Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The true cost of a Chevy Volt

Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
December 22, 2011 12:40:25 PM

The Volt is a good move forward for the US though ...

Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
December 22, 2011 1:18:17 PM

Reynod said:
The Volt is a good move forward for the US though ...



How so??
December 22, 2011 1:26:50 PM

Reynod said:
The Volt is a good move forward for the US though ...
Actually, it's a tax payer subsidized false green economy market failure.
December 22, 2011 1:37:04 PM

chunkymonster said:
Actually, it's a tax payer subsidized false green economy market failure.


Truth! ^^


Let's play this tape all the way to the end.

We haven't built an electricity producing nuclear power plant since 3 mile island and that idiotic movie The China Syndrome since 1979. Coal fired electricity producing power plants are being shut down all over the country due to new EPA rules, several in my own state of Virginia alone. Solar and wind turbines are an utter failure (Solyndra) and can not possibly fill the gap. Electricity costs, for "the little guy", are going to necessarily skyrocket, according to our dear leader's own words.

So, we are decreasing production yet progressing towards increasing consumption and demand. Anyone else see anything wrong with this formula? Anybody? Dont wait to be called on just shout it out.

Again, how this is a good move?
December 22, 2011 4:20:20 PM

Guys. We still have ~35 years until global reserves of oil are gone. ither switch to natural gas, advance research in nanotech energy, or let the government continue their green energy policies.
December 22, 2011 4:45:56 PM

dogman_1234 said:
Guys. We still have ~35 years until global reserves of oil are gone.



I don't believe that and neither does Boeing who are planning on building and selling hundreds of 787 Jetliners over the next 50 years. What are those planes going to run on? Solar? No, they are planning on there being plenty of pure 100% Jet-A around to meet the demand. Does Boeing know something the petrol haters don't? Probably.

35 years may cover current "known" reserves. What about the "unknown" reserves?
December 22, 2011 5:51:55 PM

787? 50 years?

Boeing is scratching the 7x7 aircraft line here in the next 5 years. 78x was the last of the 7x7 series.

And, just because Boeing is anticipating oil to last for more than 50 years, does not make them experts on reserve limits...nor does it mean I am one as well. 35 years is what I have reported by information on Google.
December 22, 2011 6:01:15 PM

The point I was making dog, is that you don't make future plans to spend hundreds of billions in manufacturing costs if you are unsure how your planes are going to be fueled. Don't you think they might have looked into the issue?


Boeing is NOT phasing out the 787. They already have over 825 orders. They will be building that aircraft for many years to come. Hell, they only completed flight tests a short time ago. The first 787 entered service on Dec. 14th 2011 for Japan.
December 22, 2011 6:32:51 PM

Then we have Mr B.O. stopping the Keystone pipeline.
Hes promised to shut down and bankrupt coal, so be sure to repeat his words directly/correctly.
He claims none of this will help.
He claims raising taxes wont hurt the economy, yet insists and blames republicans for not giving in on the 2 month only extension of the tax break, and how bad higher taxes will be on people, and finds it political to go the republican route of making those tax breaks a year long extension, insisting on 2 months instead.
I wonder, if the economy does well, will he then want to eliminate those tax breaks, and is why he doesnt want the full year?
Too much power, not enough power, and what we need is a flip
December 22, 2011 6:38:28 PM

Wait, these aren't taxes jaydee, they are 'contributions' to our social security retirement account, remember? That's what we've been told for decades haven't we? :) 

I agree, if he's so worried about providing a "tax break" for the middle class why won't he agree to extending it to a full year or making it permanent even? No, the reason they want two months is so they can bring the issue up again 2 months closer to the elections so the media can make the republicans look like a bunch mean people who hate the middle class. Then they'll bring it up again 2-3 months later to keep it going.
December 22, 2011 8:26:37 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:

Boeing is NOT phasing out the 787.


i never said that. I said the 7x7 series,( the 737-777) are being phased out. 78x is part of Y2.
December 22, 2011 10:34:32 PM

dogman_1234 said:
i never said that. I said the 7x7 series,( the 737-777) are being phased out. 78x is part of Y2.



Ok, so what was your point then? Sorry, I'm dense sometimes.
December 22, 2011 11:35:13 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Ok, so what was your point then? Sorry, I'm dense sometimes.


My point was why would Boeing continue with a program that uses fossil fuels? I know why! Because...that is the only tech available. Yellowstone is the successor to 7x7.

