« Air Products’ Pipeline Network to Supply Hydrogen to Total’s Expansion Project in Texas | Main | Hythane-Diesel Mix Could Reduce Cost of Electricity Production in India »
GM Responds to Changing Market in US: New Fuel-Efficient Products, Production Funding for Volt, Shutting SUV Production, Re-assessing HUMMER
3 June 2008
 |
| GM’s new 1.4L direct-injection turbocharged gasoline engine will have a US market variant. Click to enlarge. |
GM announced a range of strategic initiatives in response to growing demand for fuel-efficient vehicles and to economic and market challenges in North America. Rick Wagoner, GM chairman and CEO, made the announcements as part of the GM annual meeting of stockholders today in Wilmington, DE.
"We are making a number of important announcements today, covering everything from product and technology investments to capacity adjustments to a strategic review of our Hummer brand. These moves are all in response to the rapid rise in oil prices and the resulting changes in the US, changes that we believe are more structural than cyclical. While some of the actions, especially the capacity reductions, are very difficult, they are necessary to adjust to changing market and economic conditions and to keep GM’s US turnaround on track and moving forward.
—Rick Wagoner
Major initiatives announced by Wagoner include:
A new global compact car program for Chevrolet, a next generation for the popular Chevy Aveo, and a high efficiency engine module for the US market.
Funding for production of the Chevy Volt extended-range electric vehicle.
Addition of third shifts to Lordstown and Orion, which build hot-selling Chevy and Pontiac cars.
Cessation of production at four plants that build pickups, SUVs and medium-duty trucks.
A strategic review of the Hummer brand.
From the start of our North American turnaround plan in 2005, I’ve said that our goal is not just to return GM to profitability, but to structure GM globally for sustained profitability and growth. Since the first of this year, however, US economic and market conditions have become significantly more difficult. Higher gasoline prices are changing consumer behavior, and they are significantly affecting the US auto industry sales mix.
—Rick Wagoner
In North America, GM has been moving to revitalize its car lineup and grow its crossover business. New GM cars and crossovers, including the Cadillac CTS, Chevy Malibu, Pontiac Vibe and Buick Enclave, have been selling strongly, and GM intends to build on this success. Eighteen of the next 19 new GM products for the US will be cars or crossovers.
Additional operational and strategic actions will be required to position GM for sustainable profitability and growth. These initiatives fall into three broad areas: product and technology, manufacturing facilities and capacity, and the Hummer brand.
New Chevrolet models and a high-efficiency engine module approved. To further strengthen GM’s lineup of more fuel-efficient cars, the GM board has approved a next-generation compact Chevy for the US and global markets; a next generation of the popular Chevy Aveo; and a US production module of GM’s 1.4-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine first unveiled in Europe in May (earlier post).
The new Chevy compact will be better equipped than today’s compact cars, and will be designed to . Production of the new Chevy compact, which GM says will set quality and safety benchmarks for the compact class, will begin in mid-2010 at GM’s Lordstown, Ohio, plant, subject to final negotiations with state and local authorities.
This car will represent the first US application of our global architecture strategy. This strategy will pay major dividends as we leverage our extensive car product development capability in Europe, Korea, and other locations to accelerate the shift in our US product portfolio
—Rick Wagoner
The next-generation compact will feature the 1.4-liter turbocharged version of GM’s global four-cylinder engine. With this engine and a manual transmission, the new Chevy is expected to achieve a 9 mpg improvement over Chevy’s current entry in this segment. The engine will be produced in Flint, Michigan, again subject to final negotiations with state and local authorities.
Also recently approved was a next generation of the popular Chevy Aveo. Based on a global architecture, the Aveo is also expected to have segment-leading fuel economy when it goes on sale in the US market in the second half of 2010.
Chevy Volt is a go. The Chevy Volt took a major step toward the showroom with formal approval by the GM board of funding for production of the extended-range electric vehicle. This approval, which includes funding for production development and tooling, indicates that GM leadership believes that the technology for the Volt, including its lithium-ion batteries, will be ready for volume production on schedule.
The Chevy Volt is a go. We believe this is the biggest step yet in our industry’s move away from our historic, virtually complete reliance on petroleum to power vehicles.
We intend to show a production version of the Chevy Volt publicly in the very near future, and we remain focused on our target of getting the Volt into Chevrolet showrooms by the end of 2010.
—Rick Wagoner
Preliminary plans are to produce the Volt at GM’ Detroit-Hamtramck Assembly Center, subject to successful discussions with state and local governments.
Capacity adjustments address market shifts. GM will react to the shift in the US market by increasing production of small and midsize cars and reducing production of pickups and truck-based SUVs.
GM will add a third shift in September to the Orion Assembly Center in Michigan, which builds the strongly selling Chevy Malibu and Pontiac G6. Also in September, the company plans to add a third shift at Lordstown Car Assembly in Ohio, which builds the Chevy Cobalt and Pontiac G5.
On the other side of the mix equation, market-related declines in truck sales mean that, over time, GM will cease production at four truck plants.
Oshawa Truck Assembly in Canada, which builds the Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra, will likely cease production in 2009, while Moraine, Ohio, which builds the Chevy TrailBlazer, GMC Envoy and Saab 9-7x, will end production at the end of the 2010 model run, or sooner, if demand dictates. Janesville, Wisconsin, will cease production of medium-duty trucks by the end of 2009, and of the Tahoe, Suburban and Yukon in 2010, or sooner, if market demand dictates. Chevrolet Kodiak medium-duty truck production will also end in Toluca, Mexico, by the end of this year.
GM expects that these actions, along with the recent announcement to remove shifts at two other US truck plants (Pontiac and Flint, Michigan), will result in an additional GM North America structural cost savings of more than $1 billion, on a running rate basis, by 2010. This is on top of the approximately $5 billion running rate reduction by 2011 announced earlier this year, and also in addition to the $9 billion reduction accomplished over the 2006-07 period in North America.
GM says that it will work closely with its union partners to mitigate the impact of these actions, which are made necessary by long-term changes in consumer demand for trucks and SUVs.
Strategic assessment for Hummer brand. Finally, GM is undertaking a strategic review of the Hummer brand to determine its fit within the GM portfolio. At this point, the company is considering all options, from a complete revamp of the product lineup to a partial or complete sale of the brand.
