Hey Terr, whats your conspiracy theory now?

[Sampson]

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/410965/906020

GM: plug-in hybrids a priority
Print this story Email this story to a friend Email Alert
Related Articles
Losses widen at GM
Nov 30, 2006

General Motors Corp. has detailed its commitment to building new electric vehicles as it attempts to shed its reputation for producing gas-guzzling trucks.

Stung by criticism that it conspired to kill the electric car, the world's largest automaker said it plans to make a plug-in electric hybrid version of the Saturn Vue Green Line, with double the fuel efficiency of any current sport utility vehicle (SUV).

GM Chief Executive Rick Wagoner called the plug-in hybrid technology a "top priority" for the automaker.

"The technological hurdles are real, but we believe they are also surmountable," he told reporters at the Greater Los Angeles Auto Show.

The Saturn Vue Green Line is GM's first hybrid in the US market, running on gasoline and a battery that is charged while it is moving. A plug-in hybrid would run longer on a battery that can be recharged from an external electrical outlet.

GM also plans to expand the hybrid system to the Saturn Aura Green Line and Chevrolet Malibu sedans in 2007.

The effort is part of a GM effort to demonstrate how it is investing some of the $9 billion saved through a wrenching program of job cuts and plant closures in hybrid technology, an area where it has lagged Toyota Motor Corp.

GM recognises that to change consumer attitudes about its brands, it has to address criticism that it has not done enough to drive advances in fuel economy, a GM executive who asked not to be named told Reuters ahead of the announcement.

OTHER FUEL-SAVING OPTIONS

Wagoner said vehicles that run on a mixture of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline, as well as fuel-cell vehicles, which use hydrogen to create electricity and emit only water, are part of its plan to reduce US reliance on imported oil.

Wagoner also said all versions of its Hummer SUVs will offer an engine powered by bio-fuels within three years.

GM is pushing its green image amid falling US sales - down 9.4% through October. It has also been losing US market share to Toyota, which has ridden its reputation for quality and fuel-efficiency to a No. 1 position in the local market.

In 2007, GM plans to debut a two-mode hybrid system in the Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon full-size SUVs and plans to launch it in the Cadillac Escalade full-size SUV and the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra pickup trucks in 2008.

A two-mode system uses two sets of gears and two electric motors and maintains two driving modes - one for city driving, the other for highways.

The GMC Yukon hybrid, made in partnership with German automakers DaimlerChrysler AG and Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, will have 25% better fuel economy than the gasoline version, GM said.

Wagoner said he is uncertain about when a plug-in hybrid will be commercially available.

[Hyper Dingo]

Im gonna cut yer hair off sampson.. WHERES YOUR STRENGTH NOW HUH!?!?!

[JPS]

I dont see where its so hard to make a free-energy vehicle, you could make an electric motor that connects to a battery for power, and have a strong alternator connected to a pulley system on the engine that continuously recharges the battery while you drive

though maybe I see something wrong with that idea...I dont know....makes sense to me

[The_Real_Crunk]

Hybrids suck.

Make all electric cars that dont need gas of any kind, and Ill be happy.

[Chad]

Did ya have to sound like a dick?

[Denmo]

Hey Terr, whats your conspiracy theory now?Why, conspiring to theorize, of course.

[The Toecutter]

Conspiracy theory? The actions that this industry took to stifle the electric car are well within the realm of conspiracy fact.

Through the 1990s and early 2000s:

-The U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief supporting GM, DaimlerChrysler and others in their federal lawsuit against California’s ZEV mandate.

-Former Chief of Staff and former General Motorist Lobbyist Andrew Card acted as plaintiff against the State of California.

-The oil industry made blatantly false advertisements and statements about EVs and their technology.

-The oil industry set up and funded organizations with the declared intent of "stalling or preventing the adoption of battery electric vehicles in California and elsewhere".

-The oil industry conspired to prevent utility companies from setting up EV charging infrastructure.

-Chevron gained control of the NiMH battery and is setting a restriction on the size of the modules produced and for those small modules that are available for use in hybrids, are charging well above the price projected by the original developer. Chevron only allows it to be sold to OEMs, preventing small businesses and hobbyists, the bulk of those willing to produce EVs, from accessing it for use in their designs. With major automakers refusing to mass produce or sell pure EVs at this time, this battery is effectively shut from the market in regard to pure battery electric vehicles.

-The auto industry spread around misleading or even wholly dishonest information on EVs.

