The Volt: What Happens When Ideology Gets Ahead of Reality

Last week GM launched “national and television print ads” to try to bolster the slumping sales for the Volt. (Every time you see an ad for an electric car, think of President Obama and your tax dollars.) Dealer orders are down. They report: “We just haven’t been seeing the interest. The cost definitely has something to do with it.” GM is considering slowing production due to the less-than-expected demand and has temporarily laid-off 1,200 workers.

In 2011, instead of the forecasted 10,000, 7,671 Volts were sold—which comes out to three-hundredths of 1 percent of US carmakers unit sales. Analysts say there has been a “slow initial uptake of the first models to come on the market.” Many of the Volts that were sold were to government. New York City bought 50. The city of DeLand, FL used part of a $1.2 million federal grant to buy five. Perhaps in effort to save his “ambitious energy project,” President Obama has committed the fed to buying 100+. He’s even pushed his Jobs Council leader, Jeffery Immelt, to buy them. GE will purchase 3000 through the year 2015.

Of course GE is one of the leading suppliers of the charging stations needed to power the Volt—much like those removed by Costco, due to lack of use. After investing a lot of time and money on recharging stations, GE has to do what they can to not let the market slip further away.

But, remember, “we can do it if we really try.” From the first domino to the last, the administration has really tried. The Volt, says the Financial Times, was “fast-tracked through development in a process it likened to a ‘moonshot.’” Adam Jones, an analyst with Morgan Stanley, believes that they are “not yet ready for prime time.” Addressing the removal of charging stations at Costco, general manager for northern California, Dennis Hoover said: “Why should we have anybody spend money on a program nobody’s thought through?”Calum MacRae of PWC’s Autofacts states that electric vehicles “are flawed in terms of convenience.”

Citing statistics for the Nissin Leaf, Forbes Magazine counts the cost of an electric vehicle (EV): “At $0.11/KWH for electricity and $4.00/gallon for gasoline, you would have to drive the Leaf 164,000 miles to recover its additional purchase cost. Counting interest, the miles to payback is 197,000 miles. Because it is almost impossible to drive a Leaf more than 60 miles a day, the payback with interest would take more than nine years.” But, they state: “The cost is not the biggest problem.” “The biggest drawback is not, range, but refueling time. A few minutes spent at a gas station will give a conventional car 300 to 400 miles of range. In contrast, it takes 20 hours to completely recharge a Nissan Leaf from 110V house current. An extra-cost 240V charger shortens this time to 8 hours. There are expensive 480V chargers that can cut this time to 4 hours, but Nissan cautions that using them very often will shorten the life of the car’s batteries.”

Please continue reading at:

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/9719/The-Volt-What-Happens-When-Ideology-Gets-Ahead-of-Reality

DISCLAIMER: Environmental, Health and Safety News is not affiliated with or maintained by ANY for profit or non-profit entity. It is a 100% volunteer effort free from advertising or sponsorship of any kind. This site is intended to be an educational and not-for-profit website providing useful information for security, environmental, health, sciences, transportation, and public safety professionals and the general public. It is not “for the purpose of trade, to induce the sale of any goods or services.”
In the Webmaster’s opinion, any incidental use of any pictures and graphics, or quoted words on this site is not a violation of any trademark for the any reasons stated above. The webmaster will fully cooperate with any and everyone that believes any section of the site are in violation of fair use.

The use of any and all copyrighted works in the creation of this site is, in the Webmaster’s opinion, protected by 17 USC 107 (see Creative Commons License below). If the owner of a copyrighted work used in the creation of this site believes that 17 USC 107 does not apply to the use of their work, the site’s creator will cooperate to the fullest extent possible.

FAIR USE NOTE: The site provides information of a general & public nature regarding national or other developments. None of the information contained herein is intended as legal advice or opinions relative to specific matters, facts, situations or issues. Additional facts, information or future developments may affect the subjects addressed in this site. You should consult with an expert about your particular circumstances before acting on any of this information because it may not be applicable to your situation. This site contains information and links to sites which are not owned or maintained by this site. This site is not responsible for the content, linked sites, and the views expressed on linked sites do not necessarily reflect our views or opinions. The information contained herein is provided for personal, non-commercial, educational, entertainment and informational purposes only and does not constitute a guarantee of information or facts. This site makes no claims, expressed, implied, or statutory regarding the accuracy, timeliness, completeness, or correctness of any material contained herein. Since the conditions of use are outside my control, the individual visitor is entirely responsible for determining the appropriateness and applicability of all information contained herein.

This website is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Back to Top