You must have seen the ads by now; they're everywhere- Chevy Volt 230 , with the zero being an electrical socket photoshopped into a smiley-face. (which drives a lot of parents up a wall) It drives me up a wall, too, even though I don't have any children... because it's bullshit.
It cannot be done in a street legal car using an internal combustion engine. Period. Yes, tissue-fragile deathtrap vehicles just large enough for a human body have gotten over a thousand miles per gallon on a perfectly level, smooth test track- but the laws of physics won't permit an automobile that meets all US regulations to reach triple-digit mileage. (I give a short explanation here ) 230 MPG? That would mean you could drive from Miami to Seattle on one 12-gallon tank, and have enough left over to drive around Seattle to the shops and dinner! If you believe that, I have a few other bargains for you as well...
But you don't have to take my word for it- you can figure it out from their own published information. The Chevrolet main site doesn't have any specs, but they have a facebook page to answer questions- just make sure your browser is gyro-stabilized to handle the spin. The battery lasts for 40 miles, after which the gasoline engine/generator supplies the electricity, for a total of 300 miles per tankfull. 300, not 2,300. Which, according to this US News & World Report article, translates to about 35 MPG. But wait, Chevy says, there is a formula to draw an energy equivalency to mileage here: "The EPA's tentative EREV testing process won't actually measure gasoline usage. Instead, it rates vehicles in kilowatt hours per 100 miles, then converts that measurement to miles per gallon. Effectively, the testing procedure doesn't give an mpg rating. It merely shows that a vehicle will use energy that equates to a certain mpg rating.
To illustrate this point, Nissan quickly followed GM's announcement with its own, claiming the upcoming 2010 Nissan Leaf electric car will earn a 367 mpg EPA rating. The rules, it seems, can generate a miles-per-gallon rating for a car that doesn't even use gasoline."
Let me propose another formula: compare costs; since one must buy both the kilowatt/hours and the gallons, that should yield an equivalent. Chevy initially said it would cost $0.40 to charge the Volt- at least until some reporter asked where one could buy 16 KW for $0.40. Now they say between $0.75 and $2.50, depending upon where you live. I live in Indianapolis, where we pay $0.08/KW; that's $1.28 to charge the Volt. That would buy just about a half gallon of gas at the national average of $2.44 the EPA uses for mileage calculations. For a distance of 40 miles, that's equivalent to 80 MPG. That's damn good, but it's NOT 230MPG.
Why the extravagant claim when the truth- 80MPG- is impressive enough as is? Maybe they knew that with a $40,000 price tag they needed to make a "not price, but value" argument. If so, it backfired; had they made a believable claim, I'd have looked no farther. As it is, I decided to run the numbers. The Volt has a maximum lifespan of 15 years- that's how long the $10,000 battery lasts. (At best; some experts say it's more like 10 years) Let's take the best possible scenario: I never drive more than 40 miles in a day, and therefore never burn a drop of gas. $1.28/day times 365 days is $467.20/year. 15 years at $467.20/year is $7,000; plus the $40,000 purchase price is $47,000 for the 17 year lifespan. If I lived where the cost of the daily charge was $2.50, it would be $13,688 for electricity, $53,688 total. How does that compare to a normal, inefficient, old-technology car?
If you go to www.fueleconomy.gov you'll find a lot of cars getting 30MPG. 40 miles per day at 30 miles per gallon is 486.67 gallons a year; at the $2.44 average price of a gallon, that's $1,187 per year; times 15 years is $17,812 for gasoline. That's more than double what you'd pay for the electricity to run the Volt at the cheapest KW price; it's even a third higher than the highest KW price. But look at purchase price- a comparably equipped four door sedan runs between $13,000 and $18,000, not $40,000. Let's say $16,000- there are quite a few at that price or less. That makes the total of purchase price and gasoline $33,812... between $13,000 and $19,000 cheaper than the Volt!
But wait- what if the price of gas goes up? Ok... in the example above, at 30MPG, same miles driven for 15 years, you've bought 7,300 gallons of gas. Say it goes up to $4.00 per gallon- that's $29,200, + the $16,000 purchase price is $45,200- still cheaper than I paid for Volt + electricity. If we went with the $2.50 cost per charge Chevy says is possible in some cities, Gas would have to go up to $5.16 per gallon to match the cost of Volt ownership. And remember that the price of electricity can go up, too. And also remember that all this is based on never driving the Volt far enough to be using the 35MPG gas engine instead of the 80MPG battery- if you start a new job commuting farther than 20 miles one way, or start having to drive the kids to all kinds of events, you could find the price tag escalating even faster. Unless the price of gasoline triples quickly, there simply aren't any scenarios in which it makes sense to buy a Volt.
