GM Announces Chevy Volt Sticker Price: $41,000

[greenspandan]

And gasoline doesn't have the same destructive and explosive properties?

hydrogen takes much less energy to ignite, and when it does, it is more explosive. gasoline tends to burn at a steady rate rather than explode (despite what you see on television).

[Titaw]

Hydrogen is not a renewable energy source.

In fact, Hydrogen is not an energy source. (It is a form of energy storage.)

Can you explain this to me. I thought they had cars that already ran on hydrogen, and isn't hydrogen the H in H2O. Please explain this tome as I truly want to understand this better.

[greenspandan]

GM and Nissan would have to pay ME to drive either of these cars. They're both a POS.

it is unfortunate but probably true that fixing energy dependency and improving the environment will only happen if those solutions also happen to jive with short-sighted, selfish goals as well.

[Titaw]

hydrogen takes much less energy to ignite, and when it does, it is more explosive. gasoline tends to burn at a steady rate rather than explode (despite what you see on television).

When contained, one cup of gasoline vapors, has the same explosive power of 5 lbs. of TNT.

http://nasdonline.org/document/919/d000760/storing-gasoline-and-other-flammables.html

I'd say that's pretty damn explosive.

[greenspandan]

yes, because it's a pretty efficient way of storing energy. there's a lot of energy in that one cup of gasoline. what i'm saying is gasoline does not tend to release all that energy in one instantaneous bang, as do tnt and hydrogen.

[Larry]

As twa suggested, how many miles will it get when you are using the wipers, radio, heat/ac, lights, etc?

Not very many, I bet.

Wipers and radio use virtually zero power. The single battery in your existing car will run the for a day or more.

AC requires more power. Noticeably more power. Heat requires a LOT.

(Although the Volt, unlike the Leaf, may solve that problem the same way your existing car does: By having those devices run off of the gasoline engine.)

How much electricity is used, and at what cost, to recharge the thing?

Just going from memory, but I think in a previous Volt thread I worked out the recharge cost as something like $3. (Based on the national average price for household electricity.

What's the life of the battery? Most rechargeable batteries have a short shelf life.

What will a replacement battery cost?

Those could be biggies.

[Pwyl]

Can you explain this to me. I thought they had cars that already ran on hydrogen, and isn't hydrogen the H in H2O. Please explain this tome as I truly want to understand this better.

Hydrogen gas, H2, stores energy. It stores the energy in the bond between the two H atoms. It takes more energy to convert water, H20, into H2 than you get back out of it. Further, there are no abundant sources of H2 to gather, like you have with hydrocarbons. Therefore, H2 can't be described in any way as an "energy source". You can think of it as a chemical battery that stores energy generated from other sources.

[Larry]

Can you explain this to me. I thought they had cars that already ran on hydrogen, and isn't hydrogen the H in H2O. Please explain this tome as I truly want to understand this better.

You gonna make me change my sig?

Every time somebody pulls the "Hydrogen energy source" myth out, it seems that I have to spend about 4 pages explaining this fact.

It takes more energy to get Hydrogen out of water,

than you get back when you allow Hydrogen to make water.

And the Second Law of Thermodynamics says it always will.

Right now, it takes more than twice as much energy to get Hydrogen out of water. (Although there's no law of nature that says that will always be the case.)

Which doesn't mean that Hydrogen is useless. For example, if you use nuclear power to separate water into Hydrogen and Oxygen, then you "burn" the Hydrogen in your car, then you've got a nuclear powered car. Hydrogen can be a nice way to make energy portable.

It just isn't an energy source. There has to be some other power source, behind it.

[PokerPacker]

The other cars, like the Leaf, also have a range. (The Leaf's claimed range is 100 miles.) But when you hit that range, the car dies. You have to plug it in and wait. Hours. I think the typical electric car's recharge time is like eight hours.

The Tesla Model S has a range of 300 miles to a charge, and it charges in 45 minutes. The battery is also easily swappable, so you could always just have a second battery to pop in there in a minute's time.

(Now, of course, if the place where you work (or the garage where you park) has recharge stations, then you can drive to work, plug in, and be recharged when you get off work. A recharge station at work, effectively doubles the car's range. Maybe they should be encouraged.)

I was thinking it would be nice to see restaurants start something like that. Going on a long road-trip and need to stop for lunch? Perfect opportunity for a charge-up.

[Larry]

I was thinking it would be nice to see restaurants start something like that. [recharge stations]. Going on a long road-trip and need to stop for lunch? Perfect opportunity for a charge-up.

I've read that McDonald's and Starbucks have at least looked into the idea of recharge stations. Similar to those restaurants that offer free WiFi. Encourage people to stop in and spend an hour or two in the place.

[Titaw]

You gonna make me change my sig?

