Monday, March 5, 2012

Chevy Volt Testimonial

24 comments:

  1. What worries me is that some ninkampoops will see this and take it as a serious endorsement of the Volt and the JEM.

    Otherwise, it's hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
  2. tee hee

    I'm still giggling over it :-)

    Yeah, Fay, there's always the eejit or two who will think it's serious...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Electric vehicles are going to be an excellent technology. Someday. Not because of government subsidy, but very much in spite of it.

    I was privileged to check out some very cutting edge electric vehicle tech recently. I can't talk about it other than to say it was vehicle tech, not "a vehicle". It was the kind of thing where you look at it and the specs and watch the demo and think o.m.g. Awesome.

    My biggest fear for this company is that the government will pick some winner in the space, and it won't be them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Don't mock electric cars so much. Now I hope you're not going to get angry at me, but I'm going to give you a series of articles from Israellycool written by Brian of London who is something of an expert on electric cars. Israel specifically is making great headway in developing them.

    Brian posted Volt-bashing for OPEC just yesterday - and Brian is most definitely not a left-winger. The opposite in fact. He addresses several of the issues addressed in the video above.

    Here are the rest of his articles about electric cars at Israellycool.

    I know that electric cars are more useful in Israel with its small distances, but even so, it's all still in the developmental state. Give it a chance. People mocked cars and trains a couple of centuries ago too. And wouldn't it be great to wean ourselves off Arab oil?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. annie I don't disagree with you. There is a baby/bathwater issue going on here.

      Personally I think the target of the video is more the government money, and the shortcomings of the Volt (relative to the hype) - not electric cars per se.

      It makes total sense that Japan would develop electric cars first - it's a small place, massively dense, and they ('till fukushima) had a relative abundance of electricity. And what works for them works for Israel.

      I have to disagree with Israelicool about the whole "at the behest of big oil" thing - the dearth of alt fuels has always been a technology issue, and a physics issue, and an infrastructure issue - not so much a corporate power issue.

      Batteries will indeed have to get better - and when they do, they will conceal massive amounts of energy in a very small package. There is another word for this kind of effective battery with massive energy density - it's called a bomb. Yes, gasoline has similar properties - but the chemistry is well understood and the technologies for mitigation are as well. The learning curve on batteries is pretty steep and has not been scaled as effectively.

      There are a number of electric cars around where I live. They are all toys for rich people - very likely highly self-regarding rich people. That, and the obscene subsidies received (like free electricity for your electric car in certain "green" high end apt buildings on the west side - I kid you not), are enough to turn off the average person.

      Electric cars are a technology of the future - and for the average person, the median American driver who drives an eight year old Honda or some such - they will remain a technology of the future for some time yet.

      Delete
    2. I'm the troglodyte from Detroit ... but I think electric cars really are the future, the distant future. It is not a "green thing", it is an efficiency thing.

      Various current applications of diesel-electric propulsion proves electric motors are efficient. My experience with marine diesel-electric awes me, power-wise, in the newer "tractor drive" vessels ... the "tractor" drives as azimuth steering electric motors. I watch a "unit train" (100+ cars) in Montana negotiate the mountains and I'm inclined to just sit and watch. And the cars will be fast (think --60 mph in 1.5 seconds or so) ... faster than any reciprocating gas burner once an equally efficient energy source/storage is developed. I had to laugh when Lewy said such a source exists, but it is called a "bomb."

      We've got no Henry Fords building cars for ordinary people that can go out and do ordinary things. Henry didn't have a myriad of subsidies either. I seriously doubt government sponsorship will help now ... the 1940's Manhattan Project pretty much developed the ultimate energy storage device, eh. What is needed now is a private sector means to store such energy and control it while in storage ... such as is done for decades now with acetylene gas used for cutting & welding (for use, essentially it is stored compressed in steel cylinders lined with a porous concrete that moderates release flow). Propane cuts cleaner, but use it only when necessary generally ... a Propane tank is a "bomb" for real. If you have a manifold feed system with acetylene & Oxygen and a back-fire occurs, just go turn off the main regulators and snuff the flame nearby. If you have a manifold system with Propane & Oxygen and a back-fire occurs, duck, pray, and maybe hope your survivors are cared for.

      Something like that is needed to moderate energy release in batteries so you're not riding around with a mini-nuke in the back seat if the vehicle is to have relevant 'range" for the USA.

      Relevant range in the USA: means at least 500 miles range before "fill up" at a plug station that can give a full charge in 15 minutes of less.

