Apparently the authors of the CMU study are unaware of the relentless cost reduction gained by experience, sometimes known as the "manufacturing experience curve". That is, the cost of producing something drops by XX% with every doubling of cumulative production. Other comments here have referred to semiconductors, RAM, and other things that demonstrate this effect. For example, Toyota holds their managers to this curve, linking their job performance to hitting the FUTURE REDUCED COST of the item, NOT the CURRENT COST. Production cost is dynamic and declines logarithmically and very very rapidly early in a technology's lifecycle, which is where PHEVs are today.
From a marketing standpoint, early adopters are willing to pay more than the mass market. Startup volume is low, price is high, early adopters buy, GM gets experience, cost drops, more people buy, GM gets more experience, cost drops, lather, rinse, repeat.
These dynamic cost and price/demand effects will allow PHEVs to provide consumers an equivalent cost/gallon of fuel under $1.00, including amortizing the battery, and with no risk of that fuel price ever increasing. Within 10 years. That's a marketing value proposition!
really? let me get the count straight ... the elec vehicle was killed in 1995 .. that makes it 13 years. If it takes the auto guys (all of them did it, even Honda and Toyota) 13 yrs to produce sub-standard batteries (all the while earning on sub-standard IC engines), I am not prepared to pay any more ... GM is not doing it because it wants to ... stop thinking about the economy and think about morals ... if a company would do it only to survive, i am not pleased with it
The learning curve for PHEVs electrical components will be reinforced by production volumes of batteries and power electronics for grid applications. For example, the value of wind and solar power is enhanced when their intermittent energy can be stored and used at a later time. Otherwise, the grid's base load needs will continue to depend on coal plants and nukes with their escalating operating, replacement and environmental costs. Batteries are a prime candidate to provide a substantial portion of this necessary storage, especially for distributed storage and other possible grid-related enhancements, e.g., "spinning reserve".
The Volt is a last gasp marketing stunt. GM has spent a decade pissing on the idea of hybrids and propping up the Fool-Cell hoax. Do the numbers: 40 miles x 365 days. That's 14600 miles or 292 gallons driving a Prius . At $2/gallon, that's $584! 2010 Prius is $23500 MSRP. The Volt has to be WAY south of $40000 to even begin to makes cents.
by the time, it starts to do it, we would have spent thousands on maintenance and eventually the engine would die before even break-point (leave alone the subsidy; would not even meet what the extra the customer paid for it)
Well you guys managed to get a few miles out of this debate. The bottom line, however, is if the buying public are, well, going to buy it. If this is as some of you have suggested, just a PR stunt on GM's behalf, which given the present circumstances would seem to be a highly improbable proposition, then the technology, regardless of the auto makers assertion that it is sound, is either going to take off or tank. There are plenty of conversion kit plans which are available online that you can use to convert your gas guzzler into a reasonably efficient electric vehicle, which can be recharged overnight, will be good for any ordinary commute, and won't cost you lot of money in the long run.
If it gets an electric car on the market for less than $40,000 dollars it's good, even if it is using taxpayers money. This is because it will then force the competitors to also do the same.
The battery price is not a real issue. On one hand, there is nowhere near enough lithium around to supply everyone with an electric car so its price will dramatically rise. However, there is enough for the next few years, after which Chevron's patent on the better and cheaper NiMH battery will expire in 2014 and these will take over where Lithium ion batteries left off.
In every issue you’ll learn about new technologies and new ideas FIRST. You’ll read in-depth features that investigate how these technologies work. If you’re in charge of the strategic direction of your organization, or if you simply care where the road to the future is leading, you’ll benefit by subscribing today!
Flying to London to see my Father, a copy of Nabokov's lost masterpiece "The Original of Laura" in my bag. Its subtitle is "Dying is Fun." 12/08/2009 01:58 PM
Google Takes Search Real-Time: Search giant compresses the time frame of its results from... http://www.technologyreview.com/web/24082/ 12/08/2009 12:00 PM
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address
FreddyG
11
Experience Curves and Marketing 101
From a marketing standpoint, early adopters are willing to pay more than the mass market. Startup volume is low, price is high, early adopters buy, GM gets experience, cost drops, more people buy, GM gets more experience, cost drops, lather, rinse, repeat.
These dynamic cost and price/demand effects will allow PHEVs to provide consumers an equivalent cost/gallon of fuel under $1.00, including amortizing the battery, and with no risk of that fuel price ever increasing. Within 10 years. That's a marketing value proposition!