News About the Chevy Volt

So I'm grabbing lunch today and I happen to pick up a copy of this week's "Tech Center News"- basically an industry rag that you can get for free, usually at Donut Shops or Gas Stations.  And I'm reading an article that I would like to share with you all regarding the Cheverolet Volt.  Called "Volt Is Not a Political Punching Bag."

First though, a little disclosure: I am an engineer in the Auto Industry. Secondly: I love the Volt, as a Liberal, yes, but as an ENGINEER first and foremost. I am still blown away by what GM has finally managed to do: Design and market a TRULY electric car.  And while the price is too high, and the gas-free range not nearly long enough, with time and further development? I predict that THIS is the fundamental power-plant model that will eventually ween us off of gasoline entirely and forever.

A little math, and I'll get back to the article.  The current Volt costs around $45,000. And not only GM sell them at a loss, but even their #1 fan (ME!) will admit that in no one's wildest fantasies in this a $45,000 car.  So to anyone who wants to argue the BUSINESS CASE of the Volt? Let me save you the time: I concede on all points!  For a purely business perspective, and by itself, in a vacuum? The Volt is a loser.  But what GM has designed here remains a TECHNICAL marvel. Lemme 'splain:
Fully charged, the current Volt can go ~35 miles without consuming a drop of gas.  And personally? If I were going to even CONSIDER spending that kind of money? I need AT LEAST a 50 mile range to get me to and from work every day.  But, as you may or may not know, the range of an electric car, at any assumed speed, is a purely linear function of it MASS.  Put simply? Cut the weight in half and you DOUBLE the range!  So, let's see... How do we get from 35 to 50 miles, gas free...?  Well, TAKE OUT THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE for a start!  See the Volt, unlike the Prius, just doesn't need it! So take it out! Save that weight! And the weight of the Alternator. And Radiator. And 10+ Gallons of fuel. And any extra Body Sheet Metal that you no longer need. And the engine mounts... You get the idea.  Because of how the Volt works, you don't actually NEED any gas at all.  The BATTERY drives the wheels, and the engine only acts to keep the battery going once it's depleted. But once the range is adequate for your daily needs? You can pull the engine out and never miss it!
Can't do that with a Prius. Because the Prius' wheels are still driven primarily but the Internal Combustion Engine, which is only ASSISTED by an electric motor. So while more efficient that standard vehicles, you still NEED gas.  It's like Doctor Emmet Brown said:
"[While] Mr. Fusion [...] powers the time circuits and the flux capacitor, [...] the internal combustion engine runs on ordinary gasoline; it always has."
And in the Prius? It still does. Not so in the Volt. And that? Is fucking AMAZING.

SO, with my personal biases disclosed and out of the way, I would like to refer you back to a story that NPR (and others) ran awhile back about FIRES in the Chevy Volt.  See... I'd like to file this under"Behold:Your Liberal Media!" And at first blush, some may miss the sarcasm in that. After all" General Motors? FIRES? Sounds familiar no? And what could be more Liberal than showing how a HUGE CORPORATION is putting out UNSAFE PRODUCTS and MISINFORMING THE PUBLIC, right?
Yeeeeeah...

Except that this in the VOLT. And apparently the media's oil-industry sponsors are as afraid of it's implication as I am impressed by them.  How do I mean?
Well... While NPR was fair - fairer than most - there were some small details that they failed to give proper prominence to in their story.  Like the fact that the fires happened anywhere from three days to three WEEKS after the NHTSA Crash Test: 35 mph into a solid, unmoving barrier.
So what? What does that matter? The cars still caught fire, right? What if it were parked in my garage? It could burn my house down, no?!
*sigh*
Well... That's the impression I felt the NPR stories would leave people with. But it's utter hogwash.

The fires occurred due to a COOLANT leak that corroded the terminals and after three days to three weeks caught fire.  Where was the car at the time? In the equivalent of A FUCKING GOVERNMENT JUNKYARD! Which is exactly where YOUR CAR would be after a 35+ mph crash! And, OK, suppose your car's not totalled. I can still guarantee you it's IN THE DAMNED SHOP!