That doesn't make the Volt a bad product. It's a good concept, and we have to start somewhere. And the price is bound to drop at least a bit as production ramps up. But stop the hype- it is not the salvation of the American automobile industry, or the environment.
And it does not get 230MPG.
Showing posts with label CAFE standards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CAFE standards. Show all posts
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Maybe Nixon was right
and Sammy Hagar was wrong. According to a study by the University of Michigan, people are slowing down because of the high price of gas- and fatalities are dropping dramatically.
"Over the previous 10 months, monthly fatalities declined an average of 4.2 percent compared to the previous year. Then, Sivak's data shows, fatalities dropped 22.1 percent in March and 17.9 percent in April of this year — numbers that did not show up in a recent federal report that tracked a drop in traffic deaths through the end of 2007.
The declines found by Sivak suggest that motorists reached what he calls a "tipping point" and have begun significantly changing their behavior — altering not only how much they drive, but where, when and how they drive. Sivak said early data for May and June show similar trends.
"There is something more than just the reduction in driving that has to be brought in as an explanation for the huge drop in fatalities," Sivak said."
"Sivak predicts that highway deaths this year will drop below 37,000 for the first time since 1961 if the March and April trends continue. The government motor vehicle death count for 1961 totaled 36,285. The number of highway deaths peaked in 1972 at 55,600, then generally declined over the next two decades. For the past several years, the number has hovered above 42,000 a year."
"It's really very interesting that with all these efforts that have gone into building safer highways, safer cars, better enforcement ... this really dramatic change we're seeing is due to economics, to the price of gasoline," said Paul Fischbeck, director of Center for the Study and Improvement of Regulation at Carnegie Mellon University"
Come on, Sammy- leave your Ferrari in third gear.
"Over the previous 10 months, monthly fatalities declined an average of 4.2 percent compared to the previous year. Then, Sivak's data shows, fatalities dropped 22.1 percent in March and 17.9 percent in April of this year — numbers that did not show up in a recent federal report that tracked a drop in traffic deaths through the end of 2007.
The declines found by Sivak suggest that motorists reached what he calls a "tipping point" and have begun significantly changing their behavior — altering not only how much they drive, but where, when and how they drive. Sivak said early data for May and June show similar trends.
"There is something more than just the reduction in driving that has to be brought in as an explanation for the huge drop in fatalities," Sivak said."
"Sivak predicts that highway deaths this year will drop below 37,000 for the first time since 1961 if the March and April trends continue. The government motor vehicle death count for 1961 totaled 36,285. The number of highway deaths peaked in 1972 at 55,600, then generally declined over the next two decades. For the past several years, the number has hovered above 42,000 a year."
"It's really very interesting that with all these efforts that have gone into building safer highways, safer cars, better enforcement ... this really dramatic change we're seeing is due to economics, to the price of gasoline," said Paul Fischbeck, director of Center for the Study and Improvement of Regulation at Carnegie Mellon University"
Come on, Sammy- leave your Ferrari in third gear.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Is green U.S. mass transit a big myth?
Is the question raised by Brad Templeton in an article using data from the US Departments of Energy and Transportation. The answer- depending on where you are, of course- is sometimes yes!
He is not arguing against using existing mass transit systems, but for considering the numbers for future construction. In many instances, it may be better to encourage responsible personal transportation. I have long thought this, and my recent trips to Europe confirmed it- the problem is not whether one drives, but what and how.
CC's SmartCar would be at least a mid-size car in many European cities. In Italy I saw many, many vehicles I would call a "crossover" type; not a cross between a car and an SUV, as we would use the word here, but rather a cross between a faired scooter and a single seat car- like this one Some of them even had cute little pickup beds for delivery duties. Most all of them got northwards of 50 MPG, often quite a ways north; 60-80 MPG for some. None of them would be legal here.
Why? Because it's claimed they aren't safe- and yet, the accident injury and death rates are no higher there than here. Why? Because these are town cars; they are driven where geography and traffic conditions are such that you aren't going fast enough to have a high-impact accident. They don't have to be able to survive a 60 MPH accident with a Cadillac because the average accident would be 20 MPH with a pedestrian or another scooter- and even those accidents are less likely because such lightweight vehicles stop faster and maneuver better.
We have special licenses for Ultralight and Sports airplanes, as long as they don't try to mix it up at the big boy airports. We have special licenses for scooters and mopeds, as long as you don't try to take them on the highways. But we have no such provisions to allow micro-cars. Here in Indiana one town passed an ordinance permitting people to take their electric golf carts on city streets to the corner store, and the State Police swooped in and busted everybody, saying that only the State and Feds could make laws about cars. An appeal is pending, but there is little chance of them prevailing. In today's environment, this makes no sense.
