Chevy Volt

[samclem]

I think it's a winning situation for the consumers as no one is really forcing us to buy EV or hybrid, but that's just one more option out there.

Not quite. If you pay taxes, you'll be "buying" electric cars whether you actually get to drive one or not. That's the part to which I object the most.

 

[easysurfer]

Not quite. If you pay taxes, you'll be "buying" electric cars whether you actually get to drive one or not. That's the part to which I object the most.

I do understand that. But I see it as future to stop our addiction from oil is a greater good.

I see it similar to my property taxes pay for local schools and the library. My school days are over and I haven't gone to the library in years. But if I go to school or not, I still pay property taxes for that. Yet, I see education in the local schools is the greater good.

Or in my landline(remember those things? ) phone bill there's a $1 charge for 911 service whether I call 911 or not. I've never called 911 for an emergency (except for plumbing..but that's a different post ) so I get socked with a charge month and month again but I believe that's a greater good to have 911 service paid for.

I do see it's doesn't seem right as you are paying and you don't have the up/down vote. Like new sports stadiums that get subsidized by taxes. The city decides to build a new sports stadium and the taxpayers, whether they go or not get socked.

 

[Amethyst]

Cost of charging electric car

So, you are saying, one charge, from a 110-volt outlet, will use a total of 8KWH, or 8KWH * 6.5 hours (52KWH) to go 40 miles (presumably without using either the heater or the a/c, which probably would reduce the mileage a good bit).

I've been curious how much it would cost to charge an electric car by plugging into the GCI outlet in our garage, and how that would compare to the cost of gasoline. Electricity costs us ~14 cents/KWH, so those 40 miles would cost either 8x$.14, or 52x$.14.

My gas-powered car gets 30mpg in mixed driving. To drive 40 miles (a bit more than my daily commute) costs $3.50 at today's gas price.

Amethyst

From some Internet searching, it looks like it will require about 8 KWH to charge one up, over a period of 6.5 hours. That means that the car will draw 1,230 watts -- essentially like a hair dryer.

A room air conditioner draws about 1,000 watts, and a central AC about 2,000-5,000.

The fact that they are charging at night is a big factor. Also, they won't be charging all the way every night.

 

[ziggy29]

Not quite. If you pay taxes, you'll be "buying" electric cars whether you actually get to drive one or not. That's the part to which I object the most.

Wasn't also true of the Interstate Highway System and, by extension, all federal transportation funds that impose taxes on people who don't drive?

 

[ziggy29]

So, you are saying, one charge, from a 110-volt outlet, will use a total of 8KWH, or 8KWH * 6.5 hours (52KWH) to go 40 miles (presumably without using either the heater or the a/c, which probably would reduce the mileage a good bit).

The *total* was 8 kWh over the 6.5 hour period, which (locally at 11-12 cents per) is about 90 cents of electricity to go up to 40 miles.

At your 14 cents per kilowatt-hour, 8 kWh is $1.12 for the 40 mile charge.

Granted, at $41,000 there's no way the reduced energy cost per mile comes close to offsetting the price tag. But you have to start somewhere and if there are enough devoted greenies with money who don't care about bang for the buck, more power to them.

And in the future, if this works I can see "Off peak" pricing for overnight charging catch on which would likely reduce the cost per kilowatt-hour when done while the grid has more than enough juice.

 

[Peter]

I'm having a hard time believing the GM numbers. 1 kilowatt is the same as 1.34 horsepower, so 8 kWh is equivalent to 10.72 horsepower for 1 hour.

Now the 8 kWh that goes into the battery isn't going to come back out at 100% efficiency, and the motor and drivetrain won't be 100% efficient either. But forgetting that for a moment, what GM is saying is that 10.72 horsepower is enough to propel the Volt at 40 mph, so after 1 hour it will have gone the rated 40 miles.

I suppose that's just about possible, although 10.72 horsepower seems awfully low to push such a big car through the air.

But how realistic is this scenario? I have to believe that in real life the gas engine is going to come on long before the 40 mile mark.