I've been on both the receiving and giving end of SEVERAL crashes in my ~22 years of driving. NONE of them were over 35 mph. I know this for a fact because my airbags never deployed, and airbag typically deploy between 15 and 20 mph. So these were LOW SPEED crashes.  But anything over ~10? And my car (and usually the other guy's) was definitely IN THE SHOP.  It NEEDED repairs.  And if your mechanic notices a LEAK? Of literally fucking ANYTHING? That's pretty much the FIRST thing s/he's going to address!
(BTW... "she or he" (s/he) is used here as MY mechanic happens to be female. Odd but true, and she's AWESOME at it!)
See... These kinds of things: fires after a crash? Are a HUGE problem if it's something like GAS that's leaking. Mainly because that can catch fire while you're still in the car!  But as GM chairman Dan Ackerson was quoted as saying:

"[...] as one of our customers put it: If they couldn't cut him out of the vehicle in two or three weeks, he had a bigger problem to worry about."

 

And that's it. This? Is NOT A PROBLEM. "Fire" might make for a good story, but it a non-issue here, folks!  Do you what GM has to do about this? Precisely NOTHING. (Although they still are reinforcing the battery.)  But in all seriousness? As a bit of an industry  insider? Alert the mechanics that the coolant could be flammable if allowed to sit on the battery terminal for several days and that's pretty much IT.

Here are some FACTS about the Volt:

For you flag waving types? It's made in the USA, exclusively in GM's Hammtramack plant...
For you anti-supply-siders? ...by UAW, Union labor.

For you flag waving types? It will break your / our dependence on foreign oil.
For you eco-warriors? It can potentially eliminate your personal transportation carbon footprint.

And for you car enthusiasts? This thing looks COOL:

OK, so it's not the Corvette, or the Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Skye. THOSE? Were some damned fine lookin' cars. (The 'Vette still is, though I'm a  Mustang-man through and through myself!) But other than those? GM's not exactly known for it's bold styling. They've been making ugly Cadillacs for decades now, and I'm sure y'all remember the Aztek and wish you didn't, am I right?  But hey: I'll put this up against any comparably priced Toyota or Honda in terms of style and performance - not to mention SAFETY. Yes, SAFETY, as it was award a FIVE-STAR CRASH TEST RATING in both Driver and Passenger Frontal Impacts, Side Impacts and Rollover Rating.

Now... At $45,000...?

Nah, still too much. But lose the engine - which this power-plant makes possible - extend the range and reduce the cost? (Starting with the cost of the engine you've got to pull out ayway?) And this thing will one day be regarded as the Car that changed the world...
...or at least the point at which it all started!

...And the oil industry KNOWS IT!

ENERGY! (Yay!)

OK. FINALLY, it's time to talk about ENERGY.


First off all, I hope that everyone who’s read my blog, visited some of the sites I’ve linked to or seen me go after the climate deniers on MMFA, understands that Global Warming is an issue that I take very seriously. I’m certainly no climate denier and pollution in general is also something that I really take to heart. But I’m also an ENGINEER. And I tend to look at energy issue through those eyes and NOT political ones.

It should go without saying that I’m all for Solar, Wind, Tidal, Geothermal, and any other form of energy generation that does not consume fuel. And personally I don’t buy the statement that SOLAR TECHNOLOGY is not “ready” to generate our electricity. The Solar technology is FINE. The REAL problem is with our electric grid. A century ago we went with WESTINGHOUSE’s model instead of EDISON’s. You see... Edison bascially envisioned everyone having there own, small, household (DC) power source. Westinghouse envisioned huge, centralized power stations that sent (AC) electricity to the surrounding areas. And that, of course, is the model that won out. And if you think about it, Solar power (at least at the consumer level) is closer to Edison’s model. And our “grid” just wasn’t designed with that in mind.

