Green Car Congress: Volt Nation Town Hall Meeting Held At NY Auto Show

« NRC Report Says FreedomCAR Making Significant Progress; Calls for Midcourse Shift in Strategic Planning | Main | GM’s Lutz: 80% of GM Vehicles to Be Hybrid by 2020 »

“Volt Nation” Town Hall Meeting Held At NY Auto Show

20 March 2008

by Jack Rosebro

Dr. Lyle Dennis (right), the creator of gm-volt.com, speaks with enthusiasts before kicking off Volt Nation.

At the New York International Auto Show yesterday, blogger Lyle Dennis, creator of a popular enthusiast website devoted to the upcoming Chevrolet Volt (www.gm-volt.com), hosted a town hall-style meeting with General Motors personnel to discuss progress on the transformation of the Volt from concept car to production vehicle.

About 200 fans of the Volt from around the country attended Volt Nation, peppering engineers and executives with questions about the vehicle for several hours. Green Car Congress attended the event as a guest of General Motors.

I wanted to be able to connect GM to the public. I think we’ve demonstrated to GM just how much we want this car.

—Lyle Dennis

Dennis noted that his website now gets more than 100,000 visits per month, and that traffic is also high on GM’s own webpages devoted to the Volt.

Among those taking questions from the audience was Frank Weber, Global Vehicle Chief Engineer for the E-Flex Systems. The Volt is the first in a long line of extended range electric vehicles (E-REV) envisioned by GM, and referred to as E-Flex.

Weber solidified the company’s commitment to the Volt project, explaining “With new technology, there are always risks. But the more we look at our data, the more we think this technology will fundamentally change oil consumption.”

The Volt is more than a car program. It is a symbol of cultural change within an organization. It is not risk-free.

—Frank Weber

Weber confirmed that GM has taken delivery of ten prototype battery packs, which will be installed into mules—generic vehicles used to test powertrain components—and that the target performance for the vehicle included a 0-60 mph time of nine seconds. Asked about the possibility of multiple variants of the Volt, including performance models, Weber said “we are looking at a number of scenarios; in time, we will have a better answer.”

GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz, who oversees the Volt project, likened the significance of GM’s “ecological flagship” to the Model T, noting that Henry Ford’s breakthrough vehicle was “the last American vehicle exported to all parts of the globe,” and that General Motors intends to make the Volt—or its E-Flex underpinnings—a global seller, as well.

This thing could turn out to be half a million [units sold globally] or more.

—Bob Lutz

Asked about the viability of the project, Lutz conceded that “it will be years before we make a dime”, yet emphasized that the vehicle will go forward, and will not lose money.

There is zero probability that this car will not happen at all.

—Bob Lutz

Lutz was noticeably bullish on lithium-ion battery cells, taking particular note of the development of silicon nanowires at Stanford University (earlier post), yet ruled out the use of oxide chemistries due to concerns over thermal runaway. “About every month, someone comes to us with a new [lithium-ion] chemistry,” he explained.

However, Lutz noted, nascent Li-ion chemistries usually take about “3 to 5 years” to mature. General Motors is working with two supplier teams, A123Systems/Continental, and Compact Power/LG Chem, that are providing development battery packs to the Volt project. (Earlier post.)

In response to questions about the platform’s charging architecture, Weber explained that the Volt will feature smart charging, which will accept either 110V or 220V sources at multiple current levels. He would neither confirm nor rule out vehicle-to-grid (V2G) capabilities, but did allow that GM was talking to utility companies.

GM’s Lutz: The Planet Will Save Itself
During a question-and-answer session for online media outlets at the New York Auto Show, GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz expanded on previous comments about climate change.
“There was a meeting in New York a few weeks ago,” Lutz said, “of over seven hundred leading climatologists and astrophysicists, who reject the concept that carbon dioxide is warming the planet. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. The planet is going to save itself.”
On 2-4 March, the Heartland Institute convened the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York. The self-described “gathering of skeptics” was billed as “devoted to answering questions overlooked by the [United Nations] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” In opening remarks to the conference, Joseph Bast, president of the Institute, stated that “more than two hundred scientists and other experts on climate change" were among the conference’s 500 or more attendees.
The Heartland Institute advocates free-market solutions to environmental issues such as climate change, air quality, toxic chemicals, and second-hand smoke. According to the Institute’s website, Thomas F. (Tom) Walton, Director of Economic Policy Analysis for GM, is a board member. In recent weeks, GM CEO Rick Wagoner has distanced comments made by Lutz on climate change from the company’s official position. —Jack Rosebro

In an earlier interview, John Lauckner explained the rationale behind the advancement of the Volt:

Some people say the issue is climate change. Others say it is fuel prices. Still others say that it is sustainability, or energy security. The common denominator with all of these issues is oil. If we stay focused on removing oil as a central tenet, we remove all of these questions.

