasing new technology in and out would require massive investments of both time and money from both companies and consumers. We can't possibly expect someone to go buy a new car that is 3% more efficient... nobody could produce that much new technology at the rate that new tech is discovered. So, we have a general slowdown in the creative process and nobody is really moving to make marginal improvements to existing technology; everyone seems to be waiting for a "breakthrough" of some sort.
Now, suppose that all of the cars were plug-in's of some sort, and now all energy production was shifted to the power companies (with some regulation of course). We'd still be consuming similar amounts of oil (because the power in your wall socket comes from SOMEWHERE); however, now the production is centralized and monitored. If there are 10,000 power generating stations dedicated to producing energy for transportation, it is much easier to phase new technology into that production process than having 600 million cars to do it in. We also remove the responsibility from the masses and (hopefully) place it on governments that actually give a damn about my kids (again, hopefully).
This is, thus, a step in the right direction and would encourage marginal improvements in technology to occur more frequently and on a large scale.
Just thought I'd share that with you, feel free to comment. Although I throw my hopes out there, I don't actually have much faith in the humanity we've come to know and love. That's why I'm saving up for a self-sustaining farm in the mountains. :D
Posted by: Adam | Sep 28, 2006 10:57:35 AM
Richard, a 50mpg hybrid versus 50mpg gasoline only vehicle are going to be configured vastly different and have a different target customer. One will be something akin to a Prius and the other will be more like a Smart fourtwo (considering available new cars).
Posted by: Patrick | Sep 28, 2006 11:03:55 AM
Adam:
Your thoughts are certainly shared by many.
It is difficult to believe that GM is serious or even cares much about hybrids and PHEVs. The 100 hydrogen vehicles is a nothing but a calculated PR move.
Toyota and Honda will probably have 100+ mpg PHEVs on the road by 2010 and 200+ mpg units by 2015 while GM and Ford will be looking for a 5% increase in mpg.
Since more and more Hondas and Toyotas are being built in USA/Canada, buying their efficient cars is not being anti-American. It is just common sense.
Posted by: Harvey D. | Sep 28, 2006 11:17:24 AM
jw, thanks for that news clip. Lutz is going to say anything to make it look like GM is trying to get away from the "we only make SUV's and trucks" image. But if he really wants to change the look of GM, he has to actually have some shipping product.
And if they aren't allowing any mention of Tesla Motors on the blog, then that is sad because Tesla only needs time to become a major player.
Posted by: The Anonymous Poster | Sep 28, 2006 11:20:15 AM
Adam - "So, we have a general slowdown in the creative process ..."
You hit that nail on the head!
I got way out in front of the cutting edge a few years ago in a proposal to build a highly advanced automobile. Automobile manufacturers wouldn't even talk with me about it.
Since I didn't want to see the concept wasted or delayed for many years, I decided to give it away to anyone interested. Even then it's been like pulling teeth.
Only now are we seeing some features creeping, cautiously into the field.
If only we would see an embrace of the full concept, then I would share the next step beyound the drivetrain.
It's possible to make a safe, very lightweight vehicle, using modern materials and techniques. If you are not hauling tons of useless, dead weight around, you can start getting some remarkable fuel economy.
Posted by: Lucas | Sep 28, 2006 11:32:53 AM
Implicit in Bob Lutz' statements is a tacit acknowledgement that he and his product development team wasted too much time hoping against hope that gasoline prices would fall back far enough to make profitable full-size truck-based SUVs attractive again. Hybridization may prop up that segment but automobiles are highly emotional purchases: many consumers would not be caught dead in such a vehicle these days.
At the very least, GM will need to add and heavily market highly visible hybrid-specific attributes to the exterior. A Toyota Prius instantly advertises its owner's green credentials because it's a hybrid-only model. By contrast, the key advantage of the two-mode transmission is that it's a drop-in replacement for a standard AT in the driveline assembly, except for the battery pack and power electronics. Transmission packaging reduces mfg cost and risk but it does nothing to visually differentiate the socially more acceptable hybrid variants from their gas-guzzling conventionally powered brethren.
