# The Right Flames the Volt



## ScienceRocks

The Right Flames the Volt
By JOE NOCERA
Published: April 6, 2012 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/07/o...mes-the-volt.html?_r=3&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss



It was Thursday morning and several dozen owners of the new Chevrolet Volt had gathered at a restaurant overlooking the East River. Across town, the New York International Auto Show was in full swing. The Volt, of course, is the innovative electric car from General Motors, and G.M. was using the occasion of the auto show to meet with Volt owners. 

Between bites of eggs and bacon, the Volt owners gushed about how well the car drove &#8212; and how much gasoline they were saving. They were early adopters, of course, willing to pay a high price ($40,000 before a $7,500 tax credit) to get their hands on a new technology. Many of them had become nearly obsessed with avoiding the gas station; for those with short commutes, it could be months between fill-ups. 

What is the connection between President Obama and the Volt? There is none. The car was the brainchild of Bob Lutz, a legendary auto executive who is about as liberal as the Koch brothers. The tax credit &#8212; which is part of the reason conservatives hate the car &#8212; became law during the Bush administration. 

&#8220;It&#8217;s nuts,&#8221; said Lutz, when I spoke to him earlier in the week. &#8220;This is a significant achievement in the auto industry. There are so many legitimate things to criticize Obama about. It is inexplicable that the right would feel the need to tell lies about the Volt to attack the president.&#8221;


----------



## Sallow

I read that. Good OpEd.

So much for the right's claim to be "pro-business".


----------



## chikenwing

Sallow said:


> I read that. Good OpEd.
> 
> So much for the right's claim to be "pro-business".



So they don't stop at the gas station,but instead need to visit the coal mine. Be honest about energy,requirements,they don't run on pennies a day.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Matthew said:


> The Right Flames the Volt
> By JOE NOCERA
> Published: April 6, 2012
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/07/o...mes-the-volt.html?_r=3&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
> 
> 
> 
> It was Thursday morning and several dozen owners of the new Chevrolet Volt had gathered at a restaurant overlooking the East River. Across town, the New York International Auto Show was in full swing. The Volt, of course, is the innovative electric car from General Motors, and G.M. was using the occasion of the auto show to meet with Volt owners.
> 
> Between bites of eggs and bacon, the Volt owners gushed about how well the car drove  and how much gasoline they were saving. They were early adopters, of course, willing to pay a high price ($40,000 before a $7,500 tax credit) to get their hands on a new technology. Many of them had become nearly obsessed with avoiding the gas station; for those with short commutes, it could be months between fill-ups.
> 
> What is the connection between President Obama and the Volt? There is none. The car was the brainchild of Bob Lutz, a legendary auto executive who is about as liberal as the Koch brothers. The tax credit  which is part of the reason conservatives hate the car  became law during the Bush administration.
> 
> Its nuts, said Lutz, when I spoke to him earlier in the week. This is a significant achievement in the auto industry. There are so many legitimate things to criticize Obama about. It is inexplicable that the right would feel the need to tell lies about the Volt to attack the president.



so obama is as bad as bush when it comes to wasting money.

this is no different than re-signing the Patriot Act.  He owns it now.

and fyi, big 0 is prancing around like it was his idea..


----------



## Katzndogz

Don't pay any attention to those people whose homes burned down because they were stupid enough to put a volt in an attached garage.


----------



## ScienceRocks

chikenwing said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read that. Good OpEd.
> 
> So much for the right's claim to be "pro-business".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they don't stop at the gas station,but instead need to visit the coal mine. Be honest about energy,requirements,they don't run on pennies a day.
Click to expand...


Well coal is from our own ground! Natural gas, wind, solar right here in the United states .  No more middle east! 

Coal power in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Two Thumbs

Katzndogz said:


> Don't pay any attention to those people whose homes burned down because they were stupid enough to put a volt in an attached garage.



got a link for that?


----------



## PredFan

I believe that the Vold is perfectly capable of flaming itself thank you.


----------



## Skull Pilot

If the Chevy Dolt was so good then people wouldn't need to be bribed with tax credits to buy it.

And those of you who support the government bribing people to buy a product at the expense of others are the ones who don't really support businesses and competition but would rather have the government choose who wins and who loses.


----------



## Katzndogz

Two Thumbs said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't pay any attention to those people whose homes burned down because they were stupid enough to put a volt in an attached garage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> got a link for that?
Click to expand...


Do you really mean to say you did not hear of the fires caused by the Volt?   There are several threads on the topic.  Do a search.

The EPA is going to shut the coal mines and close most of the power plants, so much for charging cars with electricity.  79 coal mines to be closed.  Isn't that a comfy thought if you own an electric car.  Don't count on wind, solar or nuclear either.  It's not going to happen.



Hazard Herald (KY) - Coal supporters react to EPA permit decision


----------



## Stephanie

good grief, this is what the NYslimes thinks is important to publish..

how friggen stupid


----------



## Old Rocks

So here we have an "Made in USA" technology, and the 'Conservatives' can do nothing but flame it. What a bunch of sour grape peddlers. Makes you truly wonder what kind of idiotocracy they would install if they gained power.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Old Rocks said:


> So here we have an "Made in USA" technology, and the 'Conservatives' can do nothing but flame it. What a bunch of sour grape peddlers. Makes you truly wonder what kind of idiotocracy they would install if they gained power.



As I asked before if it's so great then why have the taxpayers subsidize the purchase?

If you want the government to pick which products will receive special treatment, then it is you who are anti business.

Let the Dolt compete without government intervention and we'll see how good it really is.


----------



## martinjlm

chikenwing said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read that. Good OpEd.
> 
> So much for the right's claim to be "pro-business".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they don't stop at the gas station,but instead need to visit the coal mine. Be honest about energy,requirements,they don't run on pennies a day.
Click to expand...


Stats from a real Volt owner (me......well actually, my wife):

Rec'd:  March 7, 2012
Miles:  just under 1,600 this morning, with 38 miles range showing, so let's say 1,600 showing on April 23rd

Gas used: 2.7 gallons to date
Cost of Elec.: $40/ month or $1.33/ day (and I'm fairly certain the electric company is not signing up to take a loss).  So in 47 days it has cost us (47*1.33) + (2.7*4) = $73.47 plus our vehicle lease price to drive the Volt.  I can live with that.


----------



## martinjlm

Katzndogz said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't pay any attention to those people whose homes burned down because they were stupid enough to put a volt in an attached garage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> got a link for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really mean to say you did not hear of the fires caused by the Volt?   There are several threads on the topic.  Do a search........
Click to expand...


Anyone who does a search will find the following.....


There were two (2) fires
The first was the result of a NHTSA test designed SPECIFICALLY to pierce the battery.  Keep in mind that the battery sits between the passengers, so a collision that pierces the battery would likely kill the passengers before it pierced the battery,but I digress....
The car was then rotated about its axis, similar to the way you would eat an ear of corn, in order to see if the battery material leaked out.  It didn't. 
Then the car was stored in an observation lot.  After sitting in the lot for a couple months, it caught fire.
The second one that caught fire was one of several that was run through the same test to try to determine the root cause of the first fire.

So at the end of the day, these test show that IF your Volt is t-boned so badly that the center of the car is crushed and your battery is pierced, and IF you survive the collision that caused this, you should probably not rotate your vehicle around its axis and then sit in it for two months.....if you do, it MIGHT catch fire.


----------



## Old Rocks

Ah, but the posted truth will not keep the 'Conservatives' from posting their lies. They do so knowingly.


----------



## whitehall

It should be noted that like almost every other piece of propaganda drivel these days the story is based on opinion rather than news and the author is as biased as any of the fools in the almost bankrupt NY Times. The claim that Fox News was "asking nasty questions" says it all. The story would be humorous if it didn't pretend to be true. Imagine rich leftie greenies choking on their scrambled eggs because "Fox was asking nasty questions" about the cars they drive. You would brush off stupid drivel like this but the leftie establishment actually swallows the story hook line and sinker without thinking.


----------



## Stephanie

Now they are trying to pit citizens against each other over a damn car..

What a shit article coming out of the WashingtonCompost...


----------



## KissMy

China's dream of electric car leadership elusive


> China's leaders are finding it's a lot tougher to create a world-beating electric car industry than they hoped.
> 
> In 2009, they announced bold plans to cash in on demand for clean vehicles by making China a global power in electric car manufacturing. They pledged billions of dollars for research and called for annual sales of 500,000 cars by 2015.
> 
> Beijing is scaling back its ambitions, chastened by technological hurdles and lack of buyer interest. Developers have yet to achieve breakthroughs and will be lucky to sell 2,000 cars this year


----------



## Dot Com

One would think that Fox has a 1/2 show to run down the Volt daily the way cons knee-jerk attacks are generated here. What say you?


----------



## Katzndogz

China has the biggest GM factory in the world.  If they wanted a Chinese Volt, the'd build one instead of a Malibu.

No one has anything against the car.  What sensible people object to is the government harassing people into buying one whether it would be a good decision or not.


----------



## Old Rocks

Government harrassing people into buying a Volt? Links? 

No, because you have none. Just more flap yap, and fear of anything that is new. What a bunch of morons we have on this subject.


----------



## Intense




----------



## martinjlm

Katzndogz said:


> China has the biggest GM factory in the world.  If they wanted a Chinese Volt, the'd build one instead of a Malibu.
> 
> No one has anything against the car.  What sensible people object to is the government harassing people into buying one whether it would be a good decision or not.



China could not build the Volt in China because GM refuses to provide the intellectual property around the control systems that allow the vehicle to move seamlessly from all electric to gas engine powering e-motors.

Can you give an example of the gov't harassing people to buy votes?  I'm genuinely curious as to when / where / how this is happening.


----------



## martinjlm

Just thought I'd infect this thread with a third party opinion that contains <gulp> facts.....

In Defense of the Chevy Volt - Rick Newman (usnews.com)

And a quick update.....
Time with Volt: 2 months, 2 days
Mileage:  just over 2,000
Gas used: 2.7 gallons (still has 6.3 gallons of dealer gas in it)
Last time engine turned on: Hmmmmm.  Can't remember, but I'm thinking maybe 3-4 weeks ago.


----------



## whitehall

The "Volt" is a symbol of the Obama administration. The government says we should buy it but nobody wants it or can afford the pretty looking hunk of junk that only gets 35 miles to the charge except the liberal elites who use it as a toy.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Skull Pilot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> So here we have an "Made in USA" technology, and the 'Conservatives' can do nothing but flame it. What a bunch of sour grape peddlers. Makes you truly wonder what kind of idiotocracy they would install if they gained power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I asked before if it's so great then why have the taxpayers subsidize the purchase?
> 
> If you want the government to pick which products will receive special treatment, then it is you who are anti business.
> 
> Let the Dolt compete without government intervention and we'll see how good it really is.
Click to expand...


Denier!

(LOL)


----------



## ScienceRocks

whitehall said:


> The "Volt" is a symbol of the Obama administration. The government says we should buy it but nobody wants it or can afford the pretty looking hunk of junk that only gets 35 miles to the charge except the liberal elites who use it as a toy.



35 miles per gallon just on battery, but with the generator it can go at least 379 miles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_volt


----------



## meatheadmike

Skull Pilot said:


> If the Chevy Dolt was so good then people wouldn't need to be bribed with tax credits to buy it.
> 
> And those of you who support the government bribing people to buy a product at the expense of others are the ones who don't really support businesses and competition but would rather have the government choose who wins and who loses.



The free market isn't as ridged as you make it out to be. The US government also subsidies the oil industry to keep gas prices low. Otherwise gas prices would be somewhere around $8.50/gallon (as they are in countries like France and Italy).

So if gas prices in the US were at that non-subsided high rate, how do you think that would affect the demand of a high mpg vehicle such as the volt?

It would obviously increase demand greatly. 
But since we don't live in that type of economy, because the government is artificially affecting gas prices... its only fair that they level the playing field for new technology like the Volt.


----------



## Skull Pilot

meatheadmike said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Chevy Dolt was so good then people wouldn't need to be bribed with tax credits to buy it.
> 
> And those of you who support the government bribing people to buy a product at the expense of others are the ones who don't really support businesses and competition but would rather have the government choose who wins and who loses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The free market isn't as ridged as you make it out to be. The US government also subsidies the oil industry to keep gas prices low. Otherwise gas prices would be somewhere around $8.50/gallon (as they are in countries like France and Italy).
> 
> So if gas prices in the US were at that non-subsided high rate, how do you think that would affect the demand of a high mpg vehicle such as the volt?
> 
> It would obviously increase demand greatly.
> But since we don't live in that type of economy, because the government is artificially affecting gas prices... its only fair that they level the playing field for new technology like the Volt.
Click to expand...


Now credible estimates of federal oil subsides range from 10 to 52 billion dollars a year.

The US uses 19 million barrels of oil a day or 6.9 billion barrels a year.

The current price per barrel of oil is about 100 dollars

Therefore we spend 690 billion dollars a year on oil.

The subsidies only lower the price of oil by 1% to 7%


Fossil Fuel Subsidies | The Price of Oil

Consumption > Oil statistics - Countries Compared - NationMaster

CRUDE OIL PRICE: Oil | Energy | Petroleum | Oil Price | Crude Oil Charts | Oil Price Forecast

So tell me where do you come up with the 8.50 a gallon number?

As you can see in the UK the largest piece of the pie that is the price of gasoline is not production but rather the taxes.

http://www.whatprice.co.uk/petrol-prices/cost-litre-breakdown.html


----------



## meatheadmike

Skull Pilot said:


> meatheadmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Chevy Dolt was so good then people wouldn't need to be bribed with tax credits to buy it.
> 
> And those of you who support the government bribing people to buy a product at the expense of others are the ones who don't really support businesses and competition but would rather have the government choose who wins and who loses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The free market isn't as ridged as you make it out to be. The US government also subsidies the oil industry to keep gas prices low. Otherwise gas prices would be somewhere around $8.50/gallon (as they are in countries like France and Italy).
> 
> So if gas prices in the US were at that non-subsided high rate, how do you think that would affect the demand of a high mpg vehicle such as the volt?
> 
> It would obviously increase demand greatly.
> But since we don't live in that type of economy, because the government is artificially affecting gas prices... its only fair that they level the playing field for new technology like the Volt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now credible estimates of federal oil subsides range from 10 to 52 billion dollars a year.
> 
> The US uses 19 million barrels of oil a day or 6.9 billion barrels a year.
> 
> The current price per barrel of oil is about 100 dollars
> 
> Therefore we spend 690 billion dollars a year on oil.
> 
> The subsidies only lower the price of oil by 1% to 7%
> 
> 
> So tell me where do you come up with the 8.50 a gallon number?
> 
> As you can see in the UK the largest piece of the pie that is the price of gasoline is not production but rather the taxes.
Click to expand...


$8.50 per gallon is simply the price payed in other countries like France.

As your link pointed out the US government spends $10 to $52 Billion subsidizing the oil industry, so you concede the free market is not as ridged as you initial made it out to seem. How much do we spend subsidizing the Volt again? 

You also pointed out how in the UK oil is taxed more, which shows that not only do we taxpayers subsidize the oil industry, but the US government is also more lenient on taxes when it comes to buying oil... which encourages more buying of oil as opposed to other countries. If oil were taxed more like it is in other countries, this also would alter the demand in favor of new technology and cars like the volt.

Perhaps we wouldn't be paying 8.50/gallon if oil wasn't subsidized... again that number was just based on current ppg in European countries.  But you still proved my point that the US government has already altered the free market game in favor of Oil companies.... which is the reason that they are now subsidizing new technology such as the volt to level the playing field.


----------



## Skull Pilot

meatheadmike said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meatheadmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> The free market isn't as ridged as you make it out to be. The US government also subsidies the oil industry to keep gas prices low. Otherwise gas prices would be somewhere around $8.50/gallon (as they are in countries like France and Italy).
> 
> So if gas prices in the US were at that non-subsided high rate, how do you think that would affect the demand of a high mpg vehicle such as the volt?
> 
> It would obviously increase demand greatly.
> But since we don't live in that type of economy, because the government is a
> rtificially affecting gas prices... its only fair that they level the playing field for new technology like the Volt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now credible estimates of federal oil subsides range from 10 to 52 billion dollars a year.
> 
> The US uses 19 million barrels of oil a day or 6.9 billion barrels a year.
> 
> The current price per barrel of oil is about 100 dollars
> 
> Therefore we spend 690 billion dollars a year on oil.
> 
> The subsidies only lower the price of oil by 1% to 7%
> 
> 
> So tell me where do you come up with the 8.50 a gallon number?
> 
> As you can see in the UK the largest piece of the pie that is the price of gasoline is not production but rather the taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $8.50 per gallon is simply the price payed in other countries like France.
> 
> As your link pointed out the US government spends $10 to $52 Billion subsidizing the oil industry, so you concede the free market is not as ridged as you initial made it out to seem. How much do we spend subsidizing the Volt again?
> 
> You also pointed out how in the UK oil is taxed more, which shows that not only do we taxpayers subsidize the oil industry, but the US government is also more lenient on taxes when it comes to buying oil... which encourages more buying of oil as opposed to other countries. If oil were taxed more like it is in other countries, this also would alter the demand in favor of new technology and cars like the volt.
> 
> Perhaps we wouldn't be paying 8.50/gallon if oil wasn't subsidized... again that number was just based on current ppg in European countries.  But you still proved my point that the US government has already altered the free market game in favor of Oil companies.... which is the reason that they are now subsidizing new. Uw technology such as the volt to level the playing field.
Click to expand...


