Rolling brown-outs in a few sections of the country during the highest load periods when people are AT WORK and not charging their vehicles, which they would do AT HOME in the middle of the night where there is excess capacity. Read the article again, you can program the start time for charging in the Volt.

If the V2G initiatives gain traction (which I don't particularly care for) then brown-outs will disappear as PHEVs and BEVs flourish.

It appears that MPG estimates need some nailing down for these new extended-range EV's. It's not accurate to use just one number.

Nukes: well, at least we can all agree that coal must go and our grid needs improvement. I say we need to get one of these micro nukes built and see how cheap they really are.

When was the last time you had rolling brownouts? I remember there being some in California a few years back but that was not a grid related problem; it was a result of a cash grab by ENRON.

With all due respect, this may be the final nail in the coffin of GM. last year they claimed 110 mpg, now they have doubled that, and all the time they are "working" with EPA to develop the algorithm that calculates the mpg. The EPA tests are actually only 11 and 14 miles, conducted on a dyno with arcane algorithms used to develope the MPG. The real test would be to fill the tank, charge the battery and drive it til it dies, but that will never happen. the bigger problem is GM keeps playing with the charge/discharge algorithm to the extent that batteries will start dying at 3 years with 50% failing at 5 years, betting that better batteries will be cheaper and profit will pay for replacement. GM has learned nothing.

The self-inflicted wound on GM's part is that the Volt is a Chevy, not a Cadillac.  A $40,000 pricetag on a Caddy isn't an issue.  The ultra-smooth drivetrain is just made for a luxury car.  Features like electric A/C are tailor-made for integration with OnStar so you can text the car from the country club or mall and have it cool and comfy by the time you get to it.

The USA should force the issue by placing fuel-consumption limits on the luxury sector.  We can put Mercedes and BMW at a disadvantage for a change.

I thank all of those who commented on my paragraphs. The comments were thought provoking.

If you had the price of a Canadian Designed Power plant and wanted to build it in China you could have it operating in four years or less. There is a place in Canada where one could be bought and put on line in two years or less. Nuclearfaqs has much information including the costs of generating electricity from various fuels.

Iron in many shapes and forms has killed more people than nuclear bombs in the past 100 years alone.

The simple formula for making Iron is to get a pile of wood charcoal glowing very hot with a blast of air and move a lump of iron ore around on it until the ore changes to wrought iron by the action of the CO and the carbon on the oxides of the iron in the iron ore.

The simple formula for making a nuclear bomb is to get some radio-active material like radium and put it into tiny aluminum capsules that are then enclosed in a small berylium drop. This drop is put into the center of a baseball sized ball of Plutonium which is then put into a soccer ball sized sphere of ordinary uranium. The uranium ball is surrounded by a much larger sphere of carefully arranged shapes of high and low explosive chemicals. An electrical system is arranged to ignite the explosives so that they compress the uranium and it compresses the plutonium into the size of a golf ball or less. At which time the nuclear reaction is started by neutrons released from the compressed radium and berylium. The plutonium must be a high purity isotope of plutonium Pu239. This isotope can be made by exposing ordinary uranium to neutrons for less than a week or so in a nuclear reactor and separated at enormous cost by remote control.

If the plutonium made from the uranium is left in the reactor for long periods of time, it changes into a mix of plutonium isotopes that are much to difficult to use in a bomb and much to expensive to separate. There is far more than enough uranium in the world so that you do not need to save on it while making nuclear bombs and leave it in the reactor too long like it is in a power reactor.

If you prefer to use uranium, a bigh chunk of it is shot down a cheap cannon barrel which is only used once. The uranium chunk, hollow rings, meets up with a plug of uranium at the end of the barrel, and a similar arrangement of radium and berylium is used to supply neutrons to start the nuclear explosion. The rings and plug must be a high purity Uranium isotope U235. High purity uranium isotopes are now made with a very large number of centrifuges. Which is why the person who stole centrifuge secrets from URENCO and sold them to several nations is not well liked in some circles.

Claus Fuchs supplied the Soviet Union with these facts before the first nuclear explosion. They can be found in books in most any bookstore now. And on the internet. Mine may be now one of the briefest descriptions there. Claus could have described how to make iron.

There is no worry about the information needed to build a nuclear bomb being available. It is.

Nuclear bombs are not the biggest threat to the human race. Even automobiles that cause tens of thousands thousands of fatalities a year are not. Nor are people texting or talking on cell phone whilst driving. Malaria and other diseases are. The production of DDT is stopped because Eagles in California have thin shells. Then millions of people in Africa are endangered and many thousands if not millions perish because cheap DDT is not available any more, not to spread on crops but just on walls and floors and protective nets.

