GM finally getting it?

[Fritzo]

They're dumping HUGE resources into electric tech now---several years too late, but it looks like they're making strides to get back on track. I was reading this MSNBC article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22687632/

and they're actually developing some products that I would want to buy! That Vue that can go 10 miles before switching to it's gas engine sounds cool ( as long as it doesn't cost $40000). The Volt rocks---and they almost dumped that project two years ago. Looks like they're finally going in the right direction.

 

[Gibson486]

I am telling you...GM has something up there sleeve. They went years by just making mediocre cars when they probably had to do so because they are investing so much into future concept R&D.

 

[Scarpozzi]

WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR!!!???

Well, after seeing this and seeing videos on google about folks that liked that model, you'd think GM would have plenty of technology if they could find their engineering reports.

I heard one of their head guys talk about the Chevy Volt on NPR last year. He said it was the most thrilling design he's seen in 30 years because it will operate on quite a few miles without gas and has a small gas engine to limp along if it were to run out of battery power.

Here's a link that I found about the Volt. I think a electric hybrid sounds like a good alternative as long as electric power doesn't go up too much as a result. We need more nuclear power plants and we need to learn from the French. Retro-fit the plants to run the fuel rods through a second time. It will reduce waste and decrease costs....the US government is just too stubborn and wants high capacity rather than overall efficiency.
http://www.forbes.com/markets/.../01/15/afx4530524.html

 

[OdiN]

I work for GM. It's interesting to see what goes on.

However, the mortgage arm of our financial services company is not in the greatest of shape - but that describes a lot of financial services companies into mortgage.

 

[TheTony]

The nice thing about the parallel hybrid design is that, as fuel sources (for the generator) evolve, they can be intergrated into the design. Gas/ethanol now, fuel cells, etc, later.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
Here's a link that I found about the Volt. I think a electric hybrid sounds like a good alternative as long as electric power doesn't go up too much as a result. We need more nuclear power plants and we need to learn from the French. Retro-fit the plants to run the fuel rods through a second time. It will reduce waste and decrease costs....the US government is just too stubborn and wants high capacity rather than overall efficiency.

Nuclear reprocessing was banned by an executive order (Carter) for what are now considered to be misplaced weapons proliferation concerns. The US reprocessing infrastructure was dismantled or abandoned since then so we have no way currently to reprocess the waste stream.

Recently the US government has enabled closer ties to Japan's nuclear industry since they have much experience with this technology and a friendly relationship with a number of US nuclear companies. The DOE has also started construction on a mixed oxide plant at Savannah River to work surplus Defense Department plutonium into the commercial fuel stream.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
Here's a link that I found about the Volt. I think a electric hybrid sounds like a good alternative as long as electric power doesn't go up too much as a result. We need more nuclear power plants and we need to learn from the French. Retro-fit the plants to run the fuel rods through a second time. It will reduce waste and decrease costs....the US government is just too stubborn and wants high capacity rather than overall efficiency.

Nuclear reprocessing was banned by an executive order (Carter) for what are now considered to be misplaced weapons proliferation concerns. The US reprocessing infrastructure was dismantled or abandoned since then so we have no way currently to reprocess the waste stream.

Recently the US government has enabled closer ties to Japan's nuclear industry since they have much experience with this technology and a friendly relationship with a number of US nuclear companies. The DOE has also started construction on a mixed oxide plant at Savannah River to work surplus Defense Department plutonium into the commercial fuel stream.

Just FWIW the executive order by Carter banning reprocessing is something of a myth, I know I see that alto around here, but actually it only says the federal government will not provide any funds for reprocessing, so it doesn't ban a private company from reprocessing waste, just the federal government. As for that MOX plant at Savannah river, they are gonna send that off the Duke Powers reactors and also a few more that are not yet determined (currently several other companies are applying for it under a request for proposal). Still, reprocessing just doesn't make any sense with Uranium prices being as low as they are, obviously they have gone up a bunch, but in relative terms mining uranium is still a very cheap energy source and reprocessing plutonium is more expensive (and FAR more dangerous). The new MOX plant makes sense because no reprocessing is going on, they simply take plutonium from bomb inventories and blend it with uranium.

EDIT: oh yeah, the VOLT and GM, they seem kinda interesting, but being a good concept and a good production model are two different things. What would worry me the most is having essentially twice as much engine components means twice as likely to fail. Also still need to wait and see if normal (non-hippie) people would be interested in the car given its limited power and the annoyance of plugging it in all the time.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
Here's a link that I found about the Volt. I think a electric hybrid sounds like a good alternative as long as electric power doesn't go up too much as a result. We need more nuclear power plants and we need to learn from the French. Retro-fit the plants to run the fuel rods through a second time. It will reduce waste and decrease costs....the US government is just too stubborn and wants high capacity rather than overall efficiency.