I have always been against subsidies so it's fine with me to stop them all 

But if you insist on subsidizing so called green energy then limit it to the same 10 to 52 billion that oil gets 

But that said the track record of government funded green energy is one of rising rates despite the subsidies


----------



## meatheadmike

Skull Pilot said:


> meatheadmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now credible estimates of federal oil subsides range from 10 to 52 billion dollars a year.
> 
> The US uses 19 million barrels of oil a day or 6.9 billion barrels a year.
> 
> The current price per barrel of oil is about 100 dollars
> 
> Therefore we spend 690 billion dollars a year on oil.
> 
> The subsidies only lower the price of oil by 1% to 7%
> 
> 
> So tell me where do you come up with the 8.50 a gallon number?
> 
> As you can see in the UK the largest piece of the pie that is the price of gasoline is not production but rather the taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $8.50 per gallon is simply the price payed in other countries like France.
> 
> As your link pointed out the US government spends $10 to $52 Billion subsidizing the oil industry, so you concede the free market is not as ridged as you initial made it out to seem. How much do we spend subsidizing the Volt again?
> 
> You also pointed out how in the UK oil is taxed more, which shows that not only do we taxpayers subsidize the oil industry, but the US government is also more lenient on taxes when it comes to buying oil... which encourages more buying of oil as opposed to other countries. If oil were taxed more like it is in other countries, this also would alter the demand in favor of new technology and cars like the volt.
> 
> Perhaps we wouldn't be paying 8.50/gallon if oil wasn't subsidized... again that number was just based on current ppg in European countries.  But you still proved my point that the US government has already altered the free market game in favor of Oil companies.... which is the reason that they are now subsidizing new. Uw technology such as the volt to level the playing field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have always been against subsidies so it's fine with me to stop them all
> 
> But if you insist on subsidizing so called green energy then limit it to the same 10 to 52 billion that oil gets
> 
> But that said the track record of government funded green energy is one of rising rates despite the subsidies
Click to expand...


I personally don't like these subsidies either, so I guess we can both agree on that. But unfortunately at this point we are already too deep to stop subsidies on the Oil industry. If we were to do that, the increase in gas prices would cause in increase in shipping costs and as a result an increase in the price of nearly all goods and services in the US. This could severely hurt the economy.

The subsidy on the new technology like the volt is the easiest solution to level the playing field. As I understand this subsidy costs the US government a maximum of around $100 million (10,000 volts produced in 2011, times $10,000 credit). This actual number is lower because less than 10,000 volts were sold in 2011.

This subsidy is a tiny fraction when compared to the billions of dollars spent on subsidizing the oil industry annually, so it doesn't really seem like such a crazy idea.


----------



## Papageorgio

Not big into subsidizing any business.

As far as how the right feels about the VOLT? 

Only 10,000 have been sold since it was built, it seems to me, no one is supporting the VOLT. 

So liberals are not really buying them either but the liberals want everyone to support what they aren't supporting? 

How many liberals on this forum own a VOLT? 

If you don't own one, why are you not supporting it?


----------



## bripat9643

Skull Pilot said:


> I have always been against subsidies so it's fine with me to stop them all
> 
> But if you insist on subsidizing so called green energy then limit it to the same 10 to 52 billion that oil gets
> 
> But that said the track record of government funded green energy is one of rising rates despite the subsidies



Subsidies to the oil industry are in the $1.5 to $3.0 billion range.  None of the figures you quote are credible.  They include things like credits to the elderly for home heating oil.  That's welfare, not an oil industry subsidy.


----------



## Skull Pilot

bripat9643 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have always been against subsidies so it's fine with me to stop them all
> 
> But if you insist on subsidizing so called green energy then limit it to the same 10 to 52 billion that oil gets
> 
> But that said the track record of government funded green energy is one of rising rates despite the subsidies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subsidies to the oil industry are in the $1.5 to $3.0 billion range.  None of the figures you quote are credible.  They include things like credits to the elderly for home heating oil.  That's welfare, not an oil industry subsidy.
Click to expand...


link?


----------



## eraser2000

I think all of America should be driving electric... just not the Volt. lol
God Bless, that thing is ugly. It looks like a enema on wheels


----------



## koshergrl

The stupid Volt. It has replaced the Prius as a vagina on wheels.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoEUIWh88tk]The Other Guys Tribute to the Prius - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Old Rocks

Skull Pilot said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have always been against subsidies so it's fine with me to stop them all
> 
> But if you insist on subsidizing so called green energy then limit it to the same 10 to 52 billion that oil gets
> 
> But that said the track record of government funded green energy is one of rising rates despite the subsidies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subsidies to the oil industry are in the $1.5 to $3.0 billion range.  None of the figures you quote are credible.  They include things like credits to the elderly for home heating oil.  That's welfare, not an oil industry subsidy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> link?
Click to expand...


From Pattycake?


----------



## uscitizen

Volts do not have convenient charging stations, neither did early autos have a convenient source of fuel.
Buy a horse they just need grass and water.

Same logic.


----------



## RGR

Papageorgio said:


> How many liberals on this forum own a VOLT?



Good question. But what does a political leaning have to do with using good old fashioned and cheap, American produced fuel (electricity) to power a modern, well designed American car?

And for the record, there is at least one registered independent (the wife hates it, she would prefer to have influence on 2 votes in the primary elections) on this forum who owns one.


----------



## Papageorgio

RGR said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many liberals on this forum own a VOLT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good question. But what does a political leaning have to do with using good old fashioned and cheap, American produced fuel (electricity) to power a modern, well designed American car?
> 
> And for the record, there is at least one registered independent (the wife hates it, she would prefer to have influence on 2 votes in the primary elections) on this forum who owns one.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure, you might want to ask the person that started the thread. It is curious how you want the answer from me and not the person who brought politics into the discussion in the first place.

It seems the left is upset with the right for lack of support of the vehicle. Only 10,000 have sold, so it seems lack of support is from everyone. 

From the sounds of it, you'd drive one, so congrats, I won't buy one, it does not work for my needs.


----------



## RGR

koshergrl said:


> The stupid Volt. It has replaced the Prius as a vagina on wheels.



Hey, if you like paying for fuels funding the budgets of foreign governments, by all means drive a monster truck. I'm quite happy buying made in the USA fuels for my made in the USA car which doesn't need gasoline for my commuting, which means cheap-cheap-cheap.


----------



## RGR

Papageorgio said:


> It is curious how you want the answer from me and not the person who brought politics into the discussion in the first place.



A bit curious that politics were brought into car buying choices, don't you think?



			
				Papageorgio said:
			
		

> It seems the left is upset with the right for lack of support of the vehicle. Only 10,000 have sold, so it seems lack of support is from everyone.



From such small beginnings...etc etc.



			
				Papgeorgio said:
			
		

> From the sounds of it, you'd drive one, so congrats, I won't buy one, it does not work for my needs.



Oh, it certainly has its limitations. But I use mine for what it is perfect for, commuting within the range of its EV capabilities. I also own scooters, a motorcycle, a fuel efficient ICE powered econobox, a sportscar and an SUV capable of towing any two of all the other vehicles. I am a big fan of the right tool for the job.


----------



## Papageorgio

RGR said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is curious how you want the answer from me and not the person who brought politics into the discussion in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A bit curious that politics were brought into car buying choices, don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems the left is upset with the right for lack of support of the vehicle. Only 10,000 have sold, so it seems lack of support is from everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From such small beginnings...etc etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papgeorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the sounds of it, you'd drive one, so congrats, I won't buy one, it does not work for my needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, it certainly has its limitations. But I use mine for what it is perfect for, commuting within the range of its EV capabilities. I also own scooters, a motorcycle, a fuel efficient ICE powered econobox, a sportscar and an SUV capable of towing any two of all the other vehicles. I am a big fan of the right tool for the job.
Click to expand...


Not curious at all, the left wants everyone but themselves to drive the way they think they should. 
I travel many miles, I used to commute 2 hours a day, had have a household of eight, so I have no use for one, nor do I have use for a scooter, a motorcycle. I have the right tools for my job.


----------



## RGR

Papageorgio said:


> Not curious at all, the left wants everyone but themselves to drive the way they think they should.



Some of them maybe. Certainly my mom is "left", and generally not insistent that other people drive what she thinks they should. Has no one from the "right" ever been caught in a traffic jam and wanted everyone else to drive something else, something smaller, like a scooter, so the roads would be clear and they could zip on through the evening commute to get home earlier? I'll bet they have, in which case they are no better or worse than the "left" in this regard.



			
				papgeorgio said:
			
		

> I travel many miles, I used to commute 2 hours a day, had have a household of eight, so I have no use for one, nor do I have use for a scooter, a motorcycle. I have the right tools for my job.



Cool. Fortunately, this is still America and no one is requiring you to have (A) a longer commute than more than 75% of all Americans and (B) a Volt.

If I had a 2 hour commute, I think I would lean more VW diesel or small Prius type hybrid. And then I would move to get a shorter commute and presto! I would be back in Volt range!


----------



## Papageorgio

RGR said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not curious at all, the left wants everyone but themselves to drive the way they think they should.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of them maybe. Certainly my mom is "left", and generally not insistent that other people drive what she thinks they should. Has no one from the "right" ever been caught in a traffic jam and wanted everyone else to drive something else, something smaller, like a scooter, so the roads would be clear and they could zip on through the evening commute to get home earlier? I'll bet they have, in which case they are no better or worse than the "left" in this regard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> papgeorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I travel many miles, I used to commute 2 hours a day, had have a household of eight, so I have no use for one, nor do I have use for a scooter, a motorcycle. I have the right tools for my job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool. Fortunately, this is still America and no one is requiring you to have (A) a longer commute than more than 75% of all Americans and (B) a Volt.
> 
> If I had a 2 hour commute, I think I would lean more VW diesel or small Prius type hybrid. And then I would move to get a shorter commute and presto! I would be back in Volt range!
Click to expand...


Well if I had my choices, I'd rather commute two hours than be unemployed.


----------



## RGR

Papageorgio said:


> Well if I had my choices, I'd rather commute two hours than be unemployed.



Quite reasonable. Myself, I once commuted from Louisiana to Edmonton Alberta to work on drilling rigs, a couple weeks there, then back to the Gulf. Rather than be unemployed, I found a job closer to home. Didn't hate the commute, it allowed me to see wild swathes of the country on someone else's dime, but it did get old after a couple of years. So I got a job 2 blocks from home and then could walk to work. 

The lesson learned ever after being, living closer to work is better than living farther away, in order to maximize time for other things.


----------



## koshergrl

uscitizen said:


> Volts do not have convenient charging stations, neither did early autos have a convenient source of fuel.
> Buy a horse they just need grass and water.
> 
> Same logic.



Not really.

Early autos were a definite improvement over what was in existence, and there wasn't anything else comparable. That's a fairly strong motivation. They were an improvement over horse and buggy, if you could get them fueled up.

The stupid Volt isn't. It isn't fast, it isn't powerful...the cars we have that run on gasoline are a hundred times more effective.

Why trade down? Especially if you have to make further sacrifices? It's idiotic, when we've got something better available..and we do.


----------



## koshergrl

RGR said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stupid Volt. It has replaced the Prius as a vagina on wheels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, if you like paying for fuels funding the budgets of foreign governments, by all means drive a monster truck. I'm quite happy buying made in the USA fuels for my made in the USA car which doesn't need gasoline for my commuting, which means cheap-cheap-cheap.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I have 4 kids, a grandkid, dogs, and I live in a rural area.

I don't want a stupid Volt. I prefer my Ford Explorer..and wish I had an expedition.


----------



## Skull Pilot

More People Are Buying Hybrid Cars. So Why Won't They Stick With Them? - Forbes

65% of hybrid owners won't buy another one.



> A study by a Michigan-based research firm Polk found that only 35 percent of hybrid-owners choose to purchase another hybrid. Even worse, if you remove the Toyota Prius, the most popular hybrid from the mix, commitment to hybrids drops to 25 percent. This means that a whopping 75 percent of non-Prius hybrid customers chose to ditch the hybrid &#8211; and this is for the greenest of green consumers, mind you.



So hybrids obviously ain't as great as you people think


----------



## ScienceRocks

Heres is some stuff I want the next generation of the volt to do.
1# Have a range of 300 miles per gallon-Total range of 500+ miles.
2# All electric mode 100 miles-no fuel with full battery. Yes, a lot of short trips, no need for gas!
3# 0 to 60 mph in 4 seconds!
4# A battery that can be charged in under a hour
5# A battery that cost less than a few thousand dollars
6# For under 30,000 dollars!

Hear this GM? The amount of cars sold in mass production alone will make up for the cheaper price!


----------



## RGR

koshergrl said:


> The stupid Volt isn't. It isn't fast, it isn't powerful...the cars we have that run on gasoline are a hundred times more effective.



Oh, you really need to drive one. The torque from the electric motor on the Volt means that drag racing out of stop lights is quite entertaining, and more than effective against anything except full on sports cars.


----------



## RGR

koshergrl said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stupid Volt. It has replaced the Prius as a vagina on wheels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, if you like paying for fuels funding the budgets of foreign governments, by all means drive a monster truck. I'm quite happy buying made in the USA fuels for my made in the USA car which doesn't need gasoline for my commuting, which means cheap-cheap-cheap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I have 4 kids, a grandkid, dogs, and I live in a rural area.
Click to expand...


Certainly the Volt isn't for everyone. But most Americans don't live in rural areas. Some Americans who aren't rural also don't have garages, another situation where the Volt might not be the best choice. But those issues aren't a problem with the CAR.

Certainly SUVs fill a niche for many people, and the convenience of owning one can be substantial. And with that convenience comes higher fuel costs. 



			
				koshergirl said:
			
		

> I don't want a stupid Volt. I prefer my Ford Explorer..and wish I had an expedition.



Myself, I was once partial to the Excursion. But in suburbia, with my two kids and a dog, the Volt is excellent at what it was designed for. Which is to not put $$ in the hands of foreign governments because of exorbitant fuel prices, and it is cheap to run. Not s much fun as a scooter perhaps, but it is quite an excellent automobile.


----------



## RGR

Skull Pilot said:


> 65% of hybrid owners won't buy another one.
> 
> So hybrids obviously ain't as great as you people think



On a cost/benefit basis, I can certainly understand why some people would not return to them. My Ford Fiesta returns the same highway mileage as my old Camry hybrid, and slightly worse around town, and cost half of what the Camry did.

But I've owned two hybrids prior to the Volt, so obviously am a returning customer (the other was a Ford AWD Escape), but the Volt is a different animal than a standard Prius/Toyota Synenergy type hybrid. And quite a bit better, me admittedly being influenced in that opinion by the torque of the electric motor. Normal hybrids have a always felt pretty gutless, whereas the instant power of a big electric motor is quite a thrill.


----------



## Skull Pilot

An electric car will never meet my needs.

I'll take my F350 over a Dolt any day.

I can brew my own biodiesel and mix it in a 1:1 or 1:2 ratio with standard diesel fuel in the warmer months.  In the winter I run straight diesel as home brew biodiesel tends to gel a bit in the cold.

The only reason I don't run straight biodiesel is that I've seen too many gummed up filters and injectors.

Personally I think we'd be better off if instead of electric cars with the myriad of problems and the lack of infrastructure to support them we'd ramp up the refining of quality biodiesel and start producing small cars like a TDI Jetta.

We would need no ultra expensive infrastructure to deliver it as any standard gas station can already do it.  We wouldn't have to wait for some technological breakthrough in batteries and fuel cells and then wait for the price to come down so we could afford them.

And most importantly our tax dollars wouldn't have to subsidize the purchase of hybrids any more and we'd still be using less fossil fuels and would reduce emissions more than we would if we keep trying to convince people to buy hybrids because a diesel engine is already understood by the public and is quite frankly cheaper to produce maintain and repair.


