Does the Volt really resonate in America?
More hype than reality?GM is holding a technology briefing today that will include updates on GM's new, fully operational battery lab as well as more confirmation about a new fleet of pre-production Chevy Volts. None of this news, however, is really that new if you've been following the Volt story.
In a nutshell, however, the Chevy Volt is on track, even ahead of schedule. More important, GM believes it can significantly reduce costs, especially regarding the battery, by just the second generation. Nonetheless, the Volt will still cost a good bit more than both a conventional vehicle, as well as a conventional hybrid vehicle like the Toyota Prius.
So, can the Volt really be America's car?
Numerous studies indicate that most Americans are very concerned about foreign oil dependency, and they believe that hybrid cars are a strategically important part of ending this dependency. Yet, the majority of these Americans are not willing to pay extra for these strategically important vehicles.
Can a potentially revolutionary American hybrid, or range extended electric vehicle, change this complacent attitude? Or, are significantly higher gas prices the Volt's only chance of serious market penetration?
Labels: Chevy Volt electric vehicle concept, Foreign Oil Dependency, Hybrid Vehicles, toyota prius
posted by Dahcredyns at
8:13 AM
45 Comments:
A high gas tax would be the best medicine to hold down gas consumption, and reward fuel-efficient cars.
(U.S. cars consume twice as much fuel as European and Japanese cars)
And make it difficult for OPEC to gouge us again when the economy recovers.
(Oil price shocks and manipulation by OPEC have cost us dearly. each major shock was followed by a recession.) So let the money stay here in the usa.
Medicine doesn´t always taste good, but sometimes we need it.
(short term pain for long term gain.)
PS. Eliminate the gas tax if oil goes above $100 a barel.
I'm with you, but more Americans are willing to pay extra for hybrid cars than support a gas tax. Most Americans, unfortunately, are neither willing to pay more for hybrids nor to support a gas tax.
America needs cheaper energy not more expensive energy! Why are people always trying to raise the price of oil instead of trying to bring cheaper energy to market?
If alternative energy is so easy to do, why haven't the Europeans, who have suffered with artificially high energy prices for decades, produced alternative energy that competes with oil?
Taxes on energy are just a way for government to raise money. The hardest hit will be those with modest incomes...
Cheap energy, Scott? Seriously?
Our energy isn't cheap. It's subsidized via hidden taxes for the military, for instance.
The first Iraq War would have never happened if America was not so dependent upon foreign oil. That war, however, led to bin Laden's hatred of the US, which ultimately led to a second Iraq War.
Sure those war costs are good for the military industrial complex, but how good are they really for the average person?
If the real world costs were added to the price of oil then gas prices would be much higher. That would lead to real alternatives, such as cellulosic ethanol, clean natural gas, solar etc. These technologies, once scaled and fully invested into, might lead to cheaper energy prices.
And not only cheaper energy prices, but jobs here in the US and less military taxes needed to secure the Persian Gulf shipping lanes.
Worldwide energy consumption is going to grow drastically in the coming decades. Oil won't power the future by itself, not by an extremely long shot. Getting serious about that now would give the US a technological advantage into the future.
Holding onto the past, however, will mean America's best years will remain in the past.
I'm with both of you in supporting a gas tax increase.
I believe if the administration can educate the public on the true cost of oil due to military costs as well as the health care costs, support for a gas tax increase will begin to grow....
You told me all the reason you believe oil is being subsidized. Which I do not completely agree with.
But you still did not answer my argument: "If alternative energy is so easy to do, why haven't the Europeans, who have suffered with artificially high energy prices for decades, produced alternative energy that competes with oil?"
And the fact that the Europeans have not, means that higher oil taxes is just another form of taxation. And that is the reason people are opposed to it. They fundamentally do not trust the government.
I would agree with the opinion about our military.
If we did not need the oil, our presence in the Middle East would likely be similar to our presence in Africa or South America ....
but with regard to energy, I ave a big concern with the plug-ins and that is electricity provided by burning coal.
I've read opposing views on this. Some studies suggest that burning coal is cleaner than burning gasoline.
others suggest the opposite.
if we could.. would we switch to coal/electric from oil even if it meant burning MORE coal?