GM has much stronger powertrain engineering expertise than e.g. Ford and may well figure out how to compete effectively against Toyota both on price and quality - with or without an alliance with Nissan/Renault. However, it will take time (and profits) to overcome a perception among the general public that GM is moribund. Innovation is about managing customer expectations, and those are running ahead of GM's ability to deliver right now.
A definite commitment to bringing T2B5-compliant turbodiesel options to the US LDT market by MY2010 would bolster credibility in the near term. So far, the talk is of an introduction "after 2009":
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/100_news/lightduty_diesel_082506.html
Equally welcome would be a commitment to pair all T2B5 diesels with fuel systems that can cope with biodiesel blends up to B98, in analogy to the E85 marketing effort. In-house certfication should extend to the fuels from selected xTL and/or TDP partners, as well. The added cost and application overhead would be overcompensated by the enhanced green credentials, which diesel engines badly need to gain market share in the US. Besides, these fuel alternatives might actually take off in the next 15 years, so compatibility would bolster resale values.
Wrt cars, GM needs to put more oomph behind engine downsizing. It is no longer true that nothing beats cubic inches in terms of performance and, fuel economy really matters now. More turbocharged direct injection I4s and V6s in place of naturally aspirated V6s and V8s, please!
FCVs, PHEVs and BEVs are all sexier concepts than better ICEs but for a volume carmaker, they are medium-to-long term solutions at best. Besides, producing a very small number of super-green models to greenwash all those gas-guzzling sinners is the industrial equivalent of medieval indulgences. GM should leverage its huge sales volume to let as many of its customers as possible contribute towards GHG reductions in the NEAR term. It's all about defining what the letters GM will stand for going forward.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Sep 28, 2006 11:36:44 AM
Adam,
Very little US power comes from oil. Coal is #1 followed by a mix of nuclear, natural gas, hydro, then oil, wind and solar. In fact you could add together oil, wind and solars contributions and it is still smaller than any other energy source we use for electricity generation. Around 50% of electricity is generated by Coal alone.
Posted by: Patrick | Sep 28, 2006 12:04:15 PM
To state the obvious: this guy has no credibility. Like Bush, he should be judged on results not intentions or rethoric. In both of their cases these are grounds for dismissal. Bankruptcy is the path both are on. When or Will Americans wake up?
Posted by: ed | Sep 28, 2006 12:09:39 PM
Bankruptcy is fine for GM. They get rid of their debts, their contracts, and get to start over.
I don't think bankruptcy would work for the US though...
Posted by: Patrick | Sep 28, 2006 12:38:06 PM
"And yes, believe it or not, this really is Bob Lutz talking! We are sitting on the cusp of an explosion of new technology that will change the automotive industry like nothing since its very invention."
Believe it or not Bob Lutz, GM will be a part of this explosion of new technology- the shrapnel. You and W are mission disadvantaged.
Toyota fanboy who wants his PHEV
Posted by: fyi CO2 | Sep 28, 2006 12:38:42 PM
I want the Dodge Avenger to come out with a hybrid drivetrain and under 3000lbs more than any Toyota. Does this make me a Chrysler fanboy? (This would be with the assumption that they can make the non hybrid come in under 2800lbs which is unlikely when you look at the 4000lb weight of the Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger, but I can always dream!)
Posted by: Patrick | Sep 28, 2006 1:59:24 PM
Patrick, if the hybrid car is not recharged from the grid then you still have a car that is totally dependant on oil. Whether you have a hybrid or an non hybrid with the same gas milege, you still have an oil dependand vehicle, and ultimately, the point is to move away from oil consuming cars. The hybrid system just adds to the cost of the car. A plug in hybrid would be worth it because you are running your car on other forms of energy, best case cenario, solar or wind, therefore costig nothing. If you can't plug it in, you might as well have a car is efficient but without the added cost of a hybrid system. That, by the way, is VW's stand on why they aren't developing hybrids. Pretty sound thinking.