----------



## koshergrl

RGR said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stupid Volt isn't. It isn't fast, it isn't powerful...the cars we have that run on gasoline are a hundred times more effective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you really need to drive one. The torque from the electric motor on the Volt means that drag racing out of stop lights is quite entertaining, and more than effective against anything except full on sports cars.
Click to expand...



I don't see one in my future.


----------



## koshergrl

Biodiesel is a nightmare. Besides poisoning groundwater, it just isn't a sound method for saving energy, and it takes food out of the food chain that is necessary to maintain lower food costs.


----------



## RGR

Skull Pilot said:


> An electric car will never meet my needs.



And it won't meet the needs of many Americans. But it would easily meet the needs of 75% of Americans who commute less than 40 miles a day, and wish to (A) reduce their fuel costs and (B) substitute fuel 100% made in the US of A.



			
				Skull Pilot said:
			
		

> I'll take my F350 over a Dolt any day.



Enjoy. However, my commute to and from work doesn't require a monster truck, and for carrying a single commuter back and forth to work (assuming you don't need your horse trailer and horse to do it) an F350 is a bit like patrolling the Mississippi with the USS Missouri. It can probably be done, but is it really necessary?



			
				Skull Pilot said:
			
		

> I can brew my own biodiesel and mix it in a 1:1 or 1:2 ratio with standard diesel fuel in the warmer months.  In the winter I run straight diesel as home brew biodiesel tends to gel a bit in the cold.



Sounds complicated. I plug the Volt into the wall socket in the evening, and am tanked up and ready to road warrior my way to work in the morning. Plus I am soon to get FREE fuel at the office, and free is even better than cheap!



			
				Skull Pilot said:
			
		

> Personally I think we'd be better off if instead of electric cars with the myriad of problems and the lack of infrastructure to support them we'd ramp up the refining of quality biodiesel and start producing small cars like a TDI Jetta.



Except for reliability issues, the VW TDI line is a great car when compared to gassers. The problems with them, besides overall reliability (which can be fixed I presume) is that they aren't any better than even the older style hybrids. My Camry was a 40mpg+ car, you paid quite a bit less for the fuel (diesel selling for sometimes a 20% premium over gasoline), and the maintenance was nil. But in either case, you are still using a fuel which funds foreign governments rather than providing jobs and benefits to Americans.



			
				Skull Pilot said:
			
		

> We would need no ultra expensive infrastructure to deliver it as any standard gas station can already do it.  We wouldn't have to wait for some technological breakthrough in batteries and fuel cells and then wait for the price to come down so we could afford them.



The Volt doesn't cost any more than the median car price in America, I can assure you that electrical infrastructure is quite common in America and better yet is at our homes so we don't have to go to ANY gas station if we choose not to (who wants to go to a gas station anyway?), and you can go get one tomorrow. 



			
				Skull Pilot said:
			
		

> And most importantly our tax dollars wouldn't have to subsidize the purchase of hybrids any more and we'd still be using less fossil fuels and would reduce emissions more than we would if we keep trying to convince people to buy hybrids because a diesel engine is already understood by the public and is quite frankly cheaper to produce maintain and repair.



Well, certainly the Volt is subsidized by the government. But it makes it extremely difficult to say "everyone should go get a VW TDI" if only because they STILL run on fuels coming from somewhere else. During the day, my fuel is captured, refined, and pumped right into my "tank" by the panels on the roof of the parking structure. While a diesel might use less foreign fuels, it sure can't beat that advantage that capturing (drilling), refining (air pollution) and transportation (trucking and hauling and pipelines) takes place with nary an air pollution molecule in site. not just less, but NONE.


----------



## RGR

koshergrl said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stupid Volt isn't. It isn't fast, it isn't powerful...the cars we have that run on gasoline are a hundred times more effective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you really need to drive one. The torque from the electric motor on the Volt means that drag racing out of stop lights is quite entertaining, and more than effective against anything except full on sports cars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see one in my future.
Click to expand...


Perhaps not. And while I am admittedly more sensitive to the use of foreign fuels to power American commuting than most, until you do drive one you may not realize what an excellent automobile it is as well. The fact that American based fuels to fuel it is cheap to boot is just icing on the cake.


----------



## Liability

Matthew said:


> The Right Flames the Volt
> * * * *



Actually, it's probably the short circuits and the batteries that do that.


----------



## Papageorgio

RGR said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> An electric car will never meet my needs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it won't meet the needs of many Americans. But it would easily meet the needs of 75% of Americans who commute less than 40 miles a day, and wish to (A) reduce their fuel costs and (B) substitute fuel 100% made in the US of A.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take my F350 over a Dolt any day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enjoy. However, my commute to and from work doesn't require a monster truck, and for carrying a single commuter back and forth to work (assuming you don't need your horse trailer and horse to do it) an F350 is a bit like patrolling the Mississippi with the USS Missouri. It can probably be done, but is it really necessary?
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds complicated. I plug the Volt into the wall socket in the evening, and am tanked up and ready to road warrior my way to work in the morning. Plus I am soon to get FREE fuel at the office, and free is even better than cheap!
> 
> 
> 
> Except for reliability issues, the VW TDI line is a great car when compared to gassers. The problems with them, besides overall reliability (which can be fixed I presume) is that they aren't any better than even the older style hybrids. My Camry was a 40mpg+ car, you paid quite a bit less for the fuel (diesel selling for sometimes a 20% premium over gasoline), and the maintenance was nil. But in either case, you are still using a fuel which funds foreign governments rather than providing jobs and benefits to Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We would need no ultra expensive infrastructure to deliver it as any standard gas station can already do it.  We wouldn't have to wait for some technological breakthrough in batteries and fuel cells and then wait for the price to come down so we could afford them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Volt doesn't cost any more than the median car price in America, I can assure you that electrical infrastructure is quite common in America and better yet is at our homes so we don't have to go to ANY gas station if we choose not to (who wants to go to a gas station anyway?), and you can go get one tomorrow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And most importantly our tax dollars wouldn't have to subsidize the purchase of hybrids any more and we'd still be using less fossil fuels and would reduce emissions more than we would if we keep trying to convince people to buy hybrids because a diesel engine is already understood by the public and is quite frankly cheaper to produce maintain and repair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, certainly the Volt is subsidized by the government. But it makes it extremely difficult to say "everyone should go get a VW TDI" if only because they STILL run on fuels coming from somewhere else. During the day, my fuel is captured, refined, and pumped right into my "tank" by the panels on the roof of the parking structure. While a diesel might use less foreign fuels, it sure can't beat that advantage that capturing (drilling), refining (air pollution) and transportation (trucking and hauling and pipelines) takes place with nary an air pollution molecule in site. not just less, but NONE.
Click to expand...


Your owning one leaves you latitude and credibility to comment, the rest of those, they have no room to speak. As far as your comment of someone driving a F350 being necessary, it is a choice, just like your choice.

There is a day coming with new hybrids and electric cars that states are going to tax you for the miles you drive. Oregon is already looking at new revenue production for the higher mileage car. 

That all said, get me a car that I know will go long distances, holds eight and runs on electric, all for a price that is the same as comparable priced gas engine and I'll buy.p


----------



## PredFan

PredFan said:


> I believe that the Vold is perfectly capable of flaming itself thank you.



I think this needs to be repeated.


----------



## Skull Pilot

koshergrl said:


> Biodiesel is a nightmare. Besides poisoning groundwater, it just isn't a sound method for saving energy, and it takes food out of the food chain that is necessary to maintain lower food costs.



Ever hear of waste vegetable oil?

We have more than enough in this country.

And groundwater would be no more in danger from a commercial biodiesel refinery than it would from a petroleum refinery.


----------



## Big Fitz

Sallow said:


> I read that. Good OpEd.
> 
> So much for the right's claim to be "pro-business".


I hate brusslesprouts.  So much for me being pro-business.



Seriously, this is what you're saying this proves?  A product of revolutionary technology that doesn't cut it in the marketplace and it means that it's detractors are anti business.

How about those who don't buy horse carriages instead?  Are THEY anti-business?  What's your consumption of hay down at the hay market lately?  You being anti-business and not buying?

Please, 

association fail.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Bought a Prius last week.  Still have half a tank of gas + (11.5 Gal tank) and have 285 miles on it as of this morning.  We'll be taking a ride this morning to Half Moon Bay (near where the Maverick's big wave contest is held) for a Dungeness Crab lunch.  I expect we will have plenty of gas after the round trip of around 120 miles.

Battery, BTW, has a 150,000 warranty, drive train 100,000 and the first two years include all maintenance.

We would have bought the Volt, but at $42,500 or so it was nearly $20,000 more than we paid for the Prius.


----------



## Katzndogz

No one needs to flame the Volt.  It is quite capable of failing on its own.  In fact, all hybrids and electrics are failing on their own.  There will be too few repeat purchasers.   In the case of hybrids, the more owners today that there are, the fewer owners there will be in the future.

Most Hybrid Owners Wouldn&#8217;t Buy Another One | Money Talks News


----------



## Old Rocks

RGR said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> An electric car will never meet my needs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it won't meet the needs of many Americans. But it would easily meet the needs of 75% of Americans who commute less than 40 miles a day, and wish to (A) reduce their fuel costs and (B) substitute fuel 100% made in the US of A.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take my F350 over a Dolt any day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enjoy. However, my commute to and from work doesn't require a monster truck, and for carrying a single commuter back and forth to work (assuming you don't need your horse trailer and horse to do it) an F350 is a bit like patrolling the Mississippi with the USS Missouri. It can probably be done, but is it really necessary?
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds complicated. I plug the Volt into the wall socket in the evening, and am tanked up and ready to road warrior my way to work in the morning. Plus I am soon to get FREE fuel at the office, and free is even better than cheap!
> 
> 
> 
> Except for reliability issues, the VW TDI line is a great car when compared to gassers. The problems with them, besides overall reliability (which can be fixed I presume) is that they aren't any better than even the older style hybrids. My Camry was a 40mpg+ car, you paid quite a bit less for the fuel (diesel selling for sometimes a 20% premium over gasoline), and the maintenance was nil. But in either case, you are still using a fuel which funds foreign governments rather than providing jobs and benefits to Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We would need no ultra expensive infrastructure to deliver it as any standard gas station can already do it.  We wouldn't have to wait for some technological breakthrough in batteries and fuel cells and then wait for the price to come down so we could afford them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Volt doesn't cost any more than the median car price in America, I can assure you that electrical infrastructure is quite common in America and better yet is at our homes so we don't have to go to ANY gas station if we choose not to (who wants to go to a gas station anyway?), and you can go get one tomorrow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And most importantly our tax dollars wouldn't have to subsidize the purchase of hybrids any more and we'd still be using less fossil fuels and would reduce emissions more than we would if we keep trying to convince people to buy hybrids because a diesel engine is already understood by the public and is quite frankly cheaper to produce maintain and repair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, certainly the Volt is subsidized by the government. But it makes it extremely difficult to say "everyone should go get a VW TDI" if only because they STILL run on fuels coming from somewhere else. During the day, my fuel is captured, refined, and pumped right into my "tank" by the panels on the roof of the parking structure. While a diesel might use less foreign fuels, it sure can't beat that advantage that capturing (drilling), refining (air pollution) and transportation (trucking and hauling and pipelines) takes place with nary an air pollution molecule in site. not just less, but NONE.
Click to expand...


To me, this is the most interesting point concerning the avid oposition to EVs or plug in Hybirds. The very same people that are raising the roof claiming they are the last bastion of defense of liberty in this nation are the very ones opposing a technological development that can give the average homeowner a degree of economic freedom.


----------



## Katzndogz

Wry Catcher said:


> Bought a Prius last week.  Still have half a tank of gas + (11.5 Gal tank) and have 285 miles on it as of this morning.  We'll be taking a ride this morning to Half Moon Bay (near where the Maverick's big wave contest is held) for a Dungeness Crab lunch.  I expect we will have plenty of gas after the round trip of around 120 miles.
> 
> Battery, BTW, has a 150,000 warranty, drive train 100,000 and the first two years include all maintenance.
> 
> We would have bought the Volt, but at $42,500 or so it was nearly $20,000 more than we paid for the Prius.



Sometimes I think that in five years, the only car on the road will be a Prius.  Every third car I see on the freeway is a Prius.  In one week the parking lot in my building blossomed six brand new Prius cars.   Unlike the other hybrids, the Prius is competitively priced which may factor in.  

It's a dinky car.  I can see it useful for a second commuter car, but not as an only car.  Or maybe I just haul around too much stuff.


----------



## Big Fitz

Wry Catcher said:


> Bought a Prius last week. Still have half a tank of gas + (11.5 Gal tank) and have 285 miles on it as of this morning. We'll be taking a ride this morning to Half Moon Bay (near where the Maverick's big wave contest is held) for a Dungeness Crab lunch. I expect we will have plenty of gas after the round trip of around 120 miles.
> 
> Battery, BTW, has a 150,000 warranty, drive train 100,000 and the first two years include all maintenance.
> 
> We would have bought the Volt, but at $42,500 or so it was nearly $20,000 more than we paid for the Prius.


Thank you for exemplifying why I don't like Toyota Pious owners. It's like buying a Chihuahua for your purse as a status symbol or adopting a child from a third world nation.

That said, they are good for urban stop/start driving, if you don't suck at driving. For long distance driving, you should have gotten a VW GTI/Golf Diesel. That's about the best there is for hiway miles... just don't get to excited about the room you have in it.


----------



## PredFan

Katzndogz said:


> No one needs to flame the Volt.  It is quite capable of failing on its own.  In fact, all hybrids and electrics are failing on their own.  There will be too few repeat purchasers.   In the case of hybrids, the more owners today that there are, the fewer owners there will be in the future.
> 
> Most Hybrid Owners Wouldnt Buy Another One | Money Talks News



I'm on my 2nd Prius....just sayin.


----------



## Katzndogz

PredFan said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one needs to flame the Volt.  It is quite capable of failing on its own.  In fact, all hybrids and electrics are failing on their own.  There will be too few repeat purchasers.   In the case of hybrids, the more owners today that there are, the fewer owners there will be in the future.
> 
> Most Hybrid Owners Wouldnt Buy Another One | Money Talks News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm on my 2nd Prius....just sayin.
Click to expand...


How long did you keep the first one?


----------



## Liability

Fuck it.

I'm sold!


----------



## PredFan

Katzndogz said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one needs to flame the Volt.  It is quite capable of failing on its own.  In fact, all hybrids and electrics are failing on their own.  There will be too few repeat purchasers.   In the case of hybrids, the more owners today that there are, the fewer owners there will be in the future.
> 
> Most Hybrid Owners Wouldnt Buy Another One | Money Talks News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm on my 2nd Prius....just sayin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long did you keep the first one?
Click to expand...


Until it was paid off, then I traded it in on this one.


----------



## Liability

And fuck it again.  Let's all vote for the re-election of the bestest President in the history of Presidents!


----------



## RGR

Papageorgio said:


> As far as your comment of someone driving a F350 being necessary, it is a choice, just like your choice.
> 
> There is a day coming with new hybrids and electric cars that states are going to tax you for the miles you drive. Oregon is already looking at new revenue production for the higher mileage car.



I noticed that as well. Fortunately, Oregon (otherwise known as California North) doesn't represent "regular" America, I doubt many others will follow such a path. It smacks of left coast "how dare you do what I demand (drive less) thereby depriving me of a revenue stream designed to create such behavior in the first place, now I must find another way to take your money away from you".



			
				Papageorgio said:
			
		

> That all said, get me a car that I know will go long distances, holds eight and runs on electric, all for a price that is the same as comparable priced gas engine and I'll buy.p



Sure. Who wouldn't. But such is the way choices work. Some need to seat 8, and demand cross country trip capability on zero notice. Some of us need seating for 1 or 2 or 4, and desire to never go to one of those locations where they demand $4/gal to buy foreign fuel versus the American produced, distributed and delivered to our door cheaply kind.


----------



## RGR

Katzndogz said:


> No one needs to flame the Volt.  It is quite capable of failing on its own.  In fact, all hybrids and electrics are failing on their own.  There will be too few repeat purchasers.   In the case of hybrids, the more owners today that there are, the fewer owners there will be in the future.



At the end of the last entry, there were no hybrids. Now, in the 2nd decade of this century, Toyota alone has sold more than a million, within the past 5 years America has designed, tested, mass produced and been selling a car which runs as well as any other family sedan around, is just as quiet, and doesn't require frequent visits to the local "please take my money and send it to Canada or Hugo Chavez or Nigeria" station. The tide, in that time frame, doesn't appear to be going out quite yet.