—John Lauckner

Lauckner noted that government incentives at both the consumer and the manufacturer level would help keep the price of the Volt competitive, and that the company was not yet ready to quote an initial rate of production for the vehicle, explaining that “we have to see the real demand.” One key to the success of the Volt, Lauckner said, would be a shift in consumer thinking “from MSRP (retail price) to running costs.”

“In the next few days”, revealed Weber, “we will be signing off on the final production design of the Volt. It is the highest priority project that this company has.”

March 20, 2008 in Plug-ins | Permalink | Comments (64) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/27279600

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference “Volt Nation” Town Hall Meeting Held At NY Auto Show:

Comments

Bob Lutz must be a fool to be duped by the paid shills at the Heartland Institute. how such a high-level executive on such a crucial environmental project can have such gormless views on AGW boggles the mind.

Posted by: eric | Mar 20, 2008 3:12:11 AM

Bob Lutz is an obstacle to progress. It is mostly because of GM that North America does not have efficient, pollution free electric tram buses in every city. It was GM who bought into transit systems and got rid of them.

Bob isn't worried about climate change, just how his company can retain control of people's thinking.

The "Volt" is as aerodynamically efficient as a brick. With Lutz running development, it is a looser.

GM could produce a great electric car, they did it with the EV1, but do not wish to be the leaders in the technology, only to jump on the bandwagon when others bring this new technology of BEV to market.

Posted by: John Taylor | Mar 20, 2008 3:22:29 AM

IMHO, those who wish to foster E-REV technology would do well do focus on quotes from the likes of Frank Weber. By contrast, Bob Lutz has made a number statements not immediately related to E-Flex that actually reduce his personal credibility, which reflects poorly on the E-Flex team and GM as a whole.

John Lauckner elegantly refocused the conversation on product development, but then asserted that GM cannot set a price or production volume until it sees real demand. This is a technology push effort, so GM has to generate that demand by setting realistic expectations on performance, range and total cost of ownership - which he knows full well includes financing, depreciation *and* operating costs.

If consumers are to be persuaded, this data then has to be compared and contrasted with the numbers for comparable conventional vehicles. The best approach might be to provide a web-based TCO calculator into which consumers can plug their ZIP code, annual mileage, typical daily mileage, financing mode (cash/loan/lease) and resale time horizon. Users should also be able to select from three scenarios for future fuel and electricity prices (these need to include inflation).

Finally, users should be asked to estimate the dollar value of the increased energy independence and environmental protection that E-Flex delivers and, what fraction of that ought to be underwritten by society by way of tax credits for early adopters (e.g. first 100,000 units sold no later than 3 years after market introduction)

The evaluation should document any assumptions made by GM, break down results by line item and, provide some footnotes to help interpret them.

@ John Taylor -

afaik, the Volt product will look nothing like the concept. GM has already acknowledged its aerodynamics are unacceptable and hinted that something like the Malibu platform will be used instead. Personally, I suspect that something substantially smaller and lighter would deliver better all-electric range and/or TCO, especially if used primarily for commuting. However, perhaps to avoid the perception of a niche technology, GM appears set on a general-purpose vehicle that can seat four (American) adults and offers significant trunk space.

Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Mar 20, 2008 5:29:34 AM

More than once I've heard something like "aerodynamic as a brick," which unnecessarily and incorrectly attacks bricks' ability to glide through the air. Bricks really aren't all that bad if traveling lengthwise. A better, though unwieldy, analogy would be "aerodynamic as a plate traveling perpendicular to the eating surface." In subsonic flow the most efficient shape is a teardrop, with the hemisphere forward. Drag is a function of both shape and frontal area so most sports cars, though sleek looking, are not very aerodynamic shapes, but present small frontal areas (and high power) that allow high speed.

Posted by: Damon | Mar 20, 2008 5:57:03 AM

CO2 causing global warming is a religion, some believe, some dont.. engineers usually want hard proof

Posted by: Herm | Mar 20, 2008 6:16:15 AM

i am glad tha GM is serious about this. It would appear they are making a genuine effort to address the issues and bring something to market. The free press and good will alone is worth the effort. wait till they start testing this. it will continue to generate alot of press. I think consumers would respond postively to a clean and concise advertising campaing that gives them some credit for having a brain. i.e. addressing the issues of TCO.

too bad lutz is a klutz.

Posted by: | Mar 20, 2008 6:18:54 AM

regardelss of what kLutz and the heartland group and other skeptics think, the reality is that alot of people DO believe in global climate change and ARE trying to reduce thier CO2 footprint. that means there is a market opportunity to serve this population segment with appropriate products. it just so happens that this "new" market segment is a pretty big piece of the population, if not yet a majority.

So regardless of what kLutz and other skeptics might think, it would be foolish for a major company (or any company) to ignore the "clean and green" market segment opportunity. unfortunatley for the auto industry, they can't green thier image with a simple advertising campaign (BP tried and boy do they look stupid). Since cars can only really reduce the CO2 footprint by switching at least pratially to electrification, they need to spend real time and money on innovation and development.

so in spite of kLutz, i think GM is showing they get it.
if they can deliver most of what they are trying to achieve with e Volt, I personally think it will be a big success. Look at the Prius, why should GM be any less successful (ok, ok, assuming GM can again build good looking and high quality cars).

