This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Everything Old is New Again: The Green General Motors?
Boy was that a different era.
Or, maybe not.
After all, GM is still struggling to present an (absurd) green face. Sound bytes about "corporate average fuel economy" (one of the most manipulated terms in the business) are woven right in with the Cadillac brand (renowned for its fuel economy in the 80s) and the picture of GM helping to clean the air sounds, well, it sounds just as full of shit as it does today. (Where's my Chevy Volt?) Well, today we have bailouts. That's different, right? (Oh and Iran and Iraq still appear to be a serious problem. Go figure.)
h/t: Geoffrey Batt
»
- 4660 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
The shade of green to which they're referring is that what you get when you're just about ready to puke.
I am Chumbawamba.
Well, if the other "green" Marlboro revolution happens you will have something for that nausea there chumbawamba.
I'm already all over that.
If Chevy were to offer vaporizers as standard options in their cars then I might be inclined to at least test drive one.
I am Chumbawamba.
Perhaps Cheech and Chong will remake Up in Smoke and this time put one of those Volcano vaporizers (https://www.thevolcanovaporizer.com/) in the dash.
The only thing green about the Chevy Volt is that if enough chumps buy it, it'll help keep gasoline prices in check for me to drive my gas guzzler while securing extra green in my pocket to boot. Also, those of you who have a 4-banger will now be able to win a drag race.
I wonder if GM plans to follow their other motto with the Volt? You know -- planned obsolescence.
Green, in this context, refers to the eyeshades worn by the beancounters who have run GM (into the ground) for decades. GM must have been one of the most frustrating places to be an engineer.
General Motors resembles US Motors in Atlas Shrugged.
Rand claims that companies that don't include their founder's name in their title don't have any pride and are prone to fail -> General Motors as opposed to Ford (General Mills vs Kellogg's?).
General Mills was a hero of the revolution, you twat.
In 1928, the Washburn-Crosby mills merged with other mills to form General Mills. The company is not named after a person. The name calling isn't necessary and doesn't add to the discussion.
It was a joke.
The ballad of Rand's Twentieth Century Motor Company plays itself out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCmJUobwKQk
GM is Soylent Green. People Do.
Nothing wrong with GM vision. What went wrong was corporate raiders and third world demands.
They didn't tell you back then that in the future, mechanics will blame all vehicle trouble on the damn computer.
GM is Soylent Green. People do.
There are quick, cheap and immediate ways to reduce GHG emissions, reduce fuel consumption and improve energy independence.
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) is much cleaner than gasoline or diesel, especially when combined with already proven hybrid technology to recover energy from braking and to strategically start and stop the internal combustion engine. And we have lots of natural gas in the USA and Canada.
An electric car needs to get its electricity from somewhere. Since most electricity is generated through coal-burning power plants you are merely replacing the exhaust pipe with a smoke-stack. And you are (or your government is, via subsidy) spending an extra $10k or so per car for the privilege.
These are low risk, high return steps we could be taking but aren't.
Same old, same old.
How does cng reduce ghg emissions? If it reduces, it's negligible isn't it, as far as climate change is concerned.
The only current-tech solution is nookular (imo).
BTW - you exaggerate slightly on coal - it's about 45% of elect gen for 2009.
I agree that nuclear is an excellent part of the solution relative to coal-fired power plants. But the batteries used to store that electricity in cars would be very expensive, not recyclable and would have a very limited range.
I may have exaggerated about coal's prominence but my source (http://www.teachcoal.org/aboutcoal/articles/faqs.html) says that coal produces 56% of the nation's electricity. So for half of electric car users, plugging your car in means plugging it into a lump of coal.
As far as CNG reducing emissions - it is most certainly not negligible. Check out this document: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/natural_gas_emissions.html
Relative to gasoline, the following is a summary of CNG advantages from the above link:
actually the batteries for electric vehicles, are recyclable. you can convert a car to cng, for $5000, and it can still use petrol. diesel can be converted to run 70% cng 30% diesel, making older trucks emission compliant, to future standards.
no doubt-
the thought of electric vehicles sounds great to the Hollywood set- just plug in- no pollution- but you are exactly right- the electricity to charge the batteries must come from somewhere- but I guess if you don't see it- it doesn't count-
feel good nonsense-
energy requires heat and something must be burned-
where's cold fusion when you need it
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/17/60minutes/main4952167.shtml
It ain't over, 'til the gov't quits funding it.
The Volt is the real deal, IMO. Give it a chance. The rest of GM can disintegrate for all I care.
Really? Maybe you should tell CEO Fritz Henderson: "On some products, the costs, particularly in advanced technologies, are high," he said in a lengthy interview with Automotive News (free subscription required). "The Volt is a case study. And that means it doesn’t necessarily pay the rent. It actually consumes rent when it’s launched." Sounds like a real winner to me...
I hate to argue with myself but do you know anything about the relationship between big oil and Detroit?