----------



## RGR

Big Fitz said:


> For long distance driving, you should have gotten a VW GTI/Golf Diesel. That's about the best there is for hiway miles... just don't get to excited about the room you have in it.



Toyota Camry hybrid, 40mpg+, 500-600 miles of range, 2AZ-FXE motor (about as reliable a engine as Toyota makes), room for 4 plus dog and a weeks worth of junk in the trunk for grandma's house. And regular gas is cheaper than diesel in most places, plus you don't get VW reliability (hey! who turned on the CEL! AGAIN!)


----------



## Liability

Chestnuts roasting on an open Volt.


----------



## Papageorgio

RGR said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as your comment of someone driving a F350 being necessary, it is a choice, just like your choice.
> 
> There is a day coming with new hybrids and electric cars that states are going to tax you for the miles you drive. Oregon is already looking at new revenue production for the higher mileage car.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed that as well. Fortunately, Oregon (otherwise known as California North) doesn't represent "regular" America, I doubt many others will follow such a path. It smacks of left coast "how dare you do what I demand (drive less) thereby depriving me of a revenue stream designed to create such behavior in the first place, now I must find another way to take your money away from you".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That all said, get me a car that I know will go long distances, holds eight and runs on electric, all for a price that is the same as comparable priced gas engine and I'll buy.p
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Who wouldn't. But such is the way choices work. Some need to seat 8, and demand cross country trip capability on zero notice. Some of us need seating for 1 or 2 or 4, and desire to never go to one of those locations where they demand $4/gal to buy foreign fuel versus the American produced, distributed and delivered to our door cheaply kind.
Click to expand...


States start losing money, they will find a way to generate more revenue.


----------



## Papageorgio

Big Fitz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bought a Prius last week. Still have half a tank of gas + (11.5 Gal tank) and have 285 miles on it as of this morning. We'll be taking a ride this morning to Half Moon Bay (near where the Maverick's big wave contest is held) for a Dungeness Crab lunch. I expect we will have plenty of gas after the round trip of around 120 miles.
> 
> Battery, BTW, has a 150,000 warranty, drive train 100,000 and the first two years include all maintenance.
> 
> We would have bought the Volt, but at $42,500 or so it was nearly $20,000 more than we paid for the Prius.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for exemplifying why I don't like Toyota Pious owners. It's like buying a Chihuahua for your purse as a status symbol or adopting a child from a third world nation.
> 
> That said, they are good for urban stop/start driving, if you don't suck at driving. For long distance driving, you should have gotten a VW GTI/Golf Diesel. That's about the best there is for hiway miles... just don't get to excited about the room you have in it.
Click to expand...


I'd never own another VW, to many electrical issues, just my experience and yes, Prius owners are annoying. 

We had a cab company, a few years ago they open and bought all Prius', the company is no longer, it drives like it's size.


----------



## RGR

Papageorgio said:


> States start losing money, they will find a way to generate more revenue.



Yes, but the ones which combine such behavior with social engineering are just loathsome.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Big Fitz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bought a Prius last week. Still have half a tank of gas + (11.5 Gal tank) and have 285 miles on it as of this morning. We'll be taking a ride this morning to Half Moon Bay (near where the Maverick's big wave contest is held) for a Dungeness Crab lunch. I expect we will have plenty of gas after the round trip of around 120 miles.
> 
> Battery, BTW, has a 150,000 warranty, drive train 100,000 and the first two years include all maintenance.
> 
> We would have bought the Volt, but at $42,500 or so it was nearly $20,000 more than we paid for the Prius.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for exemplifying why I don't like Toyota Pious owners. It's like buying a Chihuahua for your purse as a status symbol or adopting a child from a third world nation.
> 
> That said, they are good for urban stop/start driving, if you don't suck at driving. For long distance driving, you should have gotten a VW GTI/Golf Diesel. That's about the best there is for hiway miles... just don't get to excited about the room you have in it.
Click to expand...


I don't like small dogs and have never liked small cars.  I drive a Honda Odyssey, before that I had Chevy and Dodge Vans (used for camping, tailgating at 9er games and surfboard and kayak transport); the Prius is our second get-about vehicle and my wife and son will be driving the Prius most of the time.  That said I drove it today to Half Moon Bay with my wife, her mom and my oldest son.  I'm 6'2" and my son is 6" even and we had plenty of room.  We now have 476 miles on the Prius and still have two bars on the gas gauge.  I'll fill up tomorrow but I'm sure we are getting at least 50 MPG (city and highway combined).

I don't understand why some are so down on new technology (well I do, but I'll leave that for the politics or flame thread).

Years ago I drove a 220 D MBZ Diesel.  Nice car but twice I needed AAA to rescue me in the snow when the fuel system froze.


----------



## martinjlm

Papageorgio said:


> Not big into subsidizing any business.
> 
> .......
> Only 10,000 have been sold since it was built, it seems to me, no one is supporting the VOLT.



Let's not confuse capacity with demand.  The 2011 target for sales of Volt was set at 10,000 because that's all that was expected to be produced on a new assembly line not yet running at full capacity.  For that reason, sales were limited to only a handful of states



Papageorgio said:


> So liberals are not really buying them either but the liberals want everyone to support what they aren't supporting?
> 
> How many liberals on this forum own a VOLT?
> 
> If you don't own one, why are you not supporting it?



I'm not a liberal, but I lease one and I (we, actually... Wife drives it most) are more happy with this car than any other car we've owned in the almost 20 years we've been married. And we've owned some really good cars.

The issue is not a matter if should liberals be supporting a car.  The QUESTION is why are far-right conservatives going way out of their way to  attack a car?  The question is rhetorical.


----------



## martinjlm

Skull Pilot said:


> More People Are Buying Hybrid Cars. So Why Won't They Stick With Them? - Forbes
> 
> 65% of hybrid owners won't buy another one.
> 
> So hybrids obviously ain't as great as you people think



The 65% stat on hybrids is true.  But here's another stat.....Consumer Reports says that 93% of Volt owners would purchase the vehicle again.  Number two was a tie between Dodge Challenger and Porsche 911 at 91%.

Thing is, even though the media calls the Volt a hybrid, what it really is is an electric vehicle with a backup plan.  So people are pleasantly surprised at how much driving they can do with no gas at all.   Everyone I've communicated with personally and on the Internet who has a Volt has exceeded the sticker mileage.  We're at about 2,200 miles and still only burned 2.7 gallons of gas.  The engine hasn't even turned on in almost a month.  True hybrid vehicles have the gas engine running most of the time.


----------



## martinjlm

Let's face it.....the Volt is such a flawed concept that within the next 3 years there will be 6 more car companies bringing vehicles to the market that operate on the same electric vehicle with on-board generator system as the Volt.  Yup, some very well heeled car companies are lining up to duplicate Chevrolet's "mistake".  And at this point, it appears that EVERY ONE OF THEM will be priced higher than the Volt is priced today.  I take that back....not certain where the Hyundai is likely to be priced.


----------



## Big Fitz

martinjlm said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> More People Are Buying Hybrid Cars. So Why Won't They Stick With Them? - Forbes
> 
> 65% of hybrid owners won't buy another one.
> 
> So hybrids obviously ain't as great as you people think
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 65% stat on hybrids is true.  But here's another stat.....Consumer Reports says that 93% of Volt owners would purchase the vehicle again.  Number two was a tie between Dodge Challenger and Porsche 911 at 91%.
> 
> Thing is, even though the media calls the Volt a hybrid, what it really is is an electric vehicle with a backup plan.  So people are pleasantly surprised at how much driving they can do with no gas at all.   Everyone I've communicated with personally and on the Internet who has a Volt has exceeded the sticker mileage.  We're at about 2,200 miles and still only burned 2.7 gallons of gas.  The engine hasn't even turned on in almost a month.  True hybrid vehicles have the gas engine running most of the time.
Click to expand...

I wonder what the political affiliation of those who purchase them.  Same with the Toyota Pious.


----------



## martinjlm

Big Fitz said:


> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> More People Are Buying Hybrid Cars. So Why Won't They Stick With Them? - Forbes
> 
> 65% of hybrid owners won't buy another one.
> 
> So hybrids obviously ain't as great as you people think
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 65% stat on hybrids is true.  But here's another stat.....Consumer Reports says that 93% of Volt owners would purchase the vehicle again.  Number two was a tie between Dodge Challenger and Porsche 911 at 91%.
> 
> Thing is, even though the media calls the Volt a hybrid, what it really is is an electric vehicle with a backup plan.  So people are pleasantly surprised at how much driving they can do with no gas at all.   Everyone I've communicated with personally and on the Internet who has a Volt has exceeded the sticker mileage.  We're at about 2,200 miles and still only burned 2.7 gallons of gas.  The engine hasn't even turned on in almost a month.  True hybrid vehicles have the gas engine running most of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wonder what the *political affiliation of those who purchase them*.  Same with the Toyota Pious.
Click to expand...


......and that is important because............?


----------



## westwall

RGR said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> For long distance driving, you should have gotten a VW GTI/Golf Diesel. That's about the best there is for hiway miles... just don't get to excited about the room you have in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toyota Camry hybrid, 40mpg+, 500-600 miles of range, 2AZ-FXE motor (about as reliable a engine as Toyota makes), room for 4 plus dog and a weeks worth of junk in the trunk for grandma's house. And regular gas is cheaper than diesel in most places, plus you don't get VW reliability (hey! who turned on the CEL! AGAIN!)
Click to expand...






Ford Focus turbo diesel 67 mpg and seats four comfortably.


Equipped with a 104-horsepower, 1.6-liter Duratorq diesel I-4, Ford claims the Focus Econetic is capable of 80 Imperial Miles per gallon. Converting from the European testing cycle to the scale we use can be trickyas the testing criteria and conditions are differentbut that translates roughly to 67 mpg ( U.S.). This is achieved using a combination of new engine technologies and various aerodynamic enhancements.

The Duratorq diesel engine features  a common rail system capable of generating 23,200 PSI injection pressures. Low-friction materials are used in the piston rings, helping to reduce resistance inside the engine. Further helping efficiency is a variable pressure oil pump, which was designed to lubricate the engines internals more effectively.


Read more: 67-mpg Turbo Diesel Ford Focus Bound for UK - Rumor Central


----------



## Big Fitz

No reason.


----------



## Big Fitz

westwall said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> For long distance driving, you should have gotten a VW GTI/Golf Diesel. That's about the best there is for hiway miles... just don't get to excited about the room you have in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toyota Camry hybrid, 40mpg+, 500-600 miles of range, 2AZ-FXE motor (about as reliable a engine as Toyota makes), room for 4 plus dog and a weeks worth of junk in the trunk for grandma's house. And regular gas is cheaper than diesel in most places, plus you don't get VW reliability (hey! who turned on the CEL! AGAIN!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ford Focus turbo diesel 67 mpg and seats four comfortably.
> 
> 
> Equipped with a 104-horsepower, 1.6-liter Duratorq diesel I-4, Ford claims the Focus Econetic is capable of 80 Imperial Miles per gallon. Converting from the European testing cycle to the scale we use can be trickyas the testing criteria and conditions are differentbut that translates roughly to 67 mpg ( U.S.). This is achieved using a combination of new engine technologies and various aerodynamic enhancements.
> 
> The Duratorq diesel engine features  a common rail system capable of generating 23,200 PSI injection pressures. Low-friction materials are used in the piston rings, helping to reduce resistance inside the engine. Further helping efficiency is a variable pressure oil pump, which was designed to lubricate the engines internals more effectively.
> 
> 
> Read more: 67-mpg Turbo Diesel Ford Focus Bound for UK - Rumor Central
Click to expand...

As with all Fords it seems, buy new, trade in on time.


----------



## westwall

Big Fitz said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Toyota Camry hybrid, 40mpg+, 500-600 miles of range, 2AZ-FXE motor (about as reliable a engine as Toyota makes), room for 4 plus dog and a weeks worth of junk in the trunk for grandma's house. And regular gas is cheaper than diesel in most places, plus you don't get VW reliability (hey! who turned on the CEL! AGAIN!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ford Focus turbo diesel 67 mpg and seats four comfortably.
> 
> 
> Equipped with a 104-horsepower, 1.6-liter Duratorq diesel I-4, Ford claims the Focus Econetic is capable of 80 Imperial Miles per gallon. Converting from the European testing cycle to the scale we use can be trickyas the testing criteria and conditions are differentbut that translates roughly to 67 mpg ( U.S.). This is achieved using a combination of new engine technologies and various aerodynamic enhancements.
> 
> The Duratorq diesel engine features  a common rail system capable of generating 23,200 PSI injection pressures. Low-friction materials are used in the piston rings, helping to reduce resistance inside the engine. Further helping efficiency is a variable pressure oil pump, which was designed to lubricate the engines internals more effectively.
> 
> 
> Read more: 67-mpg Turbo Diesel Ford Focus Bound for UK - Rumor Central
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As with all Fords it seems, buy new, trade in on time.
Click to expand...





Yep.  However there are VW's out there with turbo diesels that have been getting up to 70mpg for years.


----------



## Buford

How much did the govt give to Henry Ford to start his car business?


----------



## Liability

The VOLT flames the Volt.


----------



## RGR

westwall said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> For long distance driving, you should have gotten a VW GTI/Golf Diesel. That's about the best there is for hiway miles... just don't get to excited about the room you have in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toyota Camry hybrid, 40mpg+, 500-600 miles of range, 2AZ-FXE motor (about as reliable a engine as Toyota makes), room for 4 plus dog and a weeks worth of junk in the trunk for grandma's house. And regular gas is cheaper than diesel in most places, plus you don't get VW reliability (hey! who turned on the CEL! AGAIN!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ford Focus turbo diesel 67 mpg and seats four comfortably.
Click to expand...


Hey, if I could buy one of those at my local Ford dealership I would. But they don't have any, so I'll stick with something else for now. I think it is a crime that we can't get those European turbo-diesels though, VW is the only game in town right now, and they just don't cut the quality mustard.


----------



## RGR

Liability said:


> The VOLT flames the Volt.



Oh yes, especially when compared to all those other cars, right?


----------



## westwall

RGR said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Toyota Camry hybrid, 40mpg+, 500-600 miles of range, 2AZ-FXE motor (about as reliable a engine as Toyota makes), room for 4 plus dog and a weeks worth of junk in the trunk for grandma's house. And regular gas is cheaper than diesel in most places, plus you don't get VW reliability (hey! who turned on the CEL! AGAIN!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ford Focus turbo diesel 67 mpg and seats four comfortably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, if I could buy one of those at my local Ford dealership I would. But they don't have any, so I'll stick with something else for now. I think it is a crime that we can't get those European turbo-diesels though, VW is the only game in town right now, and they just don't cut the quality mustard.
Click to expand...





My friend has a TDI Jetta and it is quite good.  He's racked up over 200,000 miles on it in 8 years and it's still going strong.  I think the average mpg he gets is around 47-48, but he has been able to milk 60 on a few occasions when he concentrated on it.


----------



## RGR

westwall said:


> My friend has a TDI Jetta and it is quite good.  He's racked up over 200,000 miles on it in 8 years and it's still going strong.  I think the average mpg he gets is around 47-48, but he has been able to milk 60 on a few occasions when he concentrated on it.



Some are good. My buddy bought his new Jetta TDI about the last time I seriously considered getting one. The CEL was on before he could get his new car home. I talked my insurance agent into getting one, and when he went to the hospital from carbon monoxide leaking into the passenger compartment, I decided to wait until more people have experiences like you have mentioned. Between bad MAF sensors, blown turbos, special oil changes and dual friction clutches costing $2G's to replace, let alone the fuel costing enough more to make up the mileage difference on a Camry, I'll stick with something else until a European diesel shows up from someone with a better reputation than VW.


----------



## Slapshot28

You all should read this thread: Thank you all - from a former soldier, from me and my wife, former US Air Force..


----------



## onecut39

Let's see what the reviews say:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyDKiETQIX0&feature=related]Chevrolet Volt Review - Everyday Driver - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## flacaltenn

martinjlm said:


> Just thought I'd infect this thread with a third party opinion that contains <gulp> facts.....
> 
> In Defense of the Chevy Volt - Rick Newman (usnews.com)
> 
> And a quick update.....
> Time with Volt: 2 months, 2 days
> Mileage:  just over 2,000
> Gas used: 2.7 gallons (still has 6.3 gallons of dealer gas in it)
> Last time engine turned on: Hmmmmm.  Can't remember, but I'm thinking maybe 3-4 weeks ago.



Yeah -- all those wonderful testimonials -- while the rest of us are bombarded with dozens of TV/Radio per week telling us we have to pull our phone chargers out of the wall when not in use.. 

All so you superior earth-savers can wire your house with extra 2.5 KW circuits to feed your coal-fired baby for 6 or 8 hours. 

