GM suspending production of Chevy Volt

[variant]

So, R&D on power cell development makes sense to me. But multi-millions for a startup production line, eh, no.

I agree it seems overzealous. Using hammers in place of glass cutters.

 

[heymikey80]

I agree it seems overzealous. Using hammers in place of glass cutters.

I believe that a production line, if it really were a profitable proposition, would be recognized pointblank by investment groups and lenders throughout the country.

The government is thus left to fund those without a real profit proposition.

And so the government is thus left holding the bag of bad loans.

And so the taxpayer is left to pay up the difference.

 

[Cromulent]

In Germany, diesels are a big thing; indeed you see models over there we don't have here. I wish the price of diesel would return to being less than gas - but sadly, we don't have the refining capacity we once had.

As to the "new technology" though - don't hold your breath. Wind isn't going to work, neither is solar. We may see some advances in other fuels - most likely towards natural gas, but alcohols aren't going to work in the long run.

I have my doubts about solar. We're still a major breakthrough away from anything that might be economical.

Wind, however, at low grid penetrations is a cheap, reliable, and environmentally sound means of generation. It's already competitive with fossil fuels, and their costs are only going to go up.

The big problem with wind comes when you go over 20% grid penetration, and start to get problems delivering enough reactive power, as well as fluctuations in generation.

 

[EdwinWillers]

I have my doubts about solar. We're still a major breakthrough away from anything that might be economical.

Yeah, I agree. Doing some calculations, if the US wanted to switch to 100% solar, we'd need approximately 10,000,000,000 (10 billion) solar panels working at peak efficiency round the clock to provide what we consume in an average year - but that assumes we have access to solar throughout each day, which given the fact that the entire United States is in darkness some 10 hours each day and we wouldn't have access to solar during those hours, it's really not remotely viable - even if the panels fed a common grid, as power plants do right now - grid penetration being at best, what - 40%?

Wind, however, at low grid penetrations is a cheap, reliable, and environmentally sound means of generation. It's already competitive with fossil fuels, and their costs are only going to go up.

The big problem with wind comes when you go over 20% grid penetration, and start to get problems delivering enough reactive power, as well as fluctuations in generation.

Yep, that's the problem. Neither source is a viable alternative to REPLACE fossil fuels or nuclear power. They can supplement those sources, sure, but never replace. And as you note, even at 20% grid penetration, wind's only real viability is supplemental.

I'm all for using solar and even wind in this manner (though I despise the grossly ugly white behemoths that blight the landscape today); but we need to be realistic, they're only supplemental sources - and THEN only supplemental for certain types of energy usage.

 

[kermit]

The shakiness of battery technology is the current risk factor.

That's a bit of a canard. According to Toyota, who has quite a bit of history on batteries in the Prius, there are many Priuses that have 200k miles on the original batteries.

 

[sdmsanjose]

Every American auto comapany, every Japanese auto company and most of the Eurpoean auto companies are now making Hybrid vehicles. They have increased in every year for the last 10 years.

That tells me that there is a future for hybrid vehicles.

 

[rambot]

Given that many motor companies ALREADY produce cars that are FAR more fuel efficient than what we find in North America. Standards in Europe necessitates it. My cousin' who's an engineer in Holland said that Audi (I think it was Audi....) changed over their whole lines to match standards; they did it in well under a year and incurred costs were minimal.

Anyways, the cars are ALREADY being made. They just aren't getting sold in North America. So the question is: Why not?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Every American auto comapany, every Japanese auto company and most of the Eurpoean auto companies are now making Hybrid vehicles. They have increased in every year for the last 10 years.

That tells me that there is a future for hybrid vehicles.

It only tells me that they have had a past. Predictions from such meager evidence are unwise.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Given that many motor companies ALREADY produce cars that are FAR more fuel efficient than what we find in North America. Standards in Europe necessitates it. My cousin' who's an engineer in Holland said that Audi (I think it was Audi....) changed over their whole lines to match standards; they did it in well under a year and incurred costs were minimal.

Anyways, the cars are ALREADY being made. They just aren't getting sold in North America. So the question is: Why not?

The answer is: North Americans and Europeans are not clones of each other, as a matter of fact their taste in cars, government , foods and many other things differ. I find that to be a good thing as diversity is to be encouraged.

 

[stamperben]

The answer is: North Americans and Europeans are not clones of each other, as a matter of fact their taste in cars, government , foods and many other things differ. I find that to be a good thing as diversity is to be encouraged.

Surely you're joking. Aren't you? That's the answer to "Why not?" A difference in taste? You think it has nothing to do with the very same reason why intercity rail lines were ripped up early in the last century in favor of fossil fuel buses that also used Goodyear rubber? THAT answer being Standard Oil, the giant of oil companies at the time?

I'd think about it a bit longer if my answer were the same as yours, that "Hey, it's a matter of taste in cars and government." Some things may have changed, but much remains the same.

