
Chevy Volt: Is This Our Future? - cubix
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/opinion/sunday/26car.html
======
Lewisham
I'm actually most concerned about the lifetime of the batteries. From what
I've read, the batteries top out at 8 years, and presumably degrade before
that. As the $20k Chevy Cruze is the same chassis as the Volt, I guess the
batteries come out at ~$15k. That's a huge amount of money to renew use of
your $40k car after 8 years (unless you see that $15k as some sort of
investment in the environment).

The Volt design could/should succeed. But not with battery tech where it is.
Those batteries need to do 10--12 years.

~~~
noonespecial
Its a punt for the future. I'd hope that in 8 years a replacement battery has
twice the capacity at a quarter the cost. If it doesn't and nothing better has
emerged, the electric car is probably screwed as a concept anyway. I'd then
hope there's more oil than we think.

~~~
eftpotrm
I'd hope so to, but battery tech hasn't exactly got a stellar record of
improvement, likely because of fundamental chemistry constraints.

While I hate to be the depressive and I'd love there to be a better technology
available, my understanding is that the resource requirements for battery
production and disposal are sufficiently high that the whole life energy costs
of such vehicles aren't actually very impressive compared with conventional
vehicles, sadly. Hydrogen fuelled cars are a nice technology but effectively
an energy storage medium rather than a fuel because the Hydrogen is
sufficiently expensive to extract (though a late friend who was a former
industrial chemist insisted that solar-initiated catalytic cracking of
seawater to extract Hydrogen was viable), plus the molecules are so small that
even the best vehicle fuel tank will leak itself empty within a few weeks.

My best bet would be that we'll end up with waste or algae derived biofuels
driving turbines feeding ultracapacitors to drive electric motors. But, TBH,
there seem to be nasty issues on pretty much all sides. It may simply be that
personal transportation as we currently know isn't sustainably scalable with
the information and resources available to us.

~~~
Derbasti
I would say that battery tech has improved enormously in the last few years.
Look at the battery life of current laptops and mobile phones and compare that
to a few years ago. In part, this is due to decreased energy consumption of
the electronics, but in no small part this should be credited to improved
batteries, too.

------
bbg
I want to love electric cars, but I see two big issues: (1) if they go mass
market, all that electricity will still have to be generated somewhere. Coal?
Nuclear? (2) The batteries need rare-earth minerals, which are brought to
market through environmentally-degrading open pit mining. Furthermore, at this
point, most rare-earths are available almost exclusively from China.

~~~
ChuckMcM
An internal combustion motor is, at best, about 20% efficient [1], whereas if
you burn the same fossil fuel in an electric power plant using a combined
cycle configuration you can reach 60% [2].

Now the electric company loses some of that by sending over wires to your
house (or where ever the charger is) but its still a big win. What that means
in mathematical terms is that if you took the same fossil fuel we burn today
in cars and instead made electricity out of it and ran our cars on the
generated electricity, we could either have nearly 3x the cars for the same
fuel, or the same number of cars using 1/3 the fuel.

The win here is that if you have room to build a big heavy specialized machine
to convert fossil fuel to electricity you can invest in all the things that
make that really efficient. Whereas if you have to put an engine in every car,
there is a financial and weight limit to how complex you can go (not that some
of the extreme low sulfur diesels aren't wicked complex, they are).

Also you don't need rare earths. You only need them for permanent magnet
motors. A fully electric car can by built with practically none, they are
available locally if you need them[3].

[1] "Most steel engines have a thermodynamic limit of 37%. Even when aided
with turbochargers and stock efficiency aids, most engines retain an average
efficiency of about 18%-20%.[11][12] " -
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine>

[2] "In general in service Combined Cycle efficiencies are over 50 percent on
an on a lower heating value and Gross Output basis. Most combined cycle units,
especially the larger units, have peak, steady state efficiency efficiencies
of 55 - 59%. " - <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle>