What'da'ya' think would happen if 4 Million of these went into garages in Cali next week? 

Think the lights are dimming NOW? You gotta ask -- what problem are we solving? and what needs to happen FIRST.


----------



## GHook93

Everyone right or left should be rooting for the Volt, Leaf, Model S and the electric car!!!

I like this piece


> For those with short commutes, it could be months between fill-ups.


----------



## flacaltenn

Which is it ECO-NAUTS??? 

Are we so short of electricity that we have to pull chargers out of the wall and replace all our lightbulbs to CONSERVE ---

OR 

We have SOOO MUCH electricity that we should ENCOURAGE folks to be adding 2.5KW circuits to their house and charging their cars for 6 or 8 hours a day.. 

Who's confused here? Which are we wasting --- The $MILLs on the Conservation Campaign --- or the SUBSIDIES for EVs? 

You folks need a meeting to resolve this mixed message...


----------



## GHook93

chikenwing said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read that. Good OpEd.
> 
> So much for the right's claim to be "pro-business".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they don't stop at the gas station,but instead need to visit the coal mine. Be honest about energy,requirements,they don't run on pennies a day.
Click to expand...


I prefer coal over oil? I perfer stationary sources (which are easier to fuel, more efficient by far and a better long term solution)!


----------



## flacaltenn

GHook93 said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read that. Good OpEd.
> 
> So much for the right's claim to be "pro-business".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they don't stop at the gas station,but instead need to visit the coal mine. Be honest about energy,requirements,they don't run on pennies a day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I prefer coal over oil? I perfer stationary sources (which are easier to fuel, more efficient by far and a better long term solution)!
Click to expand...


Your EV is cleaner and less of health hazard running off of gas than it is getting fed from the wall in your garage.


----------



## flacaltenn

Don't want this thread to go dark before I get an answer to this from all those enthusiastic EV fanantics.

I REALLY REALLY REALLY need an answer to this one.... 




flacaltenn said:


> Which is it ECO-NAUTS???
> 
> Are we so short of electricity that we have to pull chargers out of the wall and replace all our lightbulbs to CONSERVE ---
> 
> OR
> 
> We have SOOO MUCH electricity that we should ENCOURAGE folks to be adding 2.5KW circuits to their house and charging their cars for 6 or 8 hours a day..
> 
> Who's confused here? Which are we wasting --- The $MILLs on the Conservation Campaign --- or the SUBSIDIES for EVs?
> 
> You folks need a meeting to resolve this mixed message...



BTW --- I'm NOT on the RIGHT -- and THIS is NOT flaming...


----------



## ScienceRocks

If the battery could hold 3 times the energy and was around a third the price. Would the volt be economical?


----------



## Old Rocks

flacaltenn said:


> Don't want this thread to go dark before I get an answer to this from all those enthusiastic EV fanantics.
> 
> I REALLY REALLY REALLY need an answer to this one....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is it ECO-NAUTS???
> 
> Are we so short of electricity that we have to pull chargers out of the wall and replace all our lightbulbs to CONSERVE ---
> 
> OR
> 
> We have SOOO MUCH electricity that we should ENCOURAGE folks to be adding 2.5KW circuits to their house and charging their cars for 6 or 8 hours a day..
> 
> Who's confused here? Which are we wasting --- The $MILLs on the Conservation Campaign --- or the SUBSIDIES for EVs?
> 
> You folks need a meeting to resolve this mixed message...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW --- I'm NOT on the RIGHT -- and THIS is NOT flaming...
Click to expand...


You can buy a 5.8 kw of solar panels for $6200. Use a grid parrallel invertor, and you have power for both your home and charging your car. The EV is also a very large battery, could serve as such in a weather disaster when the grid is down.  

But, of course, it is far easier to stand out in left field doing the neener-neener number than to look at the real engineering oppretunities presented by the developments in batteries and EV's.


----------



## flacaltenn

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't want this thread to go dark before I get an answer to this from all those enthusiastic EV fanantics.
> 
> I REALLY REALLY REALLY need an answer to this one....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is it ECO-NAUTS???
> 
> Are we so short of electricity that we have to pull chargers out of the wall and replace all our lightbulbs to CONSERVE ---
> 
> OR
> 
> We have SOOO MUCH electricity that we should ENCOURAGE folks to be adding 2.5KW circuits to their house and charging their cars for 6 or 8 hours a day..
> 
> Who's confused here? Which are we wasting --- The $MILLs on the Conservation Campaign --- or the SUBSIDIES for EVs?
> 
> You folks need a meeting to resolve this mixed message...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW --- I'm NOT on the RIGHT -- and THIS is NOT flaming...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can buy a 5.8 kw of solar panels for $6200. Use a grid parrallel invertor, and you have power for both your home and charging your car. The EV is also a very large battery, could serve as such in a weather disaster when the grid is down.
> 
> But, of course, it is far easier to stand out in left field doing the neener-neener number than to look at the real engineering oppretunities presented by the developments in batteries and EV's.
Click to expand...


And this $10K Investment -- charges my car at night for the next days commute --- how? 

I really don't want to be in the energy generation business. Which is what you're gonna argue we should all do to finance our EVs.. (bad financing venture -- guaranteed to get you further into debt without actually solving pollution or Global Warming).


BTW -- you really didn't answer my question above ^^^^ previous post.. Which is it Rocks? Need to conserve? or Everyone should buy an EV right NOW?


----------



## Old Rocks

Flatulance, are you senile? Did you see the grid parrallel referance? Perhaps that is something that you don't understand?

So, you don't want to be a producer. Just sit at home, and accept whatever price the electricity cost you. Fine, that is your choice. Others of us see the advantage of being both a producer and a consumer of electricity. 

Tell me, have you purchased all your vehicles for cash? Never financed any of them? So what is the differance between financing and EV and a ICE powered vehicle?

The path I outlined is conserving. The amount of electricity those panels would generate during the day would pay for all that you would use in your home and vehicle, unless you are just profligate in your use of energy. So owning an EV and a 5+ kw sytem actually adds to the amount of electricity available on the grid.


----------



## PredFan

From what I've heard, the Volt is quite capable of flaming itself thank you!


----------



## Old Rocks

PredFan said:


> From what I've heard, the Volt is quite capable of flaming itself thank you!



Heard, but not researched. Ah well, what is one to expect.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Old Rocks said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I've heard, the Volt is quite capable of flaming itself thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heard, but not researched. Ah well, what is one to expect.
Click to expand...



I wonder what will be said when the volt around 2016(maybe later) gets the new battery tech: 3-5 times the density of energy and 1/3rds the cost. 

Can you imagine the volt going 200 miles just on battery power.


----------



## flacaltenn

Old Rocks said:


> Flatulance, are you senile? Did you see the grid parrallel referance? Perhaps that is something that you don't understand?
> 
> So, you don't want to be a producer. Just sit at home, and accept whatever price the electricity cost you. Fine, that is your choice. Others of us see the advantage of being both a producer and a consumer of electricity.
> 
> Tell me, have you purchased all your vehicles for cash? Never financed any of them? So what is the differance between financing and EV and a ICE powered vehicle?
> 
> The path I outlined is conserving. The amount of electricity those panels would generate during the day would pay for all that you would use in your home and vehicle, unless you are just profligate in your use of energy. So owning an EV and a 5+ kw sytem actually adds to the amount of electricity available on the grid.



But NOT at the correct times of the day.. What you're suggesting is that the folks who overpaid for the EV go into HOC for another $10K so that they can become energy barrons to finance their "fill-up" at night from a BELEAGURED coal plant that is SOO inadequate, the Govt is spending BILLIONS to get us to conserve. 

None of that makes sense -- unless YOU'RE senile.. Which is evident if you say "the path I outlined is conserving" and in the next sentence say -- ".... actually ADDS to the amount of electricity on the grid".. 

Never DID answer that simple question I posed did Ya? You wanna tell people how easy it is to IGNORE the hypocrisy and the double talk about "alternatives" and Conservation.. 

*Which is ROCKS??? We've got MORE THAN ENOUGH electricity to encourage EV Adoption en masse? *
OR 

*We have to pull the chargers out of the wall when not in use, ban light bulbs and turn our thermostats off??? *

Maybe if you could resolve that mixed message for me --- I'd be more inclined to say a nice word about your silly plan..


----------



## Old Rocks

Flatulance, really dumb. First, the highest load, and highest prices, on the grid is during the day, when solar is contributing. Second, the wind does not blow at night? Hydro doesn't work at night? Ah well, one does not expect real logic from those defending the indefensable.


----------



## flacaltenn

You can't or you won't answer that simple question.. You're "solution" does nothing except create a bubble in supply for 6 hours a day -- leaving the other 18 actually WORSE off as EV adoption increases the load demand. 

All you've done is offered a "guilt solution" that puts EV owners into the energy business with a poor financial return. Leaving the hard problems of how to sustain the grid 24/7/365 to others.

Not a good answer.. Anyone ELSE??? Wanna take a whack at what problem we're solving here?

*Are we so short of electricity that we have to pull chargers out of the wall, turn down our thermostats and replace all our lightbulbs to CONSERVE ---*

OR 

*We have SOOO MUCH electricity that we should ENCOURAGE folks to be adding 2.5KW circuits to their house and charging their cars for 6 or 8 hours a day.. *


----------



## martinjlm

flacaltenn said:


> Which is it ECO-NAUTS???
> 
> Are we so short of electricity that we have to pull chargers out of the wall and replace all our lightbulbs to CONSERVE ---
> 
> OR
> 
> We have SOOO MUCH electricity that we should ENCOURAGE folks to be adding 2.5KW circuits to their house and charging their cars for 6 or 8 hours a day..
> 
> Who's confused here? Which are we wasting --- The $MILLs on the Conservation Campaign --- or the SUBSIDIES for EVs?
> 
> You folks need a meeting to resolve this mixed message...



Don't need a meeting, just good old' common sense.  The recommendation for people to unplug wall warts and use lower energy bulbs is to save the CONSUMER money, because there is a trickle of electricity consumed with the wall warts plugged in.  And let's face it......the newer lightbulbs give off the same light while consuming less energy (resulting in a few extra pennies in your pocket). It does not reflect or even suggest a shortage of electrical capacity.  Electricity is like Doritos.....they can make more.

At the end of the day, the bump in my electricity bill is at most $40 per month.  I save that in gas in a week.

FWIW.....currently over 4,900 miles on 3.2 gallons of gas (still on original tankful from dealer) plus $40 electricity x 5 months.  Works for me.

As for the "what would would happen if 4 million EV's plugged in at the same time?.....". Not even worth considering given that it is not possible.  The auto industry doesn't have the capacity to produce enough EVs to get 4 million in the hands of customers, assuming customers even want them.  So let's not get focused on eliminating an option based on a scenario that is not even possible.  By the time the industry is capable of providing vehicles at that volume, there will be substantial upgrades to the grid that would handle the volume available.


----------



## flacaltenn

martinjlm said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is it ECO-NAUTS???
> 
> Are we so short of electricity that we have to pull chargers out of the wall and replace all our lightbulbs to CONSERVE ---
> 
> OR
> 
> We have SOOO MUCH electricity that we should ENCOURAGE folks to be adding 2.5KW circuits to their house and charging their cars for 6 or 8 hours a day..
> 
> Who's confused here? Which are we wasting --- The $MILLs on the Conservation Campaign --- or the SUBSIDIES for EVs?
> 
> You folks need a meeting to resolve this mixed message...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need a meeting, just good old' common sense.  The recommendation for people to unplug wall warts and use lower energy bulbs is to save the CONSUMER money, because there is a trickle of electricity consumed with the wall warts plugged in.  And let's face it......the newer lightbulbs give off the same light while consuming less energy (resulting in a few extra pennies in your pocket). It does not reflect or even suggest a shortage of electrical capacity.  Electricity is like Doritos.....they can make more.
> 
> At the end of the day, the bump in my electricity bill is at most $40 per month.  I save that in gas in a week.
> 
> FWIW.....currently over 4,900 miles on 3.2 gallons of gas (still on original tankful from dealer) plus $40 electricity x 5 months.  Works for me.
> 
> As for the "what would would happen if 4 million EV's plugged in at the same time?.....". Not even worth considering given that it is not possible.  The auto industry doesn't have the capacity to produce enough EVs to get 4 million in the hands of customers, assuming customers even want them.  So let's not get focused on eliminating an option based on a scenario that is not even possible.  By the time the industry is capable of providing vehicles at that volume, there will be substantial upgrades to the grid that would handle the volume available.
Click to expand...


Greetings..

If the object of the constant Govt nagging about pulling chargers, turning off the lights, pushing down the thermostat and hiring "green" contractors to insulate was to save us money -- we wouldn't need so many dollars spent on programs and TV/Radio Ads to do the right thing. Would we? The money being saved is a LOT LESS because of the cost of the nagging programs and subsidies.

It is CLEARLY done in a belief that restricting NEW power generation is gonna save the planet. There's even a term for that belief -- NEGAwatt generation. Thus we will NEVER be incentiventize to create ADEQUATE generation to consider EVs as a viable option if making electricity RARE and EXPENSIVE is preferred to making it CHEAP and PLENTIFUL.. 

An EV user is adding 15 to 20% to their usage off the grid. An inescapable fact. While I'm supposed to be a good citizen and live in the cold and the dark.. 

Which message is it? I've got nothing against shifting transportation energy to the grid. But I'd prefer we build out a Hydrogen infrastructure for transport or a massive addition of nuclear. Because no one wants to build a build a semiconductor plant in Silicon Valley when the state puts industry on rotating outage schedules. 

Think you still need that meeting...


----------



## martinjlm

flacaltenn said:


> ....
> 
> Think you still need that meeting...



only if I believe about a third of what you posted.   I don't.  Meeting adjourned.


----------



## Moonglow

When Reagan bailed out Chrysler, he had the military use the dodge truck in the army. It was a piece of junk, just like the 70's models the starter magneto would never catch until you tried to start it for several minutes.


----------



## westwall

martinjlm said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Think you still need that meeting...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> only if I believe about a third of what you posted.   I don't.  Meeting adjourned.
Click to expand...






The problem, of course, is we don't believe much of what you say either.


----------



## martinjlm

Moonglow said:


> When Reagan bailed out Chrysler, he had the military use the dodge truck in the army. It was a piece of junk, just like the 70's models the starter magneto would never catch until you tried to start it for several minutes.



And that applies to a discussion on the Chevrolet Volt because..............


----------



## martinjlm

westwall said:


> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Think you still need that meeting...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> only if I believe about a third of what you posted.   I don't.  Meeting adjourned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem, of course, is we don't believe much of what you say either.
Click to expand...


I'm crushed.......but the facts do tend to stand on their own


----------



## flacaltenn

martinjlm said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> 
> only if I believe about a third of what you posted.   I don't.  Meeting adjourned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem, of course, is we don't believe much of what you say either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm crushed.......but the facts do tend to stand on their own
Click to expand...


Look jlm -- If it was such a great investment, we have adequate energy to support it on the grid, and there WAS no MIXED MESSAGE about restricting build-out of additional electricity and the grid ---- 

Why don't we cut the subsidies and just GIVE the Post Office an all-electric EV fleet?? 

Start with California because they've already got wildly screwed up mandates for meeting EV deployments. And their lights are barely on anymore anyway...


----------



## martinjlm

flacaltenn said:


> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem, of course, is we don't believe much of what you say either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm crushed.......but the facts do tend to stand on their own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look jlm -- If it was such a great investment, we have adequate energy to support it on the grid, and there WAS no MIXED MESSAGE about restricting build-out of additional electricity and the grid ----
> 
> Why don't we cut the subsidies and just GIVE the Post Office an all-electric EV fleet??
> 
> Start with California because they've already got wildly screwed up mandates for meeting EV deployments. And their lights are barely on anymore anyway...
Click to expand...


Now THAT my friend, is a very good question.  The issues that I have witnessed wrt adding to the grid is not a question of if ( I think the answer there has been "yes, do add") but HOW to do so in a manner that will be ecologically neutral or ecologically friendly.  I see lots of discussion about adding hydro, wind power, nuclear and other replenishable methods of power generation at the same time that I see discussion about taking coal based power generation offline.

I do not know all the incremental details around this, as the power industry is not one that interests me.  The automotive industry, however, interests me greatly and allows me to be able to pay DTE Energy for what I take out of the grid.  

As for the subsidies.....they are not specific to specific products.  The point of the subsidies is to energize the car buying public to consider electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids.  It's sort of a chicken and egg thing.  

