Reader Mail
Warning: Low Battery
Volt’s charge account. Bunion care in New Zealand. Pulling grandma’s plug. End of life costs. Not mean enough. Plus more.
(Page 2 of 5)
He did, however, overlook the elephant in the room — the battery. The very best lithium-ion battery under ideal conditions “will irreversibly lose approximately 20% capacity per year.”
This gives a useful life of at most 3 years. This increases ownership cost by $2,000 per year.
From the article: “If whatever you are driving now gets an average of 25 mpg (half what the Prius gets) that 4,000 gallons would keep you going for 160,000 miles.”
Even if you drive quite a lot more miles per year than average that’s about 10 years. That’s $20,000 for batteries. Base price of the volt? $60,000.
You will never be able to sell the damned thing. After five years the car on the used market is overpriced by at least $5,000.
You’ll never break even.
— Roy Lofquist
Titusville, Florida
Does no one understand the logic here? GM, like all car companies, is saddled with the CAFE standards. Pelosi et al., being unable (yet) to tell consumers what they’re allowed to buy, have aimed for the same effect by forcing car manufacturers to achieve a certain “fleet average” fuel economy. American companies are further constrained to use expensive union labor to build the high mileage cars that are necessary to achieve the average.
The cars and trucks many people really want to buy are large, powerful, or both, but they’re not particularly economical. Unlike parallel hybrids, the Volt can run entirely on batteries for a typical consumer’s daily driving. Using the CAFE ratings procedures, it achieves very high rated mileage, compensating for the sales of a lot of big, fast, but most importantly, high-margin cars. Further, the Volt is a “boutique” car that will be bought by the environmentally pious instead of being seen as yet another hair-shirt economy car. GM can price it high enough to at least partially compensate for the high union labor costs. Now that GM is Government Motors, an ultra-mileage car might also help keep the mindless Pelosi-Boxer brigade off the company back.
I’m an electrical engineer as well as a rabid car enthusiast. I
don’t own a car I haven’t made faster, so I’m probably not a
potential Volt (yes, I know) customer. Nonetheless, a series
hybrid is intriguing. A series hybrid provides real-world
experience in full-electric drive trains while avoiding the
current range and charging infrastructure problems of
full-electrics. By isolating the charging engine from
direct-drive responsibilities, it can be optimized for efficiency
in a very narrow operating range. The development engineering
needed for a series hybrid prepares the manufacturer for an
easier transition to full-electric when and if battery technology
allows it. As much as I admire the Tesla designs and the
company’s refreshingly honest white-papers, these are much more
boutique cars than the Volt. In my view, a parallel hybrid is an
inelegant road to nowhere, no matter that it offers marginal
improvements in the short term.
—Larry Brantingham
The most recent article by Mr. Eric Peters you’ve published is most excellent in laying down the economics of the purchase and use of a Volt. I’ve seen several similar articles over the years addressing the Toyota Pious and other hybrids, but Mr. Peters’ article is the clearest I’ve read.
Still, I believe there is a significant missing argument against the Volt in his article (and the similar ones: May 24, 2009, “The Wishful Thinking of Greenie Dreams,” By Peter C. Glover, American Thinker; May 15, 2009 “Liberal Fantasyland,” by Randall Hoven, American Thinker; September 18, 2007 “Least Fuel-Efficient Hybrids” by Peter Hoy, Forbes). A rhetorical question is the best introduction to this missing argument. To wit: why is the cost of these hybrids so high?
The engineering and tooling costs can’t be much higher than for the introduction of any other “new” model. There are fewer raw materials in one of the hybrids (they are all designed to be lighter). The labor forces are the same as for traditionally powered vehicles. So, what is the cost driver? It must be Energy Cost of Manufacture. The materials in the battery are expensive because of the energy that is required to extract them from the earth. The chassis is expensive because of the energy required to manufacture the carbon fiber then cure the composite. The list no doubt goes on and on.