[3] The US used to be the world supplier of rare earths, China just did a
Wallmart on us and drove domestic suppliers out of business, the DoE has put
them back into business - [http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/12/us-
rare-earth-mi...](http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/12/us-rare-earth-
mine-reopened-as-doe-plans-for-shortages.ars)

~~~
adrianN
When calculating the efficiency of electric cars you must also take into
account the losses from the battery. I'm pretty sure charging a battery is not
100% efficient.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Absolutely, the electricity -> chemical -> electricity cycle gets less power
out than you put in.

The fuel cycle is still fossil fuel -> (stuffs) -> car moves.

There are many ways to change around the (stuffs) part of the equation. The
claim is that converting fossil fuel to electricity in bulk is much more
efficient than converting it into mechanical work locally through exothermic
chemical reactions.

We could keep trying to detail efficiencies (or non-efficiencies) in the
problem but as Glieck pointed out in his Chaos book, you can compute the
length of the British coastline by drawing a line around the island and get
one number, or you can zoom in and include the bays and harbors and
protrusions and get another number, all the way to going around each grain of
sand on the beach and getting yet another number. Clearly the closer you look
at the coastline length the 'longer' it gets, but that extra length is
misleading.

------
nhebb
The $7500 tax credit is getting gamed by some dealers who resell the car to
other dealers and take the credit for themselves. I don't know how widespread
this is, but it's the kind of thing that makes my blood boil:
[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43243050/ns/business-
autos/t/som...](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43243050/ns/business-autos/t/some-
volt-dealers-take-tax-credit-themselves/)

~~~
pitdesi
That turned out to mostly be a hoax: [http://jalopnik.com/5806946/chevy-
dealers-are-not-scamming-t...](http://jalopnik.com/5806946/chevy-dealers-are-
not-scamming-taxpayers-on-volt-tax-credits)

------
Derbasti
Can someone explain to me, why, exactly, this should be better than a hybrid
design?

A hybrid design can use a comparatively tiny combustion engine together with
an electric motor, which saves fuel consumption and does not need to be
plugged in ever.

The Volt needs both a full-fledged combustion engine and a full-fledged
electric engine _and_ needs to be plugged in after each drive. That sounds
basically like combining the disadvantages of electric motors and combustion
engines in one car. Why would anyone want that? (And electricity is not
exactly free, either)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Well, 80mph as the article indicated.

~~~
Derbasti
Are you saying the Prius (for example) does not reach 80 mph but the Volt
does?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Ahgh! 80mpg! mpg!

I hate it when I do that.

------
chrismealy
Even better:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omafiets>

------
jarin
In the future, everything is gamified.

Actually, you know who really needs to gamify things? Banks.

~~~
BadassFractal
We already have credit scores.

~~~
philwelch
If you have to pay to see your score, it's not gamified, just quantified.

~~~
randallsquared
I use creditkarma, which provides a score for free (though it might not always
be quite accurate; I think they reverse-engineered the criteria).

------
dstein
I've always thought the Volt sounded way over-engineered. Why bother with a
fancy hybrid engine rather than concentrating on making a lightweight,
affordable all-electric car? The simple approach is always going to win.
Zenncars.com was taking this approach but I'm not sure of their progress.

~~~
oldstrangers
That's exactly the concept behind the Nissan Leaf, which they discussed in the
article.

For me, the Leaf isn't the answer. I drive from Houston to Austin regularly.
It's a 200 or so mile drive. The Leaf gets 70 miles to a charge. What good
does that do me? I would barely make it out of Houston before having to
recharge for hours.

Ultimately, Hybrids like the Volt are the best answer for the moment. They
provide a practical, non-scary transition into eco friendly vehicles.
Eventually, cars like the Prius and Volt will be commonplace, paving the way
for more radical solutions.

~~~
rubinelli
Depending on how frequently you travel, renting a car may be much cheaper than
the difference in depreciation between a Prius and a LEAF. And an all-electric
makes even more sense as the family's second car.

------
rokhayakebe
The US should invest in high speed rails, better inner city transportation
systems, and encouraging people to use bicycles . Electric cars aren't the
solution.

------
tectonic
What's the environmental impact of making the batteries?

~~~
yardie
The polymer in a li-poly battery is ethylene glycol. It's relatively stable,
relatively non-toxic (don't drink it, its can kill you but not the way
hydrochloric acid will). Its almost the same stuff used as coolant in ICEs.
Unlike NiCad and NiMH its probably the most environmentally friendly battery
around. The other anode and cathode is lithium and lithium-manganese. These
aren't rare metals (which I find ridiculous when people think they are made of
exotic materials) but manufacturing is high because of the cost of research
and the quantities produced.

As far as recycling is concerned, over time the electrolytes breakdown and
need to be replaced. So you delaminate it and attach the anode and cathode to
a new PEG laminate. That is basically how a li-poly battery is recycled.

------
daimyoyo
I've said before and I'll say again: Electric cars will not gain widespread
acceptance until you can travel the equivalent of a tank of gas on one charge.
Tesla motors is close, but you need at least 300 and closer to 400 miles per
charge.

