Here’s an interesting BBC story about the safety hazards associated with the Chevy Volt — specifically, the risk that its battery pack could catch fire after even a minor impact.
But the real problem may no longer be a technical one, but one of dented consumer confidence. Customers are handing back the keys in droves.
At first, when the problem first came to light, chief executive Dan Akerson offered to buy back Volt models from any concerned customers.
Then, when dozens of customers came forward wanting to hand back the keys to their cars, the company changed tack.
Rather than automatically buying back the Volts, and thus losing its as yet tiny army of early adopters of electric motoring technology, GM started offering them some 6,000 free loan cars while awaiting the outcome of an investigation into the fires.
And here’s why:
It now appears the fire hazard was first discovered back in June, when GM first heard about a fire in a Volt that occurred some three weeks after the vehicle had been crash tested.
Yet, almost five months went by before either GM or the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) told dealers and customers about the potential risks and urged them to drain the battery pack as soon as possible after an accident.
Part of the reason for delaying the disclosure was the “fragility of Volt sales” up until that point, according to Joan Claybrook, a former administrator at NHTSA.
“NHTSA could have put out a consumer alert,” he said, according to industry website Autoguide.com.
“Not to tell [customers] for six months makes no sense to me. They have a duty to inform people when they’ve rated a vehicle as ‘top rated’ and make it clear there’s a problem.”
While it isn’t surprising that GM was reluctant to announce product safety bulletins that would dampen early sales of its much touted hybrid, according to the linked story the NHTSA was an accessory to this as well, and for the same reason:
“Part of the reason for delaying the disclosure was the ‘fragility of Volt sales’ up until that point, according to Joan Claybrook, a former administrator at NHTSA.”
At Autoguide.com, there’s a story saying that Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood responded today saying the accusations were “absolutely not true.”
“We have opened an investigation into battery-related fires that may occur some time after a severe crash,” LaHood said. “Chevy Volt owners can be confident that their cars are safe to drive.”
Meanwhile, the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) filed a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for any and all communications with General Motors (GM).
Gene, You’re too clever for me. However, you’ve seemed to have missed the point. Everyone is importing some commodity from somewhere. Arguably the PRC is a more dangerous entity than OPEC.
The up to $7500 tax credit for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles is part of the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 (sponsor Rep. Charles Rangel [D-NY15]), which in turn was part of the •Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the BAIL-OUT bill). These were bills passed by the Democrat controlled House and Senate (Obama included) in the waning months of GWB administration. You know good and well that these $7500 tax credits were Democrat babies through and Through. Bush had to accept these as part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.
Obama’s plan is actually much more aggressive in terms of EV give-a-ways.
In 2008, the President set an ambitious goal of putting 1 million advanced technology vehicles on the road by 2015. The electric vehicles rebate proposal is modeled after the successful “cash-for-clunkers” program…(LOL) Making electric vehicles more affordable with a rebate up to $7,500: The President is proposing to transform the existing $7,500 tax credit for electric vehicles into a rebate that will be available to all consumers immediately at the point of sale.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/mar/29/cash-clunkers-2-dumped-capitol-hill/
From Ring on December 14, 2011 at 6:34 pm:
Indeed, this blog is well and truly run horribly, for they have allowed your comment to be posted whole and unedited. You need to immediately write the big oil companies and demand they only support better blogs with much harsher censorship.
December 1st:
GM offers to buy back Chevrolet Volts from fearful owners
December 6:
‘Few dozen’ owners ask GM to buy back their Chevrolet Volts
These cars were bought by the brave Early Adopters, those who willingly pay top dollar for tech while knowing it is possibly buggy, still has things to get worked out that won’t show up until it is widely distributed and seeing real-world use, but do it anyway to be on the bleeding leading jagged razor’s edge of NEW. GM is doing their best to mollify any owner inquiring about a buy back, painstakingly and exhaustively interviewing each and every one, offering to do anything possible before agreeing to take it back. And as something I’ve long noted about Early Adopters, the tech has to be Absolute Crap before they’ll speak ill of it, as doing so admits they were at least somewhat foolish for buying it and it’s basic human nature to not admit you’ve been made a fool.
And within a mere five days, a GM spokesman is confessing to “a few dozen” buybacks, and I’ve been unable to find any media references since then about the current count. Most curious.
From Dec 6 link:
From the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics, total number of highway vehicles (registered) in 2009: 254,212,610. No breakdown of which are gasoline powered, but this is just general figuring. So, 200000/254212610=0.00079, so something more than about 0.08% of gasoline-powered vehicles will catch fire in a year.
With 6400 Volts sold (Dec 6 link), with that first NHTSA crash fire there was 1/6400=0.00016, 0.02% catching fire. If the two of those three packs involved in the second batch of NHTSA testing had done that inside vehicles, it would have been 0.05% of all Volts sold catching fire. Looks good, right?