 

[Rion]

Given that many motor companies ALREADY produce cars that are FAR more fuel efficient than what we find in North America. Standards in Europe necessitates it. My cousin' who's an engineer in Holland said that Audi (I think it was Audi....) changed over their whole lines to match standards; they did it in well under a year and incurred costs were minimal.

Anyways, the cars are ALREADY being made. They just aren't getting sold in North America. So the question is: Why not?

1) People drive less/not as far in Europe.
2) North Americans like to drive nicer / safer cars. A fiat 500 vs. a Durango... Who wins?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Surely you're joking. Aren't you? That's the answer to "Why not?" A difference in taste? You think it has nothing to do with the very same reason why intercity rail lines were ripped up early in the last century in favor of fossil fuel buses that also used Goodyear rubber? THAT answer being Standard Oil, the giant of oil companies at the time?

I'd think about it a bit longer if my answer were the same as yours, that "Hey, it's a matter of taste in cars and government." Some things may have changed, but much remains the same.

What's the matter you don't believe in diversity?
You would rather believe in some wacky conspiracy theory from the time of Huey P Long than a rational explanation? To each their own I guess.
Randy Newman - Kingfish - YouTube

 

[Steve Petersen]

Transportation of gasoline also incurs losses.

Alcohol is a plenty-appropriate and possible system for dealing with the need for a liquid fuel like gasoline. It requires releasing Agriculture's price controls on foodstuffs though, to distribute the necessary agricultural products for production of fuel.

Brazil is self-sustaining on ethanol products for automobiles. But it isn't from corn. Their use of gasoline is a function of its cost-effectiveness.

Enegy density of alcohol is about 20% less than gasoline, to say nothing of the amount of energy it takes to produce. You have to use quite a bit more energy to refine ethanol than oil.

 

[stamperben]

What's the matter you don't believe in diversity?
You would rather believe in some wacky conspiracy theory from the time of Huey P Long than a rational explanation? To each their own I guess.

Yup. The public bought, were hooked, and swallowed that "conspiracy theory" back then too. I heard a phrase once... "Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it." Well look and see where we are now!

 

[kermit]

1) People drive less/not as far in Europe.
2) North Americans like to drive nicer / safer cars. A fiat 500 vs. a Durango... Who wins?

Comparable cars in Europe get much better fuel economy. My wife used to own a Volvo wagan that got about 30MPG. The European model gets over 40MPG.

I watched Top Gear do an economy race (1 tank for a set distance). Jeremy picked a car that he believed wouldn't make the distance. Actually he picked it because if determined that it would run out of gas close to his house. It was a big Jag with a gas V8 and he ended up making the distance and getting 35MPG.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Given that many motor companies ALREADY produce cars that are FAR more fuel efficient than what we find in North America. Standards in Europe necessitates it. My cousin' who's an engineer in Holland said that Audi (I think it was Audi....) changed over their whole lines to match standards; they did it in well under a year and incurred costs were minimal.

I suspect the costs to change over a manufacturing line to a new type of car in the grand scheme of things isn't that much, really.

And as to being "FAR more energy efficient" than what we have here - well, I suspect your definition of "FAR" is a bit exuberant, particularly since their "energy efficiency" is limited to the vehicle itself, not to the system as a whole.

Anyways, the cars are ALREADY being made. They just aren't getting sold in North America. So the question is: Why not?

Well I would think the answer to that is obvious - MY reasons for not being enamored with hybrids however are several:

First: Price. When I can get a comparable vehicle (in luxury, HP, even MPG), why pay more for a hybrid?

Second: Performance. Sure, I might realize a few MPG improvement buying a hybrid, but gasoline vehicles are far more practical - particularly to my needs than a small vehicle with nominal power, nominal distance, nominal loading capacity...

Third: Hassle. Frankly, I don't want to plug in my vehicle every night (or more often) so I can use it. Nor do I care for the hassle of its distance limitations.

Fourth: Principle. A hybrid is basically a gasoline vehicle with (marginally) supplemental battery backup. What's the point in battery operation when every second of battery operation is made possible by the fossil fuel it took to charge that battery? It's asinine to imagine I'm "saving the planet" by driving an "electric" vehicle charged by a fossil fuel power plant.

Bottom line, they're too expensive, don't deliver as promised, don't solve the stated problem (in fact they exacerbate it), aren't practical to our driving needs, and are being promoted by a religion to which I simply don't ascribe.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Every American auto comapany, every Japanese auto company and most of the Eurpoean auto companies are now making Hybrid vehicles. They have increased in every year for the last 10 years.

That tells me that there is a future for hybrid vehicles.

Well, if you think such a trend is proof positive will continue indefinitely, then I recommend investing everything you've got into it - if you think it's that much of a "given." You can't lose.