June 3, 2008 in Fuel Efficiency, Plug-ins, Vehicle Manufacturers | Permalink | Comments (94) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/29728690
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference GM Responds to Changing Market in US: New Fuel-Efficient Products, Production Funding for Volt, Shutting SUV Production, Re-assessing HUMMER:
Comments
Watch for GM to very seriously look at essentially building their Opel/Vauxhall line of models here in the USA. Not only will we get the Astra (already here) and the Corsa (coming probably late 2009), but also the Meriva and Zafira "multi activity vehicles," too.
Posted by: Raymond | Jun 3, 2008 7:12:18 AM
The greatest thing is to see the Volt get the green light.
All in all good news out of one of the biggest carmakers in the world. But I am curious to see the upcoming comments from the GM bashers.
Posted by: Mark A | Jun 3, 2008 7:37:35 AM
"...the 1.4 liter DI turbo engine provides a 9mpg improvement over Chevy's current entry in this segment."
Really!?! What is the "next-generation compact" replacing? Is it the 23mpg avg rated 1.6liter 5spd Aveo or the 24mpg avg rated 2.2liter 5spd Cobalt?
Either way, a 9mpg (avg?)improvement is nothing to sneeze at. GM, I'd buy an inexpensive 32-33mpg avg rated Cobalt-sized vehicle.
GM seems to be taking steps in the right direction (finally)!
Posted by: DieselHybrid | Jun 3, 2008 7:45:46 AM
GM needs 10x Volt (various size and type) vehicles quickly if they want to compete in the next few years.
It is time to drop (most or all) large ICE vehicles.
Whoever comes first with good PHEVs and BEVs mass production will take the lead for many years.
Will GM, Ford and Chrysler be quick enough?
Posted by: Harvey D | Jun 3, 2008 7:47:19 AM
"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." - Winston Churchill
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Jun 3, 2008 7:47:49 AM
@Rafael
Perfect quote.
It is refreshing to see initiative at one American auto company. GM, IMO, will survive. Ford and Chrysler have more uncertain futures.
Posted by: GreenPlease | Jun 3, 2008 8:05:54 AM
re: "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." - Winston Churchill
great! anyway, when they start, Americans tend to be very quick.
Posted by: Bruno Cipolla | Jun 3, 2008 8:12:42 AM
They all better hurry up. Nissan/Renault boss was in north-east England today - reported thus in local press
"...The future is also looking bright with Nissan announcing last month that it wants to become the world leader in electricpowered vehicles over the next five years. ..The company said it would introduce a zero-emission vehicle in the US and Japan in 2010, and mass-market vehicles around the world in 2012 - making it the first manufacturer to commit to plans to mass-market all-electric vehicles worldwide. ..A spokesman for the company said it was too early to say whether the electric vehicles would be made at the Washington plant..."
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/business/news/display.var.2314588.0.president_arrives_in_time_to_see_nissan_car_milestone.php
Posted by: Stan Wellaway | Jun 3, 2008 8:16:42 AM
PS: That's Washington, UK by the way (same town where Smith Electric Vehicles are based) not Washington USA.
Posted by: Stan Wellaway | Jun 3, 2008 8:19:03 AM
Raf, thanks for the good laugh. I had forgotten that quote, Winnie had a boatload of good ones.......
Posted by: Bud Johns | Jun 3, 2008 8:20:54 AM
If they were smart they would change those truch and suv plants into PHEV an EV plants like now while they still have a chance.
Posted by: | Jun 3, 2008 8:31:04 AM
~> “Oshawa Truck Assembly in Canada, which builds the Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra, will likely cease production in 2009”
I presume that GM will pressure the Canadian Government to fork over huge subsidies to convert the plant to another useless planet destroying product. Every time I dig into why great new technology failed to help our fuel economy, I find GM bought and squashed it. We should have learned about GM when they bough up the Electric Trams in each city and removed them. Stinky GM buses have made city life less pleasant for years.
I for one will be pressuring the Canadians to link up with Toyota or give the plant to the Canadian company Zenn instead. Electric Cars are the future.
Posted by: John Taylor | Jun 3, 2008 8:34:06 AM
Will GM seriously consider a Chery offer for Hummer brand? It is a better fit in China where infatuation with excess continues unabated.
Posted by: | Jun 3, 2008 8:40:48 AM
The biggest mistake GM ever made was to kill the EV1, unless OPEC and the world Big OIL companies are hiding about 1 trillion barrels of light sweet crude the world over the next 25 years is going to be a ugly and pain filled place for the worlds poor (stravation and die off) and the middle classes will become the new worlds poor the rich will be the new middle class and the elites will stay the same.
the poor in America won;t be able to drive a car anymore they will take public transporation and middle class will drive short range EV's to beable to live a simple live , the rich will drive PHEVs and the elites will be able to do whatevet they want as they always have and there will be even more poor people for them to use.
Posted by: | Jun 3, 2008 8:42:01 AM
That quote was right on Rafael. Who knows, maybe the next president will save the money on the Iraqi black hole and invest it in technology that will solve both problems of energy dependence and global warming. After all you can achieve a great deal with $200 billion a year.
Posted by: Henrik | Jun 3, 2008 8:51:46 AM
9 MPG improvement over current production for a sub compact model is bullshit given the poor mileage of their current production. Can they announce a car with better than 40MPG average like the Prius or the honda civic hybrid ? No so they should do their homework
Toyota will release the new Prius later this year with 50-55 MPG average, honda will release 3 hybrid models next years with better than 45/50 MPG.
Better than 45MPG average ,that's what people need to keep their mobility in this country, the rest is just bullshit.
Posted by: Treehugger | Jun 3, 2008 8:54:22 AM
I am really glad to see movement on the Volt. An all electric vehicle simply would not work for me. I have SRP so dirty electricity is not an issue. I have a house with a garage and a M-F 45 mile total commute and a middle to uppermiddle class income. I know I sound perfect for an all electric. But I know something about myself. Even though I have both wall chargers and car chargers for my cell phone, norelco and Ipod. I still manage to have dead batteries a couple times a month. The Volt sounds perfect because it will compensate for my occasional forgetfulness.