-The auto industry attempted to suppress information on battery technology.

-The auto industry made misleading and dishonest statements about the existing and future market for EVs.

-The auto industry outright refused to lease and/or sell the vehicles to willing customers with cash on hand who were willing to pay the advertised price.

-Auto industry lobbyists spent millions of dollars printing ads in opposition to EVs that their companies developed.

-The auto industry artificially inflated the projected production costs of their vehicles using unconventional accounting practices.

The article you posted is not only very vague as to what this car's capabilities will be, but has a few misconceptions.

It claims that a plug-in option will double the fuel economy of its Saturn Vue SUV. Not exactly. The fallacy is that the article fails to consider the energy used from the outlet. When not using grid electricity, the vehicle would still get roughly the same fuel economy as the non plug-in. When using grid electricity, you have to consider how much electricity it is using when calculating an equivalent mpg rating. A gallon of gasoline contains roughly 33 kWh of energy, and to get an accurate number, the amount of electricity and gasoline used to cover a given distance would have to be converted to similar units(eg. Joules, BTUs, or kWh), then the total energy used per unit of distance calculated, then re-converted to an equivalent mpg rating. Many claims abound about 200 mpg Toyota Prius hybrid, but it's more like a 75 mpg Prius when all energy usage is considered.

Rick Wagoner claims there are technological hurdles to a plug-in. What hurdles? The Vehicle Research Institute at western Washington University has been building plug-in hybrids and 80 mpg sports cars since the 1970s. UC Davis has recently(circa 2003) built a viable plug-in hybrid Chevrolet Suburban SUV for a Future Truck Competition; it would have less than a $5,000 price premium over GM's model, expected 150,000+ mile battery life, 60 miles all-electric range, can operate at highway speeds on electricity only, and expected 30 mpg EPA combined equivalent considering the energy used from grid electricity. GM never even bothered with it. The NiMH battery, used in the Toyota Prius hybrid, could easily be scaled up to a larger size suitable for plug-in hybrids would Chevron not be restricting it. In fact, UC Davis claims $220/kWh in automotive volume and 1,750 cycles to 100% discharge; Cobasys quotes a more conservative 1,200 cycles to 80% discharge. Nickel-based batteries have a shelf life in decades. A large SUV would need ~.4 kWh of electricity to travel 1 mile, or for 50 miles all-electric range, a $4,400 battery pack in automotive volume. And NiMH is old technology. Current Lithium Ion batteries may not have the long cycle life or shelf life of NiMH, but they are viable for a car with 100,000+ mile/10 year battery life. Today's Li Ions offer 500 cycles to 100% discharge; if they would be produced in automotive volume, the price would drop to $250/kWh according to the Center for Transportation Research at Argonne National Laboratory.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=cache:6XZFe3hqh_EJ:www.team-fate.net/reports/UC%2520Davis%25202000%2520Technical%2520Report.pdf+team+fate+UC+Davis

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/149.pdf

Hybrids, whether plug-in or not, still retain their maintenance-intensive internal combustion engine and its associated components. Hybrids don't seem to bother the auto industry near as much as pure EVs as a result.

Just because GM claims they plan to make the car doesn't mean they will ever sell them to the public or that it will evolve beyond a concept car or prototype. They said they'd make the EV1 in the early 90s. Look what they did with it. GM spent all the hundreds of millions of dollars for the machine tools and factory space to mass produce the car. GM then proceeded to refuse to mass produce the car and outright refused to sell the cars to a public willing to buy them when a market was clearly existent.

[Shard]

Mmmmm, that's good crow.

[The Toecutter]

I initially didn't see the comment quoted below:

I dont see where its so hard to make a free-energy vehicle, you could make an electric motor that connects to a battery for power, and have a strong alternator connected to a pulley system on the engine that continuously recharges the battery while you drive

though maybe I see something wrong with that idea...I dont know....makes sense to me

Please research the laws of thermodynamics and get back to me on that. Doing so will explain perfectly why such a scheme will not work.

[Big Rick Cook]

You could set up a pedal system to generate power, and have midgets pedaling in the trunk.

[DYRE]

I dont see where its so hard to make a free-energy vehicle, you could make an electric motor that connects to a battery for power, and have a strong alternator connected to a pulley system on the engine that continuously recharges the battery while you drive

though maybe I see something wrong with that idea...I dont know....makes sense to me

The law of thermodynamics?

EDIT: Terr beat me.

