new gen Chevy Volt - 50 miles per charge

[AngryScientist]

sorry EV's, but 50m per charge is just not going to cut it for mainstream america...

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/chevy-volt-2016-the-next-generation-electric-car-110111773.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma

[rnhood]

Sorry, but the Volt is probably the smartest solution on the market for an electric vehicle, not to mention its a very nice car - inside and out.

When the Teslas and Leafs come to the end of their charge, the people in them are out of luck until it can be recharged - which can take hours. Not so with the Volt. At the end of its charge, the small engine kicks in and you're still on the highway without having to stop for a charge.

[Mark McM]

Sorry, but the Volt is probably the smartest solution on the market for an electric vehicle, not to mention its a very nice car - inside and out.

Well, that's assuming that (battery powered) electric vehicles are smart. Electric vehicles are only as clean as the electric power generation system - which currently isn't very clean at all. About 2/3s of electric power is generated using fossil fuels - and about 60% of that is coal, which produces more CO2 per unit mass than gasoline. Add to that about 20% of total power that comes from nuclear generators, which have their own environmental issues.

[Lewis Moon]

sorry EV's, but 50m per charge is just not going to cut it for mainstream america...

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/chevy-volt-2016-the-next-generation-electric-car-110111773.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma

I guess, for most folks who don't have the option of having multiple cars, the range would be an issue. My question would be, will that little engine get me up an 11% grade when the batteries go dry?
I love the idea of cleaner cars, but I think they (mostly) appeal to the manufacturers (who make their money selling cars) and to those steeped in the car culture. Get rid of the need for a daily driver. I'd rather have an excellent mass transit system and a small but roomy car to episodically haul stuff and go on vacations.

[brockd15]

sorry EV's, but 50m per charge is just not going to cut it for mainstream america...

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/chevy-volt-2016-the-next-generation-electric-car-110111773.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma

Agree 100%. Electrics work great for a lot of people that don't drive far, but for me they seem far too limiting. When we drove from TX to CA it took us 2.5 days. I don't know what it would take with an electric car but for sure more than that. Seems like from where I live, if I want to drive to Lake Tahoe or Yosemite and I have an electric, I either need to rent a gas car for the trip, own a second car that's not electric, or build in more time for travel.

[mistermo]

Well, that's assuming that (battery powered) electric vehicles are smart. Electric vehicles are only as clean as the electric power generation system - which currently isn't very clean at all. About 2/3s of electric power is generated using fossil fuels - and about 60% of that is coal, which produces more CO2 per unit mass than gasoline. Add to that about 20% of total power that comes from nuclear generators, which have their own environmental issues.

I am keenly interested in this, and would like to better understand energy production on an apples to apples basis. I get your point, but think you've overlooked the significant energy and environmental investment required to produce gasoline. It doesn't just become a pollutant once burned by your car, it's a pollutant as it's extracted, tankered across the ocean (assuming that's it's origin), then trucked to your gas station.

You've accurately cited the production costs of electricity, but let's not overlook the production costs of gasoline too. I've read before that it costs more that a gallon of fuel, to produce one gallon of ethanol.

I'm quite interested to know the total environmental costs, "cradle to grave", of all types of energy production. I don't have hard data, but am of the opinion that electricity, even coal produced electricity, is cleaner than gasoline/diesel/ethanol. If anyone has data correcting this view, please educate me.

[PeregrineA1]

RE: Long trips. The attached article was kind of fun. I won't spoil the end.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/2013-tesla-model-s-vs-1915-ford-model-t-race-of-the-centuries-feature

Seriously, I have a close friend who has a Tesla and he takes it almost anywhere he wants, including well planned camping trips to fairly remote areas. He is probably one of the few people that have hauled firewood and an axe in the frunk of a Tesla. Lives at the end of a 3/4 mile dirt road too. His is charged by his solar panels.

I'm a fan.

[Mark McM]

I guess, for most folks who don't have the option of having multiple cars, the range would be an issue. My question would be, will that little engine get me up an 11% grade when the batteries go dry?

The 101 horsepower produced by the 1.5 L engine is perfectly capable of getting the 2016 Volt up an 11% grade.

[druptight]

I guess, for most folks who don't have the option of having multiple cars, the range would be an issue. My question would be, will that little engine get me up an 11% grade when the batteries go dry?