Posted by: Richard | Sep 28, 2006 2:09:34 PM
Guys, i'd REALLY recommend reading the presentation over at Tesla Motors site. Biased maybe, but its damn hard to argue with the merits of a pure BEV, and its getting harder by the day as batteries are improving fast
Here is the presentation link again:
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog1/?p=25
Posted by: kert | Sep 28, 2006 2:20:22 PM
Richard, if I bought a PHEV it would be a HUGE waste of money for me as I would be paying for components and functionality I could NEVER use. I don't own a home nor do I have the $500,000 to buy the average home where I live. I could buy a condo but I'd be in the same predicament: no ability to charge up any type of battery powered vehicle (whether it is BEV or PHEV).
Who cares about the added cost of the components of a hybrid drivetrain? I want the lower fuel consumption. I love your thinking: why should I buy a Toyota Corolla and pay $17,000 when I can buy a Dodge Caliber for $15,000 even though the corolla gets 32/40mpg and the caliber struggles to get 25/31, because by your line of thinking I'm not going to save $2000 in gas by going for the Toyota.
A car WITH a hybrid system combined with an efficient engine is still ALWAYS going to use less gas than an equivalent non-hybrid drivetrain that is efficient.
Posted by: Patrick | Sep 28, 2006 3:04:38 PM
Hal, I actually leased an EV-1 for 2+ years (took over from an owner who died; it was the only way to get one). The interior design was on par with GM cars of the time. Didn't feel cheap. Wasn't a luxury car. The AC worked fine here in SoCal in the summer. I have no idea why you'd say it was weak. My wife and I both drove that car on trips and for daily commuting. We had the Gen II NiMH version and could do 120+ miles. On trips we'd find a plug-in and have lunch nearby. Sure, you couldn't go anywhere, but we were counting on GM advancing to EV-2, EV-3, EV-Hybrid, etc. Never saw anything out of them after that but SUVs rebadged as Cadillacs. Personally I won't believe their fuel cell work is serious until they move away from compressed gas storage.
Posted by: Ron Fischer | Sep 28, 2006 3:34:53 PM
Amazing
Anything Toyata does is good and GM bad
SUV and pickup trucks are what people wanted No demand
and they dont sell (like right know )as far as the auto workers working in the us 8 out of ten still work for the big three. and crapy comparisions, like the dodge verse the corolla. Apples and orages not everone wants to drive a shoe box. it's a shame people become so bias they cant see.
Posted by: kevin | Sep 28, 2006 4:03:56 PM
kevin,
Your bias is blinding you to the point I'm making to Richard. I wouldn't buy a hybrid because I save money (his argument against my lamentations for a hybrid version of the upcoming Dodge Avenger). I could have said neon but those are not available anymore and the numbers still stay close to the same. It has a lower price and worse fuel consumption than the Corolla (the corolla that was available at the same time as the neon...the current Corolla has advanced further).
Ron, what did you think of the Cavalier available at the same time as the EV-1 as far as the interior goes? The interior of the Cavalier felt as cheap as most cars in that class but seemed closer to the quality of a Hyundai rather than other makes.
Posted by: Patrick | Sep 28, 2006 4:30:07 PM
Actauly a fuel cell car and a plug in hybrid are exactly alike. Both run full power with an eltric motor. Both store the energy for that in a protected compartment that is stored low in the car between the wheels. In fact the fuel cell car HAS a pack of batteries in it already.
Now I cant use such a car bcause rates here skyrocke the more poewrer you use and a car like this would push me into the 25 cent per kw range. And alot of oether people are in that situation.
Posted by: wintermane | Sep 28, 2006 5:10:30 PM
I'm so glad that GM is finally realizing that the reason that they are having such huge losses of late is due to "putting all the eggs" in the humongous SUV's basket. Time to diversify, for optimal risk management.