The other problem is one of initial cost. You always hear, from big oil, big coal, etc… that fossil fuels generate the cheapest electricity. That’s true, from a certain point of view, but it’s also complete bullshit. Solar energy is FREE. Wind energy is FREE. You don’t pay for the wind any more that you pay for the sun. Neither consumes any fuel, so how can it cost ANYTHING per kilowatt hour? It’s per usage cost is… NOTHING. Now, sure, there’s a setup cost. You have to BUILD THE DAMNED THING first. (Unlike coal mines, oil fields and power plants, which I guess just grow naturally out of the ground, right?) So whenever you hear the “cost” of Solar, Wind, etc… stated on a per kilowatt basis, you’d better ask over what amount of time they are allocating the initial setup costs. Considering that a solar panel has no moving parts, and thus won’t “wear out,” it can essentially last indefinitely. Thus any attempt to depreciate it over just a year or two, is completely intellectually dishonest.

Personally, if had to design an electrical system from the ground up NOW, I would go with about a 90% Edison model and about 10% Westinghouse. Because if you turned every ROOF in America into an equally sized Solar panel, you could EASILY generate enough power for residential use, without a doubt. And sure, each house would also need a big battery or two to store excess energy in case you get a cloudy week or two (like we’re having in Michigan right now) and your solar source is just not up to snuff. After that just connect everyone, similar to how we are now except that each house is a GENERATOR of power, rather than a recipient.
Now… it IS likely that we’ll need some additional power for INDUSTIAL centers – assembly plants, steel plants, etc… and for one OTHER thing that it’s high time we switched over to: ELECTRIC CARS. There are only two things that are needed to make the electric car practical for personal use. (1) GET RID OF THE IC ENGINE! It’s 800 pounds of unnecessary steel that would serve no purpose at all if… (2) make the batteries interchangeable, so that I can pull into a service station, drop off my old battery and pick up a new one. (They’d recharge my battery and give it to the next guy.) For this, they could charge, say… in the $10-$20 range to cover the CHARGE and the depreciation of the actual battery. (Batteries would have to be replaced after a couple of years, anyway.) Do THIS? And the only thing we’d need ANY gas/diesel/dino-fuel for is LARGE Freight carriers: Namely: Trucks, Trains, Planes and Ships. I’ll admit that I don’t see our battery technology being up to the task of moving huge amounts of mass over great distances anytime soon. But if the only things on the road burning gas were the already highly efficient diesel trucks? That would be HUGE in terms of pollution reduction.
Now…question is: How would I generate that extra power (for plants and cars) and also, how would I generate power in the mean time until we get to the point of what I’m describing? Coal? No fucking way. We should NEVER build another Coal burning plant ever again. Period. You can’t burn it cleanly. Believing anything to the contrary is nonsense. Even if you could, you can’t MINE it cleanly: It destroys mountains, levels forests and pollute rivers and water supplies with all manner of assorted nastiness. And finally: You can’t store the LEFT OVER ASH cleanly either. Coal is dirty, vile, nasty disgusting stuff, and it’s HIGH TIME we started weaning off of it. Natural Gas? Not bad, but you still have a significant contribution to Global Warming to deal with. You see: You simply cannot BURN a HYDROCARBON without producing CARBON DIOXIDE. It’s a chemical impossibility. Hydro-electric is cleans, but DAMS have some of the largest ecological footprints you can imagine. They alter entire ecosystems. So while they’re CLEAN, they’re not really clean. So what short- to near-term solution do I favor? (And this is where I break with Liberals BIG TIME…)

Nuclear.

