Archives

I'm not so sure, Wayne.

We may hear it was just a coincidence -- but with the government and GM betting so big on this, the actual truth may be revealed in a quiet recall (courtesy service).

Hi Ptero:

As stated in other thread... I have been sitting on this story since it broke yesterday afternoon because we are not sure of the cause just yet. Give it another day or so and I am sure the facts will come out.

Wayne

I'm no fan of the Chevy Volt. I didn't like the way it was rushed into production under government pressure. Compare the gradual success of the Prius to this catastrophe: one of the first Volts in Connecticut catches on fire and burns down an attached garage in the middle of the night while charging.

http://www.wfsb.com/news/27541598/detail.html

I'm in agreement with the president of Audi. He predicted that a few early adopters will buy Volts, then nobody else will.

“No one is going to pay a $15,000 premium for a car that competes with a (Toyota) Corolla...They’re for the intellectual elite who want to show what enlightened souls they are...so there are not enough idiots who will buy it." He thinks the Volt will fall flat, and then the government will rush to its aid with generous subsidies so as to not look like a bunch of fools.

See the CleanMPG thread Audi President Calls The Volt "A Car For Idiots"
http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24747&page=2

This incident doesn't help. And I suspect it won't be the last.

And I found this comment on the story on the Free Republic blog. The author claims the burning Volt story will be swept under the rug.

"The quality and safety concerns continue to surface at General Motors as officials investigate the likelihood that a Chevy Volt started a fire in a Connecticut home that devastated the garage where the vehicle was being charged. This story was reported by a local Eyewitness News team (http://www.wfsb.com/news/27541598/detail.html) on Thursday and has not received widespread media coverage. This follows a GM recall of the Chevy Cruze that was necessitated after a steering wheel broke off of one of the vehicles traveling at highway speeds and endangered the family traveling in the car.... Regarding the Chevy Volt incident, I have yet to hear that GM or the Department of Transportation is starting their own investigation. One has to wonder how much attention these latest stories would get if we were talking about Toyota, which had previously been lambasted regarding perceived safety issues, instead of Government Motors. Supposedly, consumers are already willing to pay a premium for the Volt, why waste even more taxpayer money subsidizing a vehicle that travels about 30 miles on an electric charge and then gets only about 30 MPG running on premium fuel? More suspicious activity surrounding the Volt surfaces if you do a cars.com (http://www.cars.com/for-sale/used/chevrolet/volt/_/N-ma9Zfh1Zr0xZm5d?sf1Dir=DESC&mkId=20053&mdId=35025&zc=91204&PMmt=1-1-0&stkTypId=28881&sf2Dir=ASC&sf1Nm=price&sf2Nm=miles&rpp=50&feedSegId=28705&searchSource=GEO_SEARCH&crSrtFlds=stkTypId-feedSegId-mkId-mdId&pgId=2102&rd=20) search for used vehicles. It seems that non-GM dealerships have been purchasing Volts and reselling them as used vehicles. Now why in the world is GM selling Volts to non-GM dealerships when there are claims that there are not enough of the cars available to meet retail demand"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2705463/posts

He might be right, but Audi's president is an idiot.. and even worse, a dishonest one.

Its just generic GM bashing.. most of it justified but still bashing.

'why waste even more taxpayer money subsidizing a vehicle that travels about 30 miles on an electric charge and then gets only about 30 MPG running on premium fuel?"

many people are getting nearly 50 miles of range and the EPA rated the Volt at 40mpg on the hwy... city driving gets infinite mpg if you are a reasonable driver. You and I would do MUCH better.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/30980.shtml

I will post a pic tonight of a charger installation. I can see why some would burn due to installation.

I'd first look at the charger and its installation also before looking at the Volt as the cause.

I heard it was the wiring that caused the blaze but it still makes for good GM bashing

Hi Ptero:

While we still do not yet know the cause, I will have to stand behind GM on this one when it comes to Audi of America President, Johan de Nysschen. Let us have a quick look at the numbers.

Automobile Manufacturer's US Sales Rank - March 2011 vs. March 2010 and Totals
#2 - GM up 9.6% to 206,621 (http://cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=302962)


…


…



#10 - VW up 22.7% to 27,176 vehicles sold (http://cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=303124)


…



#13 - Audi up 14.3% to 9,818 vehicles sold (http://cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=303201)
Yet in Germany, VW is the number one brand and Ford/GM have tough inroads. I am not saying there is protectionism or favorites within the home country but for a car manufacturer the size of VW (number one in the world) that can barely make a dent in the US market because of overpriced, feature lacking and in most cases, lower quality cars, connecting the dots says something or someone is helping the home team in the home country?

A few more points if I may… An Audi A3 TDI is one very small car yet when equipped similar to the Volt, NAVI package and telematics, it is in the mid-36K range OTD. The Volt is going to be in the $38K range OTD. I have driven both and the Volt would be in my drive long before the Audi A3 TDI would.

Finally, VW/Audi/Porsche are ripping headlong into the electrified era as fast as they can and it is being done so as to catch up, not to lead.

Now back to the point at hand. I am very much looking forward to the end report and I am surprised the Fire Inspector has not already released the cause if in fact he has not done so already. If it is egg on GM’s face, so be it but it is not like they have sold more than 1,500 cars in the four months since it has been available. The Volt is a marketing platform and engineering study, not an end user vehicle in the manner that the masses know of it today.

Good Luck

Wayne

Now for the REST of the story. Another car was in the garage. An 87 Suzuki Samuri that was converted t EV "several" years ago.

Which one do you suspect? Not the Volt....

Hi Mike:

That was reported by the local News affiliate on the ground yesterday as well.

