Volvo to be all electric

[Dawg52]

You do realize that the people that designed this car are in all likelihood dead or at least long since retired now?

Their children could be working there.

 

[Dawg52]

I always loved Volvo , had a 240 and a 760 Turbo . So easy to work on . I never heard of any electrical problems .

240 is what I owned.... so now you have.

 

[Root]

I own a 2010 XC60 with 145K miles on it. It's my favorite car I have ever owned. I'd buy another one in a few years, but not an all electric one. If I can't refuel/recharge a car in 5-10 minutes, I'm not interested in it.

 

[Midpack]

Worst car I have ever owned. Bought a brand new one in the 80's .........

You do realize that the people that designed this car are in all likelihood dead or at least long since retired now?

Right or wrong, some of us hold a grudge for a while. We got screwed by Volvo on a 1997 850GLT warranty flim flam and we're not ready to give Volvo another chance still. There are plenty of other good automakers.

 

[Scrapr]

Ford nearly wiped them out, which is why they sold to Geely.

Since Geely bought Volvo, the brand has done a 180.
I'm considering an XC60 for my next car.

If you are up for adventure buy the car here in the states and go to Sweden to pick it up. Volvo pays airfare & 1 night in the (nice) hotel. Factory tour. We just got back. Well we have been back for a while. The car has been on the boat and finally caught up with me. I'm loving my V60 wagon. After touring the factory Mrs Scrapr is talking about her own Volvo Overseas Delivery

I have had really good luck with Volvo. I do a lot of driving. My 98 V70 wagon went to 289k miles. My XC90 SUV is still going strong at 313k miles.

 

[Bamaman]

If you are up for adventure buy the car here in the states and go to Sweden to pick it up. Volvo pays airfare & 1 night in the (nice) hotel. Factory tour. We just got back. Well we have been back for a while. The car has been on the boat and finally caught up with me. I'm loving my V60 wagon. After touring the factory Mrs Scrapr is talking about her own Volvo Overseas Delivery

I have had really good luck with Volvo. I do a lot of driving. My 98 V70 wagon went to 289k miles. My XC90 SUV is still going strong at 313k miles.

Volvo's overseas delivery program is in a class of it's own for European vehicles. Other than BMW, it's about the only delivery program that's really good.

Volvo is a brand that's actually high fashion--and very high tech. I think they may be somewhat misunderstood vehicles because their dealer base is not better and dealers are usually in big cities. They were designed with a lot of though in mind, however. They especially make station wagons with great styling--very popular in yuppie cities.

When I bought my Lexus, we were also considering Volvo overseas delivery. Hard to believe my Lexus is now 9 years old, and I'm getting ready to turn it and our Civic SI over.

 

[braumeister]

If you are up for adventure buy the car here in the states and go to Sweden to pick it up.

Yes, everything I've read seems to say that's a terrific program. If I buy a new one I'll definitely lean toward doing that.

 

[shotgunner]

In other news, Volvo files for bankruptcy in 2022........

 

[jimbee]

Right or wrong, some of us hold a grudge for a while. We got screwed by Volvo on a 1997 850GLT warranty flim flam and we're not ready to give Volvo another chance still. There are plenty of other good automakers.

If you limit your automotive choice to companies that have never flim flam'd customers, you'll never buy another car.

 

[Sunset]

Seems there has been a good number of plants decommissioned....

I do find it interesting that the 'new' method is to entomb them!!! Yea, just bury it and forget about it....

New methods for decommissioning have been developed in order to minimize the usual high decommissioning costs. One of these methods is in situ decommissioning (ISD), meaning that the reactor is entombed instead of dismantled.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning​

​

Yes but the radioactive waste will last for thousands of years, much longer than the concrete, and the "surveillance" costs money. It's really just passing the buck to the future to pay for it.
"
ENTOMB: a method of decommissioning, in which radioactive contaminants are encased in a structurally long-lived material, such as concrete. The entombed structure is maintained and surveillance is continued until the entombed radioactive waste decays to a level permitting termination of the license and unrestricted release of the property. During the entombment period, the licensee maintains the license previously issued by the NRC. "

 

[Chuckanut]

If you limit your automotive choice to companies that have never flim flam'd customers, you'll never buy another car.

Maybe, but when you are the one who is flim flam'd (great word by the way) it is hard to buy another.

I purchased my first GM car in the 80's. While the car's design was great and very functional, starting at about 50,000 miles I had far to many problems with it in my opinion. It was in the shop for some repair every 2-3 months, IIRC. I t got to the point that while I bought it for long road trips I did not have faith in it, and would not take it more than a few hundred miles from home.

When I bought my latest car I looked at a Buick that seemed nice and was getting good reviews on Consumer Reports, but I could not pull the trigger. The memory of that GM car is to painful.

 

[Texas Proud]

If you limit your automotive choice to companies that have never flim flam'd customers, you'll never buy another car.

I can live with a brand that does not do well once... but I also take into consideration how they treat you when you have problems...