Posted by: | Mar 20, 2008 6:29:26 AM

I want to believe what GM is saying but first someone will have to explain why they took the EV1 off the market and destroyed the car.

Posted by: Jerry | Mar 20, 2008 6:32:21 AM

I think you all need to read this again.

"Some people say the issue is climate change. Others say it is fuel prices. Still others say that it is sustainability, or energy security. The common denominator with all of these issues is oil. If we stay focused on removing oil as a central tenet, we remove all of these questions."

—John Lauckner

thats the best quote I've heard in a while. Who cares what your reason is, GW, sustainability, low resource footprint, etc etc. Cars like the volt and the subsiquent paridime shift in what powers the average joe's daily comute are good for all of them! If you generate your own power, a car like this can allow you to be almost entirely independant. Not too bad coming from a big company that most would belive is out to squeeze every last dollar from middle class north america. I hope this works out for everyone. Remember being green isn't just about global warming or CO2.

Posted by: Jesse 67 | Mar 20, 2008 7:29:08 AM

Here in highly coal dependent Colorado, the reduction of greenhouse gases will be minimal with an electric car. I am still skeptical of the economics of the car given the high initial costs and replacement costs of batteries. Even if these problems are solved, any positive impact will be negated by growth in population worldwide and growth in vehicle miles traveled.

Regardless of what technology is introduced, people need to be live in an environment where they can get out of their cars and peform their daily business, shopping, and recreation in doing so.

Yeh, at least maybe we can get off oil a bit. But that doesn't really deal with the big picture.

Posted by: tstreet | Mar 20, 2008 7:34:49 AM

Jesse 67:
Thanks for your comment...It was welcome in this otherwise sullen crowd this morning.

Posted by: Schmeltz | Mar 20, 2008 9:41:07 AM

I'm a little shocked at the vitreol toward Lutz and GM in some of these postings. The Volt could be a huge step in oil reduction and environmental responsibility. So what if he doesn't buy into man-made climate change? I'm a bit of a skeptic myself. The issue is that their technology holds promise, more than some that receive praise on this board.

The cynic in me views a lot of the comments here to be about power. Not energy power, but political power. Those who do not wish to conform to and obey whatever "utopian dream" is held must be punished, I guess.

Posted by: tthoms | Mar 20, 2008 9:52:05 AM

Jerry
While your at it ask Toyota and Ford why they crushed theirs. Then ask Dodge, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Mazda, BMW, Mercedes Benz, Subaru, Honda, and any others I left out why they never made a decent EV. I would bet every one of them will give you the same answer. At the time there was no money in it.
If you can stop being a sheep for a few minutes you will see that all of these companies want to make money (as do their investors). If they can find a way to return a profit on an EV or Hybrid you can be sure they will exploit it for all its worth.

Posted by: Jon | Mar 20, 2008 10:02:23 AM

TThoms:
Don't be shocked at the above posts---they're pretty mild actually compared to some of the stuff that gets flung around here. The hot buttons at this site seem to be:

1. GM
2. Bob Lutz
3. The Volt
4. The EV-1
5. Fuel Cells, in particular, GM fuel cells, (if Toyota or Honda do them, that's ok).

Mention any one of those and you get a whole boat load of hatred and loathe here. It gets to be downright laughable at times.

Posted by: Schmeltz | Mar 20, 2008 10:09:20 AM

@ Schmeltz -

I for one am not opposed to the E-Flex effort, even if objectively, more fuel could be saved with less sexy technology that gets applied in high unit volume (cp. BMW EfficientDynamics, VW BlueMotion, Saturn GreenLine etc.) But sexy gets a lot of attention and generates consumer goodwill toward GM as a company, which they understandably care more about than CAFE - at least in the short term.

Bob Lutz has been instrumental in getting GM to commit massive resources to the development of E-Flex. The problems occur when he speaks his personal mind with apparent disregard for how that reflects on his employer.

Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Mar 20, 2008 10:23:45 AM

Hi Rafeal:
I guess I am able to take Bob Lutz's personal feelings regarding Global Warming with stride, because in the big picture, the comment was immaterial. GM is making huge endeavors to provide more and more fuel efficient vehicles, so whether he's on board with Global Warming or not, he and his Company are headed to the same destination. Therefore, what's all of the fuss about? It seems to me many are too thin skinned, and just want to scream and cry to everyone who will listen everytime their toes have been stepped on. Any time GM or Bob Lutz is mentioned here, all the people with an axe to grind come out in droves. Here we have a positive article about a convention put on by an EV enthusiast. Do you see any postive comments about it? Anybody rooting for GM for pushing hard to make an EV for the masses? Mostly what I see are the usual criticisms. Sad.