Except the Volt is dual-fuel and can also have gasoline. Thus the risk of having a gasoline-powered vehicle catching fire is added to the risk of just the Volt’s battery pack catching fire. Doesn’t look good.
Oh, and as I’ve noted before, as mentioned here, a GM spokesman admitted they hadn’t told NHTSA about the drain-down safety procedure. So whining about “improper procedure” is a red herring.
As I noted before, the EPA-figured all-electric range of the Volt is only 35 miles, while on gasoline it gets 37 miles per gallon. So after paying quite a premium over a comparable gasoline-only vehicle, and accepting the additional potential dangers of the Volt’s battery pack, such as waiting longer to get extricated from a wreck and receive lifesaving emergency medical treatment as the emergency personnel must deal with said pack before cutting into the vehicle… You get to wait 4 to 10 hours of charging time to travel less miles on electricity than you can on a single gallon of gasoline.
Such magnificence indeed. I’m certain Big Oil is indeed terrified. Why, as soon as “passenger cars” are the size of delivery vans to accommodate the batteries, with appropriate hazmat warning signs, and consumers are willing to leave them parked at home for a week while they fully charge enough for a few days of normal driving, no one will even need gasoline. Big Oil must certainly be horrified at the prospect.
Of note, if you put the Volt into Mountain Mode the gas generator gets 50mpg. It is, however, more noisy and GM opted for Charge Sustaining mode at a lower RPM level for noise-vibration-harshness reduction reasons, thus achieving 37 – 40mpg. You can still get that 50mpg and not only do you get 50mpg but the Volt also recharges the battery back up to 40% at the same time!
Some corrections to the vehicle fire numbers. Here are the stats from 2002: 329,500 fires, down from 351,500 a year prior. The peak was 477,500 in 1988.
Vehicle fires account for 20% of all fires in the US.
330,000 over the 250M cars in the US works out to be 0.13%.
And you can’t simply add two risks together. That’s improper risk calculation. The two are separate, and thus you still end up with only one or the other, not the two cumulatively for the Volt. You don’t take all the risks of living in a given city and add them cumulatively, for example, otherwise you’d have a 100% chance of having one of those risks befall you each day.
I’d also assume correctly that nearly all of those 250M vehicles are gas or diesel, both of which are flammable.
The cost of a gallon of gas here in Canada is about $4+ ($1.25/litre). The cost to go that same distance with electricity in Ontario is $0.80. Since that’s 1/5th the cost of a gallon of gas it means I’d have to have a car that gets not 35mpg but 175mpg for it to be equally fuel efficient. Since most cars are lucky to get 23mpg the Volt is an easy winner in this, even if you use $3/gallon fuel costs in the US you’re still looking at 140mpg. Obviously, the closer the cost of charging the Volt is to a gallon of gas the worse the arithmetic is, but if memory serves, most places in the US can charge the Volt for about $1/night. Some folks in California have solar arrays thereby reducing their cost of charging the Volt to $0.00.
BTW, I just love these disingenuous ways of calculating the mileage of a Volt some people use. They know how fallacious they are, but use them anyway. It’s rather sad in a way.
Hey guys…
I’m a European reader and soon to be Opel Ampera driver (the “brother”) of the Volt.
I for one can not wait to get my car and stupid discussions on formalities like this are pushing back its delivery. Thank you very much….
I’m 49 years old and survived the era where people drove without seatbelts or airbags. The best way to avoid problems with a car following a crash, is not to crash it…. I’m not one bit worried that my Ampera will catch fire. These cars have already driven about a zillion kilometers (devide by about 1,6 for miles…) before they came out. And if I do crash, believe me, it is a lot safer than many/most/all of the cars I drove before. Where is that American pioneer spirit we admire you guys for and that brought your ancestors to that wonderfull country? Don’t you see that these kind of cars ar the passkey to keep your country beatiful? Yes, there is of course someone going to make big profits on them, so what! Try one, you’ll like it. I did….
“I’d have to have a car that gets not 35mpg but 175mpg for it to be equally fuel efficient…” – Gene
Gene,
While you imagine yourself getting the equivalent to175 mpg even though your car would have have to do those 175 miles in 40 mile increments with 8 hour intervals in between to achieve this miracle of mpg you may want to consider that you paid premium bucks for your fuel up front when you paid $40K for a $17K little car.
Euro guy,
Part of my American pioneering spirit would be to not allow the govt to herd me into a car that is an adult version of a Fisher Price Power Wheels only not as reasonably priced. Basically every car I have delivers superior performance to the Volt in relation to the application for which I use that vehicle. Having said that in the unlikely event that EV’s are ever viable for me in my lifetime. (not by virtue of some tax payer funded tax or rebate scheme) I’d consider the Ford offering.