Posted by: Joseph | Jun 3, 2008 9:09:03 AM
Finally, in response to spiralling oil prices they can't control and with no end in sight, a major US automaker decides to change its tune.
Perhaps if they had listened to the chorus of scientists, policymakers and others screaming at them to do this for the past THIRTY YEARS, instead of plugging their ears and paying politicians and pseudo-scientists to plug those of the public, I might have sympathy on them -- and maybe even a bit of admiration.
As it is, they're desperate to stay alive, and maybe even relevant, and doing the only thing they possibly can. Hardly a company/industry I can admire. Yes, it's good news, but that it had to take this is really a shame.
[q->t to email]
Posted by: Adam | Jun 3, 2008 9:13:27 AM
To all the people who think that peak oil is nothing more than another stupid, baseless obsession of the Internetters, let me point out that GM wouldn't take expensive actions like the ones outlined in this article unless they're highly confident that gasoline won't be cheaper under any foreseeable scenario.
Also, remember when Mullaly of Ford talked recently about their internal projections showing US gasoline to be in the range of $3.75 to $4.25 until the end of 2009? How often do large companies talk about their internal assessments like that? Would Ford do it if they thought they were telling all the other car companies something they don't already know?
Forget all the posturing and follow the money. And the money is suddenly pointing to much more expensive oil and gasoline.
Posted by: Lou Grinzo | Jun 3, 2008 9:18:23 AM
Henrik, sorry but I don't think the next president will have the balls to get out of iraq, I hope, but I don't think they will. Besides the states is running such a huge deficit that saving $200 billion will only start to ease off that. It won't open up for new spending.
Treehugger, the prius is a hybrid, not a subcompact, it's unfair to compare the two. A lot of people can't afford a hybrid, so they go for subcompacts. It's better to compare it to a yaris sitting at 41mpg. And another thing, the volt will do WAY better than the prius ever did for gas milage. Most people won't use gas if they just plug in overnight except for if they want to go on a long trip. So they are in fact offering something better than the "green" toyota is. Now we have to wait for toyota to step up to the plate. The Prius will no longer hold them up. The volt will rightfully take it's place.
Posted by: Brad Godfrey | Jun 3, 2008 9:20:42 AM
Perhaps if they had listened to the chorus of scientists, policymakers and others screaming at them to do this for the past THIRTY YEARS [...]
They'd be bankrupt. What would *that* have achieved?
Posted by: | Jun 3, 2008 9:25:08 AM
Sorry, that was me. As if you couldn't have guessed.
Posted by: Matthew | Jun 3, 2008 9:25:34 AM
Good for GM but I'm still waiting for them to develop a line of motorcycles. BMW, Honda, and Suzuki do it.
Posted by: Jenkins | Jun 3, 2008 9:28:29 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there isn't a single person the whole of the US that will buy a car with a 1.4 litre engine, even if its turbocharged and has more hp than the 3.0 V6 it replaces. For example the turbo 1.6 (190hp) in the Astra, Corsa, Meriva etc. for the 3.5 V6 (200hp) in the Uplander et. al.
Hence why VW continue with the age old 2.5 150hp lump and not introduce the lighter 1.4TSI 170hp in N.America.
Even Toyota (Scion) were shocked at the ignorance and dumped the oversized 2.4 in everything that had previously carried the more efficient 1.5
Am I wrong...?
Posted by: Mickster | Jun 3, 2008 9:36:45 AM
The volt will be selling in the low $40 thousand range I don;t think it wil be out selling the prius anytime soon, also the prius will be plug-in 09 plus they can make and all electric prius at the sametime, GM is behind the 8 ball along with the other 2 dumbasses, they would not have gone bankrupt if they had beeen changing over to EV's and HPEV's over the past 30 years because the world would have followed are path but instead we are follwing the worlds path get it dimwit.
Posted by: | Jun 3, 2008 9:37:14 AM
They will be driving one of using public transportation, $4 gas now next year $5 if not more, the world is producing 85 million barrels of oil a day but demand is for 86.5 you do the math. If your smart you will get into a small car now before you can't. Aslo bike a couple of electric bikes they are great for getting to and from the local store witha few bags of items.
Posted by: | Jun 3, 2008 9:42:06 AM
"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." - Winston Churchill
thank you Raphael.
I can't believe i never heard that before.
Couldn't be more appropriate.
Posted by: danm | Jun 3, 2008 9:48:47 AM
GM is behind the 8 ball along with the other 2 dumbasses, they would not have gone bankrupt if they had beeen changing over to EV's and HPEV's over the past 30 years because the world would have followed are path but instead we are follwing the worlds path get it dimwit.
Given the state of technology 30 years ago, how much would it have cost GM and others to build these kinds of cars? $100K, *if* it was possible at all?
You greens are f*cking idiots.
Posted by: Matthew | Jun 3, 2008 9:53:58 AM
"We intend to show a production version of the Chevy Volt publicly in the very near future, and we remain focused on our target of getting the Volt into Chevrolet showrooms by the end of 2010."
Now that's what I call progress!
Posted by: Jerry | Jun 3, 2008 9:59:23 AM
Good moves. GM and Toyota are setting the leading example for 21st century transportation. Interestingly Japanese press reports discussions between Toyota and GM to build Prii in their US joint venture plant NUMMI. Now to get Toyota to see the light and re-evaluate their Tundra line of big trucks.
GM will produce the first mass market electric hybrid and Nissan and Mitsubishi will follow with EVs. Tiny Zenn up in Toronto claims their EEStor power unit is on track for a cityZenn 5 passenger vehicle by '08 end. While the foot dragging and retarded technology are the work of both petroleum and automotive industries - it is clear that GM at least is shedding its addiction to oil. Not easy to slow a tanker in mid-ocean.
As for the other silly propaganda that gets posted on GM stories - it's propaganda. There is and will be far greater abundance on the planet than ever before - due in part to the recognition of a need to shift energy usage to sustainable resources. That's been a good and evolutionary change brought about by a few dedicated groups and individuals, real science, and a nascent understanding of the power of good will.
I think Winnie's statement came after desperate pleas for help finally caused FDR to commit the U.S. troops that saved Britain's ass. In the end what matters is doing the right thing.