I had an 85 Mercury Cougar (Ford) and it had problems the whole time I had it... but I did really like the car... sold it after 10 years and 120K miles... but had many batteries and also kept paying to fix a stalling problem... after it was sold I get mail talking about a class action suit that Ford lost... seems they KNEW the problem of it stalling but never told anybody about it... even their dealerships to get it fixed...

This soured me on Ford... and it was also my 3rd Ford... the other two had a few problems but not as bad... I said I would not buy another...

Then my BIL died and I needed a vehicle so I bought his Ford Explorer... and it had many problems also... cost me big money to keep fixing the breakdowns.... after a couple of years decided to get rid of it....

Never again for a Ford...

 

[Koolau]

I can live with a brand that does not do well once... but I also take into consideration how they treat you when you have problems...


I had an 85 Mercury Cougar (Ford) and it had problems the whole time I had it... but I did really like the car... sold it after 10 years and 120K miles... but had many batteries and also kept paying to fix a stalling problem... after it was sold I get mail talking about a class action suit that Ford lost... seems they KNEW the problem of it stalling but never told anybody about it... even their dealerships to get it fixed...

This soured me on Ford... and it was also my 3rd Ford... the other two had a few problems but not as bad... I said I would not buy another...

Then my BIL died and I needed a vehicle so I bought his Ford Explorer... and it had many problems also... cost me big money to keep fixing the breakdowns.... after a couple of years decided to get rid of it....

Never again for a Ford...

Fix Or Replace Daily, but YMMV.

 

[aja8888]

In other news, Volvo files for bankruptcy in 2022........

Chinese companies don't file for bankruptcy, they just change the name of the company and use government funding to get it back on track.

 

[Totoro]

Yes but the radioactive waste will last for thousands of years, much longer than the concrete, and the "surveillance" costs money. It's really just passing the buck to the future to pay for it.

There are issues, but not for thousands of years, and certainly not with France since they use breeder reactors.

The longest lasting nuclear waste is actually mid-level nuclear waste, since that decays the slowest while still emitting high levels of radiation.

Yes, you need to be careful. Just like you need to be careful with mercury and fly-ash produced by coal plants.

 

[Chuckanut]

T

Yes, you need to be careful. Just like you need to be careful with mercury and fly-ash produced by coal plants.

I read that coal has extremely small amounts of radioactive material in it. Due the the massive amount of coal that a coal plant burns each year, it actually emits more radiation into the environment than a properly run nuke.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. * [See Editor's Note at end of page 2]

Here's the Editor's Note:

*Editor's Note (12/30/08): In response to some concerns raised by readers, a change has been made to this story. The sentence marked with an asterisk was changed from "In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—and other coal waste contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste" to "In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." Our source for this statistic is Dana Christensen, an associate lab director for energy and engineering at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as well as 1978 paper in Science authored by J. P. McBride and colleagues, also of ORNL.

As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.

 

[ERD50]

There are issues, but not for thousands of years, and certainly not with France since they use breeder reactors.

The longest lasting nuclear waste is actually mid-level nuclear waste, since that decays the slowest while still emitting high levels of radiation.

Yes, you need to be careful. Just like you need to be careful with mercury and fly-ash produced by coal plants.

Excellent point. To me, it seems far better that all this nuclear waste is contained right at the plant, rather than spread through the atmosphere, all over our planet. Geez, it was only ~ 80 years ago we even started to really learn how to use this stuff. I think over the next 80 years we will learn effective ways to deal with the waste. As I understand it, some reactor types could use this 'waste' as fuel. I think we'll be glad we have it all in one place then. Anyone wanna try collecting all the sulfur compounds, NOx, particulates, and mercury from the coal plants that we ended up with due to the 'no-nukes" crowd?

If you want some enlightened discussion about this, from people in the know, I suggest you wander over to www.physicsforums.com and check out some of the threads on the subject.

I read that coal has extremely small amounts of radioactive material in it. Due the the massive amount of coal that a coal plant burns each year, it actually emits more radiation into the environment than a properly run nuke.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

Here's the Editor's Note:

+1 But try telling that to a hysterical anti-nuke.

-ERD50

 

[gerntz]

Saw this article: https://www.wsj.com/articles/volvo-discovers-electric-vehicle-hype-1499462079

Turns out V's announcement is a publicity stunt more than anything:

"Volvo’s announcement signals nothing about the electric-car future and everything about Volvo’s niche marketing.

Not even Volvo could have expected the bounty of free media it won this week. The Swedish company clearly left more impression on American psyches than it ever did on American pocketbooks."

"Volvo, unlike just about every major car maker, doesn’t even have an electric car in the market today. Its big winner is a luxury SUV, a gasoline-powered vehicle whose top-of-the-line model is further enhanced, yes, by a supplemental electric drive."


"...something else is also going on. Volvo is still run out of Sweden. Its chief is Swedish. But the Volvo car business has been owned by China’s Geely since 2010.