From Gene on December 15, 2011 at 5:08 pm:
Short on links to your “authoritative” figures, eh? Just giving the reference for the source is quite an effort on your part, eh?
The figures come from a National Fire Protection Association document, “U.S. Vehicle Fire Trends and Patterns,” dated Feb 2004:
http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/osvehicle.pdf
Subsequent versions are:
July 2008, covers 2002-05:
http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/Research/VehicleFires08.pdf
June 2010, covers 2003-07:
http://tkolb.net/FireReports/2011/2003-2007VehicleFireTrends.pdf
Using the latest version, here’s relevant info from the Abstract:
From the Executive Summary, page i:
From pg 11, Table 1.2., U.S. Vehicle Fire Problem, by Type of Vehicle, 2003-2007 Annual Averages, Vehicle type & # of fires:
Keep working it down to the relevant highway vehicles (minus camper trailers, etc), the 200,000 figure looks far more realistic and current. Take out the intentionally set fires, it shrinks even further.
Why, the figure in that Economist piece you were pushing looks good as a relevant number:
Moreover, if we are concerning ourselves with accident-related figures as we’re looking at Volt crash fires, “Collisions and overturns were factors contributing to the ignition in only 3% of the fires…” Thus the risk of fire in a conventionally-fueled vehicle after a crash is incredibly small.
Why in the hell wouldn’t it be cumulative in some way? “Mechanical or electrical failures caused roughly three-quarters of the highway vehicle fires…” The Volt has the potential problems of a conventional vehicle, it does have mechanical and electrical systems, it does take gasoline. It also has all that extra stored electrical energy in its battery pack. Thus the potential risk would have to be greater than a conventional only-gasoline-fueled vehicle. ‘Either or’ doesn’t make sense.
My, aren’t you distorting things into “free lunch” territory.
References:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/alternative/1010_2011_chevrolet_volt_test/viewall.html
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/10/chevy-volt-delivers-novel-two-motor-four-mode-extended-range-electric-drive-system-seamless-driver-e.html
The Volt normally maintains a minimum State Of Charge (SOC) around 20%. The Volt is underpowered in regular modes when going up steep long grades like mountains, it was reported in a real-world test that the speed dropped as low as 40mph while conventional cars could do 70mph. When needed, the Volt will link the engine and the electric motors together, getting power from both. To accommodate those mountains, in Mountain Mode the SOC is allowed to increase to around 45%. This should be engaged well before actually encountering said mountain to allow the battery charge to build up. So while getting power from gasoline as well as draining down the battery, the Volt can keep up on mountains, for as long as the battery charge lasts, thus Mountain Mode gives you a larger buffer of battery charge.
In the regular modes, the Volt lets the SOC drop so low so the pack can take in more of a charge when plugged in. Leaving it in Mountain Mode thus decreases the “benefit” of plug-in charging. GM doesn’t even want you to use that mode unless needed:
When you are in Mountain Mode, you’re actually driving the Volt like it was a normal hybrid. “This novel mode—which GM calls “combined mode”—enables a 10-15% improvement in efficiency at steady state cruising speeds compared to a comparable single-motor mode, GM says.” So what you’ve done in praising Mountain Mode for the increased fuel economy, is say hybrids are more efficient than the Volt as it is to normally be driven.
Yeah, like when certain people talk of flipping a magic switch and suddenly they can get 50mpg, which isn’t anywhere near supported in real-world use. I’ll stick with the EPA figures which come from mixed operating conditions to reflect how a Volt will really be driven by real people.
Which is all meaningless crap. You’re emphasizing the benefits of electric charging. So just get an all-electric, and the Leaf would be cheaper. You don’t figure in how much cheaper a comparable ordinary all-gasoline vehicle is than a Volt, which means lower loan payments with less interest paid, as well as lower comprehensive insurance costs. You don’t even figure in the costs of that solar array for “free” charging of the Volt, said charging subtracting from the energy that would otherwise be sold to the grid with a modern grid-tied system. Considering that with assorted Green mandates a homeowner could be selling energy from a solar array for several times what they’re charged for taking from the grid, charging a Volt from a home solar array could be be about the most expensive way to do it.
And the Leaf can still go twice as far as the Volt. And costs less to buy. And has simpler systems with less parts thus lower maintenance costs. And carries more. You praise the all-electric capabilities of the Volt, you actually make a better case for buying a Leaf.
Risk simply is not cumulative. It doesn’t work that way. I did risk assessments for banks and the government for years. Risk is not calculated cumulatively because it makes no sense to do so from a statistical point of view. It is a common mistake though, typically made in the medical profession when discussing side effects of medicines, for example. You can’t just add up all the potential risks for each potential side effect and say that’s the likelihood of you having a side effect.