Posted by: gr | Jun 3, 2008 9:59:46 AM
$4 gas changes everything. And it works better than any CAFE efficiency or CARB CO2 mandate. Say goodbye to Hummer, hello to small, efficient, turbocharged engines and PHEVs. The market can change on a dime. It's good to see GM going all out to meet it.
Posted by: Cervus | Jun 3, 2008 10:03:05 AM
The Citroën C1 gets over 51 mpg has 5 seats and costs around $10'000 in Europe.
If an average person makes a 1000 miles per month, that's $100 at $5 per gallon. So $1500 for rent and $100 for gas?
Posted by: globi | Jun 3, 2008 10:32:11 AM
GM should convert those truck factories to hybrid bus plants and do a lease arrangement with cities to faciltiate sales. Their lending unit will make money, their manufacturing will make money, and cities can ramp up mass transit instead of cutting back routes due to high fuel prices.
Posted by: JMartin | Jun 3, 2008 10:34:35 AM
You greens are f*cking idiots.
Look at the lovely little man.
Posted by: | Jun 3, 2008 10:48:13 AM
Btw, didn't Japan and Germany shortly thereafter declare war against the US before the US did the same?
It seems, that Japan and Germany basically forced the US to work with Britain.
Maybe the market success of Toyota basically forced GM to take actions as well.
Posted by: globi | Jun 3, 2008 10:48:46 AM
Better late than never, I guess.
Posted by: ai_vin | Jun 3, 2008 11:06:50 AM
First and foremost the big three are companies. They exist to make money and are held by their shareholders to do so. Talk of "they should have done this a long time ago" and conspiracy theories are, imo, nonsense. The companies are following market pressure and this change is a reflection of a change in the market. If this market change happened thirty years ago, you can be assured the automakers would have changed as well. Up till now GM, etc... didn't need to bring over the diesels and other high mpg vehicles because there was no case to do so.
The same cannot be said for the Oil companies who I am sure have bought off their share of politicians.
Currently in the US there has been a large influx of organic foods and associated outlets for the same reason. The market demands it.
Change is slow and painful and not easy. However, wll of these are good changes and can only lead to even better things in the future.
Posted by: | Jun 3, 2008 11:15:04 AM
As I said years ago it would and did take a massive loss to enable gm to force changes the union and stats and crats dont like. Unless they get dang good bribes I dont expect gm to do much other then mothball many us plants after they shutter em for at least 20 oe 30 years.
Posted by: wintermane | Jun 3, 2008 11:16:10 AM
So, the unions forced GM to build hard selling gas guzzlers?
Posted by: | Jun 3, 2008 11:21:47 AM
globi:
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941 bringing about the American entry into WW II. To say that Japan and Germany forced Americans to "work with Britain" belies a stunted politic and belittles the nearly half a million men who gave their lives to defend Europe against N*zi aggression and Japan's aggression in China and the Pacific.
Posted by: gr | Jun 3, 2008 11:26:35 AM
Michael,
Perhaps I was not clear. Part of the problem is that GM etc. didn't adequately prepare for the current climate.
The bigger problem is that they manipulated the public discourse in order to bury our collective heads in the sand, foreclosing much more productive options and forcing them into this last-minute "Hail Mary" approach to energy conservation.* By paying "scientists" to say conservation didn't matter, and paying politicians to cut off debate on conservation, and buying votes for "technology programs" like PNGV and hydrogen instead of sensible Pigovian taxation and similar regulation (CAFE is not optimal, but it's better than nothing), they created the mess we are in now.
A phased-in $1-$2/gal gas tax in the 1980s and 90s, even if it all went to (hopefully low- to middle-income) tax cuts, would have at least shifted our housing and transportation infrastructure toward more fuel-efficient vehicles, clustering around public transportation, and sensible private investment in alternatives. In such an environment -- not poisoned by GM anti-conservation propaganda -- the US big three would have been the ones to implement PNGV technology, as it would have made business sense, and would have led the hybrid revolution where they're following now.
As I said, they deserve everything they're getting. I just feel sorry for all of the people who will lose their jobs in the process -- and hope they have learned their lesson.
-Adam
[q->t to email]
*Apologies to the non-US-football fans, this refers to a last act of desperation in the final minute of a game when a quarterback attempts to throw an eighty-yard touchdown pass -- and inevitably fails.
Posted by: Adam | Jun 3, 2008 11:27:55 AM
The relatively temporary energy problem that the developed World's nations have endured since 1973, some 35 years with another 10-15 to go, has been solved.
Just because you don't have the perspective to see the crank now set in motion, and turning until completion, does not mean that the cure hasn't happened, already. Sometimes, it simply takes time to fully come to pass and work out.
Once again we have a "deus ex machina", from Man's Darwinian advantage, his brainpower, and the conversion to electric vehicle designs by ALL the world's automakers has irreversibly begun.
Liquid fossil fuel viabilty, as a THE prime energy source, is already marked for extinction. It will take another decade or slightly more, but the days are numbered for the Oil Sheiks and Oil Commissars.
Transport will gradually go electric, we all know it. That is the LAST market for oil that is not yet in outright decline.
HVAC, and chemical feedstocks have long since found adequate substitutes, and both markets steadily see a declining residual demand. Oil electric generation has long disappeared in the intervening years since '73. Thi=ose three mearkets and TRansport were the demnd for oil in 1973. Three markets are gone and the last great market is teetering.
There are lots of sources for electricity, take your pick. We'll build them all, now that the green ignorants are fractured, and mobilized mob chants, no longer overule logic or real alternatives.
Clean air and water, is continuing to advance, and we are not far from declaring Victory, at least in the US, and maybe a decade and half later in Europe, and a few decades subsequent to that, worldwide.
Clean Coal is technologically here; even CCS is proven and available, if needed. (But its probably not needed). With simply the increased thermal efficiency, of clean coal, waste output like CO2, will decline 20-25%, even without CCS.
CO2 will fall out of the atmosphere naturally, over the next few decades as CO2 additions decline in Volume. We may even discover that the trace increases in atmospheric CO2 were not only or exclusively anthropormorphic in origin, but simply natural Ocean outgassing, as the World has recovered from the Little Ice Age, under the stimulus of increased Solar output.
All the hot air, political speeches, mass mob mobilizations, and exhortation for everybody else to change and conserve, while putting them in charge, have once again revealed to produce exactly... nothing.