We need a national law to provide for micro-sized town cars. For millions of Americans, a four-wheeled scooter would do us for getting to work and the store- 90% of our travel. This would also make electric vehicles practical overnight; without carrying those 5MPH bumpers, airbags, steel I beams, etc., they would be light enough for existing technologies to be competitive- as in the golf carts mentioned above. Downtown parking? I saw Italians comfortably parking three of them sideways in a single standard parking place, or one "regular" small car and one micro-car . For that odd long distance trip, you can rent a larger car- you'll still come out way ahead in the long run. Would Americans buy such cars? Notice that during the muscle-car years before the gas crisis, the Volkswagen Beetle was a best seller.
He is not arguing against using existing mass transit systems, but for considering the numbers for future construction. In many instances, it may be better to encourage responsible personal transportation. I have long thought this, and my recent trips to Europe confirmed it- the problem is not whether one drives, but what and how.
CC's SmartCar would be at least a mid-size car in many European cities. In Italy I saw many, many vehicles I would call a "crossover" type; not a cross between a car and an SUV, as we would use the word here, but rather a cross between a faired scooter and a single seat car- like this one Some of them even had cute little pickup beds for delivery duties. Most all of them got northwards of 50 MPG, often quite a ways north; 60-80 MPG for some. None of them would be legal here.
Why? Because it's claimed they aren't safe- and yet, the accident injury and death rates are no higher there than here. Why? Because these are town cars; they are driven where geography and traffic conditions are such that you aren't going fast enough to have a high-impact accident. They don't have to be able to survive a 60 MPH accident with a Cadillac because the average accident would be 20 MPH with a pedestrian or another scooter- and even those accidents are less likely because such lightweight vehicles stop faster and maneuver better.
We have special licenses for Ultralight and Sports airplanes, as long as they don't try to mix it up at the big boy airports. We have special licenses for scooters and mopeds, as long as you don't try to take them on the highways. But we have no such provisions to allow micro-cars. Here in Indiana one town passed an ordinance permitting people to take their electric golf carts on city streets to the corner store, and the State Police swooped in and busted everybody, saying that only the State and Feds could make laws about cars. An appeal is pending, but there is little chance of them prevailing. In today's environment, this makes no sense.
We need a national law to provide for micro-sized town cars. For millions of Americans, a four-wheeled scooter would do us for getting to work and the store- 90% of our travel. This would also make electric vehicles practical overnight; without carrying those 5MPH bumpers, airbags, steel I beams, etc., they would be light enough for existing technologies to be competitive- as in the golf carts mentioned above. Downtown parking? I saw Italians comfortably parking three of them sideways in a single standard parking place, or one "regular" small car and one micro-car . For that odd long distance trip, you can rent a larger car- you'll still come out way ahead in the long run. Would Americans buy such cars? Notice that during the muscle-car years before the gas crisis, the Volkswagen Beetle was a best seller.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
The $300 million challenge
proposed by Senator McCain for the development of a better battery for electric cars would be a waste of tax dollars, because the battery is not the limiting factor for electric cars.
What do I mean? Suppose there were a battery that was the size of a pack of cigarettes, held enough power for a family of four to travel 500 miles, was non-flammable, non-toxic, biodegradable, and cost $0.29 to manufacture- it still wouldn’t make the electric car viable. Why? Because the battery has to be recharged- and we simply don’t have the electrical capacity to do it.
Look- a gallon of gas is equal to 36.6 kw/hrs. We go through 400 million gallons of gas a day. That equals 14.6 gigawatt/hrs/day. We generate 4 million gigawatt/hrs per year... divided by 365, that makes 11 gigawatt/hrs/day. If we did nothing but recharge our cars every day, we’d still have only 2/3 the electrical capacity needed. Even if you assume vast improvements in efficiency for the electric car, we still can’t generate even a fraction of the electricity needed for electric cars. Heck, we can’t even generate enough electricity to avoid rolling brownouts on really hot days as is.
McCain was on a better track when he proposed building 45 nuclear power plants by 2030- the only thing wrong with that was its timidity. We need 400 more nuclear power plants, not 45. France gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear- we only get 20%. If we got 80% of our power from nuclear, we’d cut our carbon footprint far, far below Kyoto standards... if we doubled that we could then have our electric cars as well, and not only be independent of foreign oil, but take our carbon emissions back to 1890 levels, not 1990.
If anyone can tell me why it wouldn’t work, I’d love to hear it.
What do I mean? Suppose there were a battery that was the size of a pack of cigarettes, held enough power for a family of four to travel 500 miles, was non-flammable, non-toxic, biodegradable, and cost $0.29 to manufacture- it still wouldn’t make the electric car viable. Why? Because the battery has to be recharged- and we simply don’t have the electrical capacity to do it.