Wait - maybe I don't fully understand how the Volt works, but doesn't the "little engine" just kick on to power the battery which is what is still making your car go? I don't believe the engine is providing power to the wheels at all, I think it's just charging the battery (along with other kinetic energies) which is what continues to make the car go. So if that's the case, you get up the hill the same whether running on only electric or electric that's being kept juiced up by the engine.

[rnhood]

Wait - maybe I don't fully understand how the Volt works, but doesn't the "little engine" just kick on to power the battery which is what is still making your car go? I don't believe the engine is providing power to the wheels at all, I think it's just charging the battery (along with other kinetic energies) which is what continues to make the car go. So if that's the case, you get up the hill the same whether running on only electric or electric that's being kept juiced up by the engine.


That is exactly right.

[druptight]

Wait - maybe I don't fully understand how the Volt works, but doesn't the "little engine" just kick on to power the battery which is what is still making your car go? I don't believe the engine is providing power to the wheels at all, I think it's just charging the battery (along with other kinetic energies) which is what continues to make the car go. So if that's the case, you get up the hill the same whether running on only electric or electric that's being kept juiced up by the engine.

I'm not quite correct here apparently:
The 2016 Volt, on the other hand, has a pair of motors that are roughly the same size, one or both of which can power the car.

It still operates exclusively in all-electric mode up to its range of 50 miles or so (except in very cold weather) before the engine switches on.

But once the battery is down to its "depleted" level, the engine switches on--and it contributes torque to drive the wheels far more often now than it did in the first Volt, when it would clutch into the drivetrain only in a limited set of high-speed driving circumstances.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1096942_2016-chevrolet-volt-powertrain-how-it-works-in-electric-hybrid-modes

[Len J]

Unless it's cold out. Oops.

[unterhausen]

if it was an honest 50 miles, that would probably work for us. But I do agree that we are stuck in a fairly small geographic area.

[Mark McM]

Wait - maybe I don't fully understand how the Volt works, but doesn't the "little engine" just kick on to power the battery which is what is still making your car go? I don't believe the engine is providing power to the wheels at all, I think it's just charging the battery (along with other kinetic energies) which is what continues to make the car go. So if that's the case, you get up the hill the same whether running on only electric or electric that's being kept juiced up by the engine.

That is how a range-extended electric car works. But the Chevy Volt is not a range extended electric car. Despite claims that the Chevy Volt is an "electric car", it isn't really. It actually is (and has always been) a plug-in hybrid.

In a plug-in hybrid, the wheels are powered only by the electric motors until the batteries are depleted, and then the gasoline engine starts up and the wheels are powered directly by the gasoline engine.

[93legendti]

sorry EV's, but 50m per charge is just not going to cut it for mainstream america...

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/chevy-volt-2016-the-next-generation-electric-car-110111773.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma


Anyone find a way to make lithium batteries friendly to the environment?

[Bradford]

Well, that's assuming that (battery powered) electric vehicles are smart. Electric vehicles are only as clean as the electric power generation system - which currently isn't very clean at all. About 2/3s of electric power is generated using fossil fuels - and about 60% of that is coal, which produces more CO2 per unit mass than gasoline. Add to that about 20% of total power that comes from nuclear generators, which have their own environmental issues.

Or you can do what my friend did and install solar to power his Volt. 100% emission free.

[merlinmurph]

50 miles? That's it?

Even if that takes care of 90+% of your driving, you're still stuck with a useless expensive car for the other time. Even a 300-mile range is no good if you're in the boonies and can't charge it.

Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea of electric cars. I mean, with an electric drivetrain, you have just removed 99% of the moving parts in an internal combustion engine. Simplification is great.

[cmbicycles]

Solar cells come with their own environmental issues to manufacture and dispose of, from what I've read anyway. Why can't everyone just ride bikes... or horses ;)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337Z using Tapatalk

[oldpotatoe]

sorry EV's, but 50m per charge is just not going to cut it for mainstream america...

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/chevy-volt-2016-the-next-generation-electric-car-110111773.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma

not an electric or 'e' car. It's a chargable hybrid. And compare the 'charge', being coal produced with the gas burned.

[dancinkozmo]

50 miles? That's it?

Even if that takes care of 90+% of your driving, you're still stuck with a useless expensive car for the other time. Even a 300-mile range is no good if you're in the boonies and can't charge it.

Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea of electric cars. I mean, with an electric drivetrain, you have just removed 99% of the moving parts in an internal combustion engine. Simplification is great.

youre missing the whole point of the volt...it has a conventional gasoline engine to back up the electric....

