Are automakers using plug-ins to greenwash the truth?
GM's 'revolutionary' HCCI engine
Embracing efficient and cost-effective change
A new study claims that by 2035 US light duty fleet fuel economy could be tripled to 74 mpg without plug-in or hydrogen technology, at a much cheaper cost than achieving the same goal through plug-in or or hydrogen technologies.
So, have plug-ins become an excuse – dare I say a greenwashing effort – by automakers to delay change as long as possible? Are plug-ins just like yesterday’s flex-fuel CAFE credits?
The study A Fuel Efficiency Horizon for US Automobiles doesn’t suggest that plug-ins are about greenwashing, that’s my suggestion based upon the history of the US auto industry. It’s just that in my opinion, selling 50,000 plug-in vehicles per year doesn’t justify selling 1 million 17 mpg pickup trucks, just as adding never-used flex fuel technology to gas guzzlers didn’t justify CAFE credits that enabled automakers to blatantly violate CAFE requirements , resulting in increased foreign oil dependence.
Unfortunately, good intentions resulted in bad results.
Fortunately, that’s not to say that plug-ins or hydrogen won’t offer the world a fantastic future. It’s just that both technologies are simply not cost-effectively mature, and betting the farm on them as THE solution is very inefficient and cost-ineffective. Sadly, the evidence supporting the fact that plug-ins simply are not cost-effective, and will almost certainly not be cost-effective for decades, is nothing short of overwhelming.
Of course, some Eureka moment in the basement of some college laboratory could instantly change that, but until that happens, shouldn’t we be doing everything else that we can as quickly as we can, especially when “projected fuel savings greatly exceed upfront costs”?
Plug-in vehicles are a technology that MUST be pursued; however, if its going to take decades for plug-ins to mature into the dominant mainstream solution, shouldn’t we be putting greater focus on what else can be done in the interim? How is achieving today, what automakers want to put off until tomorrow, so bad for America if “savings greatly exceed upfront costs”?
Minimally, isn’t it time for an honest, transparent national discussion on energy policy?
According to the EPA for 2009 of the Top 10 automakers, the Big 3 ranked Ford at 8, GM at 9, and Chrysler at 10.
The top automakers, including Hyundai, Honda, VW and Toyota averaged about 30 mpg, GM was under 25 mpg.
yeah they did…. the TARP was borrowed money – from guess who?
ha ha ha
what goes around……… etc…
I don’t buy the anti-GM blather.
You can list 20 things you don’t like about GM but show me 20 things that COMPARE what GM did (or did not) do COMPARED to others.
Remember guys – they make cars worldwide and they are PROFITABLE in many other countries…. so do they get credit for that?
The only thing I really agree with is that GM – a longtime corporation with a past history of excellence now is not living up to their potential in the eyes of some.
I think .. if you want to paint “bad” on an auto maker that Chrysler makes some of the least reliable and durable cars on the market… just look at the reliability ratings in Consumer Reports (and remember these ratings are based on OWNERs actual experience with the cars) – not Consumer’s initial test rating (which is separate).
Drach – do we know how GM’s CAFE compares to the other makers?
…Okay, okay, Chinese customers are still customers. But China didn’t give GM billions of dollars to keep their asses afloat.
Dach – You’re certainly right about GM, the yahoos. The only statement of yours I disagree with is that “they are certainly just trying to serve the needs of their customers…” I have a much stronger impression they are serving the needs of their stockholders. If cared one bit about the American consumer, they wouldn’t be moving all their production and sales to China.
ACEEE for sure rates this every year. If you dig around on their website I’m sure you’ll find what you are looking for, Larry.
Well, Larry, to me, GM’s history speaks for itself. One of the worst CAFE ratings in the industry, flex fuel abuses, and they practically destroyed NiMH techology, and that’s just for starters. GM could have made Toyota-like hybrids without the legal hassles and royalties Toyota had to pay. in fact, Toyota could have been paying GM royalties on every hybrid it has thus far sold.
On paper, when it comes to fuel economy, GM has been a knuckle-dragging laggard. The biggest laggard. Now, they are certainly just trying to serve the needs of their customers to a large extent, nevertheless, considering they were the largest automaker for a long time, didn’t they have any corporate responsibility to think ahead of the market, especially after 9/11?