Look- a gallon of gas is equal to 36.6 kw/hrs. We go through 400 million gallons of gas a day. That equals 14.6 gigawatt/hrs/day. We generate 4 million gigawatt/hrs per year... divided by 365, that makes 11 gigawatt/hrs/day. If we did nothing but recharge our cars every day, we’d still have only 2/3 the electrical capacity needed. Even if you assume vast improvements in efficiency for the electric car, we still can’t generate even a fraction of the electricity needed for electric cars. Heck, we can’t even generate enough electricity to avoid rolling brownouts on really hot days as is.
McCain was on a better track when he proposed building 45 nuclear power plants by 2030- the only thing wrong with that was its timidity. We need 400 more nuclear power plants, not 45. France gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear- we only get 20%. If we got 80% of our power from nuclear, we’d cut our carbon footprint far, far below Kyoto standards... if we doubled that we could then have our electric cars as well, and not only be independent of foreign oil, but take our carbon emissions back to 1890 levels, not 1990.
If anyone can tell me why it wouldn’t work, I’d love to hear it.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Cafe standards won't fix it
Raising the CAFE standards is the first thing mentioned by any politician when discussing the oil crisis, and they throw out ambitious (to say the least) numbers- 40, 50, even 100 MPG requirements. I guarantee you one thing: any politician calling for 100 MPG CAFE standards either doesn't understand the problem, or is a lying demagogue. Even 50- as a fleet standard, not for a single model- is a fantasy without a breakthrough in basic technology. It might be possible to reach 35- but that's not enough to solve the problem.
Why do I say this? Three sentences: Force equals Mass times Accelleration. Work equals Force over Distance. Power equals Work over Time. What does that mean? That you can only have two- at best- of the three characteristics- size, performance, economy. A certain level of performance is absolutely required for safety's sake- that's part of why they don't allow bicycles on highways- and a certain size is needed for survivability. Those requirements put limits on the third factor, economy. The smallest car in mass production (it doesn't even pretend to have a back seat) that will accellerate quickly enough to merge on a highway ramp (just barely) or drive in the mountains (possibly), and meet American safety standards is the Smart Car, and it only gets 40 city/45 highway. Hybrid cars, despite some claims, don't do any better in real life. Nothing with an internal combustion engine is ever going to do significantly better, (many people don't realize this, but despite the great strides we've made in reliability and cleanliness, the specific fuel consumption of the internal combustion engine has improved very little in the last 75 years) and there is no technology yet ready to replace it. (See Who killed the electric car? ) These are not Republican or Democratic positions, these are physical realities.
Richard Nixon, for all his other flaws, understood this; that's why he lowered the speed limits instead thirty years ago during the first oil crisis- doesn't anyone remember the double nickel? That is still the only quick answer, if it weren't for the fact that the American public is firmly in Sammy Hagar's camp. Finding an alternative fuel will take longer and be more expensive, specially if you want to reduce the carbon footprint at the same time- hydrogen is the only candidate we have at the moment fitting that description, and we're years away from making that practical. Light rail is not an answer- a rail system extensive enough to seriously cut into our gas consumption would take decades to build, and be so hideously expensive as to be "the moral equivalent of war".
It's time to realize that "I can't drive 55" is just 80s big hair rock, not a lifestyle.
Why do I say this? Three sentences: Force equals Mass times Accelleration. Work equals Force over Distance. Power equals Work over Time. What does that mean? That you can only have two- at best- of the three characteristics- size, performance, economy. A certain level of performance is absolutely required for safety's sake- that's part of why they don't allow bicycles on highways- and a certain size is needed for survivability. Those requirements put limits on the third factor, economy. The smallest car in mass production (it doesn't even pretend to have a back seat) that will accellerate quickly enough to merge on a highway ramp (just barely) or drive in the mountains (possibly), and meet American safety standards is the Smart Car, and it only gets 40 city/45 highway. Hybrid cars, despite some claims, don't do any better in real life. Nothing with an internal combustion engine is ever going to do significantly better, (many people don't realize this, but despite the great strides we've made in reliability and cleanliness, the specific fuel consumption of the internal combustion engine has improved very little in the last 75 years) and there is no technology yet ready to replace it. (See Who killed the electric car? ) These are not Republican or Democratic positions, these are physical realities.
Richard Nixon, for all his other flaws, understood this; that's why he lowered the speed limits instead thirty years ago during the first oil crisis- doesn't anyone remember the double nickel? That is still the only quick answer, if it weren't for the fact that the American public is firmly in Sammy Hagar's camp. Finding an alternative fuel will take longer and be more expensive, specially if you want to reduce the carbon footprint at the same time- hydrogen is the only candidate we have at the moment fitting that description, and we're years away from making that practical. Light rail is not an answer- a rail system extensive enough to seriously cut into our gas consumption would take decades to build, and be so hideously expensive as to be "the moral equivalent of war".
It's time to realize that "I can't drive 55" is just 80s big hair rock, not a lifestyle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)