FCV-hybrid and PHEV-FCV hybrid are very closely related and can be built in the same platform, with the same drive train, and even in the same assembly lines. FCV-hybrid requires a large fuel-cell stack and a smaller battery. PHEV-FCV hybrid requires a much smaller fuelcell stack but a much larger battery pack. The main dilemma is that the large compressed H2 tank must be reduced in size to accommodate the much larger Li-ion battery back in order to make it a PHEV. Range on H2 may be compromised
A safer bet is for GM to join Ford, BMW and Sandia Lab to build H2-ICE-electric hybrid with plug-in potential. In this way, to extend the range of the car, one just have to fill up the H2 tank with natural gas in order to triple the vehicle's range. ICE technology is much more mature and much more proven than FC technology, hence far less risky than FC. Again, optimal risk management is the key to survival.
Adam,
H2 is an energy currency just like electricity, at about equal overall efficiency. Any combustible fuels can be easily reformed into H2, just like any renewable energy souces can be used to produce H2, at equal efficiency to electricity generation. With H2-vehicle, you have much faster charging (fill-up) time, and you don't have the heavy weight, cost, durability and performance problem in very cold weather associated with current battery technology.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Sep 28, 2006 7:15:04 PM
"It's possible to make a safe, very lightweight vehicle, using modern materials and techniques."
There is a huge and growing demand for such vehicles. The demand is not being met, IMO, because the industry is way over regulated. There should be thousands of independent builders and suppliers. There are very few because it is not easy to legalize any vehicle. I suggest a tax and regulatory exemption for vehicles that get 50+ miles per gallon. New suppliers would jump in overnight.
I just saw a news story of a guy who built a legal,light weight three wheeler in Maine. He wanted to build a four wheeler but could not bear the burden of the extra regulations that were required.
Posted by: Freedom_First | Sep 28, 2006 8:30:28 PM
General Motors hates America. (that's the best explanation I can come up with...)
Posted by: fanboy | Sep 28, 2006 9:07:57 PM
Anything Toyata does is good and GM bad
Told ya, everyone. Happens EVERY time.
Whiners...
Posted by: jw | Sep 28, 2006 9:16:14 PM
Lutz has been sniffing exhaust fumes.
Posted by: Dursun | Sep 28, 2006 9:30:38 PM
GM and Ford are making inferior trucks and SUV, not to mention cars. What make you guys think that their hybrids or whatever will be competitive?
Posted by: Andrey | Sep 28, 2006 10:34:32 PM
Thanks jw for the post on Bob Lutz, very scary. He sounds like a tobacco executive perpetuating myths in an attempt to disguise an immoral standpoint.
Now we’re supposed to believe he’s suddenly seen the light, oh please. He must be grooming for politics.
Posted by: Shaun Williams | Sep 29, 2006 1:30:52 AM
Gm makes work trucks the sideline into general public trucks was just to make money off a fad. As such none of the ups and downs od the general car market have ever effected thier commercial truck lines.
Gm wants toi fire off ALOT of american workers as it transitions to china.
As for the plug in car. Most all the companies said they werent planning on making one. They said this because 1 They didnt have a motor for it. 2They didnt have a pattery pack to power that motor.3 They didnt have the numbers as to how to set everything so such a car would actauly work.
However batteries have changed a small pack can now provide alot more power output even if it cant provide a whole lot more total power. 2 The motors strong enough to move the car at speed and CHEAP and LIGHT enough to use are now being made. 3 They now know more about how to keep some nitwit from blowing up his car.
And finaly hey have found a large enough tho still rather small market of people willing to by a car for alot more that doesnt actauly do alot more as long as its TRUELY green.
That market wasnt of critical mass back when they tried out ev cars the first time. Its now large enough to use as a marketing pr blitz that if not breakin even doesnt break the bank.
Posted by: wintermane | Sep 29, 2006 7:54:12 AM
Mr. Lutz is pretty much saying that, after 10 years, if it's feasable, we may start mass producing hydrogen cars. I'm a cynic, and whenever someone says a gee-whiz technology is at least 10 years out, I don't think they know what they're talking about. There are still a lot of technical challenges remaining to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, and any one of them could torpedo the plan.
Research is good, but this is a PR stunt.