Has anyone got some definitive, recent-vintage links to compare coal-electric with gasoline?
thanks.
scott-
europe is far less dependent upon the automobile than we are here in the US. public transportation is far superior thanks to decades of investment. moreover, the average fuel economy of autos in europe is significantly higher. so, that's already an obvious and huge difference.
anyway you slice it europe is far more efficient than is the us today.
still, europe compared to the US isn't completely apples to apples. for instance, the US consumes far more energy per person, but we also have different resources to work with.
ultimately, when it comes to oil, no one else compares to the US. morever, we've been the driver of the world's auto industry.
finally, look at the predictions for future energy consumption - not just in china and india - but africa and other emerging countries. energy consumption is growing exponentially as natural resources become more scarce.
change is inevitable. those that lead will reap the profits.
Larry-
it is usually argued that EVs burn energy more efficiently. thus they don't need as much energy as gasoline powered cars. thus coal powered EVs are typically considered cleaner than oil-powered cars.
still, other research has confirmed that while this is true for new coal power plants, it isn't necessarily true for old coal power plants.
so, plug-ins aren't a cure all by any means. clean coal technologies could help alleviate this problem a bit.
nonetheless, more scientific breakthroughs are needed and i believe that if real world oil costs were added to the price of gasoline, it would be easier to achieve these breakthroughs.
SCOTT,
Why haven't the Europeans.....???
Actually, they have....
More diesel, CNG and LPG cars are sold annually in Europe than gasoline cars. All European refilling stations offer multiple types of fuel, not just gasoline.
There are almost a dozen electric car models in production in Europe today.
France get 70% of their electricity from Nuclear. Denmark and Norway get a significant portion of their electricity from Wind. Spain has the largest solar electric plant in the world and is building several more of the next 10 years.
Japan and China are also doing it.....
Three mainstream Japanese car manufactures have already started production on electric cars.
Hybrids are now outselling gasoline cars in Japan.
China, having learned a lesson during the Beijing Olympics about how much they can reduce pollution if they try, has accelerated their alternative energy and electric car programs and will release several models within the next year.
EVERYBODY ELSE is doing it at a faster pace than the U.S.
How are they doing it? By raising taxes on inefficient vehicles and fuel, and by offering tax incentives on the alternatives.
Let there be no doubt. The alternative energy revolution is well under way. Unfortunately, the products will all be European, Japanese, Chinese and Indian manufactured.
"Let there be no doubt. The alternative energy revolution is well under way. Unfortunately, the products will all be European, Japanese, Chinese and Indian manufactured."
And that is a huge worry. As if the foreign oil dependency angle isn't bad enough.
The world's successful economies must be innovators and that innovation must move at a fast pace in today's digital economy. Digital companies, Silicon Valley companies, think decades ahead.
The US auto industry thinks by financial quarters.
Cheaper energy won't change that (And, you still have to ask, is gas really that cheap if it causes so many other problems?)
Those of you (and that is just about everyone commenting) believe that raising taxes and having the heavy hand of govt involved is a good thing.
I do not trust govt. They will screw things up in the name of doing something good. Usually defined as a political goal.
Get politics out of the energy markets. Build nuclear power plants. Convert oil over to coal fire plants. The American public has sown they are largely uninterested in spending more money from hybrids (BTW, I own one). Open up this country to more oil and gas drilling.
Let the market decide what to do. If it dictates $10 per gallon gasoline, I fine with it. Artificially inflating its cost because a politician in Washington decides he is going to pick the next winner is really stupid.
Scott,
Most Americans share your opinion about taxes and trusting the government.
Unfortuntely that leaves us where we are right now.......Oil is, and will stay, the cheapest game in town. Economically, oil is and the preferred choice for American cars.
I guess we'll just have to live with that and find something else to talk about....
scott,
have politics ever not been a part of the energy markets?
sure we can drill more, but it's not a solution. it would have only a marginal effect according to most experts.
likewise, even today, cnbc ran a story that suggested that coal isn't as plentiful as portrayed. sure, there are many known reserves, but they are in locations that will cost significantly more to mine according to some sources inside the coal industry.
more important, however, i don't think i'm really proposing a new tax.
for instance, the idea is stop hiding the costs of securing OPEC oil - a cost totaling more than the value of the oil itself according to some experts - in discretionary military and pentagon funding - funded by taxpayers (and i don't mean war costs).
instead, pay that cost at the point of sale.
i support a gas tax because i'm tired of all the games the government plays - games largely driven by the wealthy interests that fund all political campaigns regardless of party.
my 'gas tax' is anti-politics. my 'tax' is simply about transparent and honest government spending and costs.