Every time somebody pulls the "Hydrogen energy source" myth out, it seems that I have to spend about 4 pages explaining this fact.

It takes more energy to get Hydrogen out of water,

than you get back when you allow Hydrogen to make water.

And the Second Law of Thermodynamics says it always will.

Right now, it takes more than twice as much energy to get Hydrogen out of water. (Although there's no law of nature that says that will always be the case.)

Which doesn't mean that Hydrogen is useless. For example, if you use nuclear power to separate water into Hydrogen and Oxygen, then you "burn" the Hydrogen in your car, then you've got a nuclear powered car. Hydrogen can be a nice way to make energy portable.

It just isn't an energy source. There has to be some other power source, behind it.

Thanks Larry, I understand what you were saying now.

[Titaw]

The Tesla Model S has a range of 300 miles to a charge, and it charges in 45 minutes. The battery is also easily swappable, so you could always just have a second battery to pop in there in a minute's time.

The 45 minute recharge is on the home recharge station. If places like Starbucks provided a home charging station type charge then it would be awesome, but if they just let you hook up with your portable cord, it'll take you about 4 hours to get a full charge.

[twa]

Pay attention to the leasing prices, that's what matters. For first generation tech like this, who knows how the car holds up over future innovations? How much will prices drop on second and third generation cars? Will the range triple? Will the charge time decrease?

If I want in on a first generation electric vehicle, it only makes sense to lease and pass on the associated risks to GM. The price of the car doesn't matter to me at all.

Yes the lease price seems reasonable ($2,500 down and 350 a month),though I wonder if there are other startup costs

[ABQCOWBOY]

So, seems like the batteries would be an issue here. How long do these batteries last before they have to be replaced? How much would it cost to replace the batteries? How long before you start seeing diminished performance from due to battery life?

Also, and I'm not certain of what the numbers are, how much actual pollution is cause by the electricity that you use to recharge these cars? I mean, we know that internal combustion engines create pollution but something creates the energy used to charge the cars. Are we improving the environment by using electricity or are we just replacing one pollution source for another?

[PokerPacker]

So, seems like the batteries would be an issue here. How long do these batteries last before they have to be replaced? How much would it cost to replace the batteries? How long before you start seeing diminished performance from due to battery life?

Also, and I'm not certain of what the numbers are, how much actual pollution is cause by the electricity that you use to recharge these cars? I mean, we know that internal combustion engines create pollution but something creates the energy used to charge the cars. Are we improving the environment by using electricity or are we just replacing one pollution source for another?

If we move our electricty production over to things like Solar, Wind, and Nuclear, then it would be beneficially from a green point of view. Don't discount the cost-factor, though. Commercial electricity is cheaper than the energy you get from your internal combustion engine.

[GoSkins561]

For that price I will need leather seats, a good nav system with a big display, premium sound system, sunroof and a smooth as silk suspension system as part of the base package before I would even think of buying one. .

Why would you need Navigation?

[Pwyl]

If we move our electricty production over to things like Solar, Wind, and Nuclear, then it would be beneficially from a green point of view. Don't discount the cost-factor, though. Commercial electricity is cheaper than the energy you get from your internal combustion engine.

Also, when you concentrate all the pollution into one location, you can build a more efficient system to capture it.

I'm remembering a segment on one of the Discovery Channel shows about a coal-fired electrical plant that was experimenting with piping their exhaust carbon dioxide through algae water for the algae to absorb it.

[ABQCOWBOY]

If we move our electricty production over to things like Solar, Wind, and Nuclear, then it would be beneficially from a green point of view. Don't discount the cost-factor, though. Commercial electricity is cheaper than the energy you get from your internal combustion engine.

Solar, Wind and water can't produce a third of what we use now, just in electricity. Heck, i don't think the number is more then 15%. That would take much more just to satisfy what we currently require. Nuclear is a possibility but we would need many more and it would take a great deal of time. I don't know. I don't see electric cars really helping the problem. I see it as trading one problem in for the other.

What about batteries, does anybody know how long they last and how much they cost? I mean, if they are like other batteries of their kind, then I'd say 4, maybe 5 years. The question would be, how much would they cost to replace?

[DCsportsfan53]

But think of how much gas you will save.

Do your bit for the planet

So you burn coal instead and add to the enviornmental damage required to build the car because of the materials needed for the batteries. I'm sorry, electric cars are a fad and a fraud for people who feel the need to feel better than others about their car buying decisions. Say it with my, electric will not replace any sort of significant portion of internal combustion vehicles on the road anytime in the near future. It's a nice token gesture to enviornmentalists and politicians, though.

[Larry]

Solar, Wind and water can't produce a third of what we use now, just in electricity. Heck, i don't think the number is more then 15%. That would take much more just to satisfy what we currently require. Nuclear is a possibility but we would need many more and it would take a great deal of time. I don't know. I don't see electric cars really helping the problem. I see it as trading one problem in for the other.

