[quote=“ninerID, post:60, topic:23642”]Volt production temporarily halted, 1300 people laid off
How can this be? The Volt is the future of GM!! :
Why do people pull for developing technology to fail? I dont get it?
You’re also comparing a 100 year old mature engine technology against a new power plant. I think the former is the one with a huge engineering advantage - 100 years of constant refinement. At this point, it is close to maximized out. Alterantive fuel cell/power plants have much more potential, but there are going to be failures and ineffciencies along the way.
I for one don’t want it to fail. I’d love for it to succeed. But the Volt on the whole is not a market ready vehicle in my opinion.
It’s too expensive and not as good as its competitors. And clearly by what we’ve seen in the tests that were run prior to it going to market it wasn’t ready for production yet. I think politics pushed them into market before they were ready.
Work out the battery issues and lower the price to be more competitive with the Prius and I think it has a shot. They are certainly much better looking than a Prius.
[quote=“NinerAdvocate, post:62, topic:23642”]Why do people pull for developing technology to fail? I dont get it?
You’re also comparing a 100 year old mature engine technology against a new power plant. I think the former is the one with a huge engineering advantage - 100 years of constant refinement. At this point, it is close to maximized out. Alterantive fuel cell/power plants have much more potential, but there are going to be failures and ineffciencies along the way.[/quote]
My main issue is I don’t see why no one is pushing natural gas. That and the media and government told us that Volt would be a HUGE success which is not true and MK has pointed out why.
clt likes the volt.
Chevy/Ford rivalries run about as deep as 49ers/Bearcats.
Volt=fail=Obama
Let’s All Celebrate!!!
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1074785_plug-in-car-sales-soar-in-march-led-by-chevrolet-volt
Sales of the Chevrolet Volt spiked from the February total of 1,023 to 2,289, for a total of 3,915 sold so far this year. The comparable figure for January through March 2011 was just 1,210.Volt sales were likely helped by the arrival of 2012 Volt models that qualify for solo travel in California's High Occupancy [left]Vehicle[/left][left] [/left](HOV) lanes, which went on sale in the state last month. Nissan Leaf sales too climbed, from February's 478 to 579 last month, for a three-month total so far this year of 1,733. In 2011, that figure was only 452. Remarkably, Toyota sold 891 Prius Plug-In Hybrids in that car's first full month on the market--or about 3 percent of the 28,711 Priuses sold in March. The plug in Prius is the third and newest high-volume plug-in car to go sale; 7 of them also found buyers in the very last days of February.Obviously still very few cars in the grand scheme of things, but if gas prices remain high I imagine the sales numbers will continue to rise.
I saw an article the other day that noted natural gas was making strides in the US car market. Small strides, mainly with city fleet vehicles, etc.
We have a Sonata in Peru that runs on natural gas. It’s a hell of a lot cheaper and the pickup is still pretty good. Most of the taxis in Peru run on natural gas.
Hopefully natural gas will increase in the US for the consumer market but the infrastructure will have to be build with filling stations, etc.
I saw an article the other day that noted natural gas was making strides in the US car market. Small strides, mainly with city fleet vehicles, etc.
We have a Sonata in Peru that runs on natural gas. It’s a hell of a lot cheaper and the pickup is still pretty good. Most of the taxis in Peru run on natural gas.
Hopefully natural gas will increase in the US for the consumer market but the infrastructure will have to be build with filling stations, etc.[/quote]There are several problems with converting our transportation fleet to natural gas.
First of all, NG contains less energy, so you get less miles per gallon.
The 100 years of energy that NG producers cite are based on current consumption. If we start fueling our cars with it, consumption goes up significantly and that 100 years of supply suddenly decreases to a few decades all while driving up the cost to heat our homes and produce electricity. Natural gas is great for heating and producing electricity at a high efficiency rate (60-80%). The internal combustion engine converts fuel to energy at rates of 25-30%, so how does that make sense? We would be WASTING more of the potential energy of natural gas by using it to fuel automobiles. If we convert to natural gas, it may cost a bit less to fill up a car, but other utility costs will see an increase. We’d simply be robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Those estimates are also based on best case scenario estimates for all potential wells in the U.S. The problem though is that very few of those wells turn out to meet the best case scenario estimates, so it is likely that that 100 year supply they cite is actually less.
Also they have Fords in Europe that get 75 mpg, but the US Congress wants to limit cars on diesel, so we get screwed. I’m all for alt energy, but I want my 75 mpg. And this was like 10 years ago. Ford probably gets better mpg in Europe now.
Also, I don’t personally believe in any energy or any other company getting tax relief that other companies don’t get. All tax breaks should be equal. That being said, with gas prices high, now isn’t the time to repeal big oil’s tax breaks. Wait until prices are lower.