Posted by: Schmeltz | Mar 20, 2008 11:41:07 AM

These people are "comunistas". Anything that the US does, they dont like period. The USA will win at the end. :)

Posted by: xgalile0 | Mar 20, 2008 11:52:32 AM

@ anon:

"people DO believe in global climate change and ARE trying to reduce thier CO2 footprint."

Are we trying to reduce our CO2 foot print?? Our carbon footprint?? Our CO, SO2, carcinogenic, toxins footprint? The trouble is CO2 is not a pollutant and never will be. Using less energy, taking public transportation, eating less meat, using less toxic chemicals are all steps taken by people who take responsibility for creating a better world. CO2 has nothing to do with engendering civic responsibility or healthy living - encouraging self-care and compassion for other people does.

Posted by: | Mar 20, 2008 12:03:36 PM

Turbo Charged, Nitro Fuel Injected.......BS

Posted by: DS | Mar 20, 2008 12:07:37 PM

The real problem is that the Volt is GM's hail-Mary pass. They lack the popular efficient vehicles that sell in masses and make a profit. The Chevy Aveo is 30% less efficient than a comperable Toyota Yaris (EPA City cycle). Does GM really think that Yaris ($12-14k) buyers are going to switch to a $40+k Volt?? And GM admits it wont make a dime on the Volt for years. GM may not be in business long enough to see this through, if they don't fix their unprofitable NA auto business.

Rafael: The Volt will be on GM's delta platform, whic underpins their compacts (Cobalt, Astra). The confusion about the Malibu is that the teaser image of the finalized Volt has a "Malibu-like" front end.

Damon: Cars are typically rectangular; and a brick is as un-aerodynamic as you can make that shape. It's the starting point, and can only get better from there. Plate-shapes don't make practical vehicles.

Posted by: pauln | Mar 20, 2008 12:35:52 PM

Why is it that Phoenix cars can sell a BEV for $55K, lionev sells one for $35K, and ACPropulsion can sell one for $70K, and presumably still do this for a profit, yet GM with all its economies of scale can't get the price of the Volt below $40K? That's the bizarre mathematics that don't make sense and inflames people concerned about GW. Can someone explain this to me?

Posted by: MarkBC | Mar 20, 2008 12:58:24 PM

Where does it list the price as $40,000?

Looks like GM would target a PRIUS buyer with the Volt long before they would target a Yaris buyer. Who the heck actually thinks this is targeted at a Yaris buyer? What a load of...

Does Pauln really think a Yaris buyer would switch to a Prius (with a nearly 100% higher price)? It seems like Toyota did not share your same concerns or think that the market would like segmentation as you seem to believe...otherwise they would have had concerns of cannibalizing sales of one to prop up the other...it might be okay to move people up a price class, but if they were truly competitors people would go for the lower cost Yaris over the Prius hands down, every time given similar quality, reliability and safety.

Posted by: Patrick | Mar 20, 2008 1:31:00 PM

This (Volt) is a great project and its introduction marked the point at which I stopped vilifying GM and started wishing them (and this project in particular) all the best of luck. As great as all the little companies (Tesla etc...) efforts have been, this move by GM represents the one of the first great modern day EV efforts by a major car company. The EV1 was unfortunately ahead of its time.

Posted by: Neil | Mar 20, 2008 2:24:22 PM

Patrick: Lutz has said the Volt will be "nearer to $40k", and who knows what the standard package includes? You totally missed my point about the Aveo and Yaris. What I was saying is that GM hasn't figured out how to make competitive small cars, especially without selling them at a loss. Yaris may well trade up to a Prius at some point, given its affordability ($21k). But I doubt you'll see Aveo (or Yaris) buyers considering trading up to a $40k Volt. Get it? The Volt is too expensive for it to become a mass-market vehicle. Prius sales doubled after Toyota dropped the average transaction price by a couple of thousand.

Posted by: pauln | Mar 20, 2008 2:33:13 PM

MarkBC: AFAIK, the Phoenix is not really available yet. LionEV only does conversions of Fords, and I've read some questionable things about them. AC Propulsion also only does conversions. Other than NEVs, I can't think of any four wheel OEM EV that is actually for sale yet. If I had to buy one now, I'd get a Twike.

Volt seems to be a decent concept from a company that doesn't really want to build it.

As far as aerodynamic bricks, GCC had a great article a few years back on a concept car based on the boxfish.

Posted by: Donal | Mar 20, 2008 4:29:05 PM

don't believe ANYTHING you read unless you know it is a fact.
Using Phoenix as an example,the cost of the batteries are approx 45k,the system that they were going to use from UQM was close to 30k,throw in the cost of the stripped down vehicle,and with a profit margin the true cost is close to 125k per SUV.
They were going to make it up with CARB credits from the polluters like GM,etc.
Those polluters aren't that dumb,the credits will never be and niether will the Phoenix SUV at that price.
The states will spend your money and buy a few,the elec utilities will get grants and buy a few,as will any corp that gets your money to buy a few.
After that there is no more,except for the hollywood fools with way too much money after cocaine expenses

Posted by: ralph | Mar 20, 2008 4:48:58 PM

The reason people slam GM, is because they have been all talk, no action. We don't need them to market an all electric high priced car right now. How about just producing a decent hybrid? Or better yet, a PHEV? People need a choice NOW, or in the near future. I love my Altima hybrid. It was well eupipped at $23,500, and I'm getting a check back for $2,350 for the fed credit. GM is one of the largest corporations in the world, with huge R&D, backed by government money, and they can't produce 1 decent hybrid? (and don't even think about calling those halfassed Saturns hybrids). Pathetic.