[El Chaba]

When you really look into it, , electric cars are not yet practical from either a utility or environmental standpoint. Now, if you weigh symbolism far more heavily than substance than you begin to explain how even a single one has been sold.

[flydhest]

Can someone explain th environmental downside to Lithium ion batteries? I have heard this but am ignorant of the facts

[Lewis Moon]

youre missing the whole point of the volt...it has a conventional gasoline engine to back up the electric....

But it's still a second or "townie" car, and at $33K+ it's not really practical for a lot of people. The Prius starts at $24K and the Yaris is only $16K+ and gets 33 combined MPG. If you want a townie car get a low mileage used Yaris at $11K.
We spend entirely too much on cars. We also drive them WAY too much. Walk, ride your bike, take mass transit and save the car for travel and hauling stuff from the hardware store.
The Volt is a corporation's answer to environmental issues.
Gawd, I sound like I'm from the Green Party...but there you have it.

[FlashUNC]

Can someone explain th environmental downside to Lithium ion batteries? I have heard this but am ignorant of the facts

They're made of some bits that are rather nasty to mine and dispose of when their useful life is over. And -- while this isn't strictly a lithium ion problem -- they do have a useful life that ends. And replacing those battery packs is a very expensive proposition if you're owning the car for an extended period.

Some stories about Prius owners being very unhappy about the cost of replacing their battery packs once they were out of warranty.

But mostly the environmental downside is making them and disposing of them.

[dancinkozmo]

But it's still a second or "townie" car, and at $33K+ it's not really practical for a lot of people. The Prius starts at $24K and the Yaris is only $16K+ and gets 33 combined MPG. If you want a townie car get a low mileage used Yaris at $11K.
We spend entirely too much on cars. We also drive them WAY too much. Walk, ride your bike, take mass transit and save the car for travel and hauling stuff from the hardware store.
The Volt is a corporation's answer to environmental issues.
Gawd, I sound like I'm from the Green Party...but there you have it.

whats a townie car ? are volts not allowed on freeways ?
i agree with you wrt cost and practicality..i bought a fit.

[Lewis Moon]

whats a townie car ? are volts not allowed on freeways ?
i agree with you wrt cost and practicality..i bought a fit.

What I mean is a car that you just drive around town. It's really not practical as a travel car and can't haul much. Most of what we use cars for is this, but do you really need a $33K car to do this? The car companies want you to think so. What I eventually want is a nice, small station wagon that I can leave in the driveway until I really need it. I probably drive my car less than 20 miles most weeks, and I live in the Phoenix metro area, one of the areas least amenable to alternative transit. It takes a commitment, but once you start, it's pretty easy and rewarding.

[ofcounsel]

Maybe it's because I live in SoCal, but for me, EVs are the way to go.

I have an approximately 70 mile round trip work commute. With the EV, I get to use the carpool lanes while driving solo during my morning commute (saves me about 4 hours of commuting time per week). I get free electricity at work (the car recharges while I'm in the office). At home, I get a restructured electric utility rate offered by my electric utility provider made available to electric owners that will save me about $1200 per year.

My EV saves me time, pays for itself based on the gas I save and then puts money in my pocket because of my restructured electricity usage rates. I'm surprised more folks don't take advantage of the incentives offered (well, not so surprised... but still).

I didn't sell my gas powered car (I have 3 other gas powered vehicles). So I don't worry, I just jump into one of my regular cars if I need to go somewhere far.

[benb]

Love all the nonsense talking points that always come out.

- It's better to spew pollutants from hundreds of millions of point sources all over the roads than a few power plants which can be cleaned up more easily over time and/or can be set up more easily to sequester pollutants

- Pretend there is No extra pollution in refining gasoline, etc.. and shipping it all over the country.

- Act like Lithium ion batteries can't be recycled (they are) and are burned up or dumped into the environment (they aren't)

- $100,000+ electric cars are a realistic solution. (They aren't)

Tesla is all flash till they make something that is affordable and doesn't have supercar performance.

I'd still go for a volt over a pure EV I think but the 50mi range would be fine for me most of the time.. we have 2 cars.. we could easily do one car with a 50mi electric range and one with a longer range and just use the long range gas car for long trips.

It's hard to justify the cost of any of this when gas is cheap and the commute that can be easily done with an EV can also be done a few days a week with a bicycle though.

[oldpotatoe]

Maybe it's because I live in SoCal, but for me, EVs are the way to go.