I really don't think the Volt has much of a chance until either (a) Gas hits $5 or $6 and stays there, or (b) GM finds a way to slash the price (drastically, like in half). There are not a whole lot of families around that are going to be able to shell out the extra $10k+ to take this over a conventional hybrid or gas car.
I think the Volt could end up being the biggest bomb since the Edsal.
Of all the things that the US carmakers are not very good at that the Japanese automakers are is what?
Answer: the ability to produce a relatively bug-free first model car.
Even if GM pulls it off.. there's still gonna be a bunch of folks waiting for 2.0.
Another reason is ... it's not going to have the practicability of an family SUV or a Soccer-mom Mini-Van so whose the target customer?
errr ... would that be the single twenty-something Prius or Insight buyer?
or would it be the folks who use to buy Impalas or Chrysler 300's?
I think the only way it's not going to be a colossal flop is if gasolines heads back to $4 or higher and it gets a J.D. Powers initial quality rating that is at the top of the scale.
Unfortunately GM has a record of screwing up their 1.0 models... remember the Diesel Dogs?
They do make a much better car now... some say as good as Asian cars but they going to have to come off the blocks hot and heavy early on.. and hit their marks...
Indigo Incarnates
I'd rate the Volt as: 75% hype, 20% taxpayer money-grab, 5% actual car.
Do I think the Volt will see production?
Maybe by 2016 after the EV1 battery patents expire. Of course, GM will probably have extorted another $150 billion out of the tax payers. Oh, and the Volt will probably *really* sell for $50k.
The only people who will buy it will be politicians trying to greenwash their images.
Does the Volt resonate?
Absolutely.
I can't think of any individual that isn't excited about the Volt.
The only thing that is a turn off is the cost.
But, I can remember only a few years ago when HD TV's all cost over $5000.
Over time the price will come down....
smurf
i largely agree with you, however, there are several doubting the Volt just on this post. and i think indigo is right about other volt angles. i mean the volt is going to help hedge CAFE for other guzzlers, just as the prius has done for toyota.
nonetheless, i think one reason the Volt resonates well with many is simply because it's american. it's almost the anti-prius for many, especially the 'buy american only' segment.
still, most of this segment is not going to pay much extra to plug-in. moreover, most in this segment have probably never bought a car this small.
so, i think the volt has some serious obstacles ahead.
of course, that won't matter in the short term. when gm went before congress to discuss CAFE, they indicated that they it would take until about 2015 before gm would be producing 100,000 Volts per year.
that's six years away. with all the R&D going into all types of plug-ins, maybe the volt won't be the right technology. already some studies indicate the volt is an efficient user of battery power.
that's somewhat to be expected this early in the game, but my point is that the Volt might not achieve today's prius sales for many more years. a lot can happen between then and now. when the volt is finally ready to become a major player, others might have technologies better than either the Volt or a plug-in Prius.
hence, i think the idea of the volt resonates very well with many americans, but the reality of the volt isn't nearly as clear.
I like the technology behind the Volt but in order for it to sell, the price has to be lower. The $7500 tax credit is a step in the right direction.
What I don't understand, however, is this credit disappears for people with over $169k AGI. Just who does Congress think will be buying the Volt, a car with a price tag of $40,000? By taking the tax credit away from the people who can afford the car they are reducing the small pool of possible buyers to even a smaller group. Is Congress helping the Volt, or hurting?
anon-
interesting point. many also lost out on hybrid tax credits for making too much money. of course, the volt will cost much more than a prius, especially without tax credits.
i don't like the whole structure of most vehicle tax credits. i'd prefer a point of sale credit. just simplify the whole process.
if you want to hammer 'rich people', save if for the filing. but the focus of these credits should be to sell these cars as simply and quickly as possible.
My point exactly! The target market group for the Volt is procisely the group Congress is driving away. If the Dems want to hammer the rich, this is not the place to do it. Who is left to buy these cars?
I still think a lot of rich people will buy this car, with or without the tax credit, especially since there won't be that many produced for the first few years.
Still, imagine congress screwing up another piece of tax legislation. Who'd a thunk it?
You may be right in that some green-minded rich folks will still buy the Volt, regardless whether they get the tax credit or not. But if the goal of Congress is to get GM back on track to profitability, they need to convince as many people to look at and ultimately buy the Volt (and other GM cars). What they are doing is simply counter-productive.
This post has been removed by the author.
Volt Gen 1 is starting at only 10,000 cars a year. Even a few years ago Ford was building 25,000 hybrids a year.
