The GM Volt...

[MillCreek]

And since the greenies will fight tooth and nail against any kind of new power generation (it's either the nuclear boogyman, or evil fossil fuels, or bird shredding wind, or ecology destroying hydro/solar/tidal) it'll never be possible to make this kind of change to our auto technology.

As you know now living up here in the Great Pacific NorthWet, that would be 'salmon-shredding hydro'.  I used to get on the kids about leaving lights on by reminding them of 'all the baby salmon that were being ground up in the turbines of the Grand Coulee Dam', and they would just stare at me.

[makattak]

As you know now living up here in the Great Pacific NorthWet, that would be 'salmon-shredding hydro'.  I used to get on the kids about leaving lights on by reminding them of 'all the baby salmon that were being ground up in the turbines of the Grand Coulee Dam', and they would just stare at me.

Your heartless children don't care about the sea kittens!??

[roo_ster]

"Part of the original justification was that interstate highways served a military purpose, i.e., moving troops and military supplies around. So they were, in effect, part of providing for the common defense and raising a military."

Very good, that is correct. My Father was a highway engineer for 20+ years and worked on many of the interstates on the East Coast.

Yes, the Federal Government had Constitutional right to BUILD the interstates.

But that's not what we're talking about.

What Constitutional provision gives the Feds the right to levy the public issues needed to finance the interstates, which is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution as a power accorded to the Federal Government. What gave the government the right to create the Federal Highway Corporation and issue $25 billion in bonds?

I bet Alexander Hamilton would have no problem finding that justification.

[K Frame]

My electric provider doesn't have peak/off peak either.

Nor does Mom's in Pennsylvania.

[MicroBalrog]

Just WHAT in the Constitution gives the Government the right or mandate to enter into bond agreements to build and maintain the interstate highway system?

What gives the Government the right to collect gasoline taxes to distribut amongst the states to build those roads?
   

What gave the government the right to create the Federal Highway Corporation and issue $25 billion in bonds?

Apart from the military justification already given, the Federal Government  is explicitly empowered to build roads for the use of the USPS,  as well as:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence
and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and
Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Furthermore, Zahc is correct.

Though it may be possible that your buying, or not buying, the Volt will not actually affect anything, it's entirely reasonable not to purchase products from a company whose corporate behavior you consider unethical. We do not have a choice on whether we pay taxes, but where we do have a choice, it is our right as human beings to protest, even if it is in a tiny way.

[K Frame]

Bonds are NOT excises, duties, taxes, or imposts.

We've already established that the Federal government has the authority to build roads. That was dealt with messages ago.

The FUNDING is the issue.

Taxes were not raised to build the roads.

Duties (tolls) were not levied on travel on the roads (at least until they were turned over to the jurisdiction of the states).

Excises were not charged to facilitate payment of the construction.

An impost is a customs duty, which a bond issue is not.

Issuing bonds is NOT borrowing money.

Simply put, there is no Constitutional validation for how the interstate highway system was funded.

Not to mention the fact that the actual issuer of the bonds, the Federal Highway Corporation, was a quasi private company that, once created, was outside of Congressional control (Federal Reserve, anyone?), also a violation of the Constitution.

The gasoline tax collected for each gallon of gas sold was the obvious direct funding stream, but it wasn't used, at least directly. Gas taxes were used to retire the FHC's bond debt and pay interest to the bond holders, a direct diversion of tax payer money that, on its face, also seems to violate the Constitution.

Curious, no?

[Balog]

I'm not really sure where you're going here Mike. You seem to be arguing that fed.gov taking overs businesses is a-ok as the feds have been doing all kinds of unConstitutional things for a long time. And yet I somehow don't think that's what you actually believe...

[K Frame]

Sigh.

What I'm doing here is a little experiment in fomenting discussion.

Unfortunately, it appears that our 'strict Constitutionalists' aren't up to the challenge.

Neither are our historians.

I've presented a set of "facts" that are largely false, and no one caught it.

Got the idea from all the screaming that Obama is doing about how his health care proposal is being maligned.

Sigh.

[AJ Dual]

That's assuming off-peak electrical rates are available everywhere.

They're not, at least not in my neck of the woods.

I also think folks are misled into thinking an electric vehicle will be an order of magnitude cheaper to operate than a hydrocarbon burner.

That's some serious amperage going into the car's recharging port, and I'd wager it would make the household air conditioner or kitchen oven look weak in comparison.

When you break it down by kilowatt hours the car needs for a full charge, take the charging efficiency, and add the loss back onto the top, compact sedan and compact-car sized all-electric cars cost around $4-6 a day at average market rates to charge to FULL. Assuming the majority of most users have a commute that's < 50 miles or so that's not completely depleting the battery (I know the Volt is supposed to be 40, it compares very favorably with gasoline, coming in around half the price or so.

Of course, if EVERONE had one of these plugged in at night it changes the situation. You're right. Massive infrastructure upgrades will be needed.

Although people don't account for ALL the costs with the gasoline infrastructure, tanker trucks, pipelines, refineries, gas stations, tanks, the fuel pumps, etc. It all adds up too. I'm simplifying, but running "mere wires" seems very easy and convenient as compared to transporting volitaile liquid fuels.

OTOH, those electrical upgrades may need to be run to every house, or, if the neighborhood wiring can handle it, at least regional distribution systems would probably need upgrading.

It's darn hard to really get an honest TECO (Total Energy Cost of Ownership) comparison, beginning to end, for a majority electric vs. majority gasoline transportation infrastructure.

[K Frame]

I've not been able to determine for certain from the literature I've found so far, but the implication is that the Volt is going to be very much like the Prius -- in other words, it does NOT need to be plugged in to be recharged. It is not a 100% electric vehicle; it has an onboard gasoline engine that will recharge the batteries.