Nuclear reprocessing was banned by an executive order (Carter) for what are now considered to be misplaced weapons proliferation concerns. The US reprocessing infrastructure was dismantled or abandoned since then so we have no way currently to reprocess the waste stream.

Recently the US government has enabled closer ties to Japan's nuclear industry since they have much experience with this technology and a friendly relationship with a number of US nuclear companies. The DOE has also started construction on a mixed oxide plant at Savannah River to work surplus Defense Department plutonium into the commercial fuel stream.

Just FWIW the executive order by Carter banning reprocessing is something of a myth, I know I see that alto around here, but actually it only says the federal government will not provide any funds for reprocessing, so it doesn't ban a private company from reprocessing waste, just the federal government. As for that MOX plant at Savannah river, they are gonna send that off the Duke Powers reactors and also a few more that are not yet determined (currently several other companies are applying for it under a request for proposal). Still, reprocessing just doesn't make any sense with Uranium prices being as low as they are, obviously they have gone up a bunch, but in relative terms mining uranium is still a very cheap energy source and reprocessing plutonium is more expensive (and FAR more dangerous). The new MOX plant makes sense because no reprocessing is going on, they simply take plutonium from bomb inventories and blend it with uranium.

EDIT: oh yeah, the VOLT and GM, they seem kinda interesting, but being a good concept and a good production model are two different things. What would worry me the most is having essentially twice as much engine components means twice as likely to fail. Also still need to wait and see if normal (non-hippie) people would be interested in the car given its limited power and the annoyance of plugging it in all the time.

The feds owned the infrastructure so unless a private company wanted to put up all the funds for a ground up program and assume the risk it wasn't going to happen (and hasn't). Since it takes a decade or two to get anything done with the word "nuclear" in it here in the US I don't think planning a plutonium cycle from reprocessed fuel is jumping the gun given the way energy consumption is going worldwide.

Reprocessing is beneficial to the waste problem as well not just the fuel supply. It can cut down what has to go into long term geologic storage by 80-90% and significantly reduce the amount of time the storage site has to retain integrity.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Can anyone explain to me what the big deal about electric cars are? They are far from zero pollution. You're just shifting the emissions from the tailpipe of the car to the coal power plant. Also, now you have way more batteries that have to be manufactured/recycled that add to pollution. I mean, it's great to think beyond a gas engine as the only way of powering a car, but I hardly see how this is really even 'better'. Now, if we had nuclear fusion plants, that'd be one thing, but the vast majority of electric is still generated by coal. So, we burn less gas to burn more coal.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
Can anyone explain to me what the big deal about electric cars are? They are far from zero pollution. You're just shifting the emissions from the tailpipe of the car to the coal power plant. Also, now you have way more batteries that have to be manufactured/recycled that add to pollution. I mean, it's great to think beyond a gas engine as the only way of powering a car, but I hardly see how this is really even 'better'. Now, if we had nuclear fusion plants, that'd be one thing, but the vast majority of electric is still generated by coal. So, we burn less gas to burn more coal.

Large base load power plants are much more efficient than internal combustion engines. Not to mention you switch the fuel source from a increasingly expensive imported commodity to an inexpensive domestic one.

It's a major step in the right direction.

 

[Juddog]

With the newest advances in carbon nanotubes allowing a potentially 10 times longer battery life, combined with the recent new way to process solar cells for extremely cheap, electric cars will be increasing in demand.

One of the main things that held them back for a long time was the issue of battery life.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
Can anyone explain to me what the big deal about electric cars are? They are far from zero pollution. You're just shifting the emissions from the tailpipe of the car to the coal power plant. Also, now you have way more batteries that have to be manufactured/recycled that add to pollution. I mean, it's great to think beyond a gas engine as the only way of powering a car, but I hardly see how this is really even 'better'. Now, if we had nuclear fusion plants, that'd be one thing, but the vast majority of electric is still generated by coal. So, we burn less gas to burn more coal.

Nuclear power plants & Coal power plants are far more efficient than internal combustion engines.

Also, most of our coal is mined in the United States. Most of our oil is imported. If we use more coal and less oil, then we depend less on foreign oil.

I don't think the benefits really have much (if anything) to do with pollution.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: Fritzo
They're dumping HUGE resources into electric tech now---several years too late, but it looks like they're making strides to get back on track. I was reading this MSNBC article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22687632/

and they're actually developing some products that I would want to buy! That Vue that can go 10 miles before switching to it's gas engine sounds cool ( as long as it doesn't cost $40000). The Volt rocks---and they almost dumped that project two years ago. Looks like they're finally going in the right direction.