Peter

 

[ERD50]

I'm having a hard time believing the GM numbers. 1 kilowatt is the same as 1.34 horsepower, so 8 kWh is equivalent to 10.72 horsepower for 1 hour.

... what GM is saying is that 10.72 horsepower is enough to propel the Volt at 40 mph, so after 1 hour it will have gone the rated 40 miles.Peter

Exactly.

I suppose that's just about possible, although 10.72 horsepower seems awfully low to push such a big car through the air.

But how realistic is this scenario?

Very realistic. It only takes an average of about 11HP to move a car along a typical drive pattern.

Telsa gets ~ 225 miles from 55KWH, so about the same ratio as 40 to 8.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

I do understand that. But I see it as future to stop our addiction from oil is a greater good.

OK, but how much 'good' do we get for our $7,500 per vehicle? I've got to believe there are better opportunities for higher returns for those dollars.

-ERD50

 

[samclem]

Wasn't also true of the Interstate Highway System and, by extension, all federal transportation funds that impose taxes on people who don't drive?

I'm sure there are some income tax revenues that end up paying for road infrastructure, but the majority of funding for the Highway Trust Fund comes from gasoline taxes. Of the federal tax (18.4 cents/gal), a portion (2.86 cents) goes to mass transit, so actually at least some of those folks who don't drive or buy gas are being subsidized by those who do.

States add their own fuel taxes as well, often to pay for roads.

I wonder how those residents downwind of coal-fired plants that produce the electricity for these "green" cars feel about their tax dollars being used to encourage more of them?

 

[MasterBlaster]

GM sets Volt lease at $350 per month

here's the sweetheart deal... they'll lose money on every car but make it up on volume !

General Motors Co. likely convinced some shoppers to buy the Chevrolet Volt by unveiling a $41,000 price tag and three-year, $350-a-month lease on Tuesday, analysts said.
GM executives answered the long-lingering price question at the Plug-In 2010 conference in San Jose, Calif., gave a peek at the Volt's marketing strategy and explained how customers can order the vehicle, which initially will be in short supply.
The lease deal ensures the Volt will be comparably priced with its closest competitor, the all-electric Nissan Leaf, whose monthly lease price starts at $349. The Volt lease price includes a $2,500 down payment while the retail price falls to $33,500 after applying a $7,500 federal tax credit.

From The Detroit News: GM sets Volt lease at $350 per month | detnews.com | The Detroit News

 

[easysurfer]

In the beginning, Toyota lost money on every Prius they sold, now they are the company that everyone thinks of when one says hybrid. I'm sure Chevy is trying to get the foot in the water with the Volt.

 

[easysurfer]

OK, but how much 'good' do we get for our $7,500 per vehicle? I've got to believe there are better opportunities for higher returns for those dollars.

-ERD50

You have to buy into the idea that alternatives forms of energy is a good idea. Much like the CFLs. What? So much for a lightbulb? or to hang on to the Edision bulb foreever?

 

[ERD50]

You have to buy into the idea that alternatives forms of energy is a good idea.

I can buy into that idea, no problem. If for no other reason than to diversify our energy sources.

But I still think the questions stand - what do we get for $7,500 per vehicle? Is that the best way to invest $7,500 times X cars sold?

Let me turn it around to a positive statement, so you don't think I'm anti-alternatives - lets assume:

1) I want alternate energy, and I want the Govt to promote it.

2) We obviously have limited resources, and other projects competing for that money, so we agree that some fixed $X million or billion amount should be tagged for this effort.

3) Based on #1, we want the most alternative energy for our limited $s , right?

That is why I just can't see $7,500 per vehicle - I just don't see what it gets us. You know the first X,XXX units will be sold to people who would buy them w/o the rebate, just because they would (think Hollywood and hobbyists and greenies that can't quite swing that Tesla). If that is even just 1,000 people (low, IMO), that is $7.5 Million of the taxpayers money right out the window. And I read that the rebate is limited to the first 200,000 cars sold - so that rebate will not be available for those that would have been swayed by it at the tail end. We lost twice

It's just bad economics. We could do better, but first we ought to define the goal.