There is no listing possible of all of the fatalities caused to people using windpower. Many accidents were the result of maintaining water pumping mills on farms. Earlier there were the mills in Holland and other places, but, by far, the most direct windpower deaths were those of sailors who perished in falls from the rigging and from malnutrition, illness, punishment and shipwreck. The nuclear powered US navy saves much CO2 and many lives. The deaths caused in New Orleans and other ports are from windpower directly. Indirectly people would not have built a city there if sailing ships could have gone up the river.

The figures given for modern windpower still does not refute the claim about fatalities per kilowatt hour delivered.

There is much concealing of the facts by promotors of wind power. The major one is that the rated capacity of the machines is the capacity rating delivered to the press for windpower projects, and such machines never deliver that power on a consistent basis. This leads to the necessary other deception that no storage of energy is needed to make up for the fact that the wind does not blow all the time and blows too much at other times to generate power. In the US, most of the energy waiting and then used for wind failure is stored in coal that is brought from the pile and burned when the rated output of the turbine is not being delivered. The coal costs money and puts out CO2. The Boiler and Generator and power lines also cost money for capital and maintenance and operation. This equipment must remain idle and underused while windturbines are generating electricity. The same is true of most grid connected solar cells. Wind power and solar advocates must take upon themselves the share of CO2, and fatalities of mine accidents that corresponds to the difference between promoted capacity and actual delivered energy over the life of the machine.

The only votes that should be counted on the ideas of solar energy, wind energy is from those that are totaly willing to totally rely upon such sources and pay for wind and solar power in a contract with the grid operators and are not allowed to buy any other electricity from the grid at any price. There is no one on the planet who relies totaly on non fossil solar energy. Who have you seen lately with a skin loincloth sewed with bone needles using reindeer sinew. These sources of electricity are far too expensive to use for industry or homes. The US economy would die totally as it almost has done if just coal power was eliminated, because other countries will not have bought into the fanatical belief that it is better to have no job and no food than to use coal for electricity.

California has bought into the fanatical belief that it is better to have no State money no paid employees and pay a much higher price for electricity than to buy it if it is made from coal. It also enforces this fanatical belief on rich and poor, fed and starving throughout the whole state. ..HG..

@Henry G.,
Human beings have been around in this earth for hundreds of thousands of years without coal, oil, gas, much less nuclear energy. Our ancestors have thrived mostly on solar (solar thermal energy), wind, and biomass energy.

Now, we have the technology to harvest solar energy to produce electricity and then to synthesize fuel in the form of H2. Our wind turbines can provide electricity at comparable cost to fossil fuels. Our success in factory automation and automaton and in robotics have replaced millions of workers, meaning that we now have a lot of extra labor to work in the green industry to harvest renewable energy...

Why are we trying to cut energy cost while polluting the planet and accelerating global warming and keeping millions of people unemployed? We have been so SPOILED rotten...greedy and so short-sighted for quick profitability at the expense and suffering of millions of our fellow human beings, while destroying the future of our children.

And some even dare to entertain the widespread use of nuclear energy which is equivalent to sowing the seeds of annihilation of higher life forms in our planet?

Car accidents, wind-power accidents, malaria and other diseases do kill, but selectively, gradually...These processes essentially weed out those of us who are less fit for survival...those who are careless, poor motor skills, poor health, or poor immune system etc...The Nature's way, just as when a lion chase after a herd of prey and prey upon the slowest and least fit to escape.

A multi-megaton nuclear warhead can wipe out millions of the best and brightest of us living in dense urban areas...And the world's major powers have tens of thousands of these in their arsenals...enough to destroy all relevant human civilizations in merely hours' time for the ICBM's to reach their targets...while the rest of human beings living in rural areas will die in slow and agonizing deaths from radio-active fall outs, water and soil contamination, lawlessness due to destruction of central governments...must I go on and on? Have you seen the pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear survivors?

Oh, and I haven't even mention what would happen if the likes of Osama (sons O'Sam) somehow read your recipe for nuke-making and decide to make 'em and then use them on major US population centers?

Of course, they (terrorists) can't build a nuclear device without sufficient nuclear technical know-how. They have to hire the likes of YOU, Henry, no, not you in the USA, but how about your counterparts in Pakistan, Iran, N. Korea, former Soviet satellites, etc... who don't mind watching millions of Americans die in a big boom and bright flash! And how can you promote nuclear energy without having these being eventually exported around the worlds?