The development of clean energy cars will not continue unless people buy enough cars to give car companies incentive to build them.  
People won't buy clean energy cars until there is infrastructure to charge them and the prices come down
Infrastructure providers won't build infrastructure until they know people will buy cars to use the infrastructure 
 Prices won't come down unless automakers have some reason to believe they can produce and market clean energy vehicles without taking a cash bath, so we're back to the beginning of the circular argument.

What the federal government is doing to jump start the process is to say " here Mr. And Ms. Consumer, is a short term opportunity to use some of the federal tax-money you've paid over the years to get out in front of the curve and buy a technologically advanced vehicle". Now, contrary to what a lot of people on this site may believe......

There is a sunset on this incentive
GM and the Chevrolet Volt are NOT the only vehicles eligible for this incentive, just the most popular so far.  The Ford Focus Electric, The Tesla S, and several products made by Japanese automakers are all eligible for all or part of the incentive, depending on motor power and battery size.
How long the incentive window lasts is directly tied to how many vehicles a company has sold that are eligible for the incentive, then that company can no longer extend the incentive to customers.

The point is to get people to buy enough electrically powered vehicles to provide automakers the incentive to continue development and to provide incentive for power companies and equipment providers like Coulomb Technologies (makes charging stations) to spend the time, money and resources on development of products that will allow renewable energy sourced vehicles a chance to grow in the marketplace.

One other tidbit.  The Chinese government is heavily subsidizing the development of electric vehicles, batteries, and electric motors.  Several European companies are subsidizing the development of renewable energy powered vehicles, including battery electrics and fuel cells.  A growing number of large European cities are setting up zero emissions zones where only vehicles capable of running on electric only are allowed to enter.  If US based automakers are not in a mode to develop hybrids, electric vehicles, and fuel cells, the US auto industry will go the way of the US steel industry, the US television industry, and the dodo bird and companies subsidized by other governments will control the US market.


----------



## martinjlm

flacaltenn,

Just an additional note.....providing EVs to the Post Office only is a short term approach to a long term issue.  FWIW, all US companies have in one way or another worked with the Post Office, The Department of Energy, various branches of the military and many state governments on short term testing of advanced vehicle product. 

Where we are now is well beyond that.  It is now a question of do we, the US, want to be out front in the development of electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles, or do we want to just chillax and wait for the German, Japanese, and Korean automakers to do that and put hundreds of thousands of American workers out of work?

Between now and 2020, we'll probably only see the combination of hybrids and electrics make up about 10-15% of vehicles sold, but they will be a very important 10-15% because NO automaker, domestic, European, or Asian, will be capable of meeting the fuel economy and greenhouse gas regulations currently in force and under consideration  for the US, Europe, China, or Korea without some volume of electrics and/or hybrids.  I see the product forecasts of a lot of major automakers and I see a LOT of hybrid and electric models on the way to prepare for those tough targets.  Providing vehicles just for California or just for the post office won't balance the equation.  Although these days, most hybrids and electrics START sales in California, they eventually expand outward.


----------



## flacaltenn

Great posts jlm.. Finally -- someone who wants to ponder the hard stuff. 

See -- there are some "meetings" and discussions that need to be had. 

Got to get back to ya later..


----------



## westwall

martinjlm said:


> flacaltenn,
> 
> Just an additional note.....providing EVs to the Post Office only is a short term approach to a long term issue.  FWIW, all US companies have in one way or another worked with the Post Office, The Department of Energy, various branches of the military and many state governments on short term testing of advanced vehicle product.
> 
> Where we are now is well beyond that.  It is now a question of do we, the US, want to be out front in the development of electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles, or do we want to just chillax and wait for the German, Japanese, and Korean automakers to do that and put hundreds of thousands of American workers out of work?
> 
> Between now and 2020, we'll probably only see the combination of hybrids and electrics make up about 10-15% of vehicles sold, but they will be a very important 10-15% because NO automaker, domestic, European, or Asian, will be capable of meeting the fuel economy and greenhouse gas regulations currently in force and under consideration  for the US, Europe, China, or Korea without some volume of electrics and/or hybrids.  I see the product forecasts of a lot of major automakers and I see a LOT of hybrid and electric models on the way to prepare for those tough targets.  Providing vehicles just for California or just for the post office won't balance the equation.  Although these days, most hybrids and electrics START sales in California, they eventually expand outward.







To be quite honest with you I am content to let the other countries spend their money on the research and the perfection of the technology.  Then we can reverse engineer it like they have allways done to us.

I would prefer if our research monies were spent on something truly revolutionary, like fusion or a global electrical sytem such as Tesla envisioned.  Personally, I believe EV's to be a technological dead end.  Tesla's system (if it could be developed) would make EVs a viable option because you would no longer need a battery and all of its attendant weight.

But, absent that, there are other technologies that are more promising in the long run.


----------



## martinjlm

westwall said:


> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn,
> 
> Just an additional note.....providing EVs to the Post Office only is a short term approach to a long term issue.  FWIW, all US companies have in one way or another worked with the Post Office, The Department of Energy, various branches of the military and many state governments on short term testing of advanced vehicle product.
> 
> Where we are now is well beyond that.  It is now a question of do we, the US, want to be out front in the development of electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles, or do we want to just chillax and wait for the German, Japanese, and Korean automakers to do that and put hundreds of thousands of American workers out of work?
> 
> Between now and 2020, we'll probably only see the combination of hybrids and electrics make up about 10-15% of vehicles sold, but they will be a very important 10-15% because NO automaker, domestic, European, or Asian, will be capable of meeting the fuel economy and greenhouse gas regulations currently in force and under consideration  for the US, Europe, China, or Korea without some volume of electrics and/or hybrids.  I see the product forecasts of a lot of major automakers and I see a LOT of hybrid and electric models on the way to prepare for those tough targets.  Providing vehicles just for California or just for the post office won't balance the equation.  Although these days, most hybrids and electrics START sales in California, they eventually expand outward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be quite honest with you I am content to let the other countries spend their money on the research and the perfection of the technology.  Then we can reverse engineer it like they have allways done to us.
Click to expand...


Not a good plan.  Look how well that worked on hybrids.  Even though technical experts will state that the GM Hybrid system used on Escalades and Tahoes is technologically superior to Toyota's Prius system, what is the visual you see when someone says "hybrid"?  And as far as reverse engineering, unless you are in China, there are patent laws that prevent that sorta thing, UNLESS you are willing to add extra cost and inefficiencies in a design to avoid tripping over others' patents.



> I would prefer if our research monies were spent on something truly revolutionary, like fusion or a global electrical sytem such as Tesla envisioned.  Personally, I believe EV's to be a technological dead end.  Tesla's system (if it could be developed) would make EVs a viable option because you would no longer need a battery and all of its attendant weight.
> 
> But, absent that, *there are other technologies that are more promising in the long run.*



Please name them.  Fair warning......automotive technology is my profession.  My BS meter is finely tuned.  While you're at it, can you please point me to any information or company statement where Tesla, an electric car and *battery* manufacturer plans to make an electric car with no batteries?


----------



## flacaltenn

He's not talking about Tesla the car company.. He's talking about Tesla the sparky guy that the company was named after.. It's a long story.. WestWall will no doubt fill ya in (and bury you?) LOL...


----------



## martinjlm

flacaltenn said:


> He's not talking about Tesla the car company.. He's talking about Tesla the sparky guy that the company was named after.. It's a long story.. WestWall will no doubt fill ya in (and bury you?) LOL...




Ahhhh,  well then....glad I specified Tesla *the car and battery company, *
or this coulda gotten REALLY embarrassing.


----------



## flacaltenn

martinjlm said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's not talking about Tesla the car company.. He's talking about Tesla the sparky guy that the company was named after.. It's a long story.. WestWall will no doubt fill ya in (and bury you?) LOL...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh,  well then....glad I specified Tesla *the car and battery company, *
> or this coulda gotten REALLY embarrassing.
Click to expand...


It's part of my newbie outreach program. Trying to save them from getting crushed before they learn to cross the street..


----------



## polarbear

flacaltenn said:


> Which is it ECO-NAUTS???
> 
> Are we so short of electricity that we have to pull chargers out of the wall and replace all our lightbulbs to CONSERVE ---
> 
> OR
> 
> We have SOOO MUCH electricity that we should ENCOURAGE folks to be adding 2.5KW circuits to their house and charging their cars for 6 or 8 hours a day..
> 
> Who's confused here? Which are we wasting --- The $MILLs on the Conservation Campaign --- or the SUBSIDIES for EVs?
> 
> You folks need a meeting to resolve this mixed message...



You won`t have to add any "2.5KW" circuits every house has these. Your hot water tank is on a 20 amp/220 V breaker = 4.4 KW (V* Amps), so is Your clothes drier and Your cook stove is on a 40 amp breaker = almost 9KW. Most houses have a 200 amp main breaker and cottages have a 100 amp. The problem with Lithium batteries is the slow charging time. If You up the "current density" =amps/cm^2 plate surface then You destroy the battery. Lithium is as good as it gets because it is has the highest emf of all elements known to man. Doesn`t matter how much more money "climate scientists" say we should invest, this is as good as it can get.


westwall said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ford Focus turbo diesel 67 mpg and seats four comfortably.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, if I could buy one of those at my local Ford dealership I would. But they don't have any, so I'll stick with something else for now. I think it is a crime that we can't get those European turbo-diesels though, VW is the only game in town right now, and they just don't cut the quality mustard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 1960 my dad bought  a Mercedes 180 for my brother`s 18th birthday,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pre-payed in cash and told him to take the train to Stuttgart to pick it up at the factory. Fritz got there and found out only then that it was a 180 *D*. He was so pissed off and floored it in first gear for about 50 klicks trying to destroy the engine because he wanted a Mercedes SE not the D. After 50 klicks he got bored and kept it on the floor in top gear, then rolled it on the exit ramp. The only real damage done was that the outside mirrors got ripped off. My friend Karl who has a farm in Landsberg bought that 180D from my brother after that for next to nothing and still drives it today using furnace oil for fuel.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dante

Matthew said:


> The Right Flames the Volt
> By JOE NOCERA
> Published: April 6, 2012
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/07/o...mes-the-volt.html?_r=3&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
> 
> 
> 
> It was Thursday morning and several dozen owners of the new Chevrolet Volt had gathered at a restaurant overlooking the East River. Across town, the New York International Auto Show was in full swing. The Volt, of course, is the innovative electric car from General Motors, and G.M. was using the occasion of the auto show to meet with Volt owners.
> 
> Between bites of eggs and bacon, the Volt owners gushed about how well the car drove  and how much gasoline they were saving. They were early adopters, of course, willing to pay a high price ($40,000 before a $7,500 tax credit) to get their hands on a new technology. Many of them had become nearly obsessed with avoiding the gas station; for those with short commutes, it could be months between fill-ups.
> 
> What is the connection between President Obama and the Volt? There is none. The car was the brainchild of Bob Lutz, a legendary auto executive who is about as liberal as the Koch brothers. The tax credit  which is part of the reason conservatives hate the car  became law during the Bush administration.
> 
> Its nuts, said Lutz, when I spoke to him earlier in the week. This is a significant achievement in the auto industry. There are so many legitimate things to criticize Obama about. It is inexplicable that the right would feel the need to tell lies about the Volt to attack the president.



Its nuts, 

that's what the GOP has become today


----------



## westwall

martinjlm said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn,
> 
> Just an additional note.....providing EVs to the Post Office only is a short term approach to a long term issue.  FWIW, all US companies have in one way or another worked with the Post Office, The Department of Energy, various branches of the military and many state governments on short term testing of advanced vehicle product.
> 
> Where we are now is well beyond that.  It is now a question of do we, the US, want to be out front in the development of electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles, or do we want to just chillax and wait for the German, Japanese, and Korean automakers to do that and put hundreds of thousands of American workers out of work?
> 
> Between now and 2020, we'll probably only see the combination of hybrids and electrics make up about 10-15% of vehicles sold, but they will be a very important 10-15% because NO automaker, domestic, European, or Asian, will be capable of meeting the fuel economy and greenhouse gas regulations currently in force and under consideration  for the US, Europe, China, or Korea without some volume of electrics and/or hybrids.  I see the product forecasts of a lot of major automakers and I see a LOT of hybrid and electric models on the way to prepare for those tough targets.  Providing vehicles just for California or just for the post office won't balance the equation.  Although these days, most hybrids and electrics START sales in California, they eventually expand outward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be quite honest with you I am content to let the other countries spend their money on the research and the perfection of the technology.  Then we can reverse engineer it like they have allways done to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a good plan.  Look how well that worked on hybrids.  Even though technical experts will state that the GM Hybrid system used on Escalades and Tahoes is technologically superior to Toyota's Prius system, what is the visual you see when someone says "hybrid"?  And as far as reverse engineering, unless you are in China, there are patent laws that prevent that sorta thing, UNLESS you are willing to add extra cost and inefficiencies in a design to avoid tripping over others' patents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would prefer if our research monies were spent on something truly revolutionary, like fusion or a global electrical sytem such as Tesla envisioned.  Personally, I believe EV's to be a technological dead end.  Tesla's system (if it could be developed) would make EVs a viable option because you would no longer need a battery and all of its attendant weight.
> 
> But, absent that, *there are other technologies that are more promising in the long run.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please name them.  Fair warning......automotive technology is my profession.  My BS meter is finely tuned.  While you're at it, can you please point me to any information or company statement where Tesla, an electric car and *battery* manufacturer plans to make an electric car with no batteries?
Click to expand...







You tell me the benefit of spending billions of dollars to have China reverse engineer a technology and then produce it for one 20th of what it would cost us thereby denying the inventor the ability to recoup their investment.  Not smart at all.

New technologies that are better would be fuel cell and hydrogen fuel.

Nicola Tesla (the inventor of alternating current and the designer of our modern electrical systems, he also invented radio controlled vehicles in the late 1890's, in other words a true genius) envisioned a electtrical system where energy was pumped into the Earths magnetic field and all a consumer would need to do is have an antenna that allowed them to get the electricity they needed.  That's the whole purpose of the Tesla coil.  Imagine a gridless world where whatever energy you needed was readily available without wires of any sort.


----------



## martinjlm

westwall said:


> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be quite honest with you I am content to let the other countries spend their money on the research and the perfection of the technology.  Then we can reverse engineer it like they have allways done to us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a good plan.  Look how well that worked on hybrids.  Even though technical experts will state that the GM Hybrid system used on Escalades and Tahoes is technologically superior to Toyota's Prius system, what is the visual you see when someone says "hybrid"?  And as far as reverse engineering, unless you are in China, there are patent laws that prevent that sorta thing, UNLESS you are willing to add extra cost and inefficiencies in a design to avoid tripping over others' patents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would prefer if our research monies were spent on something truly revolutionary, like fusion or a global electrical sytem such as Tesla envisioned.  Personally, I believe EV's to be a technological dead end.  Tesla's system (if it could be developed) would make EVs a viable option because you would no longer need a battery and all of its attendant weight.
> 
> But, absent that, *there are other technologies that are more promising in the long run.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please name them.  Fair warning......automotive technology is my profession.  My BS meter is finely tuned.  While you're at it, can you please point me to any information or company statement where Tesla, an electric car and *battery* manufacturer plans to make an electric car with no batteries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You tell me the benefit of spending billions of dollars to have China reverse engineer a technology and then produce it for one 20th of what it would cost us thereby denying the inventor the ability to recoup their investment.  Not smart at all.
Click to expand...


I think you are misunderstanding my point about China.  I am not suggesting that companies should use China to reverse engineer product, then produce and sell it at reduced price.  I am saying that it is commonplace in China for Chinese companies to reverse engineer, or even worse, steal intellectual property of US, European, and Japanese companies that do business there.  They pretty much get a wink and a nod from Chinese political and legal entities.  Sometimes they are forced to apologize, but they are rarely if ever forced to stop or to compensate.  China often requires that companies wishing to do business in China manufacture in China and in some cases forces sharing of intellectual property with local Chinese companies.  Here's an example of Chinese reverse engineering.......

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/07/23/cadillac-escalade-ext-gets-the-bad-chinese-knock-off-treatment/



> New technologies that are better would be fuel cell and hydrogen fuel.



A lot of car companies are and have been for some time working on developing fuel cell vehicles.  They simply aren't ready for prime time yet and probably won't be for some time.  I've test driven fuel cell vehicles myself and can see that from a _functional _ standpoint, they are viable.  From a bringing to market standpoint, there's a lot still to be done.  As for hydrogen fuel (conversion of internal combustion engine to run on hydrogen fuel) BMW has run that play and is now backing off of it in favor of continued development of fuel cell technology.  You can probably pick up a BMW Hydrogen7 for pretty cheap these days.