[JPS]

I initially didn't see the comment quoted below:



Please research the laws of thermodynamics and get back to me on that. Doing so will explain perfectly why such a scheme will not work.

Although engines are like that now, the engine uses a massive amount of battery power to start, however, when started, the alternator does recharge the battery over time, although it doesnt support the full function of an engine alone, thats why it uses gas, I'm just saying creating an all-electric engine(with no internal combustion) with a large-capacity alternator should be able to recharge the battery and keep the engine running, but ive been known to be wrong before...

http://www.hightechscience.org/electric_car.htm
but instead of having to plug it in have an high-capacity alternator to recharge the batteries as you drive, note this car was made in the 70's, so new technology should be able to get you to normal speeds and longer distances even with the extra baggage of an alternator in place

[Hyper Dingo]

i nominate this as a new sampson emote :

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v54/Hyperdingo/SAMPSON.jpg

[Kire]

:busted

[Sampson]

Hybrids, whether plug-in or not, still retain their maintenance-intensive internal combustion engine and its associated components. Hybrids don't seem to bother the auto industry near as much as pure EVs as a result.

If you didnt drive past the charge limit, you would never have to use the gasoline engine.

Plug in hybrids are superior to normal EVs because normal EVs are not flexable. Yes, the average person drives less than 40 miles per day and so would be able to use a normal EV on a regular basis. However, what about those people that drive 50+ miles to work one way? I know of several. How about people that own a cabin up state that they like to travel to a few weekends throughout the year? Road trip? All these things are impossible with a normal EV and the current infastructure in this country.

Just because GM claims they plan to make the car doesn't mean they will ever sell them to the public or that it will evolve beyond a concept car or prototype. They said they'd make the EV1 in the early 90s. Look what they did with it. GM spent all the hundreds of millions of dollars for the machine tools and factory space to mass produce the car. GM then proceeded to refuse to mass produce the car and outright refused to sell the cars to a public willing to buy them when a market was clearly existent.

All true. However, this time I believe they are sincere. GM is no longer a profitable, growing company. What do they have to lose? Further, the profit margin on hybrids is very low, but the companies still continue to make them. They don't want to, but they do. I'm sure they would do the same for EVs when they are left with no other options.

And to everyone else--I consider Terr a friend. Though the topic may have appeared like I was calling him out, It was in a friendly, poking-fun manner.

[The Toecutter]

If you didnt drive past the charge limit, you would never have to use the gasoline engine.

True. But most of the plug-in hybrids planned are purposely limited to electric only at below a certain speed(eg. below 35 mph for a proposed plug-in Prius), and tend to use a small battery pack to keep range short. This means that they will be mostly gasoline powered for the majority of the population.

Plug in hybrids are superior to normal EVs because normal EVs are not flexable. Yes, the average person drives less than 40 miles per day and so would be able to use a normal EV on a regular basis. However, what about those people that drive 50+ miles to work one way?

That's what a 300 mile range EV would be perfect for. That's enough range to go from St. Louis to Chicago, without stopping to recharge. Drive upstate to your cabin, plug in, recharge over the weekend, drive back.

Plug-in hybrids do have a big downside. They use both electric and an internal combustion propulsion systems, which increases complexity, maintenance, and manufacturing cost.

I know of several. How about people that own a cabin up state that they like to travel to a few weekends throughout the year?

Same as above. The worst case scenario is that a long range EV would be able to make a second car for virtually every family with 2 or more cars. For many households, like my own, an EV would feasibly be able to replace every car in the household.

If I were to immediately score a pack of NiMH or Li Ion batteries of sufficient size for my Triumph, I could literally drive from St. Louis to attend one of Aznable's rave parties in Indiana without any worry.

Road trip? All these things are impossible with a normal EV and the current infastructure in this country.

This last one is what the infrastructure would be needed for. Small task, considering what our government has wasted on hydrogen so far. We could expand upon the existing electric grid in short order would the will to do so be there.

Even without this infrastructure, many would be buying EVs. In the 1990s, a study titled "The Current and Future Market for Electric Vehicles" found that in the state of California, the market for an 80 mile range EV that cost similar to a gasoline powered car of comparable performance was between 12-18% of new car sales with a 95% confidence interval. This is over 180,000 electric cars per year that could have been sold in one state alone would demand had been met with an adequate product. Imagine what that market would be for a 150 or even 250 mile range EV with better performance than its gasoline counterpart and a similar or even reduced price tag.