Henry Gibson has these wise words to say of the dangers of wind power

"Earlier there were the mills in Holland and other places, but, by far, the most direct windpower deaths were those of sailors who perished in falls from the rigging and from malnutrition, illness, punishment and shipwreck."

Yeah, we should be really concerned about all the sailors that perished through the centuries because these are 'wind power related' deaths? Are you a stand-up comedian giving your best shot at entertaining us?

That is the same as saying that all people that died in house fires died because of a 'nuclear accident' because smoke alarms contain radioactive materials.

Henry, come on, get serious.

Changing the subject back, relevant post at The Oil Drum:

EPA economy ratings vs. the GM Volt: A square peg in a round hole

Hi, Anne,
You do have a fine sense of humor, for pointing out the hilarity in Henry's "wise words." And, your classification of death from failed smoke detector as "nuclear accident" is purely genious! :)

Henry Gibson:
Right, and because you can't stuff a nuclear reactor inside your road certified vehicle, batteries are the next best thing.

The electric car is very easy to built, and very effective.
In 1899, a Belgian built electric racing car called "La Jamais Contente" set a world record for land speed - 68 mph - designed by Camille Jénatzy.
The battery pack is very short-lived, and very, very expensive.
This is the reason why “the piston cars”, are around for more than 100 years.
Their efficiency is 25% only, and still is more effective than an Electric Car.
The Battery pack is the Achilles' heel of an Electric car.

Who cares what the EPA says - 230, 50 or infinite MPG.

Some weird EPA mpg number is not helpful in this case.

Anyone with any sense just wants to know what their AER is.

It does not take an EPA algorithm to know it uses NO gas for the AER.

What would be helpful is a standard simplified “range” number (with or without AC, stop and go, city or highway) to compare the AERs of the EREVs vehicles that are coming.

If you are concerned about cost of ownership, buy a Corolla.

If you want to avoid oil, buy a Volt, unless you hate GM, then buy a Focus or Prius or Insight.

As for nuclear power.
The administration supports nuclear power like Bush supported H2 autos; assuming nothing would come of either in the short term. So I expect the nuclear industry knows they have no chance.

I don’t think a Caddy badge would be of any help; it is what it is.

EP, why do you claim batteries will start dying at 3 years with 50% failing at 5 years?

I do not recall making any such claim.

Its simple folks. To PAY for the volt the car company needs to get more out of it then just anouther car they need to get a sizable cafe boon. This gimicky milage number is that boon.

You are quite right EP - you did not make any such claim.

That was the doctor.

Sorry

Toppa:
If you were alluding to my comment, I wasn’t so much critiquing the cost of ownership for a Volt, which for a near luxury-priced vehicle should be pretty good, but rather pointed to the poor cost/benefit ratio which I think every consumer takes a stab at estimating before he or she buys anything. In this case you have a high–priced sedan of marginal utility (compared with an SUV) with an even more marginal (and thus no benefit) name-plate. The only benefit left is the fuel economy which, as I pointed out, is not so amazing compared to some other already available vehicles.

Not at all RD; I think your assessment is accurate.

I was simply expanding on it by opining that, unless “greenness” is given precedence over cost of ownership, yes the Volt is less logical than the Prius, but likewise the Prius is less logical than a Corolla (or even an SUV, depending on your needs).

I have heard so many claim that “Finally, when they are driven to bankruptcy and on the dole, GM comes out with an electric car”; (implying we now have what “we” want)

To which I respond:
“If the Volt becomes a smash hit (fat chance) and matches or outsells the Prius in a year or 2, it will have been an expensive, very questionable PR stunt for a bankrupt company - Well maybe very smart/lucky if it is what garnered them the bailout billions”.

3% of new car sales is pretty shabby for a wash-off copy of another model; but REALLY shabby for stand alone design like the Volt.

Since it is unlikely to enjoy sales anything like the Prius, it’s even worse.

However it does point out that the EV1 was indeed ahead of it’s time – much more so than the Volt
Except the EV1 was not a serious car and development was (I believe) more subsidized and was forced by CARB (CARB "mandated" that "10%" of all cars sold by 2003 must be ZEV).

By the time battery development makes EVs the logical choice, the Volt will likely need to be completely re-engineered or abandoned like the Insight 1 and RAV4-EV.

We really need MUCH better batteries - soon, and then start ramping up gas taxes.
Then EVs will be the cars of choice – they will sell.

Will the Volt use the engine to recharge its batteries while driving, after 40 miles, or just leave the batteries at minimum and power the Volt's electric drive?

I understand that maybe it will not charge the batteries from the engine, ever, because they want you to arrive with the batteries 'empty,' to fill up on grid power at about 1/6th of what it costs for gas."