GM, Honda, and Toyota all have restricted fleets of fuel cell vehicles running around.  The GM program, about 100+ fuel cell equipped Chevrolet Equinox vehicles, has been putting fuel cell vehicles in the hands of carefully selected private citizens for years.  Those selected get to use the vehicle for several months, then they give them back and they're moved on to the next person.  Honda's program, featuring the Honda Clarity sedan, has offered the Clarity to lessees in So. Cal. for several years.  Honda planned for up to 300 units in commerce.  So far, somewhere less than 50 people have opted in.

Three things (that I am aware of) are holding back fuel cell applications.....
Reducing the size of the fuel stack to a reasonable size while maintaining a useable vehicle travel range
Having hydrogen refilling infrastructure available so vehicle isn't limited to a 1/2 tank radius of travel
Cost.  Same chicken and egg scenario I described for hybrids and electrics.  E cost for the system needs to come down from the 10s of 1,000s to the 1,000s.

Sounds eerily familiar to where battery electric vehicles were several years ago and where hybrids were before that.  Toyota has stated that they will have a widely available fuel cell vehicle available for around $50K by 2015.  I"ll be watching to see how they manage the infrastructure issue.




> Nicola Tesla (the inventor of alternating current and the designer of our modern electrical systems, he also invented radio controlled vehicles in the late 1890's, in other words a true genius) envisioned a electtrical system where energy was pumped into the Earths magnetic field and all a consumer would need to do is have an antenna that allowed them to get the electricity they needed.  That's the whole purpose of the Tesla coil.  Imagine a gridless world where whatever energy you needed was readily available without wires of any sort.



Yeah, I know who Nicola Tesla was.  I mistook your early statement as referring to Tesla the company, not Tesla the man, and I responded accordingly.

I would think that the type of revolutionary change in energy delivery you describe is beyond the perview of the auto industry and better managed by energy providers.


----------



## Katzndogz

If you think the Volt was a too expensive boondoggle, wait until you see what Volt Village is going to cost.

2012 Chevrolet Volt Becomes Centerpiece of Smart Community


----------



## midcan5

Only the right wing is so controlled by big money that they shoot their own when given the orders by the Kochs etc. The Japanese support each other, Americans point fingers pulled by their puppet masters. Money where mouth is: We own two Buicks both made here.  And Toyota had some wonderful problems but the right missed them in their hatred of American made. 

"In corporate culture, keiretsu refers to a uniquely Japanese form of corporate organization. A keiretsu is a grouping or family of affiliated companies that form a tight-knit alliance to work toward each other's mutual success. The keiretsu system is also based on an intimate partnership between government and businesses. It can best be understood as the intricate web of relationships that links banks, manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors with the Japanese government.¶ *These ironclad corporate alliances have caused much debate and have been called "government-sponsored cartels." While some think keiretsu are a menace to trade, others see them as a model for change. Features common to most keiretsu include "main bank," stable shareholding, and seconded directors. Some keiretsu concepts have no American parallel such as "general trading company." The keiretsu system is one of the profound differences between Japanese and US business structures."* What is keiretsu? - Definition from WhatIs.com

*Buy American = "Because Ford, GM and Chrysler conduct far more of their research, design, engineering, manufacturing and assembly work in the U.S. than foreign automakers do, buying a Ford, GM, or Chrysler supports almost three times as many jobs as buying the average foreign automobile. Some comparisons are even more striking. Buying a Ford supports 3.5 times more jobs than buying a Hyundai. Comparing a Honda and a Hyundai? Buying a Honda supports more than 2 times more jobs."* The Level Field Institute


----------



## westwall

martinjlm said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a good plan.  Look how well that worked on hybrids.  Even though technical experts will state that the GM Hybrid system used on Escalades and Tahoes is technologically superior to Toyota's Prius system, what is the visual you see when someone says "hybrid"?  And as far as reverse engineering, unless you are in China, there are patent laws that prevent that sorta thing, UNLESS you are willing to add extra cost and inefficiencies in a design to avoid tripping over others' patents.
> 
> 
> 
> Please name them.  Fair warning......automotive technology is my profession.  My BS meter is finely tuned.  While you're at it, can you please point me to any information or company statement where Tesla, an electric car and *battery* manufacturer plans to make an electric car with no batteries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You tell me the benefit of spending billions of dollars to have China reverse engineer a technology and then produce it for one 20th of what it would cost us thereby denying the inventor the ability to recoup their investment.  Not smart at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are misunderstanding my point about China.  I am not suggesting that companies should use China to reverse engineer product, then produce and sell it at reduced price.  I am saying that it is commonplace in China for Chinese companies to reverse engineer, or even worse, steal intellectual property of US, European, and Japanese companies that do business there.  They pretty much get a wink and a nod from Chinese political and legal entities.  Sometimes they are forced to apologize, but they are rarely if ever forced to stop or to compensate.  China often requires that companies wishing to do business in China manufacture in China and in some cases forces sharing of intellectual property with local Chinese companies.  Here's an example of Chinese reverse engineering.......
> 
> http://www.autoblog.com/2012/07/23/cadillac-escalade-ext-gets-the-bad-chinese-knock-off-treatment/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New technologies that are better would be fuel cell and hydrogen fuel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of car companies are and have been for some time working on developing fuel cell vehicles.  They simply aren't ready for prime time yet and probably won't be for some time.  I've test driven fuel cell vehicles myself and can see that from a _functional _ standpoint, they are viable.  From a bringing to market standpoint, there's a lot still to be done.  As for hydrogen fuel (conversion of internal combustion engine to run on hydrogen fuel) BMW has run that play and is now backing off of it in favor of continued development of fuel cell technology.  You can probably pick up a BMW Hydrogen7 for pretty cheap these days.
> 
> GM, Honda, and Toyota all have restricted fleets of fuel cell vehicles running around.  The GM program, about 100+ fuel cell equipped Chevrolet Equinox vehicles, has been putting fuel cell vehicles in the hands of carefully selected private citizens for years.  Those selected get to use the vehicle for several months, then they give them back and they're moved on to the next person.  Honda's program, featuring the Honda Clarity sedan, has offered the Clarity to lessees in So. Cal. for several years.  Honda planned for up to 300 units in commerce.  So far, somewhere less than 50 people have opted in.
> 
> Three things (that I am aware of) are holding back fuel cell applications.....
> Reducing the size of the fuel stack to a reasonable size while maintaining a useable vehicle travel range
> Having hydrogen refilling infrastructure available so vehicle isn't limited to a 1/2 tank radius of travel
> Cost.  Same chicken and egg scenario I described for hybrids and electrics.  E cost for the system needs to come down from the 10s of 1,000s to the 1,000s.
> 
> Sounds eerily familiar to where battery electric vehicles were several years ago and where hybrids were before that.  Toyota has stated that they will have a widely available fuel cell vehicle available for around $50K by 2015.  I"ll be watching to see how they manage the infrastructure issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nicola Tesla (the inventor of alternating current and the designer of our modern electrical systems, he also invented radio controlled vehicles in the late 1890's, in other words a true genius) envisioned a electtrical system where energy was pumped into the Earths magnetic field and all a consumer would need to do is have an antenna that allowed them to get the electricity they needed.  That's the whole purpose of the Tesla coil.  Imagine a gridless world where whatever energy you needed was readily available without wires of any sort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know who Nicola Tesla was.  I mistook your early statement as referring to Tesla the company, not Tesla the man, and I responded accordingly.
> 
> I would think that the type of revolutionary change in energy delivery you describe is beyond the perview of the auto industry and better managed by energy providers.
Click to expand...







That was my point in the first place.  You guys all say we should invest all of this money in a technology that really isn't all that great when one looks at it critically.  Then, after we have spent all this money developing the tech the Chinese steal and undercut our inventors.  I say screw that.  LET THEM take the lead for once.  Let them spend THEIR money on the tech, then, for once, we steal it from them.

All you guys are doing is making it easier for the Chinese to bury us.  None of your programs will ever work.  The Chinese can undercut our manufacturers to a ridiculous degree so that the only way a company can survive is by taxpayer largesse.

That's stupid and irresponsible.  Ignore the solar and go for something truly revolutionary and let them squander their resources on it.

Do you get it.

In regard to your comment about the infrastructure setups, yes they are similar and yet they are not.  The need to run vast numbers of 3 phase power lines is a truly crippling prospect.  However, exhisting gas stations can be equipped to provide hydrogen.  But, that's not the problem with hydrogen.  The problem with hydrogen is it currently costs more to seperate it out to it's elemental level than the amount of energy it returns when used in a conventional manner.  Putting in a hydrogen fuel tank at a gas station is relatively straightforward.  Its producing the hydrogen in a efficient manner that's the issue.

Fuel cells are indeed having problems making them useful for the civilian market but if the money that was being pissed away on solar were diverted to them, what would you like to bet we would have a very nice alternative in a very short time.


----------



## westwall

midcan5 said:


> Only the right wing is so controlled by big money that they shoot their own when given the orders by the Kochs etc. The Japanese support each other, Americans point fingers pulled by their puppet masters. Money where mouth is: We own two Buicks both made here.  And Toyota had some wonderful problems but the right missed them in their hatred of American made.
> 
> "In corporate culture, keiretsu refers to a uniquely Japanese form of corporate organization. A keiretsu is a grouping or family of affiliated companies that form a tight-knit alliance to work toward each other's mutual success. The keiretsu system is also based on an intimate partnership between government and businesses. It can best be understood as the intricate web of relationships that links banks, manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors with the Japanese government.¶ *These ironclad corporate alliances have caused much debate and have been called "government-sponsored cartels." While some think keiretsu are a menace to trade, others see them as a model for change. Features common to most keiretsu include "main bank," stable shareholding, and seconded directors. Some keiretsu concepts have no American parallel such as "general trading company." The keiretsu system is one of the profound differences between Japanese and US business structures."* What is keiretsu? - Definition from WhatIs.com
> 
> *Buy American = "Because Ford, GM and Chrysler conduct far more of their research, design, engineering, manufacturing and assembly work in the U.S. than foreign automakers do, buying a Ford, GM, or Chrysler supports almost three times as many jobs as buying the average foreign automobile. Some comparisons are even more striking. Buying a Ford supports 3.5 times more jobs than buying a Hyundai. Comparing a Honda and a Hyundai? Buying a Honda supports more than 2 times more jobs."* The Level Field Institute







Yes in the hive mind culture of the Japanese you are expected to die for your Emperor.  We know...that's why the Japanese had their ass handed to them in the last great war.

The US on the other hand values the life of the individual so we invested on ways to save our people.  The Japanese civilians were expected to commit suicide when they  lost Saipan.

Nice model you choose there Midcan.  Guess what, Japanese business culture is the same way.  In other words you live yuor life for the company.  If you don't produce you're out on your ass.  You might want to read up a little on Japanese culture someday instead of watching "Rising Sun" and using that as your example.  

Sean Connery was cute in the role as was Mr. Snipes, but it's a little short of fact.


----------



## flacaltenn

martinjlm said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm crushed.......but the facts do tend to stand on their own
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look jlm -- If it was such a great investment, we have adequate energy to support it on the grid, and there WAS no MIXED MESSAGE about restricting build-out of additional electricity and the grid ----
> 
> Why don't we cut the subsidies and just GIVE the Post Office an all-electric EV fleet??
> 
> Start with California because they've already got wildly screwed up mandates for meeting EV deployments. And their lights are barely on anymore anyway...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now THAT my friend, is a very good question.  The issues that I have witnessed wrt adding to the grid is not a question of if ( I think the answer there has been "yes, do add") but HOW to do so in a manner that will be ecologically neutral or ecologically friendly.  I see lots of discussion about adding hydro, wind power, nuclear and other replenishable methods of power generation at the same time that I see discussion about taking coal based power generation offline.
> 
> I do not know all the incremental details around this, as the power industry is not one that interests me.  The automotive industry, however, interests me greatly and allows me to be able to pay DTE Energy for what I take out of the grid.
> 
> People are generally confused about the diff between what runs the electricity grid and what runs our transport. You're not, but oil has little to do with electric power. And so-called Alternatives are inadequate to move transport needs to electricity. That's why I favor fuel cells and hydrogen for transport. That way hydrogen production from wind/solar CAN work because there's a storage mechanism to overcome sketchy and unreliable performance.
> 
> As for the subsidies.....they are not specific to specific products.  The point of the subsidies is to energize the car buying public to consider electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids.  It's sort of a chicken and egg thing.
> 
> The development of clean energy cars will not continue unless people buy enough cars to give car companies incentive to build them.
> People won't buy clean energy cars until there is infrastructure to charge them and the prices come down
> Infrastructure providers won't build infrastructure until they know people will buy cars to use the infrastructure
> Prices won't come down unless automakers have some reason to believe they can produce and market clean energy vehicles without taking a cash bath, so we're back to the beginning of the circular argument.
> 
> Funny how there were no subsidies or adequate infrastructure for TV or Cell Phones and yet they are still building out infrastructure for those two. That's why I suggested canning the subsidies and instead DEMONSTRATING viability by SHOWING the market that it can work. Not much infrastructure required to complete a transistion of the Post Office to EV. Tho I suspect there will huge embarrassments on days that the mail doesn't get delivered.
> 
> What the federal government is doing to jump start the process is to say " here Mr. And Ms. Consumer, is a short term opportunity to use some of the federal tax-money you've paid over the years to get out in front of the curve and buy a technologically advanced vehicle". Now, contrary to what a lot of people on this site may believe......
> 
> There is a sunset on this incentive
> GM and the Chevrolet Volt are NOT the only vehicles eligible for this incentive, just the most popular so far.  The Ford Focus Electric, The Tesla S, and several products made by Japanese automakers are all eligible for all or part of the incentive, depending on motor power and battery size.
> How long the incentive window lasts is directly tied to how many vehicles a company has sold that are eligible for the incentive, then that company can no longer extend the incentive to customers.
> 
> The Volt and Leaf are doing no better at sales volume than the puny Smart Car. GM and Nissan were bullied into scaling up EVs before the technology could support a "normal size" vehicle. Nothing poisons the tech well faster than GOVT edicts pushing for mandates and quotas.
> 
> The point is to get people to buy enough electrically powered vehicles to provide automakers the incentive to continue development and to provide incentive for power companies and equipment providers like Coulomb Technologies (makes charging stations) to spend the time, money and resources on development of products that will allow renewable energy sourced vehicles a chance to grow in the marketplace.
> 
> Not really such a thing as a "renewable energy sourced vehicle". Nissan recommends a 230V 40 service to run their charger and at that -- it still takes 7 hours. Waaay beyond the scope and convienience of home-scale solar and wind. If you don't want serious blowback from grid brown-outs, and outages -- we best get off this NEGAWATT conservation kick and look at genuine INCREASE in capacity.
> 
> One other tidbit.  The Chinese government is heavily subsidizing the development of electric vehicles, batteries, and electric motors.  Several European companies are subsidizing the development of renewable energy powered vehicles, including battery electrics and fuel cells.  A growing number of large European cities are setting up zero emissions zones where only vehicles capable of running on electric only are allowed to enter.  If US based automakers are not in a mode to develop hybrids, electric vehicles, and fuel cells, the US auto industry will go the way of the US steel industry, the US television industry, and the dodo bird and companies subsidized by other governments will control the US market.
Click to expand...


The Hybrid concept is Great. And that CAN be scaled up as engineering has shown. I've got nothing against EVs -- but I'd rather (like WestWall) put money into fuel cells and hydrogen. The whole plan falls together better than HOPING that wind/solar are gonna fix the EV problem. That's not gonna happen.

Sorry I took so long to reply.. Had pressing issues of parsing Prez speeches and all that.