I’m not in the automotive nor minerals businesses and don’t have access to costing information to contribute but I believe it would be a worthwhile endeavor to gather this information and perform a “Life Cycle Energy Cost” analysis on these vehicles. Certainly, they won’t look as Green as they are presented. Just as the Volt lies by claiming 230mpg, ignoring the crude that is burned at the power station to charge the batteries, the purveyors of these vehicles lie in presenting the mpg vs. traditional power without rolling in the extra energy it takes up front to build the things.
Perhaps, now that GM is a Government entity, a FOIA request for
the manufacturing cost would yield the desired information? I’d
love to see a follow up article by Mr. Peters addressing the true
cost in energy of one of these vehicles.
— Bradford Sterling
THE HYPOCRITIC OATH
Re: Jeffrey Lord’s
The Ultimate Cost Saver:
Letter to the Editor View all comments (22) | Leave a comment
More Articles From Reader Mail
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/19/the-last-ninety-days
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Lean Feminism
- There’s Something About Cambridge
- Overheated Frauds and Fools
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
frost| 8.19.09 @ 7:01AM
That Groucho Marx comment has also been attributed to a gentleman named Ernest Benn.
How appropriate!
Michael L. Hauschild| 8.19.09 @ 8:41AM
Until fuel cells are perfected and the distribution and storage issues of separating and storing hydrogen and oxygen are resolved all this hoopla about “green” transportation is unrealistic. Fossil hydrocarbon fuels are incredibly efficient within the context of some established frameworks (the efficiency of trains and barges for instance will boggle your mind). Progress does not flourish under the government stipulation to politically correct scenarios.
Wars, depressions, and recessions are the motivators for innovative solutions. Scientists and freedom loving individuals do best in times of stress and you will soon witness the vehement rejection of the socialist principal of “abandonment,” be it proven technologies, proven economic principles, or proven democratic political systems.
The Red Editor| 8.19.09 @ 9:58AM
To the wonderfully confused Loretta Austin of New Zealand: Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the US population exceeds that of your native country by a mere 300,000,000 people. Or maybe it has to do with the belief in individual liberties this country was founded upon, as opposed to individual entitlements. This is not a Socialist nation, nor is it a Democracy...it's a Representative Republic. You also mentioned the ol' cliche about "a mark of a civilised country shows in how we treat the underprivileged." Needless to say, US citizens donate more to charity and social causes around the world than any other country, and most if not all combined. FORCED CHARITY IS NOT CHARITY. No US citizen wants to see their fellow man/woman without adequate services, some of us are just smart enough to recognize when those services are administered improperly or to the fault of those receiving said aid. Please, you can come here and get an education, but stay out of political arenas you admittedly don't understand.
2Anglico| 8.19.09 @ 10:18AM
Loretta: People who cannot afford/choose not to buy insurance, GET CARE IF THEY NEED IT. There is a little law duly passed by our congress that makes it so.
As to "violently" opposing .... obviously you know NOTHING about violence.
The house bill being discussed DOES NOT ALLOW a dual plan as in NZ. We are opposed to our government trying to GRAB POWER they are not allowed to have!
Ned| 8.19.09 @ 10:21AM
In reply to Loretta Austin's letter, "CAN"T FIGURE US OUT", from Red Beach, NZ:
The health care reforms Mr. Obama is tossing about are no more about health care than the global warming scam (Cap & Trade) is about the environment. Both are naked attempts to seize power in the US government in a manner that their supporters believe will be irreversible, and remake the country in ways most Americans oppose.
If there was even the least bit of honesty in these two packages of corruption, Americans - the most generous people on the planet - would not be so outspoken against them. If "health care reform" were the real objective there are a myriad of changes and solutions to issues that heavily effect the overall health care outcome in the country. Tellingly, not one of those changes or solutions is even under discussion in the most dishonest, calculating, manipulative White House in American history.
And, by the way, none of those changes or solutions require 1000 pages of impenetrable jargon to enact.
Were there even a hint of honesty in Obama's schemes, there would be at least grudging admission that most of the problems in American health care costs are caused by the very government that now pretends it can "fix" them. If there were a shadow of truth in the room, proponents would not feel obliged to falsely inflate the numbers of uninsured to the commonly quoted 47 or 50 million, but would address the 9 or so million 'core' uninsured.