[quote=“stonecoldken, post:72, topic:23642”]Also they have Fords in Europe that get 75 mpg, but the US Congress wants to limit cars on diesel, so we get screwed. I’m all for alt energy, but I want my 75 mpg. And this was like 10 years ago. Ford probably gets better mpg in Europe now.
Also, I don’t personally believe in any energy or any other company getting tax relief that other companies don’t get. All tax breaks should be equal. That being said, with gas prices high, now isn’t the time to repeal big oil’s tax breaks. Wait until prices are lower.[/quote]Those fuel numbers for Europe are measured in Imperial gallons, which are 20% larger than U.S. gallons, so its not exactly a fair comparison.
The Euro’s also calculate mpg differently than we do. The same tests run on the same car in the U.S. would result in mileage of 45-50mpg, or about what diesel’s and hybrids already do in the U.S.
If there gallons are 20% bigger, then shouldn’t that be 20% more than 70 mpg, not 45-50 mpg? If an imperial gallon is 20% bigger, that comes out to 90 mpg. Something doesn’t make sense calling it 45-50 mpg.
[quote=“Niner National, post:71, topic:23642”]First of all, NG contains less energy, so you get less miles per gallon.
The 100 years of energy that NG producers cite are based on current consumption. If we start fueling our cars with it, consumption goes up significantly and that 100 years of supply suddenly decreases to a few decades all while driving up the cost to heat our homes and produce electricity. Natural gas is great for heating and producing electricity at a high efficiency rate (60-80%). The internal combustion engine converts fuel to energy at rates of 25-30%, so how does that make sense? We would be WASTING more of the potential energy of natural gas by using it to fuel automobiles. If we convert to natural gas, it may cost a bit less to fill up a car, but other utility costs will see an increase. We’d simply be robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Those estimates are also based on best case scenario estimates for all potential wells in the U.S. The problem though is that very few of those wells turn out to meet the best case scenario estimates, so it is likely that that 100 year supply they cite is actually less.[/quote]
First I don’t think natural gas is where we land long term no matter what, but it would buy us some more time to figure out what the next phase is. Secondly no matter what we choose it is going to drive the cost of utilities up. If suddenly we all started using electric cars those rates will go up. Never mind the question about grids being able to handle that kind of load. California already has rolling black outs. Unless we run everything with wind and solar then there are still fuel sources being used and those sources are all limited and with harmful by products and even solar and wind have their environmental detractors. I just don’t see plugging my car in as a solution long term. I live right down the road from Plant Allen steam station. It supplies a large amount of power to this area. It is puffing on coal 24-7. IMO we need a few different options, electric, gas and natural gas to get us through the next 100 years then hopefully science and R&D will have us in a place where we can pick something that is sustainable and is not harmful for the planet.
I saw an article the other day that noted natural gas was making strides in the US car market. Small strides, mainly with city fleet vehicles, etc.
We have a Sonata in Peru that runs on natural gas. It’s a hell of a lot cheaper and the pickup is still pretty good. Most of the taxis in Peru run on natural gas.
Hopefully natural gas will increase in the US for the consumer market but the infrastructure will have to be build with filling stations, etc.[/quote]There are several problems with converting our transportation fleet to natural gas.
First of all, NG contains less energy, so you get less miles per gallon.
The 100 years of energy that NG producers cite are based on current consumption. If we start fueling our cars with it, consumption goes up significantly and that 100 years of supply suddenly decreases to a few decades all while driving up the cost to heat our homes and produce electricity. Natural gas is great for heating and producing electricity at a high efficiency rate (60-80%). The internal combustion engine converts fuel to energy at rates of 25-30%, so how does that make sense? We would be WASTING more of the potential energy of natural gas by using it to fuel automobiles. If we convert to natural gas, it may cost a bit less to fill up a car, but other utility costs will see an increase. We’d simply be robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Those estimates are also based on best case scenario estimates for all potential wells in the U.S. The problem though is that very few of those wells turn out to meet the best case scenario estimates, so it is likely that that 100 year supply they cite is actually less.[/quote]
That all may be true, but down south gas is like $6-$7/gallon while with natural gas they can fill up for a little around $2/gallon. Natural gas wins.
I saw an article the other day that noted natural gas was making strides in the US car market. Small strides, mainly with city fleet vehicles, etc.
We have a Sonata in Peru that runs on natural gas. It’s a hell of a lot cheaper and the pickup is still pretty good. Most of the taxis in Peru run on natural gas.
Hopefully natural gas will increase in the US for the consumer market but the infrastructure will have to be build with filling stations, etc.[/quote]There are several problems with converting our transportation fleet to natural gas.
First of all, NG contains less energy, so you get less miles per gallon.