Posted by: steve | Mar 20, 2008 7:09:57 PM

Q: How much will the car cost?
A: Goal is to be less than $30,000

Source: volt nation faq page.

Posted by: jerry | Mar 20, 2008 7:31:20 PM

Steve,

GCC consists predominantly of "talk." When was the last poster here able to claim they have designed a hybrid vehicle, much less put it into production?? GM bashing is something like member-envy - if you don't got it, you whine about those who do.

Posted by: | Mar 20, 2008 8:04:13 PM

I've never posted on here before, but the animosity on this page doesn't speak to highly of this blog's readership. These attacks are laughable;
1. GM supposedly doesn't sell a hybrid
2. The EV1 was allegedly some great and practical design denied the huge throngs that would have run out to buy a car that dies after 80 miles and took 8 hours to refill.
3.Suddenly getting off of oil isn't dealing with "the big picture" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean)
4.The Volt supposed has the aero of a "brick", when it was Lutz himself who first used the term to describe their work at major redesigns of the body because that is so critical for an electric vehicle.
5.Lutz is responsible for GM buying the trams in US cities and destroying them 100 years ago.
6. Even dumber then that one, "Eric" takes that cake in post 2 that GM does "not wish to be the leaders in the technology, only to jump on the bandwagon when others bring this new technology of BEV to market."

That is so ridiculous I don't know where to start, the Volt is the PERSONIFICATION of new technology, this car gets over what the EV1 and every other electric car's fatal design flaw had and still has, being tied down to less then a few 100 miles on a charge. Also their e-flex idea is absolutely brilliant. We will live in a better world when I can go into a dealership and check off a box that says I want the electric-diesel model Volt instead of the gas one, and with this Volt it will be a matter of time.

Seriously people, this childlike hatred of GM belittles the alternative-fuel movement. If you are sincere in caring about it, stop cutting off your nose to spite your face, the Volt can change the world.

Posted by: 2Snowboard | Mar 20, 2008 8:07:49 PM

@ ralph,

why does legit progress toward YOUR purported goal so terrify you ralph? Toyota lost $20k on each Prius in the first four years - should we sh*&t on them for doing so?? Try getting honest for once in your overly automaton life and admit that new technology has to have loss leaders - sorta like real life.

Posted by: coolbreeze | Mar 20, 2008 8:11:43 PM

I still don't get it, why it takes GM so long to make Volt. They spent so much time and money on EV1 and now they say volt in 3 years ( its been quite some time that I heard about it in the works). How come Toyota electric Rav4 is running on batteries for so long , I mean common its not that hard to create good vehicle for any of automanufacturers, theere must be something else that holds all these electric vehicles from public roads.

Posted by: alex | Mar 20, 2008 8:18:16 PM

@ Raphael,

what perplexes is though you clearly stand at the head of the GCC class, you are mute on the subject of bashing those who legitimately work to make things better. The GM Volt is, under present circumstance, a revolutionary vehicle that will dramatically change the NA consumption of petroleum fuel. Though it comes from the least favorite designer and because it forces us to reconsider our "enemy" - we should see this as somehow prescient. You need not be a spiritual soul to know that the work is given to us by those we least believe it should.

Posted by: gr | Mar 20, 2008 8:24:19 PM

Well gosh Alex,

go out and invent your own battery and power electronics and let me know where i can buy it and for how much!

Posted by: coolbreeze | Mar 20, 2008 8:27:26 PM

@ markBC,

Sure. Try really WANTING the mitigation of your precious Global Warming, quit the ancient Propaganda Dept. and get with the positive program! What PO's all you GM bashers is your side has failed to do the real work.

Posted by: coolbreeze | Mar 20, 2008 8:39:00 PM

@ DS,

Oh yeah, just like the terrified poster.

Posted by: limp | Mar 20, 2008 8:44:32 PM

The Volt is GM's laudable effort to win or gain their "Green Image", mostly PR effort, similar to what the Prius did for Toyota.

Do NOT expect the Volt, at only tens of thousands unit projected production number yearly, to make any dent in petroleum saving effort, nor any real contribution to the effort against global warming.

The real petroleum-saving move will be the GM's formidable 80% hybrid (HEV) fleet (in the millions) that Lutz projected will be needed by 2020 in order to comply with the 35-mpg mandate. Why not make 'em all HEV's instead of stopping short at 80%? While at it (making 'em all HEV's), why not make some of 'em (millions of them HEV's) optimized to run on synthetic or bio-methane and thereby capable of really weaning off from petroleum en-masse? And while at it, why not H2-ICE-HEV, anybody, and achieve real ZEV status at affordable cost?