What I am trying to get at is, I understand that we have no technology in advanced power, but why does the Volt need to be the only thing we discuss?

I want to talk about Thermonuclear Fusion Baby!


_

How are you dense? Sorry, that is why I hate AS sometimes. Can't seem to read people.
December 23, 2011 12:06:03 AM

dogman_1234 said:
My point was why would Boeing continue with a program that uses fossil fuels? I know why! Because...that is the only tech available. Yellowstone is the successor to 7x7.

What I am trying to get at is, I understand that we have no technology in advanced power, but why does the Volt need to be the only thing we discuss?

I want to talk about Thermonuclear Fusion Baby!


_

How are you dense? Sorry, that is why I hate AS sometimes. Can't seem to read people.



I'm saying a huge corporation like Boeing would not make plans for building aircraft based on "fossil fuels" for the next several decades without prior knowledge of how to fuel those aircraft. That fuel will be petroleum for a lot more than ~35 years.

Just sayin.

Check the plans of Airbus too! :) 
December 23, 2011 5:29:32 AM

You know, they are testing alcohol and bio-fuel on jets. So don't worry about not having combustible fuel for passenger jets.
December 23, 2011 8:41:34 AM

Pyree said:
You know, they are testing alcohol and bio-fuel on jets. So don't worry about not having combustible fuel for passenger jets.


A school I am planning on attending is researching biofuel. Hopefully, they have come up with a fossil fuel alternative hypothesis. :bounce: 
December 23, 2011 1:49:41 PM

dogman_1234 said:
A school I am planning on attending is researching biofuel. Hopefully, they have come up with a fossil fuel alternative hypothesis. :bounce: 


Me too! I'm all for new tech.

I'm still not convinced that converting one's food supply to fuel is such a wise move. We haven't solved the problem of transporting ethanol either. You can't pipe it, you have to truck it which uses far more energy in the long run. We also haven't solved the corrosive nature of ethanol in the engine. Also, we would have to set aside a sizable portion of our farm land, which could be producing food, to produce the vegetation needed to make biofuels. With the top soil erosion at its current rate, I'm not sure that is such a good idea either.
December 23, 2011 3:38:47 PM

Maybe we should live close to work and ride the pushbike around?

I have a moped and I could work from home mostly ...

I'd still like a chevy Volt ... I quite liked my Prius I had for two years.

Great on fuel ... bit of a worry when the batteries start to go on it though.

Wonder how much it cost to develop the Prius or the Civil hybrid?

December 24, 2011 5:35:47 AM

Reynod said:
Maybe we should live close to work and ride the pushbike around?

I have a moped and I could work from home mostly ...

I'd still like a chevy Volt ... I quite liked my Prius I had for two years.

Great on fuel ... bit of a worry when the batteries start to go on it though.

Wonder how much it cost to develop the Prius or the Civil hybrid?

Quote:
1905
An American engineer named H. Piper filed a patent for a petrol-electric hybrid vehicle. His idea was to use an electric motor to assist an internal-combustion engine, enabling it to achieve 25 mph.

Quote:
1966
U.S. Congress introduced first bills recommending use of electric vehicles as a means of reducing air pollution.

Quote:
1974
As part of the Federal Clean Car Incentive Program, engineers Victor Wouk and Charlie Rosen created a prototype hybrid gas-electric vehicle using a Buick Skylark body. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tested the vehicle, certified that it met the strict guidelines for an EPA clean-air auto program — and rejected it out of hand.

Quote:
1976
U.S. Congress enacted Public Law 94-413, the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1976. Among the law’s objectives were to work with industry to improve batteries, motors, controllers, and other hybrid-electric components.

Quote:
1991
The United States Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC), a Department of Energy program, launched a major program to produce a “super” battery to get viable electric vehicles on the road as soon as possible. The USABC would go on to invest more than $90 million in the nickel hydride (NiMH) battery. The NiMH battery can accept three times as many charge cycles as lead-acid, and can work better in cold weather.

http://www.hybridcars.com/history/history-of-hybrid-veh...
seems the government did have a hand in the hybrid car business. but not as much $$ to develop them.
I do believe that the Volt is a step in the right direction but they should have waited until they could develop one with a better range. not to mention they could not even make one that was fully electric. :??: 
December 24, 2011 5:41:52 AM

My grandfather,( here I go again,) stated that he had seen electric carts on the streets of NY as a kid. Many were used to deliver milk or ice.
December 24, 2011 8:34:36 AM

dogman_1234 said:
A school I am planning on attending is researching biofuel. Hopefully, they have come up with a fossil fuel alternative hypothesis. :bounce: 


We still have non-conventional fossil fuels.