I think I can make an argument that might change your mind.

We all agree that we need to migrate to some kind of energy source other than burning dead things.

But, we aren't certain which of the alternatives will be the one that wins the marketplace. Nobody can say.

And one of the complications, when it comes to our transportation needs, is that every part of the puzzle is dependent on some other part.

Nobody's going to build Hydrogen filling stations until there are millions of Hydrogen cars.

But nobody's going to buy millions of Hydrogen cars, until there are millions of Hydrogen filling stations.

Electricity can be a very good choice as the "currency of exchange". No matter what energy source we use, (nuclear, solar, bio, hydro, dilithium), if can be easily converted into electricity.

And, once our mystery energy is converted into electricity, then it's easy for the consumer to convert it into whatever form of energy he wants. (Mechanical, electrical, thermal.)

It's a universal form of energy, which we already have the distribution network for.

(For relatively long distances, like cross-state. We really don't have a good network for shipping electricity for longer distances. The Obama administration is working on that, something they call the "electric interstate", or some such. Technology that will, supposedly, mean that if it turns out that our new energy source is, say, solar stations in Arizona, then we'll have the ability to ship electricity from AZ to NY, where the demand is.)

No matter where we're getting, say, half of our energy from, 100 years from now, it's guaranteed that we'll be using electricity to distribute it.

[Predicto]

So you burn coal instead and add to the enviornmental damage required to build the car because of the materials needed for the batteries.

Say, did you believe it back when conservative bloggers claimed that a Hummer had a smaller environmental footprint than a Prius?

I'm sorry, electric cars are a fad and a fraud for people who feel the need to feel better than others about their car buying decisions. Say it with my, electric will not replace any sort of significant portion of internal combustion vehicles on the road anytime in the near future. It's a nice token gesture to enviornmentalists and politicians, though.

In the short run, you are correct. In the long run, it could make a huge difference. I don't see any purpose in being actively hostile to efforts to benefit the environment and reduce dependence on imported oil. No one is making you buy an electric car.

[LeesburgSkinFan]

It'll go 300+ miles on a charge, using gas after the first 40 miles. Under normal usage - short commutes - the user will never have to use gas. For a guy like me, whose commute is 5 miles or less, this car would be great - if it weren't $41,000.

I think this car is a great step forward for GM. Once the economy of scale brings the price down to $25K or so, this will be a really great product. Until then, it's just an expensive very good product.

[greenspandan]

the only valid reason to be outright hostile to the idea of electric cars is if you are politically or monetarily invested in oil dependence. electric cars are a necessary and inevitable step forward.

certainly we can drag our feet for a while if we want, but the sooner this transition takes place on a large scale, the better overall shape our economy and environment will be in the long run.

[artmonkforHOF]

Why would you need Navigation?

I would never pay for a nav system in a new car, they are too expensive, but if you are going to charge me $41,000 (well for me $47,000) for a car, I would want some features that are comparable to a gas engine $47,000 car.

doing some quick math, it would be cheaper for me to buy a hybrid.

Nissan Altima Hybrid model in Canada is $33,500, with freight call it $35,000. The Volt would be $48,500 with freight. when you add taxes in my area, the Hybrid would be $39,550 the Volt $54,805. The hybrid gets aprox. 49 MPG which would mean I would spend about $1,650/year on fuel if I drive 15,000miles/year (and that is pricing gas at $1.2/L, prices now are around $1/L). That means I could drive the hybrid for about 9 1/2 years paying that price for gas and still be cheaper than the Volt-and I am not even adding in the cost of charging the volt. I would also be able to take long road trips in the Hybrid, the Volt I would not be able to do so as easily.

And lets be reasonable, no one really keeps a car past 10 years if they can avoid it, so buying the Volt would be a waste of my money. I might be making the planet greener- I see that is being debated in this thread as well- but with the high sticker price the Volt is just not worth it unless it comes with some features that are typically found on luxury cars that would either prolong it's lifespan or maintain a high resale value. I can get rid of almost the same amount of eco guilt by buying a hybrid and save thousands over the life span of the car, and would not be limited to short trips.

I applaud GM for the effort, but I will not buy one until the price comes down or the quality improves.

EDIT:And here is the one question I have about energy efficient vehicles: if hybrids get around 50mpg, and diesels on their own get 50 mpg, why has no one made a hybrid with a diesel engine? it seems that combo would be the most fuel efficient, and probably would cost less than an electric.

[Pwyl]

Seems to me that the infancy of electric cars is suffering from the same challenges as that of the infancy of gas-powered cars. Give it a few product lifecycles and more engineering investment and hopefully we'll start seeing more viable products.