Posted by: Mike @ HCVN | Sep 29, 2006 8:10:34 AM
Patrick: If PHEV's hit the market in any kind of numbers it won't be a big deal to add some wire and regular sockets to parking garages. New buildings will probably be built with fast recharge wiring.
As for Lutz .. proofs in action.
If he's BSing GM dies ... good ridance.
If he's sincere ... good luck GM.
Me: hopefully I take delivery of my electric scooter today (200km @ 50kph)
Posted by: Neil | Sep 29, 2006 8:43:23 AM
The act of adding wiring is trivial.
The act of getting apartment and condominium property owners/management to install the wiring? very non-trivial. They fight tooth and nail against any such "regulations" just as Freedom Fighter does. Even if such wiring installation is offered free of charge to the real estate owners they will balk at it (unless there is pressure from an overwhelming majority of the tenants because a small segment of tenants are easily replaced if they move).
Hmmm, I remember a certain late 70s era Ford with an improperly developed gasoline tank having issues with being rear-ended...yeah, lets remove all regulations! I remember seeing Los Angeles in the 70s and 80s before EPA REGULATIONS were really in force (you know, mandating O2 sensors & catalytic convertors)...yeah, lets remove all regulations!
Posted by: Patrick | Sep 29, 2006 9:43:55 AM
It won't take regulations to get the wires in the garage. Once the ratio of PHEV owners becomes high enough it will happen. It will be a selling feature in new buildings and eventually the older buildings will retrofit to catch up. I live in a 110 year old house but I have plumbing and electricity. (I know, I know, by european standards that's brand new)
Posted by: Neil | Sep 29, 2006 10:11:50 AM
"I could buy a condo but I'd be in the same predicament: no ability to charge up any type of battery powered vehicle..."
Patrick, Patrick, Patrick...
Don't people have extension cords where you are from? You don't need $500,000 to buy a home in Englewood, you can just plug in a PHEV to an existing outlet via an extension cord.
Posted by: Bike Commuter Dude | Sep 29, 2006 11:45:44 AM
Most people can't recharge at home (think apartments, street parking etc).
That's why the BIGGEST fan of plug-in hybrids is....
...Walmart
....and every mall in the country.
They're desperate for the chance to have you plug-in while you shop. It's just such a neat fit, you need to park'n'charge for 20 minutes, they want you to be in the shops to sell you stuff for 20 minutes. AND they can get the money that Shell/Esso/BP would have had you spending on gasoline.
This is what Shell/Esso/BP etc are really worried about and why they are so desperate to convince you that the world needs hydrogen.
Posted by: clett | Sep 29, 2006 11:45:46 AM
"I could buy a condo but I'd be in the same predicament: no ability to charge up any type of battery powered vehicle..."
Why don't you move somewhere where you don't have to live like that? America is a big country, you don't have to live in New York or LA.
Posted by: Jim Sadler | Sep 29, 2006 12:41:18 PM
Actauly the biggest slowdown in plug in and hybrid cars was the fear that somehow someway a car would go supernova and incinerate a crowd of people. Its not that they dont expect that to happen its that they expect to make enough money to pay the lawyers;/
And lets face facts most of us are waiting for the first car to FOOOOOM! Just because we wonder exactly what a big ass statck if lithium batteries going off will look like.
And AGAIN its not as if biofuels and pure ev cars can handle the entire world.
Posted by: wintermane | Sep 29, 2006 3:30:05 PM
Patrick:
The garage parking place in our new condo comes equipped with 115 VAC and 220 VAC outlets for PHEVs/BEVs/Vacuum etc (as an option at relatively low installation cost).
This feature could easily be added in existing condo for about $500 per parking place. This is really cheap, on a 10 or 20+ year time frame.
Wal-Mart, most shopping center/places and parking lots will find a way to make money with their recharge stations. Why not....