Much like the CFLs. What? So much for a lightbulb? or to hang on to the Edision bulb foreever?

I buy CFLs when they make economic and ergonomic sense. I'm sitting by one now, and I use them in my outdoor lights and a few other places. There are places I won't use them because it makes more sense to use the Edison light bulb. I use the right product for the right job. And when the govt provides subsidies, all it does is make that decision an artificial one. Just like these EVS, if someone wouldn't buy one with their own money, why should I give them the money to buy it? It doesn't change the equation.

If your answer is "to save energy", then I suggest that you define that goal, and look for solutions. I believe there are far better, more effective, faster acting, and more efficient ways to save energy, than artificially pricing some specific technologies.

BTW, our CFLs are using about twice as much energy as most people think. Look at the label and calculate the Volt-Amps. It will be about 2x the watts (Power Factor of 0.5). Our power meters charge by the Watt, because it was the only practical way to measure per household. But electrical plants (think coal) really have to generate Volt-Amps, the watt rating means nothing relative to the coal burned. If you are a big commercial place, they will check your power factor, and charge accordingly. Just can't do that home-by-home, but the end result is the same, CFLs are not even half as 'green' as claimed. Couple that with the fact they take more materials and more processing (which would be expected to take more energy), and the delta shrinks. Might even be negative for all I know. I wouldn't be surprised, looking at the box of dead ones and their fancy plastic packaging that I have for recycling.

-ERD50

 

[kyounge1956]

(snip) the Prius hybrid costs about $5000 more than the standard Prius.

We are also concerned about the environment and at this stage are not decided which way we will go. You also lose a lot of comfort and performance going to a small vehicle like the Prius. I'm 6'3", 225# and feel cramped in the Prius. Which way to go

say what?
the Prius hybrid is the standard Prius. I've been driving one for just under four years now, and I've never seen or heard of a non-hybrid Prius.

I'm not trying to convince you to buy one if you prefer some other car, but are you sure it was a Prius you test drove? My younger brother is around the same size as you are, and he likes his Prius just fine.

 

[Zathras]

ERD, I agree the $7500 tax credit is not the best way for the money to be spent.
However our representatives don't have the stomach to raise the gas taxes

 

[JOHNNIE36]

say what?
the Prius hybrid is the standard Prius. I've been driving one for just under four years now, and I've never seen or heard of a non-hybrid Prius.

I'm not trying to convince you to buy one if you prefer some other car, but are you sure it was a Prius you test drove? My younger brother is around the same size as you are, and he likes his Prius just fine.

My error! What I should have said was that I read in an automotive mag is that IF the Prius was made with a standard ICE if would cost $5000 less and the article went on to show fuel saving calculations. Based on that article I personally can't justify the expense. However, we might still buy one as it would be DW's car.

 

[HFWR]

My error! What I should have said was that I read in an automotive mag is that IF the Prius was made with a standard ICE if would cost $5000 less and the article went on to show fuel saving calculations. Based on that article I personally can't justify the expense. However, we might still buy one as it would be DW's car.

Looks like you've found a way to justify...

 

[Zathras]

...I read in an automotive mag is that IF the Prius was made with a standard ICE if would cost $5000 less and the article went on to show fuel saving calculations. Based on that article I personally can't justify the expense. However, we might still buy one as it would be DW's car.

If it would make you feel better, do a little of your own research. Find another car with the cargo space, fuel economy, and other benefits of the Prius and compare prices. Personally, I found the 'smart key' system amazing. I will never buy another car without it unless it as an EV.
Wile there may be a premium, I doubt it will be 5k.

 

[ERD50]

ERD, I agree the $7500 tax credit is not the best way for the money to be spent.
However our representatives don't have the stomach to raise the gas taxes

True, but I think there are an array of options between the two. I'd describe your phrase 'not the best way' as a gross understatement. How many BTUs in a paper dollar bill? It wouldn't surprise me if just burning the money in a wood furnace did more to conserve oil than this ploy.