[MillCreek]

From an article in today's Wall Street Journal:

The Volt is powered by a lithium-ion battery pack, with a range of about 40 miles, that can be recharged through a traditional power outlet. For longer drives, a small gasoline engine takes over, powering a generator that creates electricity to run the car's motors. The Volt's expected total range on one tank of gas is more than 300 miles, GM said.

Frederick "Fritz" Henderson, GM's chief executive, said at a media event that owners who charge the Volt daily could go days without the gas engine firing up. The U.S. Transportation Department says 80% of Americans commute less than 40 miles a day.

Charging the batteries should cost owners about 88 cents on average, GM said.

[Balog]

Charging the batteries should cost owners about 88 cents on average, GM said.

I don't believe GM.

[zahc]

Well, you shouldn't have to believe them. If they publish the capacity of the batteries you can easily calculate how much it would cost given your current electricity rates.

[Balog]

Have they published the tech specs of the batteries?

[Racehorse]

Issuing bonds is NOT borrowing money.

I don't know much about the larger debate, but this statement is totally wrong. Issuing bonds is most definitely borrowing money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_(finance)

edited to add: I wrote this before Mike mentioned that he was posting false "facts" intentionally and didn't bother to read the new replies before posting.

[CNYCacher]

Average US price per kilowatt-hour was 11.59 cents in april 09.

So 88 cents turns out to be about 7.5 kilowatt-hours.

A kilowatt means drawing about 9 amps @ 110 volts.

So if charging the car means plugging it in and drawing 9 amps for 8 hours straight, he might be correct.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

That's assuming off-peak electrical rates are available everywhere.

They're not, at least not in my neck of the woods.

I also think folks are misled into thinking an electric vehicle will be an order of magnitude cheaper to operate than a hydrocarbon burner.

That's some serious amperage going into the car's recharging port, and I'd wager it would make the household air conditioner or kitchen oven look weak in comparison.

Just to be clear, when I said the cost of generating electricity was cheaper during off-peak times, I was referring to the cost to the power company for producing the electricity, not to the price they charge their customers.

It requires a special meter to charge customers multi-tiered rates (lower rates during off-peak periods), and they usually don't bother installing them in residential settings.  They eagerly use multi-tiered pricing for major industrial plants and whatnot.  Power companies will often cut deals with their industrial customers to do their heavy-electrical-demand work at night when electricity is cheaper to produce.

If recharging electric cars becomes popular, then expect power companies to try to find ways to get customers to run the chargers overnight rather than during the day.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Average US price per kilowatt-hour was 11.59 cents in april 09.

So 88 cents turns out to be about 7.5 kilowatt-hours.

A kilowatt means drawing about 9 amps @ 110 volts.

So if charging the car means plugging it in and drawing 9 amps for 8 hours straight, he might be correct.

Wikipedia claims a usable batter capacity of 8.8kWh for the Volt.

[K Frame]

"a usable batter capacity of 8.8kWh"

How many cupcakes does that make.

[MillCreek]

I have read elsewhere on the Net about the Volt being plugged in and charged 'overnight' via a 110 volt socket. 

[41magsnub]

If recharging electric cars becomes popular, then expect power companies to try to find ways to get customers to run the chargers overnight rather than during the day.

I would think that would happen by default for the vast majority of users/time.

[CNYCacher]

Wikipedia claims a usable batter capacity of 8.8kWh for the Volt.

So I was in the ballpark.  The guy making the 88 cents claim is just going off of a slightly inaccurate  but overall fairly good estimate of 10 cents per kWh, and assuming negligible losses of charging efficiency.

I have read elsewhere on the Net about the Volt being plugged in and charged 'overnight' via a 110 volt socket. 

Easily achievable given what we know about the batteries, if the charger draws about 10 amps and you accept approx 8 hours to be a reasonable value for "overnight".

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

"a usable batter capacity of 8.8kWh"

How many cupcakes does that make.

Dunno how many cupcakes that is, but it's 40 miles traveled per charge or 88 cents of electricity per recharge. 

Basically it confirms what CNYCacher said about recharge costs.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I would think that would happen by default for the vast majority of users/time.

A guy at work here has an all-electric converted VW bug.  He charges it at the office, during the middle of the day. 

I assume this is because from his perspective the electricity at the office is free, whereas the electricity at his house costs him.

[AJ Dual]

So I was in the ballpark.  The guy making the 88 cents claim is just going off of a slightly inaccurate  but overall fairly good estimate of 10 cents per kWh, and assuming negligible losses of charging efficiency.

Easily achievable given what we know about the batteries, if the charger draws about 10 amps and you accept approx 8 hours to be a reasonable value for "overnight".

LiOn's have pretty good charge characteristics as it is, and the bane of all intelligent battery chargers is heat, and keeping the heat down drives efficiency. I can't remember exactly what the charge efficiency is on modern charging systems for major gear, but it's pretty good. Something north of 90%...

IMO, I think the Volt will be a very good thing for the car market, I just don't think it'll ever amount to much for GM.

Get rid of the rediculous EPA sulfur standards, and put a little TDI diesel in for the generator, and now we're really talking. Even cooler would be if it were a self-contained module I could drop out of the trunk and save on the weight penalty when I'm doing my daily 30-mile commute, then plug it back in on weekends when I'm tooling about on various errands or trips with the kids, or on an actual road-trip.

I could also see this being huge for making cars modular Lego-like kits where one basic frame could be adapted to 4x4'ing, a sedan, etc. a sports-car, just by changing in and out battery modules, generator modules, and motor-in-wheels. It would also make cars upgradeable, or replaceable piecemeal.