The Leaf doesn’t handle my longest commutes, which can be up to 100km in a day. With colder weather, the Leaf is utterly impractical. I also can’t go to Montreal in the Leaf. In other words, I got what suited my lifestyle best.
As to price, the Leaf is only about three grand cheaper than a Volt $38k vs $41k. So, the Leaf makes less sense.
I mentioned Mountain Mode because the car can do better than the 37mpg in charge sustaining mode, to which the Volt defaults automatically once the charge is depleted. If you use Mountain Mode you get about 50mpg, that’s just what happens. I don’t use it, I’m not going to keep switching the car in/out of Mountain Mode. The benefit isn’t that great.
And, yes, the Volt can be driven like a regular hybrid when it runs out of battery charge. So what. That’s the entire point of the vehicle. No compromise, as in the Leaf.
From Gene on December 14, 2011 at 2:11 pm:
I’ve noticed what you left out. From that Economist piece (bold added):
Compare that to your previous statements. From you on December 13, 2011 at 7:47 pm:
Good, let’s look at the pertinent info. Even that Economist piece mentioned the deafening silence:
The first NHTSA fire happened, they crashed a few more, then both NHTSA and GM shut up about it. NHTSA didn’t even inform the Congressional committee that keeps tabs on NHTSA, with NHTSA charged with insuring the safety of the public and Congress charged with making sure NHTSA does so.
And by that Economist piece, things are worse than we thought:
When the results of the latter testing came out, GM lied. Basically that’s all you can say about it. First GM blamed NHTSA for not draining down the battery. Then GM said they had an internal safety protocol that they admitted they had failed to share with NHTSA. And now it says here GM didn’t even adopt a “depowering” protocol until after the first fire, thus it doesn’t look like there was anything to even share with NHTSA before the first crash testing.
So NHTSA kept quiet, didn’t even tell Congress. GM kept quiet, and continued to surreptitiously send out engineering crews when notified by the onboard OnStar spying system to do what they hadn’t told NHTSA how to do, as well as actually developing a deployable “depowering” protocol. When the info got out, GM lied.
As mentioned in this Dec 8 Reuters piece by way of the Chicago Tribune, where Transportation Secretary LaHood claims there was no NHTSA cover-up:
One-third ownership and a political agenda to push. Sure looks like the government had reasons to keep quiet.
Wasn’t the media, wasn’t Congress. Who besides GM was notified? Someone in the White House higher up in the command chain is indicated. Who in the ‘Bama’s Administration is higher up than LaHood?
My previous post demolished your “300,000 cars” number, both the amount and in how only 3% of vehicle fires are tied to accidents, which would not necessarily be immediate. Safety crews know how to readily handle standard vehicles after a wreck, hose down the area to disperse the fuel. How wet can you get a ruptured Li-ion battery?
Plus, as touched upon previously, it is vitally important for rescue crews to get people out of crashed vehicles and receiving medical care as quickly as possible.
Procedure with normal vehicles:
1. Hose down area to prevent fires.
2. Disconnect 12 V battery.
3. Cut vehicle away as needed.
4. Carefully remove occupants.
Procedure with Chevy Volts:
1. ?
2. ?
3. ?
4. ?
5. Cut away vehicle as needed.
6. Carefully remove occupants.
Don’t know how you feel about having your life saved, but I know I’d rather have the rescue crews be completely without doubt about how to quickly get me out, with the fewest steps possible.
The fire marshal in North Carolina has announced his findings. Neither the Volt nor the charger was the cause of the fire that did major damage to a house. In fact, the charger was still operating until the fire spread to the first bay of the garage, and in fact, sending warning messages to the power company. The inside of the Volt was not gutted, indicating the battery did not cause the fire. The origin of the fire was in the third bay. There was gasoline stored in that bay. The cause is still not known, but the origin is definitely known.
The fire after the NHTSA crash test was caused by the battery’s coolant, according to the NHTSA. Because the car was allowed to sit outside in the sun, the coolant crystallized and caused a short and the subsequent fire.
Junk yards have a protocol of draining gas and removing batteries from wrecked vehicles brought to their facilities. Imagine 500 wrecked cars with gallons of gas and hot batteries laying around their place of business. Why do trained engineers need to be told to do the same? The way the battery caught fire is impossible to replicate in a real world crash scene, unless the police and fire fighters take 3 weeks to get there.
As for calculating real world MPG equivalents for the EV and gas mode of the Volt, using a Kill-A-Watt meter is about the best way. I enter my power company’s rate per kwh. The meter does the rest. My power company charges $0.0887 per kwh. The Kill-A-Watt consistently shows that it takes 13 kwh’s to charge the car. $0.0887 X 13 = $1.15 to charge the car fully. I am averaging 40 miles per charge. 45 miles on a warm day and 35 miles on a very cold day, and everything in between. (I kept a log for the first 2 months of ownership). This calculates to $0.029 cents per mile. In order to get equivalent MPG, you need to divide the cost of a gallon of gas by the cost per mile number. In my area, att, gas is averaging $3.60 a gallon. That equates to a 124 MPG equivalency. It was much better when I bought the car and gas was at $3.80.