      Relevant utility in the USA: at a minimum, capable of propelling a full size mini-van or sedan (think Cadillac CTS or Chevy Impala)at speeds up to 100 mph, cruising easily between 70 and 75 mph. ( I know that is manageable because my first car was a 1960 Ford Falcon that cruised at 70 mph and maxed at 84 mph, going down hill, with a tail wind. I drove the snot out of that car in college, and it was still going at 116,000 miles when sold.) We do NOT really need 150 mph cars in the USA, but an max-100-mph electric that can accelerate to pass from 65 mph to 80 mph, in a second or so would accomplish the same thing. Torque ... its all about torque ... and electrics have a lovely flat strong torque curve.

      Me? If a Chevy mini-van or Caddy SRX (albeit, I'd like the rear doors to be of the suicide configuration ... e.g., open fully to the rear, etc.) was available today, I'd have one ... but not for some doubled or tripled price, maybe a $5k premium max. The Chevy Volt is "cute" and maybe for a couple without kids or big dogs, fine ... fine, that is, at $25,000 ... not $40K+ even with subsidy. The Finnish Fisker Karma sports car ... is a big f'ing joke at $100,000+ ... the ultimate pee hole for some greenie money, not to mention US government loan (subsidy). Unless I misread the spec's on the Karma, it doesn't even match the Volt overall for utility and range....not to mention the Karma is an "old fashioned" hybrid, not a true "electric" with generator power.

      Delete
    3. In my epistle above, I forgot to say I was impressed by the WSJ's article about the Volt recently ... electro-motive vehicle with a 350+ mile range before a 6 hour 220-240 Volt 3-Phase charge up. That actually is a sensible range, if only there were charging stations at hotels, motels, and camp grounds nationwide. Sensible because 350 miles is a sensible distance for one days drive for most drivers.

      Delete
    4. Wow, there is a lot of good information in the last 3 comments. TY, lewy and Aridog.

      Delete
    5. As lewy14 and ari note, the Volt is to be lauded due to its significant advances in range and usability. But until the holy grail is reached of higher battery density coupled with massively lower financial and environmental cost, the EV will be a test bed for wealthy first-adopters. The rest of us will have to rely on advances in ICE technology (DI; composites/Al components; better aero; widespread North American civilian diesel, etc.)

      Delete
  5. Have you noticed that those who push electric cars will, in another breath, tell you to use less electricity from the grid? Where does the power come from to charge those the cars? Don't use your air conditioner when the outside temperature is over 100 degree, but plug you car in to charge it up. I suppose you could plug it in at night when there is not much load on the grid, but what if it is you need your car during the day and it needs a charge?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Overnight charging using installed baseload power is the ticket, at least until EV usage becomes more widespread. But this ties back into my comment above as to EV deficiencies generally. And to your comment about peak-time charging.

      It also reflects my current experience with PV solar generation. Solar is inefficient; reliant on expensive and environmentally-destructive elements; is weather-dependent on output; requires almost Watt-for-Watt baseload generation back-up; and ultimately feeds into a North American grid that is woefully antiquated and inefficient (AC rather than DC).

      Thorium-fueled CANDU EC6 reactors are a viable generation solution, but now that the Canadian government has sold off the technology at a song, expect the Chinese (and the Indians?) to make the Next Big Leap Forward with this technology.

      Delete
  6. Matt ... I have no problem with using electricity from the grid. I like coal. We have lots of coal and that's what powers the grid in my mid-western neighborhood...that plus one nuke plant I am aware of on Lake Erie.

    My desire to see electric cars develop sensibly is their mechanical efficiency, not the phony greenness crap. However, until Lewy's "bomb" problem is solved, we're not going to be shed of gasoline or diesel for a long time.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ppls, ppls! No one is mocking electric cars, the spoof mocks the Chevy Volt of which GM has currently halted production. Spontaneous combustion isn't the only problem the Volt has had.

    Speaking of spontaneous, I see the JEM is giving his first spontaneous press conference in quite a while (ever?) and just happened to pick the morning of Super Tuesday to tout all his fantastic accomplishments! What a coincidence!

    After the first minute or so of listening to his self-promotion, I'm now following the rest on "mute"...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Personally I think the target of the video is more the government money, and the shortcomings of the Volt (relative to the hype) - not electric cars per se.

    Yup :-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Aridog, It is not that I have a problem using power from the grid -- it's just that people who tell us to use electric cars and plug them into the grid are also telling us we should reduce our consumption of power from the grid. Coal pollutes, dams kill fish, etc. etc. etc. But how can we reduce our consumption of power from the grid while plugging in these electric cars to charge them up? I think it is just another example of how these people do not think things out when they make their pronouncements.