 

[Cromulent]

Yeah, I agree. Doing some calculations, if the US wanted to switch to 100% solar, we'd need approximately 10,000,000,000 (10 billion) solar panels working at peak efficiency round the clock to provide what we consume in an average year - but that assumes we have access to solar throughout each day, which given the fact that the entire United States is in darkness some 10 hours each day and we wouldn't have access to solar during those hours, it's really not remotely viable - even if the panels fed a common grid, as power plants do right now - grid penetration being at best, what - 40%?

Well, using solar thermal with a high specific heat capacity oil or eutectic salt as the working fluid can keep high enough temperatures overnight for a more or less constant generating capacity. However, this is even more expensive than solar PV.

Yep, that's the problem. Neither source is a viable alternative to REPLACE fossil fuels or nuclear power. They can supplement those sources, sure, but never replace. And as you note, even at 20% grid penetration, wind's only real viability is supplemental.

I think wind is a very viable option at low grid penetrations, it's cheap, clean, and well-established, and every megawatt produced is one that doesn't produce nasty emissions, or hand power to some unstable country blessed with a little oil.

Wave and tidal are a lot less variable than wind, but are still very much in the future. There's no reason why they couldn't become as cheap as wind with a little more research though, and tidal power especially is completely predictable, and can be used as reliable base load, especially when the stations are staggered across a long enough length of coastline.

I'm all for using solar and even wind in this manner (though I despise the grossly ugly white behemoths that blight the landscape today); but we need to be realistic, they're only supplemental sources - and THEN only supplemental for certain types of energy usage.

I think we could probably realistically get 50% grid penetration in the UK from renewables in say 30 years time. Wind isn't going to go much above 25% because of dispatchability issues, unless there's a huge investment in pumped storage, that is. I don't think solar will be that huge, simply because of the climate, maybe 5% tops, but I can see a small proportion, maybe 10%, coming from wave and tidal by that stage. There'll be a bit of hydro, and a bit of biomass making up say 5%, and the remaining 5% from miscellaneous technologies, such as geothermal.

The other 50% is going to have to come from nuclear, and gas, again, unless there is a major breakthrough in carbon capture, or "clean coal" technology. Nuclear at about 40%, providing base load, gas at 10%, smoothing out the fluctuations in the output from renewables.

Other countries will necessarily have to have a different energy mix to this, but I think think that, even if it isn't realistic in the medium term to have 100% renewables, the more we have the better, for both environmental and energy security reasons.

Of course, electricity is the poster child of energy, but it's only about 20% of the UK's energy demand:

We'd be a lot better off funneling the waste heat from electricity generation into district heating schemes, putting in proper insulation, installing ground source heat pumps in every new build property we can, and working on increasing fuel efficiency of transport (intelligent town planning, car pooling and public transport, as well as technological solutions).

But of course, there's no problem with trying to do both!

 

[Cromulent]

I suspect the costs to change over a manufacturing line to a new type of car in the grand scheme of things isn't that much, really.

And as to being "FAR more energy efficient" than what we have here - well, I suspect your definition of "FAR" is a bit exuberant, particularly since their "energy efficiency" is limited to the vehicle itself, not to the system as a whole.

Well I would think the answer to that is obvious - MY reasons for not being enamored with hybrids however are several:

First: Price. When I can get a comparable vehicle (in luxury, HP, even MPG), why pay more for a hybrid?

Second: Performance. Sure, I might realize a few MPG improvement buying a hybrid, but gasoline vehicles are far more practical - particularly to my needs than a small vehicle with nominal power, nominal distance, nominal loading capacity...

Third: Hassle. Frankly, I don't want to plug in my vehicle every night (or more often) so I can use it. Nor do I care for the hassle of its distance limitations.

Fourth: Principle. A hybrid is basically a gasoline vehicle with (marginally) supplemental battery backup. What's the point in battery operation when every second of battery operation is made possible by the fossil fuel it took to charge that battery? It's asinine to imagine I'm "saving the planet" by driving an "electric" vehicle charged by a fossil fuel power plant.

Bottom line, they're too expensive, don't deliver as promised, don't solve the stated problem (in fact they exacerbate it), aren't practical to our driving needs, and are being promoted by a religion to which I simply don't ascribe.

Hybrids don't need to be plugged in, the battery is charged by the engine, and by regenerative braking. The big potential advantage in hybrids is that when you put on the brakes, it kicks a generator into gear, so the energy that would otherwise be lost in a conventional petrol or diesel car is instead put into the batteries, which can deal it out later when it's needed.

 

[heymikey80]

Enegy density of alcohol is about 20% less than gasoline, to say nothing of the amount of energy it takes to produce. You have to use quite a bit more energy to refine ethanol than oil.

Yes, energy-for-weight is lower in ethanol, about 1/3 the energy for the weight. That's not a deterrent. Everyone knows that higher octane fuel is lower in energy density a well. Right? Hi-test is lower in energy. That's why it doesn't explode with such force, causing engine "knock".

It's public knowledge that there's already an economy running on ethanol.

Brazil.

It's cost effective. It works. It's just regulated eight ways to Sunday in the United States.