To figure out MPG when on gasoline is pretty much impossible to do. You would need to deplete the battery and run the car on gas only for a week or two and fill the car back up, thus giving you miles driven and gas used. The problem with that is, you are totally defeating the purpose of the car. So, I take the EPA’s word that 37 MPG is about right. Also, the owners manual tells you to keep the car plugged in at all times. You can partially charge the battery (disconnect when not fully charged) as often as needed and it will not hurt the battery because the battery managing system will not let you use 45% of the batteries capacity. So the battery is never fully depleted.
What really makes me sad is that America finally has an automobile that the world is looking at. Audi, BMW, Mercedes Benz, Jaguar and others have recently announced they will be launching extended range vehicles. The Volt has managed to accumulate many awards, including the following:
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE): Best Engineered Car 2011
– Auto. NHAC: 2011 Collectible Car Of The Future.
– MotorWeek 2011 Driver’s Choice Best of Year
– MotorWeek 2011 Best Eco Friendly
– 2011 North American Car of the Year / American International Auto Show
– Motor Trend 2011 Car of the Year
– Automobile Magazine 2011 Automobile of the Year
– Car & Driver: 2011 10 Best Cars
– 2011 Edison Award
– Kelly Blue Book: Best EV 2012 Resale Value Award
– Popular Science: Best Of What’s New 2010
– Popular Mechanics 2010 Breakthrough Technology Award
– Popular Mechanics Top 10 Vehicles Award for Technology
– Popular Mechanics Editors Choice: OnStar Applications
– Top Safety Pick by Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
– EPA: most fuel-efficient gas-powered vehicle 2012
– J.D. Powers: 2011 Highest Rated Compact
– Denmark’s 2012 Car Of The Year
– Consumer Reports: 2011 Volt # 1 Consumer Satisfaction
– Edmunds 2011 Green Car Breakthrough Award
– Top Michigan Innovation in 2011
– Wards AutoWorld: 2011 10 Best Engines
The award from the SAC alone is a very prestigious award. An international group of engineers testing every make of automobile in the world, and they decided the Volt was best engineered.
We have a car that has the potential of being a world leader, and 25% of our population trash it because of politics. I would venture to guess that part of the population has never driven the Volt.
If you want to trash cars because of tax incentives, trash all the foreign auto makers with plants in this country, because they have all been subsidized since the 1980’s to the tune of billions of dollars. A simple search will get you there. And everyone knows oil is subsidized. Why? They make more than the rest of us put together. (being facetious). Our food is subsidized. But these are subsidies that we can live with because our pockets would be affected otherwise. Is this hypocrisy? If we hate one subsidy, we should hate them all.
As for Leaf vs. Volt, I really don’t know why people with higher millage capabilities slam each other. The Volt was aimed at a certain group. According to the last census, Americans spend about 24 minutes commuting to work. About 50 minutes round trip. Minutes, not miles. That is the Volts perfect range. How many millions of Americans go to work daily? In that sense, the Volt makes sense.
Would I have bought the Volt without the tax incentive. Probably. With a projected fuel savings of $2,000 per year ($2,500 now and $1,500 when the battery loses 30% of it’s capacity), I can live with that. The gas savings include charging cost. All of my EV miles are monitored by the Kill-A-Watt meter, which by the way, is a great tool. You can buy a regular Kill-A-Watt for under $20.
The Kiplinger Group stated the Volt is a very good investment. In less than 5 years, 91% of the difference in price between the Volt and a comparable equiped car is recouped. For people like me, who take care of their cars and are able to keep them in good shape for many years, that is a no brainer. In 10 years, when batteries are cheaper and more powerful, I may even buy a new battery pack because my Volt will still look like new. I recently sold my 1978 Seville I purchased new with no problems. It looked show-room new.
What is the future? Who knows! But researchers at M.I.T. have developed a Lithium Ion battery that can be charged in 10 seconds and may have up to 100 times the capacity of today’s batteries. Wireless charging is already here for small electronics and is being planned for automobiles. In fact, there are test charging systems already out there. They are underground charging systems. Can this lead to an EV with a 1,000 mile range that can be charged in minutes by parking in a special stall at a hotel? Could be. With trillions of dollars waiting to be paid out, I would say there are people working on this day and night and the possibilities are pretty good. That’s called capitalism.
Mr. Practility says:
December 16, 2011 at 11:45 pm
And everyone knows oil is subsidized. Why? They make more than the rest of us put together. (being facetious). Our food is subsidized. But these are subsidies that we can live with because our pockets would be affected otherwise.