Posted by: Roger Pham | Mar 21, 2008 1:49:40 AM

2Snowboard:
Good post. See my post above to TThoms for 4 other hot button issues that get the lashing everytime they are mentioned. For a good laugh, mention GM and Hydrogen together in the same sentence sometime, then get ready for the rain! Recommend for you to check any logic or reason at the door when posting. Stuff like that isn't welcome here.

Alex:
"It's been quite some time that I heard about it in the works". Actually it's been a little over a year that you heard about the Volt "being in the works". It was introduced at the 2007 NAIAS in Detroit. Normal production of a vehicle from design conception to showroom is generally 3-4 years. That is a vehicle where most of the components and vehicle architecture are already known and available. The Volt is nothing like the EV-1. Apples to oranges. For GM to essentially have to invent much of this car from scratch, and in a condensed time frame, it's a monumental task. Just consider giving some credit where it's due.

Posted by: Schmeltz | Mar 21, 2008 5:31:01 AM

Jon
Thanks for the enlightenment. I agree with all your comments. GM is not the only car company that has the ability to produce the EV or PHEV. My shot at GM came from frustration over having to wait years for the EV/PHEV and hearing that we will be waiting more years. In my defense I have taken shots at other car
mfgs when they make comments that are controversial.
Sheep is a good description for me. I get in my Ford everyday and ride to work in a herd of other sheep. What sickens me is the knowledge that we could all be using PHEV/EV's. A few weeks ago I saw an EV for sale
at a dealership. After futher investigation I discovered that you could not license the EV for the public road and the EV was limited to 25 mph in speed.
When I questioned the dealer he said the restrictions were based on the absense of airbags and crash testing.
Jon, I don't know about you but I feel something wet running down my back and I don't think it's rain.

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 6:36:49 AM

Sorry, I forgot to sign the first one.

Posted by: Jerry | Mar 21, 2008 6:39:43 AM

2snowboard,

GM does not have a hybrid. They have something they refer to as a hybrid, but it's not much more than an on/off switch for the engine, a different alternator, and a couple AA batteries. It's a joke. Last month 22 thousand hybrids were sold, GM sold 19. Proving only that there are at least 19 suckers born every month. So now they can SAY they have a hybrid, but "gee, they just don't sell". But keep defending them, and I think you should purchase their stock too.

Posted by: steve | Mar 21, 2008 9:50:31 AM

Roger: H2-ICE? ... give me a break. What kind of company do you work for anyway?

Posted by: Neil | Mar 21, 2008 10:12:30 AM

@ Ralph and Donal,

but what about Tesla? Are they using CARB credits? Their roadster is $100,000, and it is faster than a Ferrari. It would seem reasonable that after 10 thousand units sold they would be big enough to produce a different car that isn't as fast as a Ferrari, for much less cost. Why can't a major car manufacturer do this?

Can anybody tell me the extra cost that Toyota would have incurred by continuing its RAV-4 EV line? The engineering is already there, already paid for with the conventional Rav4. You simply swap out the engine with the batteries, and the car they made 10 years ago is proof that technically this is relatively easy to do, so you don't in fact have to go back to the drawing board for 3 years to completely redevelop an electric car.

So what if ACPropulsion and Lionev are using existing Ford and Toyota cars? That's the whole point - most of the engineering and safety testing has already been done for them. Why can't a major auto manufacturer just do this with their OWN cars?

If AMPMobile scan sell conversion units for $15,000 (which presumably have terrible range), then why cannot someone engineer in a $500 generator in some corner to make them serial hybrids? It makes no sense.

Posted by: MarkBC | Mar 21, 2008 10:51:54 AM

Ok who replaced my gcc with jerry springer nation?

Lutz is perfectly right in saying that the world will deal with us climate change is HOW it deals.

The fact is tho we dont realy want it to we would like to try and keep momma nature from waking up and beating the holy bleep out of her children for making a poopy in the washing machine...

Problem is we might have also taken a pee in the fridge and used mommas mackup on the dog... oh and blew up the cat... But right now we are all talking poop.

All alot of people are saying is... the world isnt just about poop in the washer... how do we glue the cat back together?

Posted by: wintermane | Mar 21, 2008 12:15:52 PM

wintermane, have you been sniffing biodiesel?

to Ralph,

"They were going to make it up with CARB credits from the polluters like GM,etc." I admit I don't know much about CARB credits, but from a broader perspective, what is inherently wrong with using credits paid for by carbon guzzlers to subsidize near-zero emission vehicles? Wouldn't this just be levelling the playing field, or "internalizing", as the economics lingo goes, the full costs of driving a gas-powered car, of the costs incurred to future taxpayers and Florida land owners when we have to build a giant levee to keep the ocean back? So wouldn't it only be fair to use this to massively subsidize electric cars this way, and penalize regular cars so that they come to a nearly equal price?