    Another related problem is how ecologically damaging these batteries are. If big oil were trying to get into the electric car business then the greenies would be having a fit about the electric cars. It is more a matter of the right people are pushing the cars, not that they are -- at this point -- better ecologically.

    I have wondered about having engines that drive generators on cars, like locomotives, but I think there is too much of a space issue. How can a car have both a generator and an electric motor?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How can a car have both a generator and an electric motor?

      In short, because you end up saving tons of weight and inefficiency in the transmission. The torque profile of the electric motor is so awesome you don't need a conventional transmission. And that saves plenty of room and weight for the electric motor(s). Finally, that gasoline engine that _is_ there can rev all day at it's optimal RPM.

      Those motors can themselves turn into generators when used with regenerative braking - turn the energy of the vehicle back into electricity (stored in the battery) when the vehicle is slowing down or going down hill, as opposed to just wasting the kinetic energy as heat.

      It really is a good system - potentially. Battery tech just needs to be "good enough".

      Now if only China didn't have a chokehold on our "rare earth" magnets...

      Delete
  10. If big oil were trying to get into the electric car business then the greenies would be having a fit about the electric cars. It is more a matter of the right people are pushing the cars, not that they are -- at this point -- better ecologically.

    Exactly.

    I was listening to J. Gibson talking to a Volt-owner last night and they forgot to ask her who paid for the electricity when she charges up. Either way, it's still using more "power from the grid".

    I personally detest this "green" label on everything. And I have tried to be conscious of my impact on the environment for decades, I'm a typical PNW serial recycler, lol. But until they come up with a solar car, it ain't gonna be "green".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I personally detest this "green" label on everything.

      Here here florrie. Supercilious fanboy ragebot green-mongers are everywhere in these parts.

      Delete
  11. I generally ignore greenbots. They're full of crap, literally.

    Even if they drive Prius toy-boxes, they burn more fossil fuel than I do in the commutes to far suburbia. I live in the city and my car travels on average about 4500 miles per year at an average 20 mpg.

    I've spent a lifetime in and out of wilderness areas. These days notice the greenbots lugging in all manner of oil based accessories, tents, shoes, you name it.

    Next, they vote for shitheads like the Jug Eared Messiah, whose administration has promulgated more killing of animals I adore than anyone prior ... with zero recognition of diverse species contributions to a balanced environment. They'd all screw their own mothers for a headline or another "grant."

    FTA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I saw his admin. just gave the go-ahead to kill barred owls.

      Key words here:
      "with zero recognition of diverse species contributions to a balanced environment"

      Delete
  12. Well, I've been interested in electric cars for at least Forty years, since the first time I read about the begining of the auto industry, when Electric, steam (External Combustion) and gasoline/diesel (Internal Combustion) battled for the supremacy in the marketplace.

    And for 40 years both steam and electric have been disappointing me. There is a reason that IC won. Pure convenience. Not only in power production, but in ease and efficiency of refueling.

    An electric car will never be competitive, without taxpayer subsidies, until a battery can carry as much energy (at least without gov't force behind it), as cheaply and as easily as a combination gas tank and IC engine does.

    Now, I've recently seen videos about an electric car that exchanges (rather than recharges) battery packs in only about thrice the time it takes to fill a fuel tank.

    And I heard last week on NPR (Veracity Alert!) about a theoretical quantam improvement in battery technology.

    The trouble is, of course, that there was a total of just ONE station that could (relatively) quickly exchange batteries for just ONE brand of car.

    And that the the battery breakthrough company was hoping for (you guessed it) Gov't funds to continue their research, sigh.

    Now, take all that into account, along with the fact that all batteries will lose up to 1/2 their power in extremely cold weather (Alaska, Maine, New York, Colorado, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, etc) and that we have a Clod-In-Chief who WANTS energy prices to 'skyrocket' and who has therefore given the go-ahead to close coal fired powerplants (13 in PA alone - including the one closest to my home) and tell me where affordable will come from to recharge all those half-powered batteries.

    For the time being, electric cars are yet another social engineering project by the gov't, designed to entrap more people into sudsidies for their lifestyle choices.

    'Wait, what do you mean a $20,000 battery pack is not a basic human right?!?!?'

    ReplyDelete
  13. Readin without my glasses let me see it the way you meant it, Dances.

    ReplyDelete