Sort of. Not really.

Gas economy isn't why people refrain from American-made cars, and electric has a long way to go still.

The only recent indicators I've seen that Ford + GM may finally be "getting it" are the Fusion and new Malibu. One has reviewed competitively with the Accord/Camry, which is what American Auto REALLY needs to do to survive. The other looks like it has a shot.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Fritzo
They're dumping HUGE resources into electric tech now---several years too late, but it looks like they're making strides to get back on track. I was reading this MSNBC article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22687632/

and they're actually developing some products that I would want to buy! That Vue that can go 10 miles before switching to it's gas engine sounds cool ( as long as it doesn't cost $40000). The Volt rocks---and they almost dumped that project two years ago. Looks like they're finally going in the right direction.

they've been dumping huge money into fuel cells for years. the problem with fuel cells is that it takes a lot more r&d to get those things up and running than toyota's little prius ever did. so toyota had a halo product that made people think toyota was green (their conventional designs, outside the corolla, aren't any more fuel efficient than their competitors), while GM was still pushing tahoes (it was GM's best product for the past 10 years, after all) for financial reasons.

 

[kevinthenerd]

Hybrids are a stupid bandaid, and what happens to our land fills when the batteries crap out?

Electric is a good way to go provided the storage of that energy is environmentally friendly for its full life (especially disposal).

I met Sir Harry Kroto (Nobel prize for Buckminsterfullerene) when he visted UCF. I'll never forget how much he emphasized that the sooner we turn to a Hydrogen energy economy, the better. I believe Hydrogen cars are the way to go. I saw a Progress Energy prototype made out of a Ford Focus. While it looked ridiculously expensive with all the titanium and whatnot to lighten up the chassis, it still seems to be the way to go. I think a good transitional period would be to run internal combustion engines on Hydrogen and to wait for fuel cell technology to get lighter and more efficient.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: Fritzo
They're dumping HUGE resources into electric tech now---several years too late, but it looks like they're making strides to get back on track. I was reading this MSNBC article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22687632/

and they're actually developing some products that I would want to buy! That Vue that can go 10 miles before switching to it's gas engine sounds cool ( as long as it doesn't cost $40000). The Volt rocks---and they almost dumped that project two years ago. Looks like they're finally going in the right direction.

Sort of. Not really.

Gas economy isn't why people refrain from American-made cars, and electric has a long way to go still.

The only recent indicators I've seen that Ford + GM may finally be "getting it" are the Fusion and new Malibu. One has reviewed competitively with the Accord/Camry, which is what American Auto REALLY needs to do to survive. The other looks like it has a shot.

GM isn't pushing 7 year old giant SUV's down your throat anymore---that's why they're getting it. People don't want those vehicles anymore because of gas milage---so it IS about fuel economy. People will take or leave build quality, but if you're viewed as having an old out of date product, you're done for.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
Hybrids are a stupid bandaid, and what happens to our land fills when the batteries crap out?

Electric is a good way to go provided the storage of that energy is environmentally friendly for its full life (especially disposal).

I met Sir Harry Kroto (Nobel prize for Buckminsterfullerene) when he visted UCF. I'll never forget how much he emphasized that the sooner we turn to a Hydrogen energy economy, the better. I believe Hydrogen cars are the way to go. I saw a Progress Energy prototype made out of a Ford Focus. While it looked ridiculously expensive with all the titanium and whatnot to lighten up the chassis, it still seems to be the way to go. I think a good transitional period would be to run internal combustion engines on Hydrogen and to wait for fuel cell technology to get lighter and more efficient.

Hydrogen isn't going to be viable for a while. It uses more energy to create hydrogen than the energy you get out of it, and that's not going to change for quite some time. I would like to see all these laptop and cellphone fuel cells they keep talking about out on the market so we can get practice manufacturing them though.

 

[kevinthenerd]

I think it'd be cool to see overseas windmills that use electrolysis of sea water to produce hydrogen. I wonder whether the government would be willing to provide special interest rates for such a thing.

Here's the problem you'll find: Any investor would be interested in financing such an operation if there was money in it for them, but when the entrepreneur is looking for capital, he's competing with all of the other entrepreneurs on the market. Whoever can make the biggest [reasonable] promises on the return on investment gets the money. It costs a lot to build overseas wind farms. You'll have to make a LOT of Hydrogen on the dollar to compete with, say, even a used car dealership or a barbershop.

 

[kevinthenerd]

Originally posted by: K1052
Large base load power plants are much more efficient than internal combustion engines.

Definitely.