I have an approximately 70 mile round trip work commute. With the EV, I get to use the carpool lanes while driving solo during my morning commute (saves me about 4 hours of commuting time per week). I get free electricity at work (the car recharges while I'm in the office). At home, I get a restructured electric utility rate offered by my electric utility provider made available to electric owners that will save me about $1200 per year.

My EV saves me time, pays for itself based on the gas I save and then puts money in my pocket because of my restructured electricity usage rates. I'm surprised more folks don't take advantage of the incentives offered (well, not so surprised... but still).

I didn't sell my gas powered car (I have 3 other gas powered vehicles). So I don't worry, I just jump into one of my regular cars if I need to go somewhere far.

How is electricity generated there? Just asking, not looking to argue.

[dgauthier]

Well, that's assuming that (battery powered) electric vehicles are smart. Electric vehicles are only as clean as the electric power generation system - which currently isn't very clean at all. (. . .)

The arguments in favor of an EV don't necessarily have anything to do with the environment. As ofcounsel points out, charging an EV is *very* cheap compared to pumping gasoline. Here's what Edmunds.com says about the Nissan Leaf:

"If electricity is 12 cents per kWh -- the national average -- it would cost $3.48 to go 100 miles."
http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/the-true-cost-of-powering-an-electric-car.html

I'll leave it to you to do your own math, but one could save $1000-$2000 a year driving electric over gasoline. Add the much lower cost of maintenance for an EV (the engine has one moving part), and the TCO of an EV is far less than a dino-fueled car.

The Nissan Leaf has a range of 84 miles per charge, btw. I almost *never* drive that far in a single day.

[93legendti]

Re cost:

I hate to keep beating a dead horse and will stop doing so with this post because it is clear that minds, including mine, are pretty well made up. Electric cars have been around almost since the days or the Model T so electric cars are not new. If there is any new technology that needs to be developed it is an efficient, cost effective, high energy density "battery." The lithium battery that is currently used in the Volt is made in Korea; however, a new battery manufacturing facility is being built in Michigan. I'm not sure whose technology this new facility will be using.

For me to purchase the Volt or any other electric or fuel efficient car I have to see some pay back. GM estimates that it will cost $1.50 to fully charge the battery to travel 40 miles. After the forty miles the gasoline generator is estimated to get 40 mpg when the battery pack is depleted.* If I were to start off the 40-mile trip with a depleted battery and with gas at $3 per gallon, it would cost me $3 compared to the $1.50 using a fully charged battery for a net savings of $1.50 or less than 4 cents a mile. For longer trips the savings remains $1.50 and the savings per mile decreases. GM advertises a range of 340 miles. The cost of covering this range is !.50 +3*(340-40)/40 = $24. To cover the same range with a depleted battery in the same vehicle, the cost would be 3*340/40 = $25.50--again $1.50 or less than 1/2 cent per mile. So regardless of the length of the trip I will save only $1.50; i.e, the price of a gallon of gas less $1,50. GM warrants the battery for 100,000 miles or the equivalent 2500, 40-mile trips. Over the life of the battery, I would save a maximum of 1.5*2500 = $3750 more or less depending upon the price of gas. The Chevy Cruze at $17K, nearly one-half the discounted price of the Volt, is estimated to get 40 mpg, so why would I want to pay $16K more to save approximately $3750 over the estimated life of the battery? To feel good? I don't think so.

* http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/volt/2011/review.html

** http://www.chevrolet.com/future-vehicles/cruze/

[Mark McM]

Or you can do what my friend did and install solar to power his Volt. 100% emission free.

Solar power is still a drop in the bucket for total power generation in the US. At best, electric cars are product before their time - the infrastructure has to change dramatically before they become meaningful. Until then, they are just a status symbol for the wealthy.

[mistermo]

...For me to purchase the Volt or any other electric or fuel efficient car I have to see some pay back....

The Chevy Cruze at $17K, nearly one-half the discounted price of the Volt, is estimated to get 40 mpg, so why would I want to pay $16K more to save approximately $3750 over the estimated life of the battery? To feel good? I don't think so.
/

This is the type of thinking that really rankles me. As someone who was formally schooled in Economics, I'll concede payback is crucial. However payback is often measured in "utils", or the amount of utility one derives from his/her purchase. In the example above, the only util, and the lone consideration of a buyer, would be to derive the lowest cost of transport from point A to point B, everything else be damned.

Using this same logic, one should eat only Big Macs, since they deliver the lowest cost of caloric intake, everything else be damned.

There's a corresponding cost to each as well. The "cost" of eating Big Macs is heart disease to you, and higher insurance premiums to society. I'll leave it to the reader to identify what the costs of driving a Cobalt might be.