The self-appointed, Messiahs with their feet of genuine clay, have obstructed and impaired the solution, even as it provided power and sinecures for them. They will have to dream up some new hoax to continue their position.
In the final analysis, they might even consider actually producing something useful. Egads! Wash my mouth out with soap. W-O-R-K, Work, is the last thing these ciphers would EVER consider.
Posted by: stas peterson | Jun 3, 2008 11:31:25 AM
gr,
And Germany declared war against the US on December 11th 1941 before the US did the same.
So what alternative options did the US have other than declaring war against Japan and Germany? Any ideas?
Posted by: globi | Jun 3, 2008 11:36:56 AM
Well which is it? mobilized mob chants or mass mob mobilizations?
Posted by: | Jun 3, 2008 11:37:41 AM
All transport electrically powered?
Does Boeing already have electrically powered passenger aircrafts in the pipeline?
What ships - having to deliver a return on investment - are currently not oil powered?
Posted by: | Jun 3, 2008 11:47:06 AM
All I have to say is that GM is moving too little and too late.
Posted by: Rich | Jun 3, 2008 11:57:25 AM
Although these news are good, the price of the Volt is a major point. At $40,000 price point, it would be limited to rich green drivers.
A more limited offering at $25,000 would have wider appeal.
Posted by: Lulu | Jun 3, 2008 12:06:46 PM
GM is behind the 8 ball along with the other 2 dumbasses, they would not have gone bankrupt if they had beeen changing over to EV's and HPEV's over the past 30 years because the world would have followed are path but instead we are follwing the worlds path get it dimwit.
Given the state of technology 30 years ago, how much would it have cost GM and others to build these kinds of cars? $100K, *if* it was possible at all?
You greens are f*cking idiots.
Im not a greenie dimwit , we need to change over to and electric economy because we don;t have a millions of years to wait for more oil to be made in the earth dimwit, like I said the world produces 85mb of oil a day but we are consuming 86.5 and this is why oil prices are going up plain and simple and they knew this was comming.
If they had kept to the cafe standards after the 70's oil crisis then the auto industry would have been slowly raising mpg until they could no longer increase the ice and then started moving over to EVs in the early 90's and today we would have had a EV car fleet and ice would be just about dying out dimwit.
Have fun paying $10 a gallon in a few years if not sooner btw what do you think that will do to the world economy ? yeah thats right world depression dimwit, so it looks like they will be bankrupt after all your dimwit.
Has nothing to do with being green has to do with a finite engery source you dimwit.
Posted by: | Jun 3, 2008 12:17:37 PM
Oh gee... Progress means my gloom agenda has no home! I can't blame it on CO2 anymore (too many truth sayers) can't claim the great flood is coming (too religious anyway), can't say it all man's damned fault no matter what - cause nobody believes me anymore! Did I just blow my opportunity on the big stage??
In the end truth always outs. DAmn!
Posted by: gloomerNU | Jun 3, 2008 12:17:53 PM
thanks for the insight matthew
while boeing may not have an electric plane in development(and probably never will) they are looking at getting biodeisel into their aircraft, which is about the best we can hope for, and if done in a sustainable way is just perfect.
Posted by: Brad Godfrey | Jun 3, 2008 12:18:20 PM
@stan
At the risk of exposing myself to your deadly verbal barbs please justify your statements as follows:
Clean Coal is technologically here; even CCS is proven and available, if needed.
Please site an example or two if you have the time. “The greens” have a bill in the senate to develop CCS. I don’t understand.
CO2 will fall out of the atmosphere naturally
Over 10000 years according to the new 800000 year ice core study during the next ice age.
Liquid fossil fuel viabilty, as a THE prime energy source, is already marked for extinction.
What about CTL, its in the senate bill too.
As a summery, please provide a critic of the Lieberman and Warner Unveil Bipartisan Climate Proposal.
Is this just “Green Baiting?”
To keep my mind decongested, I think I need a dissenting opinion to perfect my thinking. Please again, if you have the time.
Posted by: Axil | Jun 3, 2008 12:21:28 PM
"So what alternative options did the US have other than declaring war against Japan and Germany? Any ideas?"
Someone's ignorance of world history proves them to be an obvious petroleum shill.
Posted by: | Jun 3, 2008 12:22:08 PM
Well, at least I'm not afraid to post a name.
And again: What alternative options did the US have other than declaring war against Japan and Germany? Any ideas no-name wussy?
Posted by: globi | Jun 3, 2008 12:27:40 PM
Maybe I should get a puppy.
Posted by: Stan's Intractable Loneliness | Jun 3, 2008 12:42:09 PM
Stas Pereterson's comments above are right on target !!!
All those Green Retards have it wrong.
They paint a picture of gloom and doom, for thier own political advantage.
But in fact, our future is very bright.
Soon, we'll be able to tell OPEC to go to back to hell, where they came from.
Posted by: Monkey MAn | Jun 3, 2008 12:42:43 PM
@Stan
A puppy might due some good. Try it. Or maybe two would do you better.
Posted by: Axil | Jun 3, 2008 12:53:29 PM
We need to start building small, geographically distributed nuclear plants right now to even hope to be able to keep up with electrical demand when the momentum behind PHEVs or BEVs reaches 'critical mass' (pun intended).
We will have a LOT of growing pains. Some of them may even be disastrous, but things will eventually be better than if we continue sending all our money to the middle east and all our pollution into the air.
Posted by: NCyder | Jun 3, 2008 1:30:52 PM
"Renewable energy is attracting Wall Street but nuclear power isn't. Why? Simple economics.
Capitalists have already scuttled Patrick Moore's claimed nuclear revival. New U.S. subsidies of about $13 billion per plant (roughly a plant's capital cost) haven't lured Wall Street to invest. Instead, the decentralized competitors to nuclear power that Moore derides are making more global electricity than nuclear plants are, and are growing 20 to 40 times faster.
In 2007, decentralized renewables worldwide attracted $71 billion in private capital. Nuclear got zero. Why? Economics. The nuclear construction costs that Moore omits are astronomical and soaring; low fuel costs will soon rise two-to fivefold. "Negawatts"—saved electricity—cost five to 10 times less and are getting cheaper. So are most renewables. Negawatts and "micro-power"— renewables other than big hydro, and cogenerating electricity together with useful heat—are also at or near customers, avoiding grid costs, losses and failures (which cause 98 to 99 percent of blackouts).