Seriously, I want to advocate on behalf of GM, but they don’t make much of a case for such support. Most of the workers at GM are top notch from my experience, and they’ve always treated me excellently. But corporately, particularly in the boardroom, GM has been extremely disappointing.
So, yes. Perhaps I am being a bit unfair, but based on GM’s history, even before bankruptcy, but especially since bankruptcy, I think they MUST be held to a higher standard. America needs GM to raise the bar on itself, and maybe they already have, but until the results speak for themselves, I’m not going to assume.
Likewise, as i alluded to earlier, I did join the GM bandwagon for a while, particularly after the launch of the Volt. I met with practically every major executive and engineer working on the Volt and hybrids. I was invited to many GM events to follow the progress of the Volt. And, unfortunately, over time it become obvious that the Volt was just too much about marketing and PR, and almost certainly will continue to be so through at least through 2020 and possibly much later. To me the Volt has become a very well designed delay tactic.
Also, during my GM-bandwagon time, GM made a lot of big forecasts about its hybrids as well. Bob Lutz claimed that vehicles like the Malibu hybrid would resonate better with consumers because they were more cost-effective and cheaper up front. The superiority of the dual mode hybrid drive would put Toyota’s hybrid drive to shame. Well, neither prediction hit the mark. A smaller dual mode hybrid in the Saturn Vue was delayed time and time again and then finally squashed after bankruptcy.
As someone whom has closely followed GM for years and has wanted to believe in them time and time again, only to be disappointed again and again, don’t I have to hold them to a higher standard?
here’s one everyone here should like:
” Craig Henderson drove 1,478 miles from from Blaine, Washington to Mexico without stopping to refuel, burning just 12.4 gallons of diesel for a stunning 119.1 mpg.
And he did it in a car he originally designed in 1984.”
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/09/avion-canada-to-mexico/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+wired/index+(Wired:+Index+3+(Top+Stories+2))
or …. http://goo.gl/iXKt
re: ” the Volt will help balance GM’s CAFE requirements”
really? it’s a FLEET AVERAGE.. selling a few volts is not going to have hardly any effect on FLEET AVERAGE I would not think.
Chevy is getting to roll out a small car called the Cruz which is supposed to get 40mpg.
That car.. if it sells in volume …WILL help the FLEET AVERAGE….
I think that car is how they plan on achieving CAFE.
they’re probably going to set the price so they sell as many as they have to to “balance” the SUVs and trucks they sell..
By the way – is there a reference that shows the FLEET AVERAGE rankings for the various car makers in the US?
If there is.. I’m sure someone here knows it.
what companies make hybrid pickups? Ford is the number 1 seller of trucks. Do they make them? How about Toyota?
a hybrid truck – a real one that can actually haul loads – is not going to scale up as well as a light duty commuter car anyhow… I think .. although diesel-electric hybrid locomotives have been around a while.
But why hammer on GM – the number two maker of trucks – just them and no one else?
GM makes cars worldwide and they make a profit at it and they compete well against Toyota in other countries.
What’s changed in this country is that SOME folks now want fuel-efficient cars – but others still want their SUVs and pickups.
All the car makers provide the vehicles desired in this market including Toyota.
Before we hammer GM for not producing a the kind of hybrid truck we think they should – should we also ask the same questions of Toyota and others?
I’m just noticing a distinct anti-GM bias on some of these threads and I really don’t think they are much different than most of the others myself
How is GM pushing plug-ins? That’s akin to saying that GM is pushing hybrid pickup trucks. Yet, while GM sells hybrid pickup trucks, they make up an inconsequential percentage of sales. Yet, if GM converted all of its trucks to hybrids, it would have far more impact on the planet than selling 50,000 Volts per year. Even if GM’s truck sales were 20 percent hybrid, I would give them unlimited positive attention for this effort.
Likewise, Toyota has been testing plug-in Prius test vehicles for longer than the Volt has even been around as a concept. They haven’t marketed them because they’ve still been too expensive. Likewise, through at least 2030 almost every single battery study has suggested that hybrid cars will far outsell plug-ins, and I’d bet that focusing on mass hybridization is far more efficient, cost-effective and offers greater results than the plug-ins using the same amount of battery material.