~~~
sliverstorm
400 miles? You kidding? I have never driven anything that can go 400 miles per
tank- I typically refill at 200-250, and some of my bikes I'd refill at 80.

~~~
daimyoyo
When I'm on the highway, I tank my car up and it'll be roughly 200 miles at
halfway and 300 at 1/4. Granted, I've never driven my car to vapors on the
highway but it seems logical that a tank of gas will get me around 400 miles.
It's a 14 gallon tank so that translates to around 30mpg highway. I don't
think it's unrealistic to ask for an equivalent efficiency in an electric car.

~~~
georgieporgie
30mpg highway is _really_ good and does not reflect the average experience of
a consumer.

That said, I think you're (sadly) right, but not for the reason you're
stating. Because electric cars can't be recharged in five minutes, consumers
will suddenly think they have to go _even further_ on a charge. They will
completely ignore the _fact_ that they commute 15 miles each way, every day,
and the _fact_ that they already have that minivan they use for long trips
anyway.

That said, your argument doesn't really apply to this car. "The EPA official
all-electric range is 35 miles (56 km), and the total range is 379 miles (610
km)." (Wikipedia) That qualifies as, "closer to 400 miles per charge."

~~~
adrianN
What? 30mpg is around 7.8l/100km! All three cars I've driven so far consumed
around 5 l/100km (gas) or around 4.5l/100km (diesel). All of them could seat
four people and had enough room in the trunk to fit a week of groceries for
four people.

~~~
georgieporgie
That doesn't mean that American consumers expect 30 mpg from a family sedan on
American highways.

------
meemo
I'd like to see the reviewers electricity bill.

------
spiritomb
Coal-Burning cars (er.. electric) are the future!

~~~
tophat02
I've never understood this argument. I mean, yes, I get that all you're doing
is moving the energy production somewhere else; but isn't that a GOOD thing?

My response to the "you're just moving" argument is that you're doing more
than moving it, you're CENTRALIZING it. It's much easier to replace one coal
plant with a nuclear plant or a wind farm (or 10) than it is to replace the
thousands of cars that plant powers.

Am I totally wrong here?

~~~
sliverstorm
There's two sides to the argument. On the one hand, centralizing is big. It
allows huge gains in efficiency- steam plants fueled by coal are 99%
efficient, and by the time the power reaches the wheels of your car you're
still probably around 60-80% (Otto cycle is 25% at _absolute best_ , not
counting drivetrain losses) It allows flexibility in source- nuclear, coal,
wind, solar- and the source can be 'hot-swapped'.

At the same time, it is important to remember the energy has to come from
somewhere, and this is something politicians, media, and industry has made a
habit of carefully ignoring, so it does seem like a good idea to remind less
inquisitive folks electric cars are not powered by free, unlimited energy.
(Crazy as it may sound, folks believed that was the case for anything driven
by 'renewable energy' a handful of years ago. That's what they were taught;
renewable = free/unlimited)

~~~
ugh
It’s a good idea to say that but many people will then immediately go to the
next extreme: electric cars cannot possibly be useful at all unless all our
energy production is already carbon neutral†. The right way to approach this
is to offer a detailed explanation, not to only say that electric cars burn
coal. It’s a true statement, but it leads to misconceptions.

I will say what I always say at this point: electric cars are about enabling
large scale infrastructure change. A gas powered car will burn gas now and in
twenty years. An electric car burns (mostly) coal now but it doesn’t have to
in twenty years. That’s what electric cars are all about.

Now, an electric car you buy now likely won’t survive until a large portion of
our energy comes from carbon neutral sources. We don’t even know whether we
will be able to pull that off at all. Why then buy electric cars? Why sell
them? Why subsidize them? The reason for this is that changing every gas
powered car to an electric car takes time and requires a lot of infrastructure
and testing. We really shouldn’t start building electric cars only in forty
years, we should start right now.

—

† Whether we should work towards being carbon neutral, whether that’s possible
at all and makes sense is certainly controversial. For the purpose of this
article I just assumed that we should.

There are other possible benefits of switching to electric cars. For one it
makes us less dependent on oil. Oil is not unlimited (so is coal but it is at
least less limited), being dependent only on energy and not one specific
energy source makes it easier to react to changing energy source prices.

~~~
furyg3
_A gas powered car will burn gas now and in twenty years. lectric car burns
(mostly) coal now but it doesn’t have to in twenty years. That’s what electric
cars are all about._

This is really the key point. Right now, if all cars were electric, in
Netherlands you would be driving on natural gas, in Austria renewable energy,
and in Spain Nuclear energy (<http://bit.ly/m25JwE>).

Each country / region has good reasons for basing their current energy supply
on a particular resource, and they can adapt over time as new options become
available, old ones less attractive, market incentives change, or democracy
pushes for something new.