But again, before entertaining 'solutions' we would need to define the goal. What are we trying to achieve?

Not only do our representatives not have the stomach to raise gas taxes, I don't think they have the stomach to define goals either. Well, not publicly, as their real goal is to get re-elected. They must be figuring $7,500 rebates are good towards that goal?

-ERD50

 

[RonBoyd]

And if the Volt is a little too low-brow for you, the Germans are to the rescue:

Hybrid Porsche 918 Spyder gets green light

The Porsche supervisory board has green lighted the production of the 918 Spyder hybrid, complete with a 500-horsepower V8 and 109-horsepower electric motor. The new Porsche will allegedly net 78 miles per gallon...

 

[Texas Proud]

I know it is not the topic of the Volt.... but I am like ERD... NONE of my CFLs has lasted anywhere near the claimed life... and almost all my Edison lights have... as an example...

I just sold a house this year... I bought it 25 years ago... there were 4 lights in the downstairs half bath that were there when I bought it... they were still there when I sold... nice clear decrative ones... it was the most used bathroom in the house... a lot of on/off cycles, but I would bet not a lot of total time.. (hmm, let me do a swag on that... ok... if 5 minutes a day about 760 hours... if 20... more likely... then over 3,000 hours, but probably 30,000 on/off cycles)...

Now... I have not had a single CFL last me a year... none.. zip, nada.. I do have one in the light in the living room that is approaching one year... but it is starting to fade (get yellow.. not as bright)...

so I am not sure that the cost/benefits are there... so far for me, I would say I have paid more to have them... but at least they have gone down in costs

 

[easysurfer]

With CFLs, my experience has been hit or miss. I used one brand in the vanity lights for my bathroom and they only lasted about 4 months. I'm using another brand now and it's been about two years without a bulb going out.

I just picked up an LED bulb at Home Depot for $20 to play around with. It's a 40 watt equivalent. I haven't had the chance to use it yet, but am gonna try it out as my computer task light. Seems the direction is moving towards LEDs as the bulbs of the future and not CFLs.

 

[Zathras]

Interesting...
We have only had to replace one CFL out of dozens in the last 3 1/2 years. No LEDs replaced in about 2 1/2 years.

 

[ERD50]

Interesting...
We have only had to replace one CFL out of dozens in the last 3 1/2 years. No LEDs replaced in about 2 1/2 years.

Hit and miss for me. I have some outdoor ones, on 4-8 hrs a day, and some must be 20 years old (the old heavy ones), and some of the newer ones are a few YO at least. The one by my desk matched the rated life, give or take. But I have a box of ones that died at less than a year, but I don't have records of what % this represents, and I never saved my old ILBs. But that box seems like a lot, since so many of our fixtures are on dimmers (using old ILBs), or just are not right for CFLs.

And don't forget, the old 'tube style' fluorescent light (from the late 30's) is even more efficient than the CFL.

I'd love to find a reliable source for real world life, energy delta to manufacture/ship/package/recycle these things, versus the actual energy (not watts) saved. Then map that against energy consumed in the US - if it isn't negative overall, I bet it isn't even a drop in the bucket. Heh, heh, then offset that against all the hype - probably more energy used in TV/radio transmission time talking about CFLs than what they saved! Heck, some people are putting these in their attic or little used closet - you don't get savings unless you are replacing something that actually gets used.

I do hope the LEDs pan out in the near future. Still too $$ now, but at least we get away from the vacuum tube technology, high voltages, mercury, etc.

-ERD50

 

[Texas Proud]

OHHH... and why does it take so long to get going at times

Since someone mentioned outdoor ones... it reminded me that I put two floods outside for my wife.... When you turn them on.... you can take a look at them and only a part of them are lit... the top half to 2/3rds is not producing any light... now, go out a few minutes later.... all is good..

maybe I am buying the wrong brand... I buy mine at sams.... what are you using that is good?