[Spdntrxi]

It's a good looking car on the outside... Inside not so much but ok. .... And I hate Chevys

[dancinkozmo]

I'll leave it to the reader to identify what the costs of driving a Cobalt might be.

yeah...like the ignition switch trying to kill you :D

[dancinkozmo]

It's a good looking car on the outside... Inside not so much but ok. .... And I hate Chevys

i like it... where i live (ontario canada) there is a rebate of up to $8500 on purchase or lease and its allowed in the HOV lanes...

[grawk]

This is the type of thinking that really rankles me. As someone who was formally schooled in Economics, I'll concede payback is crucial. However payback is often measured in "utils", or the amount of utility one derives from his/her purchase. In the example above, the only util, and the lone consideration of a buyer, would be to derive the lowest cost of transport from point A to point B, everything else be damned.

Using this same logic, one should eat only Big Macs, since they deliver the lowest cost of caloric intake, everything else be damned.

There's a corresponding cost to each as well. The "cost" of eating Big Macs is heart disease to you, and higher insurance premiums to society. I'll leave it to the reader to identify what the costs of driving a Cobalt might be.

The benefits to eating well are clear. The benefits to driving electric over efficient gas car are not. So of course it's an economic decision. Or a smug one.

[flydhest]

Solar power is still a drop in the bucket for total power generation in the US. At best, electric cars are product before their time - the infrastructure has to change dramatically before they become meaningful. Until then, they are just a status symbol for the wealthy.


Clearly, you are right that solar is small for the US. But if one had solar so that the net use of grid electricity was zero, then it would seem the issues are the long-term effect of the batteries, no?

[hockeybike]

How is electricity generated there? Just asking, not looking to argue.

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php

Plug in your zipcode for an estimate. A finer estimate would depends on month of year, time of day, etc, but that'd probably make for a pretty lousy user interface.

[93legendti]

Clearly, you are right that solar is small for the US. But if one had solar so that the net use of grid electricity was zero, then it would seem the issues are the long-term effect of the batteries, no?

If by long/term effect of the batteries you are asking about environmental concerns, according to the AP, they are not limited to the batteries:



http://news.yahoo.com/solar-industry-grapples-hazardous-wastes-184714679.html;_ylt=AwrBT4HtWhRW31cAOBXBGOd_;_ylu= X3oDMTBybGY3bmpvBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYw Nzcg--

"Solar industry grapples with hazardous wastes

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Homeowners on the hunt for sparkling solar panels are lured by ads filled with images of pristine landscapes and bright sunshine, and words about the technology's benefits for the environment — and the wallet.

What customers may not know is that there's a dirtier side.

While·solar·is a far less polluting energy source than coal or natural, many panel makers are nevertheless grappling with a hazardous waste problem. Fueled partly by billions in government incentives, the industry is creating millions of·solar·panels each year and, in the process, millions of pounds of polluted sludge and contaminated water.

To dispose of the material, the companies must transport it by truck or rail far from their own plants to waste facilities hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of miles away.

The fossil fuels used to transport that waste, experts say, is not typically considered in calculating·solar’s carbon footprint, giving scientists and consumers who use the measurement to gauge a product’s impact on global warming the impression that·solar·is cleaner than it is.

After installing a·solar·panel, “it would take one to three months of generating electricity to pay off the energy invested in driving those hazardous waste emissions out of state,”said Dustin Mulvaney, a San Jose State University environmental studies professor who conducts carbon footprint analyses of·solar, biofuel and natural gas production....

State records show the 17 companies, which had 44 manufacturing facilities in California, produced 46.5 million pounds of sludge and contaminated water from 2007 through the first half of 2011. Roughly 97 percent of it was taken to hazardous waste facilities throughout the state, but more than 1.4 million pounds were transported to nine other states: Arkansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Nevada, Washington, Utah, New Mexico and Arizona."

[ofcounsel]

How is electricity generated there? Just asking, not looking to argue.

In SoCal, I believe approximately 80% of electricity generated here is Natural Gas, the remainder is Wind and Solar with a little Hydro in the mix. Nuclear used to be in the mix until the closure of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. No coal here in SoCal. Note, we import electricity from other states and a lot of that out of state electricity is generated by coal.