Yet, GM has failed miserably at hybrids, despite originally owning the bulk of NiMH battery patents.
Again, too much of the plug-in movement is caught up in perception and emotion rather than achieving real world results. We’re not being very logical in my opinion – an opinion i didn’t use to have. Check out my old Volt posts, for instance. I was very supportive for a while, as I was with plug-ins in general, but the plethora of evidence coming from Oxford, MIT, Argonne, JD Power and countless other reputable institutions strongly demonstrate that plug-ins are a niche technology that will have little impact on foreign oil dependence for decades without a significant battery breakthrough and, unfortunately, such even such a breakthrough could take decades to scale into cost-effective plug-in vehicles.
When scientists that have been working on lithium-ion batteries for decades say things like that and use hard data to support their position, it’s hard not to take such studies seriously. Ironically, Toyota has been saying the same thing for years, which is why they’ve consistently scaled up hybrid production – which the same studies suggest offer the most battery-powered bang for the buck.
Why can’t there be honesty and transparency regarding that? Instead, it seems to me we’re been greenwashed to believe that soon every American will buy something like a Volt when the truth is, that’s just not going to happen for decades.
Numerous analysts have said it many times, for now the Volt is much more about marketing than change. And, that’s fine. I agree that GM should build the Volt, but I don’t want to hear countless marketing messages about GM’s game changing Volt when the Volt can’t change the game for decades, if ever.
Give me the the best fleet fuel economy, at least in the Big 3. Give me a top selling car with top 5 fuel economy, or just 10 percent hybrid pickups, then I’ll gladly lighten up on GM, but if you just give me well funded marketing spiels, then I’m going to be critical. Anybody can talk the talk, I want some walking. I’ve been in this space for many years now, and i’ve heard a lot of talk from GM regarding its BAS hybrids, then its dual mode hybrids – both GM promised would be far superior to Toyota. All that talk ended up as hot air and almost a decade went by where GM talked a good game, but kept coming up with the same inefficient results.
Likewise, it is my understanding that like flex-fuel CAFE credits, the Volt will help balance GM’s CAFE requirements. Thus, just like the ethanol and flex fuel debacle, Volt sales might enable GM to sell other vehicles that basically violate CAFE, but thanks to the Volt they can continue to sell them. Consequently, GM will probably continue to have one of the worst fleet economies – worse than Ford by the way. So, GM can acquire a significant amount of taxpayer money to help sell the Volt, and then use those sales to sell more CAFE-violating guzzlers?
Anyway, if GM’s trucks weren’t spread across multiple brands, if I’m not mistaken, GM would outsell Ford. Nevertheless, Ford’s fleet fuel economy is better than GM’s.
And before Alan Mulally I was harsh with Ford. I’ve been more supportive lately because I believe that Ford has pretty solid plans moving forward. When Alan Mulally restructured Ford’s finances, etc. it was all part of the long term plan that Ford put forth publicly right after Mulally took the helm – one that started with things like Ecoboost across the entire fleet, followed by a surge of hybrids, and a mix of plug-in hybrid and EVs. And that long term plan saved Ford from going into bankruptcy. For now, that entitles Ford to a bit of a reprieve.
so who is “pushing” for plug-ins? It seems to me that GM and the others are castigated for not pursuing plug-in technology and then we turn around accuse them of “pushing” the technology as a “green washing” marketing effort.
also – it’s not how many miles per gallon you get – it’s how much fuel you use… how much you drive.
Most Europeans use 1/2 the fuel that we use – and they do not use hybrids or plug-ins to achieve that reduction.
It’s a combination of things from fuel-efficient cars to living closer to work to taking public transportation etc.
It does not matter what you MPG is – it matters how much fuel you use overall.
Because there really are no free lunches on this.
We cannot buy our way to “green” – but “green washing” only “works” anyhow if the public (we) is susceptible to that kind of marketing in the first place.
So – again.. on one hand, we whack on GM and company for “pushing” …”greenwashing” the plug-in technology … and we turn right around and whack on them for not being world-leaders in that technology.
so… which is it?
By the way.. I still don’t get all the condemnation of GM.
Ford is the top seller of gas guzzling pickups – right?
Why not condemn Ford as least as much as we condemn GM?
… just thought I’d stir the pot a little here…ha ha…