While I think plug-in hybrids are a step in the right direction, the capability of those currently proposed by industry to reduce oil dependence is greatly reduced over a pure EV and their potential setbacks are enough to outweigh the advantage of being able to plug in.

People might plug in to save money. But if the price premium of a plug-in hybrid is so high that it will outweigh the reduced gasoline consumption, one seeking to buy an EV for this reason will ignore a plug-in hybrid. People might plug-in to reduce their oil use. But if their commute involves driving above an arbitrarily low speed or is outside the all-electric range of the plug-in as to necessitate the use of fuel in everyday driving, they'd be more inclined to avoid them over a pure electric car. People might buy an electric car because its operation is so simple and the car itself low-maintenance. But a complicated plug-in hybrid that has two propulsion systems would be shunned in favor of a low-maintenance diesel.

All of the selling points a pure EV has are greatly compromised or even eliminated entirely by the plug-in hybrids proposed today. However, there is still a large segment of the population where a plug-in hybrid would be a perfectly rational choice.

Consider that while many plug-in hybrids proposed may never achieve life cycle cost parity with their gas counterparts, even in $7/gallon Europe, a study by Cuenca and Gaines found NiMH battery EVs would be able to achieve cost parity with comparable gasoline powered cars at ~$1.30/gallon gas. If you have to maintain an internal combustion system AND account for battery costs, achieving cost parity with gasoline cars or even saving money over gasoline cars is virtually impossible at this time unless drastic changes are made to the currently proposed plug-in hybrids.

Consider that while the average American drives less than 40 miles per day, about half of that is at highway speeds, speeds at which the plug-in hybrids currently proposed by industry would be using gasoline for propulsion instead of electricity.

Consider that the additional energy used to manufacture a car with two propulsion systems in many cases will outweigh the amount of energy it is supposed to save in operation.

In order to be practical in regard to achieving the goals an EV is supposed to achieve, a plug-in hybrid would need to greatly reduce its use of the internal combustion engine and rely more on electricity for its propulsion. Dramatically downsize the gasoline engine, and supersize the electric drive to achieve fast acceleration.

All true. However, this time I believe they are sincere. GM is no longer a profitable, growing company. What do they have to lose?

They have even more marketshare to lose and of course those government handouts. It would be in their best interest to appear as if they were doing something. Whether or not they will deliver on their promise will be revealed if they actually put a working product on the market. So far, their track record isn't good. Keep in mind that when our government gave them $220 million to develop an 80 mpg midsize car in the 1990s, and the big 3 actually built working, market-ready prototypes, they refused to ever build and sell these cars. The industry has been begging our government for handouts to stay afloat. Bankruptcy is just around the corner.

IMO, if GM and the rest of the auto industry were sincere about this, they'd design a plug-in hybrid which was propelled soley by its electric drive, with perhaps 50 or more miles of all-electric range, and a small engine to extend range for long trips by recharging the battery. By having a large 150+ kW electric drive and a small 30 kW engine, a car could be able to operate at its maximum speed on electricity only and at any road-legal speed indefinately so long as there is fuel in the tank. The need to use the gasoline or diesel engine would be greatly reduced over the currently proposed plug-in hybrids. This would reduce the setbacks plug-in hybrids have over pure EVs while eliminating the immediate need for fast charge infrastructure development. Further, by keeping the internal combustion system small, to recharge the battery at a steady 80 mph on a road trip would put the engine at a very high load relative to its maximum power capability, which is the optimum operating point for an internal combustion engine in regard to efficiency. For long trips, we could literally have cars that get almost 30% more highway fuel economy than they do today while not needing any gas for short trips, with no setbacks, with the above design. And we haven't even touched the issue of aerodynamics yet, would could provide gains of over 40% on top of that. By keeping the internal combustion system small, price premium over gasoline-only models can be greatly reduced to where consumers could actually save money over the life of the vehicle. A smaller, simplified internal combustion system would be lower maintenance than the large systems powering our fleet of cars today.

If a plug-in hybrid is still reyling mostly on its internal combustion system for propulsion, in most cases, it won't even be worth the effort. The additional manufacturing cost, price premiums, maintenance, and complexity would greatly reduce its ability to ameliorate the problems an electric car is supposed to ameliorate. Properly designed, a plug-in hybrid could be a great car.

And to everyone else--I consider Terr a friend. Though the topic may have appeared like I was calling him out, It was in a friendly, poking-fun manner.

That's sort of how I interpreted it. :)