Volt Gen 1 is a technology and development platform. It will never be high volume. That is Gen 2. Who ever buys Gen 1 is funding the roll out of Voltec, which will become "mainstream" for Volt Gen 2 and subsequent cars. People are called early adopters for a reason. They don't need a credit for a first of its kind car like the Volt. By Gen 2 the credit will apply to cars and customers where it can make a difference.
The key is how quickly Volt Gen 2 will land, and I think that depends upon how quickly GM can take over Lithium battery manufacturing. Once GM has a battery plant, then feel free to buy a Volt at a good value. Until then, know that not only will the Volt be too expensive, it won't even matter that you think so. They won't build enough anyway.
Oh, and don't forget the $7,500 credit applies to 200,000 GM cars. So, even if you wait until the much cheaper Volt Gen 2 or 3, you will be able to take advantage of the credit.
Patience, and luck. The Volt will need both.
anon-
i'm not arguing that you can't make that case.
along, alcatholic's point, that's 10,000 cars per year starting in 2011. Obviously, GM wants to increase production as fast as possible. Unfortunately, it will take several years, minimally, before GM produces 100,000 cars in total.
with such limited production there is no doubt there will be far more buyers than Volts. as a result, i doubt the tax credits will really be necessary to spur demand for many more years.
volt target demographic = rich
wrong wrong wrong....
.. wrong...
this is what the rich demographic wants:
http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp/model/landing.jsp?model=hybrid&year=2009&cmp=HybridRedirect
do ya'll seriously think that the rich are going to get a Volt to replace their SUV?
why in heaven's name would someone who price is not much of an issue but functionality is .. would trade a well-equipped SUV for a Chevy version of the Pruis?
dream on...
larry,
it was the upwardly mobile people that made the Prius so successful. for example, 'rich' people in hollywood have been some of the biggest supporters of the prius, and they'll be the biggest supporters of the Volt. The Volt is an even bigger statement than the Prius. Rich people in California, for instance, will buy this car up like hotcakes to prove their green cred.
Agreed! Nobody is going to give up an SUV for a Volt. So what? Plenty of other people who we are talking about.
Not rich, per se, but green obsessed rich. Or just some green obsessed well to do people. Or green obsessed financially irresponsible people (like me! :) None of these people have SUVs now.
There are whole websites and communities with slogans like, "No plug, no sale!" They've literally been petitioning Detroit to build a plug in car since 2004. People like Arianna Huffington and the Sierra Club types.
I will admit one thing. I haven't seen a lot of sustained buzz from those websites about the Volt. I'll see if I can figure out what's going on with the "No plug, no sale" groups.
is there a site with Prius owner demographics?
I always thought they might be younger folks.. perhaps not.
re: " green obsessed rich [market] "
would this be a big market?
I mean compared to the SUV or mini-van or truck market?
re: "no plug no sale"
plug-in cars powered by blasting off mountain-tops in West Va and Kentucky and spewing more mercury across the Eastern landscape is a really "ickky" proposition - no?
I would think that green obsessed [blank] is a big enough market for Volt Gen 1. No proof, but as an anecdote gm-volt.com has something like 30,000(?) pledges to buy a Volt in the $30K-$40K price range.
Electricity in general needs to be cleaned up, agreed. Good thing the Fed govt is making those kinds of investments now. And good thing that California has a new law that by 2020, 20% of electricity used must be from renewable sources. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the EPA gets a similar rule passed this year or next.
That said are you arguing that plug-in cars would increase pollution? That burning gasoline, however little, can be better than using electricity? Hmm, I'd have to see a study on that. Mind you, as a practical matter plug in cars like the Volt will be charged overnight for the foreseeable future, IMHO. Studies that assume charging during the day are not serious, in my book. But that's my personal opinion and I can be convinced otherwise.
larry,
i haven't seen a democraphic study of prius buyers in the last year or so, but they were done in the past. from what i can recall the majority were college educated, higher income class professionals that were the top buyers.
yes, volt and other hybrid buyers today represent a tiny fraction of society - maybe 5 to 10 percent of population will actually consider paying more for such vehicles - but that's still a huge number. sure it's nothing compared to SUVs, but it's still a big number for an emerging technology.
considering that it will take several years for gm just to produce 100,000 Volts, i don't think gm will have any problem selling these vehicles for the first few years. once production rises to say 100,000 volts per year, then sales will be dependent upon gas prices.
i also agree with you about coal-powered plug-ins and pollution, environmental destruction, etc. however, as alcatholic points out, most plug-ins will be sucking up excess capacity for the first several years. in the long run, however, you're onto a critical issue.
of course imagine the foreign oil money that could be diverted to cleaning up electricity production if we had to use coal power in the short term.