The unreliability of renewable energy is a myth, while the unreliability of nuclear energy is real. Of all U.S. nuclear plants built, 21 percent were abandoned as lemons; 27 percent have failed for a year or more at least once. Even successful reactors must close for refueling every 17 months for 39 days. And when shut by grid failure, they can't quickly restart. Wind farms don't do that.
Variable but forecastable renewables (wind and solar cells) are very reliable when integrated with each other, existing supplies and demand. For example, three German states were more than 30 percent wind-powered in 2007—and more than 100 percent in some months. Mostly renewable power generally needs less backup than utilities already bought to combat big coal and nuclear plants' intermittence.
Micropower delivers a sixth of total global electricity, a third of all new electricity and from a sixth to more than half of all electricity in 12 industrial countries (in the United States it's only 6 percent). In 2006, the global net capacity added by nuclear power was only 83 percent of that added by solar cells, 10 percent that of wind power and 3 percent that of micropower. China's distributed renewables grew to seven times its nuclear capacity and grew seven times faster. In 2007, the United States, China and Spain each added more wind capacity than the world added nuclear capacity. Wind power added 30 percent of new U.S. and 40 percent of EU capacity, because it's two to three times cheaper than new nuclear power. Which part of this doesn't Moore understand?
The punch line: nuclear expansion buys two to 10 times less climate protection per dollar, far slower than its winning competitors. Spending a dollar on new nuclear power rather than on negawatts thus has a worse climate effect than spending that dollar on new coal power. Attention, Dr. Moore: you're making climate change worse."
Posted by: | Jun 3, 2008 1:50:59 PM
@gr:
"Interestingly Japanese press reports discussions between Toyota and GM to build Prii in their US joint venture plant NUMMI."
That would be very sensible. NUMMI is located in Fremont, California, just north of Silicon Valley. The Prius is the number ONE selling car in Santa Clara County. Shipping distances between the point of manufacture and a very large point of sale couldn't be made any shorter!
"Now to get Toyota to see the light and re-evaluate their Tundra line of big trucks."
Amen.
Posted by: John L. | Jun 3, 2008 2:16:28 PM
There were a couple of reasons why GM ended the EV-1 program:
1) The size of the battery pack needed was just ridiculous, which really cut down interior space.
2) The range was at best 70 or so miles.
3) Recharging times was at least 7-8 hours.
Fortunately, the development of advanced supercapacitor battery packs using carbon nanotubes may finally resolve the battery issue. Not only can we drastically reduce the size of the battery pack (e.g., a lot less dead weight and more interior space available!), but it also means very fast charging times--maybe just under two hours at most from a standard wall outlet! Don't be surprised that the first personal electric cars powered by supercapacitor battery packs arrive on the market by 2014-2015 time frame.
Posted by: Raymond | Jun 3, 2008 2:16:55 PM
You wrote:
There were a couple of reasons why GM ended the EV-1 program:
1) The size of the battery pack needed was just ridiculous, which really cut down interior space.
2) The range was at best 70 or so miles.
3) Recharging times was at least 7-8 hours.
---------
For 10 years ago? Quite an achivement. I could use one today with no upgrades. I drive 30 miles to work and could plug in at both sides of the trip. Going from $52 a week in gas to $15 in electricity would be great. Not having to go to the gas station even better.
So if they can even do 50% better 100 miles would mean I would almost never have to use my gas car except for long trips. I might keep it, or I might just rent a car for $30 a day when going on a long trip.
There was a demand for the EV1. GM was afraid of its own creation. They would be in better shape if they had kept up the program, the Volt could have been on the road a few years ago. They lost allot of talent when they killed the program. Some of the knowledge was saved but certainly not all of it.
I don't need an electric car to go 200 miles on a charge. It would be nice but not necessary. I would buy the Volt at up to $35000 with no subsidies. After that it would be a tough sell. I would lease it for up to $600 a month but would be very unhappy knowing GM could pull it like they did the EV1's.
Posted by: hampden wireless | Jun 3, 2008 2:38:52 PM
Because of the way mass production AND union jobs at car makers works it is cheaper to run a plant for quite a bit after the trucks stop selling well then it is to shut down.
As for the ev1 the insyrance gm had to pay while the car existed in operable form was massive and they could not legaly get out from under the liability so the car had to die.
Posted by: wintermane | Jun 3, 2008 4:29:01 PM
Please see these two cars one a concept based on a BMW mini and the other by Volvo, based on the same technology and sheduled for production in 2010.
http://www.pmlflightlink.co.uk/news_volvo.html
http://www.pmlflightlink.co.uk/archive/news_mini.html
These cars have very high power intergrated inwheel motors and no mechanical brakes except for parking.
These are better design than any other electric car design in the world at the moment, including the Volt.
The performance of the PML car is mouth watering and kind to the pocket. With incredible range, speed and high mpg. 400 mile on electric 900 total when running on board generator. 150mph top speed 0 to 60mph 4.5 seconds 80mpg (uk gallon) on generator.
Posted by: Brian | Jun 3, 2008 4:38:19 PM
Mickster; I think you are wrong when you say Americans won't buy a car with a 1.4 liter engine.My daughter's 1992 Honda Civic with a 1.5 liter and 5 speed is very satisfactory, and gets 35-45mpg!yes.My 1998 Civic with 1.6 liters/5/spd weighs probably 250lbs more and gets 30-37mpg, and is peppy when revved. One can't find a good used Civic here in Calif to save your soul....
Posted by: Richard | Jun 3, 2008 5:32:14 PM
globi,
repetition is refuge for the retarded. You have demonstrated only that you are a troll in the employ of oil & nuke fascists. "wussy?" - how old are you?
Posted by: shilkiler | Jun 3, 2008 6:35:31 PM
hampden,
you're right that the EV1 could be in use today. But as for the loss of that program and talent - it seems GM has moved faster and more aggressively with an entirely new concept. If they had tried to build on EV1 they might not have gone down the Li path or to the range extender genset. Along with the serial hybrid package comes Li-Io battery (so far unproven except by Tesla) renewable materials and an entirely new chassis & skin. And from what they have published, the electronics and interface will be completely original.