But to do that they would also have to admit that even that core group actually gets health care when they need it. It may be inconveniently delivered, but health care is available, even to the millions upon millions of illegal aliens here that you, Loretta, don't have to worry about. And to admit that there are actually fewer uninsured than there are illegal aliens in the system, and they all get care, reduces the scope of the problem to something manageable without a complete make over of the American economy - but then, that's the actual goal, isn't it.
One thing that Americans really do not like is being taken for chumps.
2Anglico| 8.19.09 @ 10:23AM
Also Loretta, millions of Americans have died so that others would not have to live in tyranny. DO NOT PREACH to us about caring for the "underprivleged".
Ned| 8.19.09 @ 10:31AM
And, as the Red Editor points out above, Loretta, having a perfect health care system in an isolated country of 4M is an altogether different question than providing for more than 300M. Hell, we have at least three times as many illegals here than you have citizens!
Appleby| 8.19.09 @ 10:47AM
Loretta, I was in your country in 1991 when it declared bankruptcy. I have a good friend in Wellington who lost his job with Air New Zealand when it was privatized, who has kept me posted over the years on how that worked out. I understand that since the cold shower bath taken by the people of your country (and I heard the public service announcements instructing all the Needy and Underprivileged that the gravy train had ground to a halt and they should report to their Nannies to find out what happens next) and the injection of market capitalism into many areas previously socialized, that things have dramatically improved, to the point where your post office gives everybody one day of free mail per year. I also understand your dollar is now 67 cents to the US Dollar as opposed to 50 cents in 1991.
I very much enjoyed the three weeks I spent in New Zealand and I recommend it to any sports tourist in the world except race car drivers not involved in rally. H owever, living there would give me the creeps because your population is so small and isolated that you pretty much all have the same face.
Ray| 8.19.09 @ 11:57AM
"Can you please explain exactly why Americans are so violently and maliciously against providing care for those who can't afford insurance?"
Loretta. no one is being denied health care in America. Let me repeat that, NO ONE is being denied health care in America. Not even the people who are just visiting America and have no insurance can be denied health care. I don't know where you get your information, but it's false.
David Govett| 8.19.09 @ 12:38PM
Not only does New Zealand pay nothing for the international security system paid for by the overburdened American taxpayer, it won't even let American Navy ships drop anchor there. Freeloaders like NZ often have disposable money to spend on health care, etc., and are particularly happy to proffer advice to the U.S., as long as they don't need to contribute. My disgust with NZ is boundless.
JerseyJ| 8.19.09 @ 1:09PM
A splendid rant by C.D. Lueders. I heartily agree.
PolishKnight| 8.19.09 @ 2:31PM
Has anyone noticed that socialist paradises always seem to work (somewhat) when there's a small population in a large resource area, isolated (on an island or far north), and usually almost entirely lily white?
Crack open your borders, Loretta, and let all the illiterate people with health problems in from near you and then give us a call and see how it's working out for ya.
Smithy| 8.20.09 @ 5:31AM
As an immigrant from Britain to New Zealand of 52 years I can understand some replies to Loretta's letter. PolishKnight touches a good point since large numbers of Pacific Islanders have flooded into NZ causing a blip in health, education, and policing services in some parts. NZ officials would of course deny any problems, but we older types can see the negative differences. David Govet is both right and wrong. NZ has supplied men and material to both world wars, exceptional in relation to it's population. Helped out the US in Vietnam and has an SIS detachment in Afghanistan. Yes, some of us don't like the big anti-nuclear lobby that exists here and so the refusal to have US nuclear ships in NZ ports. It is sad there is an undercurrent of anti-Americanism among many Kiwis. Personally I have helped host American farm visitors to this country and would say they are the best. It is my concern at the moment the way western democratic nations are being undercut by the left, and old tried and true systems are coming under fire, a propaganda war is in progress to force our western cultural inheritance into submission to a foreign miasma.
Pat| 8.20.09 @ 11:07AM
Loretta Austin,
If you were indeed a student in the United States, you would have an adequate understanding of why most Americans are so “violently and maliciously against providing care for those who can't afford insurance”. You are a shill and a fraud…