This may make some sense from the advertising perspective but if the engine does not charge the batteries you usually will not be able to run the engine at it’s most efficient level (putting excess into the batteries) and then cycle it back off nor will you be able to add battery power to the engine power for hills (although maybe the 1.4 L engine & alternator can give the electric motor all it can take).

The Volt should have been a parallel hybrid with 8-kwh battery instead of 16-kwh. Being a parallel hybrid design will cut the size of the electric motor and generator and power electronics to 1/2, and along with an 8-10 kwh battery, will enable GM to sell the Volt at $25k instead of $40k, and the cost problem of the Volt would be moot. With $7k tax incentive or cost rebate incentive from the government, the re-designed Volt can cost less to the consumer than even the Corolla.

New data now shows that the Lithium Iron Phosphate chemistry does not penalize deep state of discharge as much as with previous batteries, so the Volt battery may be discharged as much as 85-90% instead of to 50% as GM plans to do it with a 16-kwh battery. This mean that the AER will hardly be affected, while the consumer will pay a lot less, and GM will rack up a lot more sales, and everyone will benefit (environmental, petroleum conservation and cost saving etc.)

With future charging jack available at most work places, AER issue will also be moot for PHEV's with smaller battery packs. The Volt definitely needs to be a parallel PHEV with 8 kwh battery pack in order to compete with the Prius in the market place.

"GM to Debut Two-Mode [parallel] Plug-in Hybrid Technology in New Buick Crossover in 2011; LG Chem to Supply the Li-ion Cells, using 8-kwh Li-ion battery."

May be GM has already listened to my advise 2 years ago...but stick this into the Volt, GM, with the same 1.5-liter engine, but smaller and simpler two-mode parallel HEV transmission, and sell the re-designed Volt for ~25k.

First just a comment on gasoline. Sometimes it is rated as 35 kilowatt-hours (thermal) per gallon. Wikipedia gives it 36.6, but that may be the high heating value, and not the value that is obtained when the water in the exhaust is not condensed. If a gallon of gasoline were put into the fuel of a large container ship, it could be converted into 18.3 kilowatt hours of electricity at %50 efficiency which is the best that an internal combustion engine can do on a regular basis. Automobile engines do not average %20 efficiency. The mileage per gallon of actual gasoline in the volt is a maximum of about 72 miles per gallon with ship efficiency or 30 miles per gallon automobile efficiency. When run exclusively on electricity it needs no gasoline at all, so it gets millions of miles per gallon of actual gasoline.

The Volt is very poorly engineered. It was designed to be neither electrically efficient nor gasoline efficient. There has been sufficient engineering to determine what the efficiency of the Volt's engine is projected to be, but it is not mentioned. The use of an unproven lithium battery instead of a ZEBRA battery in the first models is a waste of money. The auto market did not need a BABY Tesla four years after the Tesla. ..HG..

GM is claiming 50 MPG for the Volt in steady state, which is not terribly difficult.  An Atkinson-cycle engine running at constant speed will do much better than 20%; my old Dodge hit closer to 30% if I had the air drag calculations correct.

I fear that Roger is just plain wrong.  He wants the Volt to be something which satisfies his preconceptions, failing to understand that adding a mechanical power path has a host of complications for the system design, emissions and everything else.  GM has a chance to sell a ground-breaking vehicle for the first time in decades, and they'd be fools to stop now.

@EP
Selling a fuel-economy car at $40k is plain wrong!

If GM would make a simpler two-mode transmission using fewer gears, for the Volt, while being able to cut the sizes of the electric motor/generator, power electronics AND battery by half, surely they will have a clear shot of selling the Volt for ~25k.

Study the layout of the Two-mode design well, EP, before you conclude that "adding a mechanical power path has a host of complications for the system design, emission and everything else." It's just another transmission paired up with a pair of generators/motors. For emission issue, keep the engine and the 3-way cat warm by insulation when not in use, and provide for cooling during use. Real simple!

Greenwashing is one thing, being able to sell your green product for a profit at high volume would speak louder than any hyped-up 230 mpg number.

Don't be so sure the marketplace will like what you like.

How about pricing it at $20,000 with near 70 mpg.
How'd that worked well for the Insight 1?

Keeping the geeks happy is NOT the name of the game.

As EP says, adding a transmission (it has NO gear changing now) will add cost and weight (dead weight) and the resulting operation may weaken it's sales potential.

Adding a complex automatic trasnission to drag around for those 1st 40 miles makes no sense, particularly if your going only 35 miles each day.

Draging around the engine is for sales (THE name of the game).