Discussions

« Back 1 [2] 3 Next »

• 
  cowsandmilk
  

  Posts:
  4

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  03/05/2009 07:46 AM

  [no subject]

  Saying that something that relies on government stimulus to be "economically viable" is not "economically viable" is such a stupid fallacy.  Cars don't go through major redesigns every year, so GM appears to be well positioned to use the stimulus in the way it is intended.  The stimulus makes it a viable product for consumers in the beginning year(s), then as battery prices fall with better technology, the car becomes economically viable with no stimulus and no need to redesign to reflect the new optimum battery size.
  
  The economy is what the current market conditions provide.  Pretending that your calculations should not include government stimulus is just leaving cash on the table.

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    millikenresearch
    

    Posts:
    9

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    03/05/2009 09:35 AM

    Re:

    Calling the Volt economically viable when it requires taxpayer financing is such a stupid fallacy.

    Rate this comment:
    • 
      tigerbody
      

      Posts:
      3

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      03/06/2009 04:40 PM

      Re: economic sense?

      Somehow the environment and the impact
      on the environment got left out the the
      economic equation.
      
      

      Rate this comment:
• 
  Eternalspring
  

  Posts:
  1

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  03/05/2009 11:07 AM

  Caveat the asumptions!!!

  The key question is at what crude prices? Certainly you can question the economic viability of the volt at $40/bbl but is that the right long term fuel price??? I like to think that once you price if the full social cost of this fossil fuel viability of volt becomes a non question.

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    gametheoryman
    

    Posts:
    16

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    03/05/2009 01:10 PM

    Re: Caveat the asumptions!!!

    The CMU study assumed $0.11 per kWh for the electricity and a retail gasoline price of $3.00 per gallon that would be avoided. These were roughly 2007 prices.
    
    When the Volt is out many utilities will offer time-of-day pricing for electricity, and hybrid users will find this worth the cost of a meter. The opportunity cost for delivered power in the middle of the night is below $0.02 per kWh, which is where the price would be if regulators don't screw it up.
    
    If we respond efficiently to energy security, we end up taxing oil imported from countries having politically driven suppliers (and one hopes reducing tax revenues the same amount elsewhere). The amounts the federal government already pays for more stable oil prices that include our oil reserves, restructured military, and distorted foreign policy, let alone two Gulf Wars, would require something near $1 per gallon. We seem to be headed towards a patchwork of subsidies that provide incentives in this direction instead. While not efficient, subsidies that could substitute for such an oil tax must then be included in the simulations.
    
    If we respond efficiently to global warming, we eventually end up taxing for the pollutants (or auctioning pollution permits) and these amounts are likely to be at approximately the same level. (Most studies together suggest it could be half that or twice that.) I expect a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system to be instituted in the next few years that would go in this direction.
    
    So, if regulation continues to move in the direction that it appears to be and with $40 /barrel oil, we would have $0.02 per kWh for electricity and $4 /gallon of gasoline. This changes their conclusions.

    Rate this comment:
    • 
      jimillo
      

      Posts:
      1

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      03/05/2009 03:17 PM

      Re: Caveat the asumptions!!!

      Another very important assumption missed:  Charging.  Economies of scale, subsidies by taxpayers and/or early adopters are not the only issues that the CMU study “screwed up” (to quote our President).   CMU also assumes that cars with smaller, shorter range, batteries will be recharged more often.  As Lauckner aptly puts it, “how many customers are going to stop every 7 miles and wait at least 30 minutes for their battery to be recharged? Without having done any market research, I'm guessing the answer is 'very few.'”
      
      A mid-size battery like the Volt’s (I will call the Tesla’s a ‘large size’ battery) probably does make the most sense.  Most people drive 40 miles or less per day, including commutes and errands.  These people will recharge overnight, just like I plug in my cell phone (almost) every night.  They won't have to worry about finding a charging station along the way, or at work.  For these people, no gasoline will be used.*   This is what the Volt is all about – breaking the U.S. addiction to oil.
      
      * I suspect that the Volt will run its engine briefly at least once a week to keep the engine's internals lubricated, but this will probably consume 0.05 gallons per week, or about two gallons per year.  I suspect that even corn ethanol cold be produced in quantities to provide drivers with 2 gallons per year, so ultimately no gasoline would be used.

      Rate this comment:
      • 
        blunney
        

        Posts:
        17

        Avg Rating:
        

        

        Reply

        03/06/2009 02:45 PM

        Re: Caveat the asumptions!!!

        Don't neglect the macro-savings in energy consumption by using a smaller battery.  First, there is less battery to manufacture, so less energy is needed to harvest the raw materials, process them, and transport the finished product.  Win number 1. 
        
        Once in the car, less energy is required to haul the weight of the smaller batteries around, especially if your average trip is less than 40 miles (actually less than the battery's nominal capacity given the driver's typical usage pattern).  Less coal is burned at the power plants, less pollution, less CO2.  Win number 2.
        
        Finally, less energy will be required to recycle or dispose of the batteries after their useful life.  Win number 3.
        
        Bigger isn't always better.  Get used to it; its the way we're going to live in the future, like it or not.

        Rate this comment:
      • 
        tigerbody
        

        Posts:
        3

        Avg Rating:
        

        

        Reply

        03/06/2009 04:46 PM

        Re: Caveat the asumptions!!!

        "As Lauckner aptly puts it, “how many customers are going to stop every 7 miles and wait at least 30 minutes for their battery to be recharged?"
        
        This is so wrong that I don't even know where to start....

        Rate this comment:
• 
  buelts
  

  Posts:
  11

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  03/05/2009 02:33 PM

  may still sell if more expensive

  I wonder what the market size is of people who will pay more than the gas savings for environmental, nation security reasons or simply because they like the car. Car prices today range from a few thousand for dependable transportation to many tens of thousands. People will pay a wide range of prices for a wide range of attributes for reasons that are not only economic.  If this new attribute of efficiency is properly marketed people may buy it even if it isn't initially economically justified.  The new technology offered with the volt deliveries performance and style along with an unprecedented 90-100 mph equivalent. 

  Rate this comment:
• 
  ggf1938
  

  Posts:
  1

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  03/06/2009 07:34 AM

  Volt

  NO!  The Volt was and is just a glorified concept car.  Just like the 1,000's of other made by the Big 3 over the years.  Remember Autorama??

  Rate this comment:

« Back 1 [2] 3 Next »