Only point is sometimes scrapping and starting from scratch is the best thing.
Posted by: gr | Jun 3, 2008 6:52:07 PM
The problem with the GM EV-1 was that it was pretty much the best you could do with older electric car technology. But recent advances in electric drive systems and new battery storage technology will dramatically reduce the size of the battery pack, which means a lot less dead weight and room for seating at least four passengers comfortably.
Posted by: Raymond | Jun 3, 2008 10:10:55 PM
gr: AC Propulsion proved the Li-ion system with a modified tzero; the Tesla Roadster builds on that.
Matthew sticks out his lip and whines:
Given the state of technology 30 years ago, how much would it have cost GM and others to build these kinds of cars?Amateurs were building hybrids on Opel chassis 30 years ago (this would have been even easier in the 1990's, except CARB saw no merit in PHEVs). What amateurs can do, major auto companies can do with more reliability and lower unit cost; that's how they stay in the business of making cars.
You greens are f*cking idiots.A little irony is good for the blood.
Quoth Cervus:
$4 gas changes everything. And it works better than any CAFE efficiency or CARB CO2 mandate.Now you know why I kept saying "What America needs is $5/gallon gasoline".
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jun 3, 2008 10:11:37 PM
@Brad
I agree that biofuels are probably the best way to go for aircraft, but never say never to electric jets...
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0953-2048/20/8/005
As far as advanced technology goes, running a plane with superconducting electric engines both cooled and fueled with liquid H2 is certainly up there!
Posted by: Tim | Jun 3, 2008 10:27:23 PM
Tim, just putting this out there, but it wouldn't be a jet if it was electric haha(sorry, weak joke)
You're right, I can't say never, however I will say probably not for a while and it will be very slow in the making. I mean it's not like cars that at the top of their game maybe run for 20 years(after they've been through america, can't cut it in america anymore, go to africa, get abused, torn, tattered and can't run anymore), aircraft have life cycles of up to 30-40 years or more(some of the original 747's are still out there flying) so where as cars in america, if every new car made starting tomorrow was electric, probably in 10 years something like 80-90% of cars in america would be electric. With aviation if every new plane was electric, in 10 years maybe 5 or 10% of planes would be electric.
There's a good possibility that i just rambled on there and none of that makes sense. I appologize.
Posted by: Brad Godfrey | Jun 3, 2008 10:41:39 PM
shilkiler,
It be really great if you were able to answer this simple question instead of insulting people: What alternative options did the US have other than declaring war against Japan and Germany?
I guess you ran out arguments or did you actually want to suggest, that Pearl Harbor was some kind of a conspiracy?
LOL
Posted by: globi | Jun 3, 2008 11:47:10 PM
No one can out-bash GMs repeated self-bashings in the market place.
Posted by: Lee | Jun 4, 2008 1:17:16 AM
globi, you seem to have mistaken GCC for some kind of WWII history buff's blog. It isn't. Kindly desist from your ad nauseam ramblings, they really are totally irrelevant here.
Posted by: eric | Jun 4, 2008 1:58:41 AM
eric,
it was just a response to the comment regarding Winston Churchill from WWII (which I didn't come up with in the first place). As if the US decision going to war was just because Americans decided to do so or as if GMs decision was solely driven by the GM-management and not by the market forces.
If my two line comment is completely irrelevant, why do people keep on commenting on it and don't just let it sit?
Posted by: globi | Jun 4, 2008 2:24:46 AM
So many people want to bash GM for killing the electric car.If it was such a great idea how come Toyota or Honda didn’t Jump on it. Its because it was a loosing proposition at the time
Posted by: kevin | Jun 4, 2008 7:27:54 AM
Aviation and Marine uses are a tiny portion of the transport market. You can check the numbers yourself, as they are readily available from EIA.
Together they aggregate to about 20% or so of demand. Ground transport will take a continuing percentage too. But Ground is unlikely to add up to as much as 20% of current daily demand from fossil sources.
Surely, you don't think we couldn't service that for essentially several thousand years. Why that amount of hydrocarbon fuel is already the official target of the bio fuel afficianados...
That is a recipe to devastate the Oil Sheiks and Oil Commissars.
Don't feel sorry for them when their Peoples toss them out on their ears. They'll just clip coupons and draw interest on their numbered Swiss bank accounts, while lolling on the Riviera in luxurious exile.
Posted by: | Jun 4, 2008 7:36:38 AM
Heating a building without fossil fuels and generating a return on investment at the same time is peanuts.
Running aircrafts, ships and big rigs without oil and generating a return on investment at the same time is not peanuts.
Oil Sheiks will make bucks without oil:
http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=5862.php
Posted by: oil sheik | Jun 4, 2008 7:58:01 AM
I owe everyone an apology for my "f*cking idiots" comment from yesterday; I should know better than to read and post when I am in a bad mood.
Sorry, folks.
Posted by: Matthew | Jun 4, 2008 10:36:59 AM
Matthew: Apology accepted.
Quoth Kevin:
If it was such a great idea how come Toyota or Honda didn’t Jump on it.Like GM, Toyota built a bunch of electric vehicles; mostly battery-powered RAV-4's. Unlike GM, Toyota sold quite a few of them to the public instead of destroying them all. Ford sold some electric Rangers to the public also.
GM has the distinction of snubbing people as they begged to be allowed to buy their electric vehicles and taking them into the desert to be crushed. This act of spite is unique among all the automakers.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jun 4, 2008 4:23:38 PM
EP: might be interested in this Edmunds Article on EV1s demise:
http://blogs.edmunds.com/.ee92254
Posted by: | Jun 4, 2008 6:10:31 PM
If you want to see a full sized clean coal plant with a 50+% thermal efficiency, actually feeding power to the grid, you can vist the IGCC plant of Florida Power for one.
There are several CCS installations separating CO2 and piping it to oil fields for tertiary recovery. Its not rocket science for crying out loud. Its only expensive. Google for them.
The Democrats are full of "know-nothings" sponsoring "earmarks" and demonstration plants for their pet boodlers and boondogglers. That is the bill that you are discussing.
Posted by: stas peterson | Jun 4, 2008 8:05:05 PM
My whole life has been a boondoggle.