[flydhest]

93Legendti,
Thanks. That is helpful. The article stated that one would have to generate solar power for just a few months to offset the energy used to transport the waste. That would (presumably) not offset any environmental damage of the waste itself. The former seems fairly straightforward to recoup, as one would expect to use the panels more than a few months. The latter, perhaps, less clear. The hard part is the comparison. It doesn't seem right to poo-poo solar because it is not perfect. Nothing is. I believe bikes are good even though it takes energy to mine iron to make steel and to create a frame, for example. Nevertheless, it is easy to fall into mystical love for alternative energy for some. Would be nice to have a clear-eyed, science-based comparison. Seems like electric is still cleaner, but not at all flawless. That conclusion, based on the cursory reading of links posted here. I find this whole thing fascinating.

[saab2000]

The 101 horsepower produced by the 1.5 L engine is perfectly capable of getting the 2016 Volt up an 11% grade.

The engine never propels the car if I'm not mistaken. The Volt is an electric car and the engine is a generator to keep the electrical system charged.

Unless I'm mistaken. So the 101 HP engine does no propulsion.

The Volt is a hybrid automobile but much different from Toyota's system, where the engine is the primary source of propulsion.

[mistermo]

The benefits to eating well are clear. The benefits to driving electric over efficient gas car are not. So of course it's an economic decision. Or a smug one.

Missed the point.

Yes, the benefits of eating well are clear. What's far from clear, is the healthiest diet.

It's also clear that cars that produce less pollution are beneficial. What's not clear, is which cars these are.

The Cobalt lover, seemed to value only the cheapest mode of transportation from A to B, not the environmental or other costs of the car (eg. a POC car that may kill you). If that's the extent of his logic, or economic reasoning, he might as well eat Big Macs too.

[benb]

Solar panel production waste is the same thing as batteries..

Contained pollution is still always better than pollution that is scattered throughout the atmosphere.

A simple analogy, what would annoy you more.. a bag of trash on your front lawn or the contents of the bag scattered all over your lawn?

[FlashUNC]

The engine never propels the car if I'm not mistaken. The Volt is an electric car and the engine is a generator to keep the electrical system charged.

Unless I'm mistaken. So the 101 HP engine does no propulsion.

The Volt is a hybrid automobile but much different from Toyota's system, where the engine is the primary source of propulsion.

That's not entirely true. GM has admitted that the ICE does help drive the car in certain situations, not functioning solely as a generator.

[93legendti]

93Legendti,
Thanks. That is helpful. The article stated that one would have to generate solar power for just a few months to offset the energy used to transport the waste. That would (presumably) not offset any environmental damage of the waste itself. The former seems fairly straightforward to recoup, as one would expect to use the panels more than a few months. The latter, perhaps, less clear. The hard part is the comparison. It doesn't seem right to poo-poo solar because it is not perfect. Nothing is. I believe bikes are good even though it takes energy to mine iron to make steel and to create a frame, for example. Nevertheless, it is easy to fall into mystical love for alternative energy for some. Would be nice to have a clear-eyed, science-based comparison. Seems like electric is still cleaner, but not at all flawless. That conclusion, based on the cursory reading of links posted here. I find this whole thing fascinating.
You're welcome. As I like to say, "there's no free lunch".

[Mark McM]

The engine never propels the car if I'm not mistaken. The Volt is an electric car and the engine is a generator to keep the electrical system charged.

Unless I'm mistaken. So the 101 HP engine does no propulsion.

The Volt is a hybrid automobile but much different from Toyota's system, where the engine is the primary source of propulsion.

The confusion probably comes because that was how Chevy original described the Volt. But in the product they actually delivered, the internal combustion engine can (and does) drive the wheels directly. In fact, the operator can actually choose to disconnect the battery entirely. The 4 driving modes the user can select include this mode:

Hold

Put the battery on hold for highway commutes. This mode powers Volt with the gas-powered generator instead of the battery, saving your electric range for the pace of stop-and-go city traffic.

[goonster]

In a plug-in hybrid, the wheels are powered only by the electric motors until the batteries are depleted, and then the gasoline engine starts up and the wheels are powered directly by the gasoline engine.

The Volt has no mechanical drivetrain. The engine drives a generator, which powers an electric motor, which drives the wheels.

Not that it really matters, but according to the way I interpret your definition, the Volt is not a plug-in hybrid. It occupies a category of its own ("EV with gen").

[Mark McM]

The Volt has no mechanical drivetrain. The engine drives a generator, which powers an electric motor, which drives the wheels.

Not that it really matters, but according to the way I interpret your definition, the Volt is not a plug-in hybrid. It occupies a category of its own ("EV with gen").