Imagine if Detroit builds their best electric car and it flops. Oh, trust me my brother, any company who knows how to sell the way that GM does, also knows how to un-sell AKA Sabotage.
The Volt will be a Dolt. Why? Because Big Oil needs it to be.
Let's not argue anymore, ok?
they already had a promising electric car prototype, and they killed it as soon as they could.the volt will be overpriced, with required, dealer service, for marginal gains in effeciency. they are going to great lengths, to make sure its not too good. how hard can it be to put the best existing technology into a simple, economical package? most of their efforts, are to make sure that doesn't happen. I bought a 2006 chev truck, when they were selling, for less than they cost to build. 6cyl 5spd 1/2 ton $13,000 with air.
At $40,000 or so per car, the Volt is definitely the "real deal" for the three people who buy the first models out in 2020.
Significant per-capita energy savings in the US were realized back in the late 1970s / early 1080s. Today - much talk, much money spent and not much reduction, except for economic reasons.
Put a Volt in my driveway and I will adapt to it's range. Put a volt
in every driveway and watch how people adapt. Unfortunately gas
will be free before this ever happens, the pusher will be giving it away
so the addict doesn't switch drugs or tries to break the addiction.
How ironic that the "cradle of civilization" should also be it's undoing.
Another lifeline please (like any good junkie, last fix we promise).........
GMAC Financial Services is close to getting approximately $3.5 billion in additional aid from the U.S. government, on top of $12.5 billion already received since December 2008, according to people familiar with the situation.
The announcement, expected within days, will coincide with GMAC taking additional steps to absorb losses related to its mortgage operations, these people said. The cleanup is designed to return the Detroit-based finance company to profitability in the first quarter of 2010, according to one of these people.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704234304574626613952095966.html
OK.. Seriously, it's really time to tighten up captcha..
like father like sons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_C._Durant
"Nothing is new except arrangement" - the other will durant
They just need a green leefy dashboard display - that'll fix everything.
GM bragged to the world that the Volt will get 230 MPG. At first glance, that number seems fairly impressive.
Here's the catch: That number is only accurate for the first 50 miles. For the first 40 miles, the vehicle is 100% electric and uses no gasoline. After 40 miles, the combustion engine begins to power the vehicle--so gasoline is only used for 10 miles of the first 50. Obviously, very little gasoline is used for 10 miles, completely distorting the true MPG. The Volt may get 230 MPG, but only for the first 50 miles because it only uses gasoline for the last 10 of those miles. The further you drive past 50 miles, the less and less the MPG.
GM is hiding this little fact, because the "230 MPG" headline number makes them look as though they've got some innovative products on the way. That, in turn, makes the $10's of billions in government subsidies look more worthwhile.
Yeah, but isn't the average daily round trip commute something like fifty miles? If that's the case, assuming the driver charged the car at home every night, wouldn't the 230 mpg figure be accurate? I'm doubtful about the 230 mpg figure that GM puts out, but I would assume that it would be, maybe, 100mpg or something like that.
Fill that car up with 1 gallon of gas. Now tell me how far you get.
230mpg my a**.
So in that case a full electric car has an infinite MPG. I'll take it as long as I'm not paying my electrical bill.
I can build an electric car that gets 100 mpg. kubota 3 cyl diesel 6500 watt light tower generator, uses 1/2 gal per hour fuel. a/c electric motor, with regenerative braking, capacitor storage, for starts.air and heater will work fine. drivetrain, will fit in any car. and its pretty quiet.
Delacroix,
The problem with your car is that it will, by definition, only have an average power consumption of 6.5kW.
In comparison, a reasonable sedan (something like 4-cyl a Camry) will get 30mpg when going 60mph at constant speed. If we assume the Camry engine has a thermal efficency of 0.25 (25%), you can then calculate that net power to the wheels is 19kW.
That is 3x as much power needed as you will provide. In other words, the hybrid you7 are proposing, if installed in a Camry, either cannot get 100mpg or cannot do 60mph.
You choose.
Here's the math:
nu= 0.25; % 25% engine efficiency assumed
mpg= 30;
v= 60;
Vtime= v/mpg; % == 2 gal/hour for a camry
Vtimesec= Vtime/3600;
Edensity_gas= 37e6 * 3.7; % J/L * L/G = J/G
P= Edensity_gas * Vtimesec; % J/G * G/s = J/s
Pnet= nu * P;
So who here thinks that GM even cares about the NA market anymore? They have clearly abandoned NA operations decades ago, first with NAFTA and then China through SGM (Shanghai GM). It was a good business strategy that payed off. Behemoths like GM do not make obvious mistakes. They are deliberate and strategic. First to break the unions, then to justify outsourcing and finally to nationalize loosing operations in North America all whilst convincing the critics it was all out of their control......ahhhhh NO. Within a couple of years you will again hear that GM have regained their NO. 1 position in auto manufacturing.
As for the Volt, it will be released next year and it will sell. Just not many and that's the intension. It's simply a token vehicle to distract us from all the real development investment in Asia.