----------



## martinjlm

westwall said:


> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You tell me the benefit of spending billions of dollars to have China reverse engineer a technology and then produce it for one 20th of what it would cost us thereby denying the inventor the ability to recoup their investment.  Not smart at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are misunderstanding my point about China.  I am not suggesting that companies should use China to reverse engineer product, then produce and sell it at reduced price.  I am saying that it is commonplace in China for Chinese companies to reverse engineer, or even worse, steal intellectual property of US, European, and Japanese companies that do business there.  They pretty much get a wink and a nod from Chinese political and legal entities.  Sometimes they are forced to apologize, but they are rarely if ever forced to stop or to compensate.  China often requires that companies wishing to do business in China manufacture in China and in some cases forces sharing of intellectual property with local Chinese companies.  Here's an example of Chinese reverse engineering.......
> 
> http://www.autoblog.com/2012/07/23/cadillac-escalade-ext-gets-the-bad-chinese-knock-off-treatment/
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of car companies are and have been for some time working on developing fuel cell vehicles.  They simply aren't ready for prime time yet and probably won't be for some time.  I've test driven fuel cell vehicles myself and can see that from a _functional _ standpoint, they are viable.  From a bringing to market standpoint, there's a lot still to be done.  As for hydrogen fuel (conversion of internal combustion engine to run on hydrogen fuel) BMW has run that play and is now backing off of it in favor of continued development of fuel cell technology.  You can probably pick up a BMW Hydrogen7 for pretty cheap these days.
> 
> GM, Honda, and Toyota all have restricted fleets of fuel cell vehicles running around.  The GM program, about 100+ fuel cell equipped Chevrolet Equinox vehicles, has been putting fuel cell vehicles in the hands of carefully selected private citizens for years.  Those selected get to use the vehicle for several months, then they give them back and they're moved on to the next person.  Honda's program, featuring the Honda Clarity sedan, has offered the Clarity to lessees in So. Cal. for several years.  Honda planned for up to 300 units in commerce.  So far, somewhere less than 50 people have opted in.
> 
> Three things (that I am aware of) are holding back fuel cell applications.....
> Reducing the size of the fuel stack to a reasonable size while maintaining a useable vehicle travel range
> Having hydrogen refilling infrastructure available so vehicle isn't limited to a 1/2 tank radius of travel
> Cost.  Same chicken and egg scenario I described for hybrids and electrics.  E cost for the system needs to come down from the 10s of 1,000s to the 1,000s.
> 
> Sounds eerily familiar to where battery electric vehicles were several years ago and where hybrids were before that.  Toyota has stated that they will have a widely available fuel cell vehicle available for around $50K by 2015.  I"ll be watching to see how they manage the infrastructure issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nicola Tesla (the inventor of alternating current and the designer of our modern electrical systems, he also invented radio controlled vehicles in the late 1890's, in other words a true genius) envisioned a electtrical system where energy was pumped into the Earths magnetic field and all a consumer would need to do is have an antenna that allowed them to get the electricity they needed.  That's the whole purpose of the Tesla coil.  Imagine a gridless world where whatever energy you needed was readily available without wires of any sort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know who Nicola Tesla was.  I mistook your early statement as referring to Tesla the company, not Tesla the man, and I responded accordingly.
> 
> I would think that the type of revolutionary change in energy delivery you describe is beyond the perview of the auto industry and better managed by energy providers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was my point in the first place.  You guys all say we should invest all of this money in a technology that really isn't all that great when one looks at it critically.  Then, after we have spent all this money developing the tech the Chinese steal and undercut our inventors.  I say screw that.  LET THEM take the lead for once.  Let them spend THEIR money on the tech, then, for once, we steal it from them.
> 
> All you guys are doing is making it easier for the Chinese to bury us.  None of your programs will ever work.  The Chinese can undercut our manufacturers to a ridiculous degree so that the only way a company can survive is by taxpayer largesse.
> 
> That's stupid and irresponsible.  Ignore the solar and go for something truly revolutionary and let them squander their resources on it.
> 
> Do you get it.
> 
> In regard to your comment about the infrastructure setups, yes they are similar and yet they are not.  The need to run vast numbers of 3 phase power lines is a truly crippling prospect.  However, exhisting gas stations can be equipped to provide hydrogen.  But, that's not the problem with hydrogen.  The problem with hydrogen is it currently costs more to seperate it out to it's elemental level than the amount of energy it returns when used in a conventional manner.  Putting in a hydrogen fuel tank at a gas station is relatively straightforward.  Its producing the hydrogen in a efficient manner that's the issue.
> 
> Fuel cells are indeed having problems making them useful for the civilian market but if the money that was being pissed away on solar were diverted to them, what would you like to bet we would have a very nice alternative in a very short time.
Click to expand...


Not gonna speak on solar.  That would be bringing a slingshot to a gun fight.  I will step aside and learn from those of you who are better versed.

Regarding China stealing technology....wish my link had shown in me earlier post.  It was a link to a photo of a Chinese knock-off of a Cadillac Escalade.  Thing is, the Chinese cannot necessarily steal everything.  And reverse engineering, as in the example of the Escalade, can lead to some seriously subpar executions.  The Volt costs over $70K in China.  Why?  Because GM, which has significant ties with a couple local automakers in China, refuses to commit to local manufacturer of key components and sharing of IP around how all the systems work together.  That subjects it to some rather hefty import tariffs that are passed on to the custome.   If someone were to try to reverse engineer it, since the IP isn't available to steal, by the time they figured out the first generation, the second generation would be on the road and the third generation would be ready to launch.  Theft of IP is a much larger problem than reverse engineering.

And any company or country that resorts to only reverse engineering and not innovation to compete guarantees two things.  They'll never be first and they'll never drive the market, they can only react.

Regarding electric and hydrogen....3 phase is optimal, but not required.  For the number of pluggable vehicles that will be available in the near future, a wholesale conversion or explosive growth of 3-phase is not necessary.  And although gas stations can theoretically convert to hydrogen, what would be the incentive for any of them to do so?  What's the compelling business model?


----------



## flacaltenn

martinjlm said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are misunderstanding my point about China.  I am not suggesting that companies should use China to reverse engineer product, then produce and sell it at reduced price.  I am saying that it is commonplace in China for Chinese companies to reverse engineer, or even worse, steal intellectual property of US, European, and Japanese companies that do business there.  They pretty much get a wink and a nod from Chinese political and legal entities.  Sometimes they are forced to apologize, but they are rarely if ever forced to stop or to compensate.  China often requires that companies wishing to do business in China manufacture in China and in some cases forces sharing of intellectual property with local Chinese companies.  Here's an example of Chinese reverse engineering.......
> 
> http://www.autoblog.com/2012/07/23/cadillac-escalade-ext-gets-the-bad-chinese-knock-off-treatment/
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of car companies are and have been for some time working on developing fuel cell vehicles.  They simply aren't ready for prime time yet and probably won't be for some time.  I've test driven fuel cell vehicles myself and can see that from a _functional _ standpoint, they are viable.  From a bringing to market standpoint, there's a lot still to be done.  As for hydrogen fuel (conversion of internal combustion engine to run on hydrogen fuel) BMW has run that play and is now backing off of it in favor of continued development of fuel cell technology.  You can probably pick up a BMW Hydrogen7 for pretty cheap these days.
> 
> GM, Honda, and Toyota all have restricted fleets of fuel cell vehicles running around.  The GM program, about 100+ fuel cell equipped Chevrolet Equinox vehicles, has been putting fuel cell vehicles in the hands of carefully selected private citizens for years.  Those selected get to use the vehicle for several months, then they give them back and they're moved on to the next person.  Honda's program, featuring the Honda Clarity sedan, has offered the Clarity to lessees in So. Cal. for several years.  Honda planned for up to 300 units in commerce.  So far, somewhere less than 50 people have opted in.
> 
> Three things (that I am aware of) are holding back fuel cell applications.....
> Reducing the size of the fuel stack to a reasonable size while maintaining a useable vehicle travel range
> Having hydrogen refilling infrastructure available so vehicle isn't limited to a 1/2 tank radius of travel
> Cost.  Same chicken and egg scenario I described for hybrids and electrics.  E cost for the system needs to come down from the 10s of 1,000s to the 1,000s.
> 
> Sounds eerily familiar to where battery electric vehicles were several years ago and where hybrids were before that.  Toyota has stated that they will have a widely available fuel cell vehicle available for around $50K by 2015.  I"ll be watching to see how they manage the infrastructure issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know who Nicola Tesla was.  I mistook your early statement as referring to Tesla the company, not Tesla the man, and I responded accordingly.
> 
> I would think that the type of revolutionary change in energy delivery you describe is beyond the perview of the auto industry and better managed by energy providers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was my point in the first place.  You guys all say we should invest all of this money in a technology that really isn't all that great when one looks at it critically.  Then, after we have spent all this money developing the tech the Chinese steal and undercut our inventors.  I say screw that.  LET THEM take the lead for once.  Let them spend THEIR money on the tech, then, for once, we steal it from them.
> 
> All you guys are doing is making it easier for the Chinese to bury us.  None of your programs will ever work.  The Chinese can undercut our manufacturers to a ridiculous degree so that the only way a company can survive is by taxpayer largesse.
> 
> That's stupid and irresponsible.  Ignore the solar and go for something truly revolutionary and let them squander their resources on it.
> 
> Do you get it.
> 
> In regard to your comment about the infrastructure setups, yes they are similar and yet they are not.  The need to run vast numbers of 3 phase power lines is a truly crippling prospect.  However, exhisting gas stations can be equipped to provide hydrogen.  But, that's not the problem with hydrogen.  The problem with hydrogen is it currently costs more to seperate it out to it's elemental level than the amount of energy it returns when used in a conventional manner.  Putting in a hydrogen fuel tank at a gas station is relatively straightforward.  Its producing the hydrogen in a efficient manner that's the issue.
> 
> Fuel cells are indeed having problems making them useful for the civilian market but if the money that was being pissed away on solar were diverted to them, what would you like to bet we would have a very nice alternative in a very short time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not gonna speak on solar.  That would be bringing a slingshot to a gun fight.  I will step aside and learn from those of you who are better versed.
> 
> Regarding China stealing technology....wish my link had shown in me earlier post.  It was a link to a photo of a Chinese knock-off of a Cadillac Escalade.  Thing is, the Chinese cannot necessarily steal everything.  And reverse engineering, as in the example of the Escalade, can lead to some seriously subpar executions.  The Volt costs over $70K in China.  Why?  Because GM, which has significant ties with a couple local automakers in China, refuses to commit to local manufacturer of key components and sharing of IP around how all the systems work together.  That subjects it to some rather hefty import tariffs that are passed on to the custome.   If someone were to try to reverse engineer it, since the IP isn't available to steal, by the time they figured out the first generation, the second generation would be on the road and the third generation would be ready to launch.  Theft of IP is a much larger problem than reverse engineering.
> 
> And any company or country that resorts to only reverse engineering and not innovation to compete guarantees two things.  They'll never be first and they'll never drive the market, they can only react.
> 
> Regarding electric and hydrogen....3 phase is optimal, but not required.  For the number of pluggable vehicles that will be available in the near future, a wholesale conversion or explosive growth of 3-phase is not necessary.  And although gas stations can theoretically convert to hydrogen, what would be the incentive for any of them to do so?  What's the compelling business model?
Click to expand...


Charging times will always vary with the amount of power you can bring to bear. That's why Commercial charging is 400Volts and up... Not infrastructure we really want to add to the grid. 

Hydrogen takes that load off the grid -- saving SUBSTANTIAL investment on virtually redoing that whole part of the infrastructure. 

As for the development of a NEW type of hydrogen manuf. and distrib. It's like I replied to you (in RED above).. 

""Funny how there were no subsidies or adequate infrastructure for TV or Cell Phones and yet they are still building out infrastructure for those two. ""

For the first 10 years of TV -- folks were watching 2 or 3 channels. And cell phone companies competed on COVERAGE not services and prices.. 


Don't worry bout that part of it.. Unlike the turtle paced rate of GOVT support for infrastructure, when 100 MIllion entreprenuers get convinced about a new good idea -- Crap happens fast...


----------



## westwall

martinjlm said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martinjlm said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are misunderstanding my point about China.  I am not suggesting that companies should use China to reverse engineer product, then produce and sell it at reduced price.  I am saying that it is commonplace in China for Chinese companies to reverse engineer, or even worse, steal intellectual property of US, European, and Japanese companies that do business there.  They pretty much get a wink and a nod from Chinese political and legal entities.  Sometimes they are forced to apologize, but they are rarely if ever forced to stop or to compensate.  China often requires that companies wishing to do business in China manufacture in China and in some cases forces sharing of intellectual property with local Chinese companies.  Here's an example of Chinese reverse engineering.......
> 
> http://www.autoblog.com/2012/07/23/cadillac-escalade-ext-gets-the-bad-chinese-knock-off-treatment/
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of car companies are and have been for some time working on developing fuel cell vehicles.  They simply aren't ready for prime time yet and probably won't be for some time.  I've test driven fuel cell vehicles myself and can see that from a _functional _ standpoint, they are viable.  From a bringing to market standpoint, there's a lot still to be done.  As for hydrogen fuel (conversion of internal combustion engine to run on hydrogen fuel) BMW has run that play and is now backing off of it in favor of continued development of fuel cell technology.  You can probably pick up a BMW Hydrogen7 for pretty cheap these days.
> 
> GM, Honda, and Toyota all have restricted fleets of fuel cell vehicles running around.  The GM program, about 100+ fuel cell equipped Chevrolet Equinox vehicles, has been putting fuel cell vehicles in the hands of carefully selected private citizens for years.  Those selected get to use the vehicle for several months, then they give them back and they're moved on to the next person.  Honda's program, featuring the Honda Clarity sedan, has offered the Clarity to lessees in So. Cal. for several years.  Honda planned for up to 300 units in commerce.  So far, somewhere less than 50 people have opted in.
> 
> Three things (that I am aware of) are holding back fuel cell applications.....
> Reducing the size of the fuel stack to a reasonable size while maintaining a useable vehicle travel range
> Having hydrogen refilling infrastructure available so vehicle isn't limited to a 1/2 tank radius of travel
> Cost.  Same chicken and egg scenario I described for hybrids and electrics.  E cost for the system needs to come down from the 10s of 1,000s to the 1,000s.
> 
> Sounds eerily familiar to where battery electric vehicles were several years ago and where hybrids were before that.  Toyota has stated that they will have a widely available fuel cell vehicle available for around $50K by 2015.  I"ll be watching to see how they manage the infrastructure issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know who Nicola Tesla was.  I mistook your early statement as referring to Tesla the company, not Tesla the man, and I responded accordingly.
> 
> I would think that the type of revolutionary change in energy delivery you describe is beyond the perview of the auto industry and better managed by energy providers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was my point in the first place.  You guys all say we should invest all of this money in a technology that really isn't all that great when one looks at it critically.  Then, after we have spent all this money developing the tech the Chinese steal and undercut our inventors.  I say screw that.  LET THEM take the lead for once.  Let them spend THEIR money on the tech, then, for once, we steal it from them.
> 
> All you guys are doing is making it easier for the Chinese to bury us.  None of your programs will ever work.  The Chinese can undercut our manufacturers to a ridiculous degree so that the only way a company can survive is by taxpayer largesse.
> 
> That's stupid and irresponsible.  Ignore the solar and go for something truly revolutionary and let them squander their resources on it.
> 
> Do you get it.
> 
> In regard to your comment about the infrastructure setups, yes they are similar and yet they are not.  The need to run vast numbers of 3 phase power lines is a truly crippling prospect.  However, exhisting gas stations can be equipped to provide hydrogen.  But, that's not the problem with hydrogen.  The problem with hydrogen is it currently costs more to seperate it out to it's elemental level than the amount of energy it returns when used in a conventional manner.  Putting in a hydrogen fuel tank at a gas station is relatively straightforward.  Its producing the hydrogen in a efficient manner that's the issue.
> 
> Fuel cells are indeed having problems making them useful for the civilian market but if the money that was being pissed away on solar were diverted to them, what would you like to bet we would have a very nice alternative in a very short time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not gonna speak on solar.  That would be bringing a slingshot to a gun fight.  I will step aside and learn from those of you who are better versed.
> 
> Regarding China stealing technology....wish my link had shown in me earlier post.  It was a link to a photo of a Chinese knock-off of a Cadillac Escalade.  Thing is, the Chinese cannot necessarily steal everything.  And reverse engineering, as in the example of the Escalade, can lead to some seriously subpar executions.  The Volt costs over $70K in China.  Why?  Because GM, which has significant ties with a couple local automakers in China, refuses to commit to local manufacturer of key components and sharing of IP around how all the systems work together.  That subjects it to some rather hefty import tariffs that are passed on to the custome.   If someone were to try to reverse engineer it, since the IP isn't available to steal, by the time they figured out the first generation, the second generation would be on the road and the third generation would be ready to launch.  Theft of IP is a much larger problem than reverse engineering.
> 
> And any company or country that resorts to only reverse engineering and not innovation to compete guarantees two things.  They'll never be first and they'll never drive the market, they can only react.
> 
> Regarding electric and hydrogen....3 phase is optimal, but not required.  For the number of pluggable vehicles that will be available in the near future, a wholesale conversion or explosive growth of 3-phase is not necessary.  And although gas stations can theoretically convert to hydrogen, what would be the incentive for any of them to do so?  What's the compelling business model?
Click to expand...






Who wants to drive a market that is obsolescent as it gets launched?  Solar has been out there for over 40 years, I built my system 25 years ago and am now researching its replacement as this one is on its last legs.  

Amazingly enough the technology has not imptoved very much at all.  In some ways the stuff I used back then is actually better than whats available today.  Not a very appealing thought.


----------