Dahcredyns,
I'll give you a gas tax, but are you will to decrease income taxes? After all, why should the govt get more of money? I am will to shift the tax burden around. I am not will to give the govt more money for the sake of giving it more money.
re: "excess capacity"
well.. sort of...
The grid is powered down at night because of less demand and that means they are not burning as much coal either.. but if they have to stay up to recharge batteries then they'll have to burn more coal to do that.
I don't know about green "cred" either ... it won't take the public long to figure out that a coal-powered car is not very "green".
I think we are also getting a tad bit confused on these things.
The only way any fuel will be 'green'[er] is if it pollutes less than what we are using now.
switching from one dirty fuel to another is not really "going green".
Yes obviously the goal is to drive a car that produces less pollution and that means looking at pollution from the electricity used by the car.
Are you still saying that a plugin car would increase pollution? I would love to see a study, or a sense of where you get that notion. Like I said I'm open to learning more.
scott-
i'm certain we can find common ground. i don't just want to give the government more money either. they do a relatively terrible job of managing the money we already give them.
larry-
it is my understanding that at night more energy is often produced than is used to maintain baseline production. so a small amount of plug-ins spread out throughout the US would be an improvement i think because they would largely be using energy that might normally be wasted.
long term, however, smart grid technology could make the grid, with the help of plug-ins, much more efficient - and numerous utilities have talked about this.
still, overall, there have numerous studies produced by various organizations demonstrating that plug-ins, overall, would result in a decrease of CO2 emissions, even using today's technology.
of course, what about water pollution, or other forms of pollution? I'm not certain that the studies have really fully accounted for the whole picture.
still, i'd rather end foreign oil dependency and use the money we spend securing OPEC oil, for instance, to make coal cleaner and to develop other forms of clean energy.
I've seen conflicting studies about pollution from coal-provided automobile use compared to pollution from gasoline-powered automobile use.
taking oil out of the ground creates less pollution that chopping off mountaintops which devastate the terrain and dumps debris into valleys and creeks whereas oil just depletes and underground reservoir.
from that point.. one might compare how much pollution is generated by transporting the coal or oil from where they are extracted to where they are used.
I'm better than coal wins this one.. at least on the east coast where oil generally would come from far away.
but then you have a car burning gasoline verses a car getting electricity from burning coal.
so ..even if coal burns cleaner than gasoline (highly doubtful... as coal is pretty darn dirty.. and spews mercury to boot and nitrogen into watershed causing nutrient issues.
it would seem that refined gasoline would have to burn cleaner and that the reason they don't use it to generate electricity is that it's just too darned expensive to use for that purpose...
no?
so.. how about natural gas?
would it be better to burn it to produce electricity to power Plug-ins or would it be better to let it directly power vehicles CNG?
these are question I think most green thinking people should want to know the answers to -
one thing to want a path to a cleaner world...
quite another to get into the realities of the issues.
I suspect natural gas is going to be the cleanest because it comes out of the ground virtually ready to use without much more energy-consuming "processing".
Should/could we produce CNG from coal - to power cars rather than electricity from coal?
yadda yadda.. I'm sure some of this data is "out there".
are ya'll familiar with this:
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/PrintFriendly?oid=975384
I absolutely hate having to pay 40K for a Volt however it could prove to be the car of my dreams. 90% of my driving is less than 40 miles per day. Most of the time less than 30 miles per day making me an ideal candidate for the Volt. Theoretically I could drive for weeks, maybe months without using any or very little gas because all the charging would be done in my garage. That really appeals to me. I have a diesel car that I use for long trips. This is my way of kicking dependance on foreign oil to the curb, helping provide jobs for America and helping myself. A Volt would replace my Smart Car as my daily driver. (I would hate parting with my Smart)
$40,000 is a lot and unless gas prices double or more, you won't even come close to making your money back via fuel savings. you do, however, use a lot less foreign oil.
still, in the short term, a $7500 tax credit could make the Volt far more appealing.
The Volt concept car looked cool and broke the mold but the some genius at Government Motors decided to take away the only thing it had going for it and make it look like every other ugly econobox.
They had to change the Volt design, otherwise its electric range would have been far less. Or, it would cost more than the projected $40,000 it is already supposed to cost as a larger battery pack would have been needed.
Post a Comment
<< Home