The 100 years of energy that NG producers cite are based on current consumption. If we start fueling our cars with it, consumption goes up significantly and that 100 years of supply suddenly decreases to a few decades all while driving up the cost to heat our homes and produce electricity. Natural gas is great for heating and producing electricity at a high efficiency rate (60-80%). The internal combustion engine converts fuel to energy at rates of 25-30%, so how does that make sense? We would be WASTING more of the potential energy of natural gas by using it to fuel automobiles. If we convert to natural gas, it may cost a bit less to fill up a car, but other utility costs will see an increase. We’d simply be robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Those estimates are also based on best case scenario estimates for all potential wells in the U.S. The problem though is that very few of those wells turn out to meet the best case scenario estimates, so it is likely that that 100 year supply they cite is actually less.[/quote]
That all may be true, but down south gas is like $6-$7/gallon while with natural gas they can fill up for a little around $2/gallon. Natural gas wins.[/quote]
That and similar to electric and batteries natural gas could become more efficient with technology improvements.
I just hate that it seems everyone makes this an either/or argument rather than an and argument. We can have multiple lines of fuel sources. As you mentioned they do down south. If we shared the burden across a few different platforms we can go longer on the resources we have, limit the impact of rate increases and buy us time for a more perm solution. I know the auto companies would hate this - having to have electric, gas, natural gas, etc. Just maybe though by doing R&D on multiple lines and real world application it might just help us in the long run rather being railroaded down the path of one source.
You can’t make natural gas more efficient. You can make the combustion engine more efficient, but those same improvements could be used for gasoline powered engines because they are not fundamentally different.
No matter what changes, gasoline/diesel has more energy density and will always deliver more energy per unit.
Spreading R&D dollars too thin only ensures that nothing ever gets funded well enough to make a different. In Europe and elsewhere, they often spread their R&D dollars around to dozens of universities/organizations and often none of them end up funded well enough to truly make breakthroughs. In the U.S. we generally have a grant system where large sums are awarded to one institution. This is why U.S. universities are so often at the forefront of scientific innovation.
Incorporating fueling stations for multiple fuel lines would cost hundreds of billions if not more. Why waste that money on something that will make a decade or two of difference (at best)? That’s pissing away money to kick the can down the road a few more years instead of using it to actually make a difference. People seem to forget that only 3 years ago in the U.S. natural gas prices were sky high, about 3x what they are now. NG gas prices are artificially low in the U.S. right now because the industry has been built on a bubble. There was a huge influx of people getting in on the natural gas craze and now some well operators are having to sell their gas for below production cost to meet contract obligations.
You don’t make long term decisions on short term data.
[quote=“Niner National, post:78, topic:23642”]You can’t make natural gas more efficient. You can make the combustion engine more efficient, but those same improvements could be used for gasoline powered engines because they are not fundamentally different.
No matter what changes, gasoline/diesel has more energy density and will always deliver more energy per unit.
Spreading R&D dollars too thin only ensures that nothing ever gets funded well enough to make a different. In Europe and elsewhere, they often spread their R&D dollars around to dozens of universities/organizations and often none of them end up funded well enough to truly make breakthroughs. In the U.S. we generally have a grant system where large sums are awarded to one institution. This is why U.S. universities are so often at the forefront of scientific innovation.
Incorporating fueling stations for multiple fuel lines would cost hundreds of billions if not more. Why waste that money on something that will make a decade or two of difference (at best)? That’s pissing away money to kick the can down the road a few more years instead of using it to actually make a difference. People seem to forget that only 3 years ago in the U.S. natural gas prices were sky high, about 3x what they are now. NG gas prices are artificially low in the U.S. right now because the industry has been built on a bubble. There was a huge influx of people getting in on the natural gas craze and now some well operators are having to sell their gas for below production cost to meet contract obligations.
You don’t make long term decisions on short term data.[/quote]
You make some valid points - but it doesn’t change the fact that at this moment IMO we do not have a sustainable long term solution. Spreading R&D out is a risk, but so is sinking all of our R&D into an area that will not pan out. Every solution has a draw back, but we can’t continue on the path that we are currently on. Too many people think THIS (drill more, all electric, hydrogen, NG, etc.) is the magic bullet that takes care of it all. I have yet to see why any of those are where we should throw all of our eggs yet. How we use our resources will continue to evolve as technology allows. Batteries will get better, gas engines more efficient, ways to use NG better, hydrogen fuel cells better, etc.) I just want to see all of that continue so that where we go next is the right move and not a move forced by lobbyists and government.
My gut tells me hydrogen fuel cell is where we land - but I don’t exactly scour the world looking for information positive and negative on alternative fuel sources unless they put one in a motorcycle.
You obviously seem to know more about this than I do. However, the US evidently has tons of natural gas deposits and not that much oil(that we can get without pissing someone off). I’m with NWA, why not do both? If gas prices get up to $5,6,7/gallon we’ll see more NG I’d imagine, even factoring in the cash to convert gas engine to NG.