Volvo’s biggest market now is China. Starting in 18 months, China’s auto makers will be subject to an increasingly onerous California-style “zero-emission vehicle” mandate."

"China’s real goal here is to reduce its strategic vulnerability to imported oil. By mandating a switch to electric cars, it’s essentially mandating a switch to a domestic fuel in plentiful supply, coal." Major victory for those concerned about greenhouse gases, right?

"Not even China, by central command, will be able to make mass adoption of electric cars economically viable, at least not without resort to massive mandates, subsidies and other distortions that bring their own problems."

 

[RunningBum]

...

Volvo is a brand that's actually high fashion--and very high tech. I think they may be somewhat misunderstood vehicles because their dealer base is not better and dealers are usually in big cities. They were designed with a lot of though in mind, however. They especially make station wagons with great styling--very popular in yuppie cities.

High fashion? Great styling? Really? For years they were just big sturdy boxes. To me, it made a statement, but that statement was "I don't care about styling, I just want something safe for my kids no matter how dull it looks." Safe and sensible, yes. Fashionable and stylish, no. Now they are more rounded and look like other cars, nothing special IMO.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I can't ever remember being with friends and seeing a Volvo roll by, and have anyone exclaim anything like "oooh, check it out!"

 

[Totoro]

"China’s real goal here is to reduce its strategic vulnerability to imported oil. By mandating a switch to electric cars, it’s essentially mandating a switch to a domestic fuel in plentiful supply, coal." Major victory for those concerned about greenhouse gases, right?

Well, yes and no. China is putting a lid on coal. Existing capacity will stay on-line and it's huge, but new capacity is being dramatically scaled back or outright canceled. Until a few years ago they were adding a coal plant per month, that's over and done with.

Instead, it's hard acceleration on solar, wind, hydro and nuclear.

While dependency on oil is a motivator, even more so is cleaning up (air) pollution. This is the real priority. If the central administration doesn't get their act together there they face civil unrest.

 

[Redbugdave]

As long as the subsidy, (tax credit), from the Govt stays in place for these electric cars they will be popular. Take away the subsidy and we shall see if electric can stand on it's own against the newer efficient gassers. I would like to see more research put into small efficient diesels like they have overseas.

 

[travelover]

..........I would like to see more research put into small efficient diesels like they have overseas.

Right, we can get VW to do the emissions control design.

 

[gerntz]

Well, yes and no. China is putting a lid on coal. Existing capacity will stay on-line and it's huge, but new capacity is being dramatically scaled back or outright canceled. Until a few years ago they were adding a coal plant per month, that's over and done with.

Instead, it's hard acceleration on solar, wind, hydro and nuclear.

While dependency on oil is a motivator, even more so is cleaning up (air) pollution. This is the real priority. If the central administration doesn't get their act together there they face civil unrest.

If your power needs are overcapacity today, it's prudent to cut the building rate for more. Doesn't mean a wholesale shift to other sources is occurring though non-fossil fuel is increasing in line with changes around the world. When they start reducing absolute amount of coal-generated power your claim will make sense. The point of their goal of getting around oil use stands.

""China is finally beginning to clamp down on its out of control coal power bubble," said Lauri Myllyvirta, Greenpeace's senior campaigner on coal, in an emailed statement.
"However, these new measures fall far short of even halting the build-up of overcapacity in coal-fired power generation, let alone beginning to reduce it," he said."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ion-on-coal-fired-power-plants-in-15-regions/

 

[Koolau]

I read that coal has extremely small amounts of radioactive material in it. Due the the massive amount of coal that a coal plant burns each year, it actually emits more radiation into the environment than a properly run nuke.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

Here's the Editor's Note:

I have no independent knowledge of this, but consider: If a nuke emits "anything" it means there's probably a leak which is a totally unplanned event. In theory, a nuke emits water vapor and heat if it's working correctly. So a plant that processes aggregate (and creates dust while doing it) probably far exceeds the radioactive "waste" emissions of a nuke. (I have absolutely no citations for this - it's an a--l extraction on my part.

Something to consider when you install granite counter tops is that they can contain significant amounts of radioactive materials - specifically uranium, I think. I've heard that some of them can be pretty "hot." Imagine the cutting process - probably way more radiation released than a properly functioning nuke.

Now, if you want to talk nuke leaks, all bets are off - think Chernobyl.

Not taking any stance on this, just pointing out that "just because something might be true does not necessarily mean you can draw valid conclusions from it."

By the way, I had a professor in Health Physics who had a theory that "some" radiation was good for people. If we "evolved" during background levels of radiation (and survived) that might make sense. But, I wouldn't go out of my way to test the theory at the individual level. YMMV

 

[Totoro]

His theory probably was that radiation induces more mutation, thus more variation. That can help speed up evolution.

Favorite chart for perspective on radiation:
https://xkcd.com/radiation/

If you live next door a typical nuclear plant you get about the same radiation as eating one banana per year.