Would I have bought the Volt without the tax incentive. Probably. With a projected fuel savings of $2,000 per year
——————————-
If by oil being subsidized you mean that the govt(s) could conceivably tax them more then I’d agree that they’re ‘subsidized’ by that all encompassing definition. If by subsidized you mean that petroleum would be significantly more expensive or unviable as a fuel without the government giving them money then I’d disagree. FYI; The govt ultimately gets the money from the people so we’re paying for anything that the govt subsidizes.
Chevy Volt $40K – Chevy Cruze $17K = $23K
$23K/$2K per year = 11.5 years
By 11.5 years a person would be into their second battery pack at God knows how $much. I don’t know if I like that deal.
Comparing a base Cruze to a Volt is not what Kiplinger did. They compared a Cruze with comparable options. A Cruze LTZ, fully loaded is more than $25,000. And please don’t forget (Kiplinger didn’t), you must ADD $2,000 a year to the price of the Cruze every year for fuel cost.
Fully loaded Volt – $44,500 – $7,500 tax credit – $10,000 fuel savings for 5 years = $27,000
Fully loaded Cruze – $25,000 + $10,000 gas cost after 5 years = $35,000
Even if you factor in the very basic Cruze, the cost is equal After 5 years and everything after that point is a losing proposition for the Cruze.
Every electronic product has consistently fallen in price over the years. EV batteries are already cheaper than just 2 or 3 years ago. Remember when a 12 mgp camera cost $500 just 7 years ago. You can buy one for $70 at Fry’s on any given day now. And they are much better cameras! Mostly due to battery size, capacity and cost. DPI and lens technology have advanced at a slower pace.
Subsidies for energy efficient products in California have kept energy use at 1980 levels. The population has doubled. This means the energy use per capita has been halved. Enough to save California from building 32 nuclear power plants at a cost of $10 billion a pop. However, there are still people who complain about these subsidies because of political reasons. My point exactly about the tax credit for the Volt. I was not bemoaning the food and oil subsidies. I was simply pointing out the unfair rantings.
Doesn’t seem too practical Mr Practicality. Cars are not electronics. I haven’t seen cars halving in cost every two years and never will. How many hundred pounds of batteries go into that Volt? I can’t even keep the lithium batteries in my toothbrush good over a year, two if I’m lucky. And on the subsidies, I fume over my taxes buying a big chunk of YOUR car, for I don’t have spare money.
When there are adequate nuclear plants, thorium hopefully at 1-2B$ a pop and a tenth the size of today’s reactors, so our resources are not drained (electricity is gen’ed at about 33% efficiency, 50+% for 1000°C LFTR) and I can see batteries lithium is being 100% recycled and China where they are made is clean as a whistle as here and GM gives me free replacement batteries when bad and the charge is held during two weeks of inactivity even in sub-zero temps, as I often do and not leak my energy just bought to charge is not leaked into neverland… then, just then, might I consider.
See, your logic spends my money way too freely and pollutes other countries, burns more net energy than gasoline and it seems you just have no problem justifying these actions on your part. I can’t shuff them off so easily for our future generations.
And as to why CA’s energy use per capita has been halved, most common folk can no longer afford it! They have halved their use, I have cut mine to one fourth, and yes, I’m cold. Get practical Mr Practicality.
I won’t get into panels, windmill, bats, birds, 40 mile ranges and other hair-brain matters. See, I’m a skeptical on all science and economics until I’m personally absolutely convinced that something is just a shade from true or closer. But you’ve had a bad day, FAIL in all of physics, economics and ecology.
In the News:
Audi Chief Calls Chevy Volt “A Car For Idiots”
Source(s)
Also:
Audi of America president calls Chevy Volt “a car for idiots,” slams electric vehicles
By Sebastian Blanco
When an automotive executive says something brash and outrageous, we sometimes call it “Going Lutz.” The green car world has it’s own special phrase – “Going Musk” – and we always look forward to the next item that makes us go, “Huh? Really?” They’re so much more exciting than the daily press releases.
Today’s edition might make people use “Going Johan.” Audi of America President Johan de Nysschen, a big diesel vehicle fan, recently gave veteran auto journalist Lawrence Ulrich a few choice morsels about how terrible electric cars, including the Chevy Volt, are.
To start, he said the Volt is “a car for idiots.” It’s too expensive, he said, adding that “No one is going to pay a $15,000 premium for a car that competes with a (Toyota) Corolla. So there are not enough idiots who will buy it.” He predicted that the Volt will fall fail, which will cause the federal government to have to step in and subsidize the Volt in order to save face and boost sales.