Posted by: Stan's Intractable Loneliness | Jun 4, 2008 8:09:20 PM
The next 10 years will be very interesting and the world will be a different place once the EV first makes its appearance and competition drives innovation (so far, none have been out there, hence no competition-induced innovation).
Look at how amazingly quickly digital photography advances year to year. Nikon and Canon leap frog each other and can barely keep up.
Unfortunately, we are definitely not out of harm's way. CO2 has an atmospheric residence time of centuries, not decades as Stas incorrectly stated. And we will still have all these coal and natural-gas fired electric generation facilities operating for a long into the future. And then we will have all the methyl hydrates and CO2 releasing from polar latitudes over the next century.
Sadly, I think this revolution is about 30 years too late. It's sad how such a small minority of business leaders can have such a profound impact on the state of the world and billions of people. Alas, that is the problem with mega-corporate capitalism intertwined with government corruption.
Assuming the Democrats get into power, then we should see a friendly environment favoring massive investment in solar and wind power, more than enough to power all of society's growing needs for electricity. This can only end up dragging along the dingwits of the world like Canada's Bush-clone Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
My biggest question now is, how can I cash in on it?
Posted by: Mark_BC | Jun 4, 2008 8:18:25 PM
The nameless one's Edmunds article is the official position of GM, and extremely slanted. One example of the slant is the claim that 5000 people "expressed interest" but turned out not to be interested, whereas there are testimonials from lease-holders who loved their cars but weren't allowed to even renew their leases.
GM didn't have to sell the cars as cars. They could have partially disassembled them and sold them as used parts without warranty, either themselves or through a third party. The graphite bodies would have been worth quite a bit as platforms for other motors, or the motors and electronics as pieces for other platforms. GM's actions came out of spite.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jun 4, 2008 8:33:34 PM
As was observed above, we can transition to electrically powered trains and cars, but we have no answer for airplanes and ships. But we do, ships could be towed by nuclear powered vessels operated by the Navy, and airplanes could be hydrogen powered, with the hydrogen produced with electricity generated by nuclear plants. We have the end of the fossil fuel era in sight, but it is still 25 painful years out.
Turning to our immediate (less than 5 years out)future, people will buy small ICEs if the torque is provided by an electrically powered motor, such that we can get on the freeway after stopping at the ramp traffic spacing light.
Posted by: | Jun 5, 2008 7:34:05 AM
Since the Navy doesn't have to deliver a return on investment, this might actually work. Now, you only need to increase taxes accordingly to pay for all the additional nuclear powered Navy vessels.
By the way, the Navy stopped running nuclear cruisers, even though it doesn't even have to deliver a return on investment.
Liquid hydrogen has an energy density of 9 MJ/l (very high vapor pressure).
Jet fuel has an energy density of 34 MJ/l (low vapor pressure).
A modern jet engine delivers close to 100 MW at take off at a minimal weight.
What's the power to weight ratio of the most advanced fuel cell and what does 100 MW fuel cell cost?
If oil is only needed to power aircrafts and ships and nothing wasted in cars and heating systems, oil consumption will be reduced significantly. And if this is not sufficient - there's still the algae option.
Posted by: oil sheik | Jun 5, 2008 9:08:37 AM
@Stan
I'm amazed and pleased at your reply. Thanks! It fells good to be nice, ha? Yes, expense is the problem. The Warner bill addresses this issue through. By the way, Warner is a Republican not a Democrat.
Posted by: Axil | Jun 5, 2008 9:34:19 AM
@Stan
I'm amazed and pleased at your reply. Thanks! It fells good to be nice, ha? Yes, expense is the problem. The Warner bill addresses this issue through. By the way, Warner is a Republican not a Democrat.
Posted by: Axil | Jun 5, 2008 9:34:29 AM
I expect planes will simply fly alot less and pack people in alot denser and STILL wind up costing alot to fly.
As for ships china and india will subsidize the fuel whatever it is so they can sell stuff to everyone else untuil they fail to be able to afford it and the entire thing falls aprt and then we will make it HERE via robotic factories...
Posted by: wintermane | Jun 5, 2008 9:39:27 AM
Unlike GM, Toyota sold quite a few of them to the public instead of destroying them all. Ford sold some electric Rangers to the public also.
No carmaker built more than token numbers of EVs. GM's decision to crush EV1s instead of letting drivers keep them was a massive PR blunder. Wagoner calls it his biggest mistake. But all this GM-hatred for "killing the electric car" is silly. No carmaker, big or small, was able to make a viable business out of EVs back then. GM tried harder and spent more money on it than everyone else put together, then after years of effort and billions of dollars made one bone-headed PR move. Let it go, people.
Posted by: doggydogworld | Jun 5, 2008 10:02:42 AM
I'm surprised some rich benefactor isn't putting up a US$100 million prize for the first battery-electric car that can go 400 km (248 miles) between charges, charge the battery pack in under 3.5 hours, seat four adults comfortably, meet current safety regulations and have the vechicle weigh no more than 1,200 kilograms (2,645 pounds).
You would see every major auto company go for such a prize in no time flat.
Posted by: Raymond | Jun 6, 2008 9:45:57 PM
the weight limitation of 1200kg is a tough one in an E car with a 400 mile range. Maybe very slippery in the air and only two wheels?
Posted by: Herm | Jun 7, 2008 7:37:38 AM
Quoth doggydogworld:
No carmaker, big or small, was able to make a viable business out of EVs back then.This doesn't stop them from making small-volume cars to burnish their image (e.g. Dodge Viper). After all the R&D was paid for, how much would it have cost to keep a small line open? The low volume could have been justified by the required subsidy. (Meanwhile, the Tango is kept out of volume production for lack of funds for safety compliance tests.)
The auto companies were being paid to get PNVG cars to production, but according to rumor they were among those lobbying to kill the program. Now that we need PNGV cars, they aren't here. It would be much easier to go from 1000 EV's/year to 100k/year than from 0; there would be a base of designs, dies, suppliers and everything else needed to scale up. Now we're where everyone should have known we would wind up, and Detroit's once-proud behemoths may may wind up like Jaguar and Rover.
At the very least, the upper management should be terminated without benefits. It's the least they deserve.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jun 8, 2008 5:59:30 PM
too little too late.
Posted by: Hendrik | Jun 17, 2008 9:33:03 PM