[*]Gas turbines
[*]Combined cycle operation
[*]No compromises made to weight (and few to cost)
[*]Very high operating temperature (better Carnot efficiency)
[*]MUCH better maintenance, balancing, etc.
[*]A lot more at stake

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
I think it'd be cool to see overseas windmills that use electrolysis of sea water to produce hydrogen. I wonder whether the government would be willing to provide special interest rates for such a thing.

Here's the problem you'll find: Any investor would be interested in financing such an operation if there was money in it for them, but when the entrepreneur is looking for capital, he's competing with all of the other entrepreneurs on the market. Whoever can make the biggest [reasonable] promises on the return on investment gets the money. It costs a lot to build overseas wind farms. You'll have to make a LOT of Hydrogen on the dollar to compete with, say, even a used car dealership or a barbershop.

Building an already expensive method of electricity production only to put that energy into a another process that will waste the majority of it (electrolysis) to get hydrogen, which is currently of limited utility due to a multitude of factors, is a terrible idea.

 

[kevinthenerd]

Originally posted by: Fritzo
It uses more energy to create hydrogen than the energy you get out of it, and that's not going to change for quite some time.

Physics FTL. It will ALWAYS take more energy to make Hydrogen than you get out of it. It's the first and second law of thermodynamics. You'll never get something for nothing. Hydrogen is merely the energy storage medium. It's not a fuel we can just dig out of the ground.

 

[kevinthenerd]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
I think it'd be cool to see overseas windmills that use electrolysis of sea water to produce hydrogen. I wonder whether the government would be willing to provide special interest rates for such a thing.

Here's the problem you'll find: Any investor would be interested in financing such an operation if there was money in it for them, but when the entrepreneur is looking for capital, he's competing with all of the other entrepreneurs on the market. Whoever can make the biggest [reasonable] promises on the return on investment gets the money. It costs a lot to build overseas wind farms. You'll have to make a LOT of Hydrogen on the dollar to compete with, say, even a used car dealership or a barbershop.

Building an already expensive method of electricity production only to put that energy into a another process that will waste the majority of it (electrolysis) to get hydrogen, which is currently of limited utility due to a multitude of factors, is a terrible idea.

Right now it definitely is. When I have a patent for what I'm working on, I'll let everybody know.

 

[BUTCH1]

I hope it all comes around and we can wean ourself from the prick OPEC nations
that reap staggering profit from oil sales then pay off terrorist groups to be left
alone. Not to mention the dismal human rights record these countries have compiled
(Saudi Arabia)..

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
Hybrids are a stupid bandaid, and what happens to our land fills when the batteries crap out?

Electric is a good way to go provided the storage of that energy is environmentally friendly for its full life (especially disposal).

I met Sir Harry Kroto (Nobel prize for Buckminsterfullerene) when he visted UCF. I'll never forget how much he emphasized that the sooner we turn to a Hydrogen energy economy, the better. I believe Hydrogen cars are the way to go. I saw a Progress Energy prototype made out of a Ford Focus. While it looked ridiculously expensive with all the titanium and whatnot to lighten up the chassis, it still seems to be the way to go. I think a good transitional period would be to run internal combustion engines on Hydrogen and to wait for fuel cell technology to get lighter and more efficient.

The R&D put into the Volt's electrical systems will be re-used in fuel cell vehicles. Designing the platform, motors, and control logic for the Volt will give GM valuable expertise in making electric cars. Replace the small gas engine and generator in the Volt with a fuel cell, and voila you've got a fuel cell vehicle. The Volt might be the most important thing GM has done in it's 100+ year existence.

Don't underestimate the importance of getting baby-step products, like the Volt, onto the market quickly.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: Fritzo
They're dumping HUGE resources into electric tech now---several years too late, but it looks like they're making strides to get back on track. I was reading this MSNBC article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22687632/

and they're actually developing some products that I would want to buy! That Vue that can go 10 miles before switching to it's gas engine sounds cool ( as long as it doesn't cost $40000). The Volt rocks---and they almost dumped that project two years ago. Looks like they're finally going in the right direction.

Sort of. Not really.

Gas economy isn't why people refrain from American-made cars, and electric has a long way to go still.

The only recent indicators I've seen that Ford + GM may finally be "getting it" are the Fusion and new Malibu. One has reviewed competitively with the Accord/Camry, which is what American Auto REALLY needs to do to survive. The other looks like it has a shot.

GM isn't pushing 7 year old giant SUV's down your throat anymore---that's why they're getting it. People don't want those vehicles anymore because of gas milage---so it IS about fuel economy. People will take or leave build quality, but if you're viewed as having an old out of date product, you're done for.

I won't argue that marketing is a factor, and gas mileage doesn't hurt, but neither of those is the reason people shy from GM vehicles.