Posted by: Harvey D. | Sep 29, 2006 3:44:02 PM
A parking garage would be great but the city I live in is not a "big" city, just expensive. Most condos and apartments don't have parking garages unless I move directly downtown (more expensive, smaller, and further from work). An extension cord hanging out the second story window is a great way for kids to pull on it or trip, get a notice because I'm violating the lease I signed, and exacerbate my winter heating bills (unless I install a permanent solution by drilling through the wall and using some weather resistant silicone to seal it but then I'd be violating the lease again). In fact the city I live in has a population of just over 100,000 (but our annual retail sales is equivalent to a nearby county of 1,000,000).
Lets see I could get a new job and move out of state but then I'd never see my children. I could get a new job in state but an equivalent job (my area of expertise, similar wages, and a job that is just as enjoyable) will be basically in the same city or one of the nearby sister cities and that helps not at all. Then it seems I am being told I should move 20 miles away where I can buy a nice house with a garage for the same price as a condo just so I can plug in a PHEV to reduce gasoline usage? That doesn't seem logical (I live 1.4 miles from my work and walk on any day I don't need to drive to the store for groceries or to school to pick up the kids).
I think the best option would be to wait for new condo installations to spring up that offer covered parking with an outlet. Then I just have to make sure no one "steals" my electricity [if I have to pay for it]. The condos of reasonable size (can't fit 2 kids in a studio) with a parking garage run about $400-$1000 per square foot otherwise they are in typical apartment layout with numbered lots in a big parking area.
I don't see an electrical outlet being a selling feature of apts/condos/multi-family dwellings until PHEV market penetration is atleast 20% or more (well maybe 10% penetration would suffice where I live).
Posted by: Patrick | Sep 29, 2006 4:11:27 PM
Dude, if you're worried about "filling up with electricity" it's going to be the same deal as filling up with hydrogen when they make that leap. There's all sorts of innovations that can fix it... like an extra plug in battery in your trunk that you exchange for a full one for a fee at a gas station (or once they're gone, a Wal Mart). That's all in the future, of course. Now if you're worried about next week or when plug ins are sold, a hybrid still gathers waste energy for good mileage, it just won't be as good as if you were to plug it in. Maaybe you could put some solar panels on your trunk or something. ;)
Posted by: Elliot | Sep 29, 2006 7:08:33 PM
Do you guys have crow in Europe? It will be quite satisfying to watch you eat some of it.
Posted by: Roy | Sep 29, 2006 7:47:43 PM
I find this emotional discussion highly irrelevant. To begin with, there is no single production PHEV even in production plans. And never will be. What will be offered from the very beginning of PHEV age is hybrid car with very limited PHEV capabilities (couple of hours charge from regular socket, 10-20 miles of around-town gentle driving) in small numbers. Harvey D. will be among first buyers. Potential market for such vehicle is huge – no less then 60% Americans live in private houses, and most of them have at least two vehicles per family. It will take at least two decades of aggressive sales to saturate this market. Note, that couple of major utility companies are installing smart electricity meters right now, disregard to PHEV prospectives. These meters allow to recharge PHEV at night at lowest electricity rates just with 5-dollars timer addition. Meanwhile PHEV technology will progress to the state of high-performance PHEV. In that timeframe we will have such huge surplus of electricity production, that electricity salesmen will run after every PHEV with offers of discount recharge on the run.
Posted by: Andrey | Sep 30, 2006 2:49:55 AM
Patrick, EV-1 interior was 'on par' but nothing special. Yep, just like the wunnerful Cavalier. At the time GM was conflicted about whether EV-1 leasees would be offended by leather (heh heh!). Build quality on the EV-1 I leased was very good. Nothing askew, missing or out of place. Miles above any GM rentals I tried during the same time. Even 'new' rentals.
Regarding LIon fires: If you're concerned about that, consider it is nothing compared to the drama of breeching a 10,000 psi hydrogen tank. With gasoline or LIon you have a chance of running away...
Posted by: Ron Fischer | Oct 1, 2006 9:13:20 PM
When the electricity in $10k worth of batteries can take you more than 20 miles down the freeway, then you can talk PHEV and EV.
Posted by: SJC | Oct 7, 2006 10:01:50 PM