Why do people keep repeating incorrect description? Poor reading skills? Read the Chevy literature - the internal combustion engine can directly drive the wheels, and in "Hold" mode, only the internal combustion engine drives the wheels (the batteries are disconnected). Clearly, it has a mechanical drivetrain between the engine and the wheels.

Edit:

Here's an excerpt from a Car & Driver article about the 2016 Volt (http://www.caranddriver.com/features/2016-chevrolet-volt-dissected-everything-you-need-to-know-feature), which quotes Volt chief engineer Andrew Farah:

True to the original recipe, the Volt still uses two electric motors. But, according to Farah, “not a single part number” is common between the first- and second-gen Voltec powertrains. The first-gen car used one large motor and one small one, but the new car’s motors are closer in size and share the workload more evenly. Combined electrical power stands pat at 149 horsepower, while torque from the motors climbs 21 pound-feet to 294. Once the batteries are depleted, Farah says, “the most efficient thing to do is to take torque from the engine to the wheels. So we will actually do that more often.” GM says the new Volt will get 41 mpg on gas and 102 MPGe on electricity, increases of four in both combined-driving metrics. The corporation also says that the new Volt will be quicker, getting from zero to 60 mph in 8.4 seconds, 0.4 second fleeter than the last Volt we tested.

[AngryScientist]

depends on which model we're referring to. here's the scoop:

The new 2016 Chevrolet Volt is sleeker, has more electric range, higher gas mileage, a fifth seat, and should be both faster and quieter on the road.

But while GM hasn't explicitly said so, it's no longer as much of a range-extended electric car (or "series hybrid").

The new 2016 Volt should be viewed as a more conventional plug-in hybrid, with engine torque now being sent to the wheels through a mechanical connection whenever the engine is on.

The 2011-2015 Volt has one motor that powers the wheels, and a second that acts as an engine-driven generator to produce electricity when battery capacity is depleted.



The 2016 Volt, on the other hand, has a pair of motors that are roughly the same size, one or both of which can power the car.

It still operates exclusively in all-electric mode up to its range of 50 miles or so (except in very cold weather) before the engine switches on.

But once the battery is down to its "depleted" level, the engine switches on--and it contributes torque to drive the wheels far more often now than it did in the first Volt, when it would clutch into the drivetrain only in a limited set of high-speed driving circumstances.

http://images.thecarconnection.com/lrg/2016-chevrolet-volt_100501810_l.jpg

[Mark McM]

But once the battery is down to its "depleted" level, the engine switches on--and it contributes torque to drive the wheels far more often now than it did in the first Volt, when it would clutch into the drivetrain only in a limited set of high-speed driving circumstances. ]

In other words, the original Volt often drove the wheels directly from the internal combustion engine, and the new Volt does it even more. Ergo, it has always been a plug-in hybrid.

[goonster]

Why do people keep repeating incorrect description? Poor reading skills?
I stand corrected. It's a plug-in hybrid.

My reading skills are OK, but I was reading vague or incorrect sources.

There is indeed a mechanical, clutched drivetrain connection between the engine and wheels.

From what I've now read, it's not clear to me that the Hold mode disconnects the electric motor completely. Some descriptions of the 1st gen Volt said flat-out that the engine never drives the wheels exclusively, but the 2nd gen car does appear to do that during "high-torque" scenarios, when the battery is depleted.

That "electrified transaxle" is very complex, and quite an achievement. I haven't paid that much attention to hybrids, because I don't do a lot of stop-and-go driving, but the technology has come a long way.

[Marcy]

We picked up a used 2011 Nissan Leaf last year, and have really come to love it. It's quiet and smooth -- going from the Leaf to an ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) vehicle makes you realize how much noise, vibration, and smell an ICE car generates.

And from 0 to about 45, the leaf is bloody quick! Even with it's little 110-ish hp motor -- remember, EVs (Electric Vehicles) have all their torque available right now -- no waiting for the sweet spot in a power curve. It is really fun to silently walk away from high performance ICE cars at stop lights -- the ultimate sleeper.

No, EVs are not perfect. The leaf is a great vehicle if you travel less than 80 or so miles a day, which my wife does (I take the Metro or bicycle). We've probably offloaded 80% of our driving on the Leaf, with the ICE car picking up the slack when we need to go further than the Leaf allows. Although charging stations are extending the range of the Leaf as they become more numerous.

A couple of things to consider with EVs

-- ~3 cents a mile in energy costs for EVs vs ~13 cents/mi for the average ICE vehicle. Much of this comes from the fact EVs operate at about 90% efficiency vs about 35% for ICE cars. Hardly any waste heat from an EV.