Or would this simply force the big automakers into bankruptcy? Or maybe it would slap them in the face and provide some real incentive to make electric cars. Not that any politician is going to go in that direction mind you.

Do you have any links for me to learn more about CARB credits?

Posted by: MarkBC | Mar 21, 2008 4:27:43 PM

Mark you knoq I dont use biodeisel;/

My point is amoung many its expected that things will go to heck simplt because people tend to focus on one issue and fail in all the other vital ones. That ghg has blinded us to everything else we are doing badly and yes even making us make things worse as with biofuels.

Considering human track record id say betting on a massive hosing is a good solid bet and im very glad many are now looking at posy change instead of just avoided change.

Posted by: wintermane | Mar 21, 2008 7:01:39 PM

GM= Green machine

This is for all you tree hugging losers out there , GM will do more for the environment then all your loser green peace , Green blog , and every other brain dead BS org. that you can think off . Get down on your knees and swear to your maker and GM for saving the world !!!!!!!!!!!! dumb asses.....

Posted by: jayj | Mar 21, 2008 10:42:05 PM

The facts speak for themselves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_metal_hydride_battery
"In 1994, General Motors acquired a controlling interest in Ovonics's battery development and manufacturing, including patents controlling the manufacturing of large nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries in the United States. In 2001, Texaco purchased GM's share in GM Ovonics. A few months later, Chevron acquired Texaco. In 2003, Texaco Ovonics Battery Systems was restructured into Cobasys, a 50/50 joint venture between Chevron and Energy Conversion Devices (ECD) Ovonics.[13] Chevron's influence over Cobasys extends beyond a strict 50/50 joint venture. Chevron holds a 19.99% interest in ECD Ovonics.[14] Chevron also maintains veto power over any sale or licensing of NiMH technology.[15] In addition, Chevron maintains the right to seize all of Cobasys' intellectual property rights in the event that ECD Ovonics does not fulfill its contractual obligations.[15] On September 10, 2007, Chevron filed a legal claim that ECD Ovonics has not fulfilled its obligations. ECD Ovonics disputes this claim.[16] NiMH patent expires in 2015.

In her book, Plug-in Hybrids: The Cars that Will Recharge America, published in February 2007, Sherry Boschert argues that large-format NiMH batteries are commercially viable but that Cobasys refuses to sell or license them to small companies or individuals. Boschert reveals that Cobasys accepts only very large orders for these batteries. When Boschert conducted her research, major auto makers showed little interest in large orders for large-format NiMH batteries. However, Toyota employees complained about the difficulty in getting smaller orders of large format NiMH batteries to service the existing 825 RAV-4EVs. Since no other companies were willing to make large orders, Cobasys was not manufacturing nor licensing any large format NiMH battery technology for automotive purposes. Boschert concludes that "it's possible that Cobasys (Chevron) is squelching all access to large NiMH batteries through its control of patent licenses in order to remove a competitor to gasoline. Or it's possible that Cobasys simply wants the market for itself and is waiting for a major automaker to start producing plug-in hybrids or electric vehicles."[17]

However, recently-signed Cobasys contracts demonstrate that the company is willing to use its NiMH technology in the automotive industry, specifically for use with hybrid electric vehicles. In December 2006, Cobasys and General Motors announced that they had signed a contract under which Cobasys provides NiMH batteries for the Saturn Aura hybrid sedan.[18] In March 2007, GM announced that it would use Cobasys NiMH batteries in the 2008 Chevrolet Malibu hybrid as well. Cobasys remains unwilling to sell NiMH batteries in smaller quantities to individuals interested in building or retrofitting their own PHEVs."

Posted by: JJ | Mar 22, 2008 2:18:22 AM

The price of oil at the pump has increased over the years. Do you ever question what is happening to the profits? We use the term “big oil” and “big auto” quiet often. Imagine you are in a position to make decisions for big oil and you have at your disposal all the profits that have been (and will be) generated at the pumps. Will you sit idle and watch a company put a machine out that will destroy your monopoly on society?

Posted by: Jerry | Mar 22, 2008 6:31:40 AM

We note:

1. GM only announced the Volt after Who Killed the Electric Car came out.

2. GM say they are spending $1 billion on the Volt. Hmm, where have we seen that figure before? Oh yes, what they claim they spent and lost on the EV1.

3. The EV1 had the lowest Cd of any production car ever at the time so why is the Volt design so abysmal?

4. Why were the EV1 adverts absolutely vile with a voice designed to scare the living daylights out of you?

5. Why were all the EV1s crushed in 2003-05 just as Peak Oil was starting to be felt?

6. Why are we waiting years for LiIon when there will never be enough Lithium to make meanigful numbers of LiIon EVs? And now Cobalt is also a constraint on NiMH production but could have been greatly ramped up since 1998 if NiMH had been continued for EV use on a large scale.

7. Why do some people think that an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels from 290ppm pre 1850 to over 400ppm today, record summer temperatures each year, water shortages, violent hurricanes, blurring of the seasons, mildest winters on record, record ice cap melting mean "no global warming"?