Source
hmmm, did anyone watch the movie show Cars II? You know, where Lightening McQueen and all the other Racing cars have to burn a new green fuel ‘Allinol’ i think it was called? The interesting part of that promotional campaign for greener concepts was it was engineered to fail so there would be a consumer backlash on the technology. How many are bad mouthing the car in this forum? I certainly would not buy a Volt after reading said commentary and i’m sure i’m not a minority. I work with lithium batteries daily in some of the harshest conditions, high heat, high vibration, surrounded by water based drilling fluids. Incidents are a rarity because of the way things are engineered. It is unfortunate that, under the watchful eye of government (aka.friend of big oil), a widely promoted, electric alternative consumer vehicle would be caught up in a controversial storm regarding it’s safety merit and a potential industry cover up.
WOW!
There were 215,000 vehicle fires in the U.S. last year, and yes, only 3% were caused by accidents. But, 72% were caused by mechanical or electrical failure. Possibility of spontaneous combustion.
Ford had a major recall in 2009 for 4.5 million cars. There were 550 reported fires and quite a few homes were lost. These cars DID spontaneously combust. It is suspected that many fires were not reported for various reasons.
Here are some recalls. One involves 250 deaths due to fires! Let’s get real people.
Ford recall – 4.5 million cars:
http://www.switchfires.com/
October 2011 recall of Audi and VW vehicles for possible fire hazard.
http://miautotimes.com/2011/10/11/car-recalls-affect-volkswagen-audi-models-fuel-leaks-fires/
Honda recall of some models for some reports of fires in the REAL WORLD
http://miautotimes.com/2011/09/07/car-recalls-months-2011-surpasses-2-4-million-2010-recalls-numbers/
Honda recalls more than 600,000 vehicles for fire hazard.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584277,00.html
More than 250 deaths attributed to Jeep fires in some older vehicles. No recall as of yet.
http://miautotimes.com/2011/06/24/michigan-jeep-dealers-recall-fire-fatalities-grand-cherokee-warrant/
BMW is recalling some models due to fire hazards.
http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2011/10/31/bmw-recalls-vehicles-for-potential-fire-hazard/
ps when not in use, the Volt is to be kept plugged in, even when fully charged (per manual). Kill-A-Watt shows 3.2 watts drawn when car is fully charged. At that rate, after fully charged, it costs $0.09 per 433 hours the car is plugged in (my power rates).
That way, the batteries are not depleted due to non-use. Guess you didn’t know that.
Perhaps the Audi “Chief” wants to draw your attention away from the recall for possible fires hazards. (see above) Good strategy on his part. Much like when Rush Limbaugh got caught at an airport with someone else’s Viagra. He jokingly said he had Bob Doles luggage. At least Dole wasn’t ashamed that he used Viagra. By the way, are they sure is wasn’t blue coated Oxycontin?
Moron
Mr Practicality wrote:
Fully loaded Volt – $44,500 – $7,500 tax credit – $10,000 fuel savings for 5 years = $27,000
Fully loaded Cruze – $25,000 + $10,000 gas cost after 5 years = $35,000
Mr Practicality, you’ve counted the fuel twice: once by subtracting it for the Volt, and once by adding it for the Cruze. You should do one or the other, not both. (You also shouldn’t count the tax credit, IMO, since that “savings” is really just someone else’s cost.)
Mr Practicality wrote:
Subsidies for energy efficient products in California have kept energy use at 1980 levels. The population has doubled. This means the energy use per capita has been halved.
That’s incorrect. I think you’ve confused residential natural gas consumption with overall energy consumption. California’s per capita electricity use has been roughly stable at about 7000 kWh / person, for many years. It has not been halved, or even reduced significantly.
You are right there, I mis-spoke. I apologize. However, we are both essentially correct. What I meant to say was California’s energy use has remained the same while the population doubled. Energy use per capita has remained almost flat while in the other 49 states per capita use has doubled. Essentially, this means that California has halved it’s per capita use as apposed to per capita use doubling for the rest of the states.. Yes, the rate has remained the same. Everybody elses has doubled.
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/deciphering-californias-efficiency-successes/
Page 9 in this PDF shows a good chart.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-200-2009-015/CEC-200-2009-015.PDF
This chart shows that California uses less energy per capita than any other state. This varies from year to year. Sometimes California is not at the bottom, but never higher up than 4th from the bottom.
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/us_per_capita_electricity-2010.html
In 1960, California’s population was 15 million +. In 2010, it was 38 million +. The energy use for the whole state has almost remained at 1960 levels.
http://www.npg.org/states/ca.htm
Wayne wrote:
And on the subsidies, I fume over my taxes buying a big chunk of YOUR car, for I don’t have spare money
Your ire about subsidies is OK with me. I was merely pointing out that foreign auto makers came to this country and received tax subsidies in the billions from our government (and probably theirs?). Everybody who hates the $7,500 tax credit should be consistant.