-- Even if you charge your EV from a 100% coal power plant, it still creates less net CO2 pollution than an ICE car due to the greater EV motor efficiency.

-- Cool thing you can program your EV to do -- start charging at midnight when the electricity rates drop -- that is fun.

-- No oil changes, trans fluid flushes, coolant drain intervals -- none of that. Only fluids are brake fluid, and the HVAC fluids. Heater not great, A/C good. Nissan now makes all Leaves with heated seats (the back seats, as well).

Battery replacement used to be $15K, but they've dropped it to about $4500 now. At 10 years old the battery is supposed to still be able to maintain a 70% of original charge -- we'll see. I work in the space industry, and there are a lot of satellites that go many years past service life due to batteries lasting much longer than anticipated -- and the tech is only getting better.

Most Americans drive less than 35 mi a day -- a Leaf can do this easily. My wife does about 20-25 mi a day, and some days forgets to charge it -- no problem. Even only charging to 80% (recommended to extend battery life) -- still no sweat.

EVs are fun, quiet, fast, cheap to run, environmentally friendly, and are getting better every year -- what's not to like? I really want a Zero electric motorcycle next.

In 2013 a Lightning electric motorcycle won the Pikes Peak Hill climb, beating all ICE motos by 20 seconds. And a Lightning LS-218 holds the land speed record for production motorcycle -- 218 mph -- pure electric.

If you haven't test driven an EV, give one a try -- it's really eye opening -- a paradigm shift.

[Mark McM]

A couple of things to consider with EVs

-- ~3 cents a mile in energy costs for EVs vs ~13 cents/mi for the average ICE vehicle. Much of this comes from the fact EVs operate at about 90% efficiency vs about 35% for ICE cars. Hardly any waste heat from an EV.

-- Even if you charge your EV from a 100% coal power plant, it still creates less net CO2 pollution than an ICE car due to the greater EV motor efficiency

Unfortunately, these statements are based on erroneous assumptions.

Regarding efficiency: The comparisons are a bit apples/oranges, because you've neglected a large part of the electricity inefficiencies. While converting electricity to motion (through the motor) is very efficient, converting coal (or other fossil fuels) to electricity is not. Coal powered electricity generation has a thermodynamic efficiency of about 33%. Then there are a few more percent losses in the electric transmission systems. Then there are a few more percent losses in the AC/DC conversion, and a few more percent losses in the battery energy storage. A gasoline powered internal combustion engine has a thermodynamic efficiency of about 25 - 28%. So, in terms of total efficiency and waste heat, it is a roughly a wash.

CO2 emissions: In this category, coal powered electricity is actually a big loser. The CO2 produced for each each of energy for a fossil fuel depends largely on the percentage of carbon in the fuel. Coal is 100% carbon, so it produces more CO2 per unit energy than gasoline. Coal produces about 215 pounds of CO2 per Btu, vs. about 157 pounds of CO2 per Btu for gasoline, or about 37% more.

These reasons are why many studies have shown that electric cars don't decrease CO2 emissions at all. They only move the pollution from the tailpipe to the smokestack.

[Marcy]

Interesting MIT paper here:

http://web.mit.edu/evt/info.html

"Wheel to Well Analysis of EVs
MIT Electric Vehicle Team, April 2008
As green vehicle technologies become more popular and enter the market, consumers have
questions about the validity of their environmental impact. Compared to internal combustion
engine (ICE) vehicles, do electric vehicles (EVs) actually use less energy and emit less carbon
dioxide (CO2)? To answer this question, analyses have been conducted that account for all of the
energy consumed and green house gases (GHG) emitted from the time a vehicles energy source
leaves the well to the time it is consumed by the vehicle. These analyses are known as well to
wheel studies. From these analyses, EVs have been shown to reduce energy consumption by up to
50% and GHG emissions by up to 60%."

As you would expect, coal fares worse than other sources (low grade Chinese coal is particularly bad) -- but coal is only 39% of power production in the US.

And an EV is the ultimate "flex fuel" vehicle -- you can charge it using coal fired power plants, hydro, natural gas, or solar panels on your roof.

ICE vehicles don't have that kind of flexibility, and the petroleum is getting tougher and more expensive to pull from the ground.

Also, EVs give the option to produce the pollution away from city center in a plant that can employ increasingly efficient scrubbers to what comes out of their stacks.

Interesting topic, with lots of ways to calculate what system is most efficient.