Posted by: Emphyrio | Mar 22, 2008 12:56:30 PM

Emphyrio:
We don't have to wait for LiIon any more, we just have to get the price down

re#6 Current Lithium resource figures are based on current extraction practices (from brines). Lithium is one of the most common elements on the planet (17ppm in seawater). This can be accessed using selective absorption technology.

Posted by: Neil | Mar 22, 2008 11:08:42 PM

This is good news and the comments are funny. GM has no history at being smart or green for decades. Quite the contrary, in some eyes.

But now they are mouthing words about getting off oil and talking about spreading the (as yet non-existent) VOLT fad world wide.

What can we do but get behind them, watch their actions critically and do our best to hold them to their words?

Posted by: Lee | Mar 23, 2008 9:28:04 PM

I hope the Volt is a good winter car. With the trend toward colder winters, it will need a good heating system. The heater could lower the cars range by a fare amount.

Posted by: a.syme | Mar 24, 2008 1:11:40 PM

@ Jerry

Do you realize that government (local, state and federal) make more 'profit' than the Oil Companies for each gallon of gas sold. And the government's profit margin is near 100%. So why isn't there any outcry from the media about the government's insane profits from oil?

Posted by: Beester | Mar 24, 2008 1:52:24 PM

There is one aspect of electric car development that people are overlooking: the ability to add green electricity to the power utility grid. If we converted everycar overnight to all electric, we'd have to add coal plants to meet the demand.

So in my opinion, for this to be a win-win, we'll have to add solar PV, solar thermal, wind, geothermal, etc. at least as fast as the sales of these cars to be ahead of the game.

so while we cheer on the development of Electric cars, we have to cheer on the development of green grid power at the same time.

Posted by: Tom | Mar 25, 2008 8:40:19 AM

I'm sure Cobasys would sell NiMH batteries to an individual or a small company. You just have to be ready to purchase more than 100,000 units of large format batteries.

With batteries that are not in common use (say for example, you want a Li-po battery which is fairly recent for major manufacturers of batteries) you need to make HUGE orders. I have talked to a few battery manufacturers in Korea, China and Japan and they laugh at you if you aren't ordering several thousand units per month...custom battery? Better be prepared to order tens of thousands per month. I don't even deal with so-called "large format" batteries.

Of course, you can always get away with smaller orders as long as you are willing to cover the manufacturer's tooling costs and NRE -> this means you need an extremely high price on your product or you just shelf the idea of using that battery and stick with something more common that already exists in the necessary form factor.

Posted by: Patrick | Mar 25, 2008 10:28:38 AM

Beester
That's a good question. Facing these odds how are we ever going to get the EV?

Posted by: | Mar 25, 2008 4:25:26 PM

Beester
That's a good question. Facing these odds how are we ever going to get the EV?

Posted by: Jerry | Mar 25, 2008 4:26:40 PM

@ Jerry

Exactly my point. The government has everything to lose and nothing to gain with the introduction of BEVs, PHV's etc. Scary thing is that when these new vehicles do come to fruition, look for astronomical electricity taxes to the point that travel is no cheaper and likely more expensive (dollar wise anyway) than it is today.

Posted by: Beester | Mar 25, 2008 7:35:45 PM

Get real; EVs will not be common until every last molecule of carbon fuel is sucked from the ground, because material rights leases have been bought, and by God, they will be used.

Also, Big oil will use its power to throttle the market for EVs. When they get too popular, price of oil will be crashed so more "carbon cars" will be bought.

Sorry to say, but carbon cars and especially trucks are still the cheapest for initial cost.

Posted by: Tonychilling | Mar 25, 2008 8:20:58 PM

Beester & Jerry...Don't you know that YOU are the gov't. If enough citizens want EVs, the gov't(YOU) will follow. Start gathering people & petitioning gov't as if gov't is you...because it is.

Posted by: litesong | Mar 27, 2008 9:25:55 AM

Litesong, thanks for the advice! I will start today. I'm sure when the Senate/Congress see all my names they will ignore the lobbist with the unlimited cash flow.

Posted by: Jerry | Mar 28, 2008 1:56:57 PM

Jerry...When I said petitioning, I didn't mean lists of names. Get people to show up at the offices of legislators, congressmen, & senators to petition...live & face-to-face. That's how lobbists do it. As a free citizen, you & other like-minded people can jump-start & change what needs to be changed. People set forth the idea that money pays off representatives to justify their political inactivity. But people who are passionate about an issue & will not be deterred from their goal, despite setbacks, do prevail.

It has been said we get the gov't we deserve. Those who did not work to guide their gov't surely get the unguided gov't for which they did not work .

Posted by: litesong | Apr 2, 2008 2:43:27 PM

litesong: Sir, thanks for the enlightenment. Our presence would mean more than names on a list. You are a wise man. Who would be good people for my group?
Let me think……I've got it! Can anyone tell me how to contact Cindy Sheehan?

Posted by: | Apr 4, 2008 5:33:13 AM