You should try to put it in perspective though. The $7,500 figure is not a final figure. It is a credit, not a rebate. To use a random figure, some people will only have to pay $2,000 in federal taxes this year. That means they will only get a $2,000 tax credit. Most web sites say the average figure is $5,000.
Let’s say Chevy sells a whopping 2,000 Volts in December, (just using a number, I’m trying to give you a benefit of the doubt). That means 8,000 units will be sold in 2011. $5,000 multiplied by 8,000 = $40 million.
If you take the tax credits paid out $40 million and divide it by the number of people employed in the U.S., 139 million, you will see that you personally, will pay a total of $0.29 towards my Volt.
Now, let’s get to what you should really be pissed off about. Here’s a list, but take easy, if $0.29 set you off like a rocket, this is going make you explode. At least it does Americans who desire true knowledge. This is just a partial list of companies that did not pay taxes. In fact, some received more tax dollars in returns than they paid out during the year, even after receiving billions in bailout money.
The list: (On the net, many web sites)
1) ExxonMobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings. [Note: Our post last April reported that ExxonMobil was owed $46 million by the IRS.]
2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.
3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.
4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.
5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.
6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.
7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.
8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.
9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.
10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.
I am not politically motivated. Yes, subsidies are not right. If they took away the oil company subsidies, gasoline would be over $7 a gallon according to many analysts. Why? Because the oil companies would then have to use their own monies for exploration. They are not in the business to lose money. Even dry wells will come out of your pocket at the pump. I would prefer they not subsidize oil. I wonder then how many people would buy a car that can get 130 mpg in the city?
Mr. Practicality,
Remember when a 12 mgp camera cost $500 just 7 years ago. You can buy one for $70 at Fry’s on any given day now. And they are much better cameras! Mostly due to battery size, capacity and cost. DPI and lens technology have advanced at a slower pace.
—————————-
No, I don’t remember that. The equivalent to a $500 dollar camera in 2005 does not cost $70 today. You may be close to correct that you could get some cheap 12 mgp camera today somewhere for $70, but it wouldn’t have the equivalent lense of a camera that costed $500 in 05′. One thing is for sure it’s not the battery that made the difference in cost since camera batteries’ cost hasn’t changed significantly in that period, and batteries aren’t the major cost in a camera not even in 05′. Heck, Some cameras even use regular alkaline AA & AAA batteries. You seem to like to play fast and loose with facts.
Li-ion technology has been around for +20 years. I am unaware of any looming great reductions in cost of production.
Mr. Practility says:
December 18, 2011 at 2:59 pm
…Yes, subsidies are not right. If they took away the oil company subsidies, gasoline would be over $7 a gallon according to many analysts. Why? Because the oil companies would then have to use their own monies for exploration. They are not in the business to lose money. Even dry wells will come out of your pocket at the pump. I would prefer they not subsidize oil. I wonder then how many people would buy a car that can get 130 mpg in the city?
———————–
What a bizarre fantasy.
Since Europe has gasoline priced higher than $7 USD/gallon already and still nobody seems to want EV’s One would have to guess that not many more people would want EV’s here either.
Let me get this straight. You’re telling me that without the largesse of the govt’s “subsidies” gas would be $7/gallon when $.50 of the current $3.50 cost of a gal of gas is already Federal, State , and local excise taxes?
The oil industry gets about $4.3 billion in various tax breaks, which you guys like to call subsidies, even though for the most part they are the same kind of write offs that every other industry gets. The USA use 138 billion gallons of gasoline a year. This seems to work out to $.03/ gallon of ‘subsidization’.
But even that’s not correct because the oil and natural gas industry pays income taxes, royalties and other fees totaling nearly $86 million every day. and that doesn’t include the previously mentioned excise taxes collected and remitted. So they’re generating about $36.5 billion in government revenue annually and the govt is rebating about $4.3 billion. Who’s really subsidizing who? These numbers don’t seem to indicate that government subsidies reduce the cost of gasoline.
Sheeesh. I made a mistake. The $0.29 was your (our) share towards the 8,000 Volts. Your (our) share is $0.000036. Yes, I know that is so much more than what you gave to the oil companies, and foreign auto makers in the form of subsidies and their tax breaks. Exxon Mobil didn’t pay one cent in feds? And you’re pissed about $0.000036?
My son is a photographer. He bought a top of the line 12 mgp camera in 2006 for $2,750. They had lower end 12 mgp cameras back then for $500. They still have 12mgp cameras today that cost $700 … those are the top of the line cameras you speak of.
I still haven’t heard anyone address the billions of dollars in tax credits, and subsidies that were given and are being given to the foreign auto makers with plants in this country. According to Fox News, GM has paid off 2/3 of the government loan. The entire loan will be paid off with interest. The foreign auto makers don’t have to pay one red cent back!
BUY AMERICAN!
Volt subsidies: a quarter million dollars per car sold.