Nuclear power is the only currently feasible source of energy that can generates anywhere nears the amount of energy we need, without production ANY greenhouse gases. Now… I know there are concerned with safety. If you have those, I suggest you learn about the pebble-bed reactor design. Perfectly safe. And that’s coming from a liberal. Also… I am not ignoring that nuclear power produces some of the single nastiest pollutants one can imagine. But it is specifically BECAUSE of those pollutants that I choose Nuclear over the [Burning Stuff] model. And this is where I stop thinking politically, and start thinking like an engineer:

Although I certainly wouldn't want that shit in my back yard, if I had to chose between having to find a technical solution to safely storing 100,000 tons of uranium, versus 100,000 tons of CO2, I’d pick the Uranium any day. Why? Simple: It’s a dense solid. 100,000 tons of Uranium is about the size of a house. 100,000 tons of gaseous CO2 is about the size of ALASKA. What the fuck are you going to do with that much STUFF? Where the hell would you put it? How would you compress it down into a manageable form? (Hint: You’d run compressors that use MORE energy, thus creating MORE of what it is you’re trying to manage! Oy vey!) But we can do something with a SOLID. Compared to a GAS? The technical problem is almost trivial. I agree that we really do need to do a much better job than we do NOW… But I don’t think we can just throw a switch and change our whole power system overnight either. So in the meantime, Nuclear is the ready option, that meets the need, and that pollutes the planet the LEAST.
So, after all that… We come down to it: How do I feel about Obama opening up the East Coast to OIL DRILLING? You know what? I’m actually OK with it. Not HAPPY, but it’s not yet a deal-breaker for me, even after all I’ve said here. Right now? I’m inclined to view it as one of the same ‘necessary evils’ in energy legislation that I saw in the effort for health care reform: One of those things that might not be popular, but just may be necessary to get something done. And before anyone jumps on me for that statement alone, let me qualify it:

1) I’m very glad that many regions are still off limits, including some of the more fragile, as yet untouched ecosystems. (Like ANWR, for example.)

2) Increased drilling was a part of his energy plan, even on the campaign trail, if you recall, so it’s something I expected anyway.

3) I’m also hearing about CAFE standard being raised to 35 mpg for ALL VEHICLES. I really like that idea, but even so I’d be ecstatic even if it were only 30 mpg.

4) I’m really reserving judgment until I see what role alternative energy and green energy will play in the overall policy moving forward and how serious he is about investing in it.

If throwing the oil industry a bone is what it takes to keep them from eliminating the new CAFE standards, or halting investment in green energy? Fine – let ‘em drill. If the states and the coastal residents want to fight it? Let ‘em. Those people tend to vote Republican, so it’s really their fight anyway. Now… if Obama tosses out that alternative energy investment; opens up the Gulf, the West Coats and ANWR to drilling; kills the new CAFE standards; doesn’t sign any global climate treaties? Fine. I’ll admit I was wrong and gladly join my friend, ClassicLiberal, in the effort to remove him from office. (Assuming there’s a VIABLE alternative and the nomination of a new candidate doesn’t hand the Presidency to Sarah Palin or Bobby Jindal. Becasue otherwise: I’ll STILL stick with Obama!)
One final thing…

I never believed in “Drill baby drill.” (I don’t think any thinking person ever really did.) And the best way to break our dependence on foreign oil will be to REDUCE OUR COPNSUMPTION. I know this. I realize that you could drill on every square inch of America and we’d still be buying foreign oil. We simply burn too much of it. BUT, I hate $4.00 a gallon gas as much as anyone. (More so, maybe.) And while I know that this little bit of drilling (or even a LOT of drilling) won’t impact the price of gas more than a nickel or so (at best) I also realize that the market is and IRRATIONAL thing. And if throwing the industry a bone helps STABALIZE gas prices a bit? (Even for no good reason?) I’ll take that. And there’s another thing: MARKET FORCE (high prices) will NEVER get us off Gas by themselves. Reason: Any widely adapted application of green energy will reduce demand for fossil fuels. So the GREENER we get, the CHEAPER Gas (etc…) will get. It will ALWAYS appear cheap compared to the cost of updating our grid, buying an electric car, etc... And it will only get cheaper once we START DOING THESE THINGS! So don’t be fooled into thinking we need high gas prices to get us off gas. It won’t work. As we DO get off gas, the price will only FALL. Going green will take POLITICAL WILL. “The market” won’t care until long after it’s too late to fix anything.