Extract them with techniques like fracking, destroy our farming water tables along the way.

And those fuel deposits in Iceland and Antarctica. Then we can have BP 2.0.
December 24, 2011 10:07:42 AM

I've read if the fracking frack is done in a responsible manner, it will have very little impact on the water table.
December 24, 2011 12:02:03 PM

We discussed fraking before and with good gobt oversight and controls I am for it.

The lease should extend to cleaning up the site after - govt should levy money from the lease via taz to ensure it is done if the company goes bust in the meantime.

December 24, 2011 2:33:29 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
I've read if the fracking frack is done in a responsible manner, it will have very little impact on the water table.


Hydrofracking is safe to me as well. However, do not attempt it with Natural Gas though. :D 
December 27, 2011 11:46:26 AM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
I'm saying a huge corporation like Boeing would not make plans for building aircraft based on "fossil fuels" for the next several decades without prior knowledge of how to fuel those aircraft. That fuel will be petroleum for a lot more than ~35 years.

Then what would they base it on? This is a red herring entirely here bud. You can't magically use a fuel that doesn't exist yet, you can only design around the limitations you currently have an hope for the best. They need super high energy outputs, and the only way outside of oil based fuel is nuclear.

Oldmangamer_73 said:
I'm still not convinced that converting one's food supply to fuel is such a wise move. We haven't solved the problem of transporting ethanol either.

Another common misconception of ethanol is that it will come entirely from corn, which is propaganda. Right now we have biological organisms that can break down car tires and in turn generate economical amounts of ethanol. This has been around for a few years now and I remember first reading about it in an Engineering magazine probably 4 years ago.

Found the company who's doing it: Coskata

Not to mention that the real buzz isn't ethanol or natural gas, it's hydrogen. But everyone is afraid of fuel cells catching fire and blowing up a city block with a single car fire - I think we are smarter than that, but I think it's the fact that hydrogen is so readily abundant (h2o) that there will be to many companies who will be able to commoditize it and there won't be an oligopoly over the market like there is no with crude.

Oldmangamer_73 said:
I've read if the fracking frack is done in a responsible manner, it will have very little impact on the water table.

Yeah, everything still points to corporate irresponsibility on that front. I'm going to continue waving my anti-American company flags if they continue to pursue profit while pillaging our countrysides.

Ars Technica: How the EPA linked "fracking" to contaminated well water 12-09-11 - This article was just published...

Reynod said:
We discussed fraking before and with good gobt oversight and controls I am for it.

The lease should extend to cleaning up the site after - govt should levy money from the lease via taz to ensure it is done if the company goes bust in the meantime.

That's a great thought, but it's not happening, yet.
December 27, 2011 12:03:17 PM

I never said corn, I said "vegetable matter". Either way, you will need land, whether for corn or other vegetable matter to produce the biofuel. That was the point. And, we are currently using a great deal of corn. Just ask Mexico how much their corn tortillas cost now compared to 5 years ago.
December 27, 2011 12:06:26 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
I never said corn, I said "vegetable matter". Either way, you will need land, whether for corn or other vegetable matter to produce the biofuel. That was the point. And, we are currently using a great deal of corn. Just ask Mexico how much their corn tortillas cost now compared to 5 years ago.

And IIRC, the commercial farm lobbies have a heavy hand in that. These aren't your mom & pop operations that have been "in the family for 100 years," these are commercial farm operations that monocrop for profit stripping vast amounts of resources from the soil.
December 27, 2011 12:13:04 PM

Well, they (the big monocroppers) only exist because of the demand.

Which once again makes we question the wisdom of using ones rich farmland, whether for corn or other vegetable matter as a source of energy. Doesn't seem like a good idea in my mind especially considering the steady rise in food prices over the last 3 years with no end to the rises in sight.
December 27, 2011 7:22:02 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Well, they (the big monocroppers) only exist because of the demand.

Which once again makes we question the wisdom of using ones rich farmland, whether for corn or other vegetable matter as a source of energy. Doesn't seem like a good idea in my mind especially considering the steady rise in food prices over the last 3 years with no end to the rises in sight.


Wow, again I agree! CHEERS! :bounce: 
!