Wayne

I have a good friend who owns a repair facility specializing in German automobiles. I asked him about the different brands he works on and his opinions. When i asked him about Audi, he laughed. He said"i can easily put my three sons through college fixing Audis. They are the most unreliable cars on earth. 60% of my business is fixing Audis."

I'd be tempted to go with Mike's info about the other vehicle in the garage first then, the garage wiring or the re-charger wiring/installation.

The last person i knew that had thier car burn was my boss who bought a brand new a4. The rear seat heater didn't shut off for some reason and it burned in our parking lot at work. While i'm in agreement that the Volt might have some issues to work out b4 its really ready for widespread consumer sale, the prez of Audi should keep his nose out and handle his own business.

They did quietly give him a new car and an appology, btw.

How is this for "temporary" wiring for the Volt 220v charger? This is wired directly into a panel about 3' off the floor in a garage.

Note the bare ground!

What danger does this present?

Another car was in the garage. An 87 Suzuki Samuri that was converted t EV "several" years ago.
Which one do you suspect? Not the Volt....

The Suzuki had been there happily for years, and then suddenly 2 months after the Volt appears... The Signs and Portents are suggesting a riled up gm basher with a molotov cocktail.. ohh I can feel the hatred. Probably a Rush and Palin supporter.

Wayne: "The Volt is a marketing platform and engineering study, not an end user vehicle in the manner that the masses know of it today."

Ptero: The Volt is a terrible example of design-by-politicians. GM had looked at electrical vehicles for years and come to the conclusion that they could not be profitable with the present level of battery technology. Even the Prius was introduced at a loss and was sold for a couple of years in the red until Toyota claimed the Prius finally turned a profit (which I doubt). So GM was not going to produce the Volt. It was an engineering study.

The Volt actually was, in fact, originally an engineering study for a fuel cell vehicle. GM had established an ambitious fuel cell production facility in New York with plans to meet the hybrid challenge head-on.

http://hydrogencommerce.com/images/GMFCsize%20reduced2009.jpg

GM researchers had dropped the size of the 400-cell Chevy Equinox fuel cell engine to less than half the size without giving up any of the 93 kW it produced. GM was targeting 2010 for this fuel cell to reduce the amount of platinum to less than that of a catalytic converter using nano-deposition technology.

But then the Republicans sold out America to international corporations and Detroit collapsed, and then the voters brought in this sycophantic, double-speaking lap dog of the big banks, big oil and big law with his hand-picked nucular industry stooge Chu. The first thing this pair did when they took over GM was to have them close down their fuel cell strategy -- a world beating, American know-how strategy already well underway -- and revert the fuel cell chassis design to batteries.

Now, a lot of the small minds in this country think this is American know-how: to take Chinese laptop batteries and stick them in a big car with a cloned Jap engine, cook the books and subsidize it by stealing $7,500 from the taxpayers for each one sold, then rave about its "huge" 30-mile range on electricity and drool over the 30 mpg it gets hauling those batteries around when they're discharged. But it's not American know-how. It's throwing in the towel. It's giving up. It's laying down. It makes me ashamed.

We aren't going to compete with Asia with the Volt. It represents the new dead end of American technology.

Wayne: "Finally, VW/Audi/Porsche are ripping headlong into the electrified era as fast as they can and it is being done so as to catch up, not to lead."

Ptero: Actually, VW has been working on electrified drive trains as long as anyone. All the hybrid platforms entering production from established manufacturers were developed or borrowed from fuel cell vehicle research.
USA: Volkswagen Unveils Its First Fuel-Cell Car At the Grand Opening of the California Fuel Cell Partnership (http://www.just-auto.com/news/volkswagen-unveils-its-first-fuel-cell-car-at-the-grand-opening-of-the-california-fuel-cell-partnership_id75543.aspx)

Press Release | 2 November 2000

Volkswagen (http://www.just-auto.com/companies/volkswagen_id120)'s Bora HyMotion - a new drive concept

Volkswagen, a leader in the development of environmentally friendly technologies in Europe and across the globe, showed the world its first fuel-cell car during the opening of the California Fuel Cell Partnership Headquarters in Sacramento, Calif.

Volkswagen calls the car the Bora HyMotion, which is designed as a genuine "zero emission vehicle." The Bora model is known as the Jetta in the U.S., the top-selling European nameplate.

The HyMotion's engine uses an advanced fuel cell that transforms hydrogen and oxygen into electrical energy for the electric motor. The only by-product from this process is water vapor.

In the HyMotion, the fuel cell's engine works at the core of the car's drive system, which allows it to run at a higher degree of efficiency than that of a typical combustion engine. Further, with this fuel cell system, the most efficient operation is realized at mid throttle, which is the throttle range used the most during driving.

The Bora HyMotion tank has a capacity of 50 litres of liquid hydrogen at minus 253 degrees Celsius. This is an energy equal to 12 litres of petrol covering a range of about 350 kilometres. The electric motor operates quietly, without vibration and ensures a pleasant and relaxed drive. The asynchronous electric motor has a power output of 75 kW and with 240 Nm of torque in a large revving range, the Bora accelerates from 0 to 100 km/h in 12.6 seconds reaching a top speed of 140 km/h.

The unveiling of this prototype comes in conjunction with the celebration of the grand opening of the headquarters for the historic California Fuel Cell Partnership, which was formed in April 1999 to pave the way for demonstrating fuel cell vehicles. Private companies and public agencies formed the California Fuel Cell Partnership to help advance this technology that promises practical, affordable, and environmentally friendly transportation solutions for California and the world.

The Partnership includes auto manufacturers (DaimlerChrysler (http://www.just-auto.com/companies/daimlerchrysler_id121), Ford (http://www.just-auto.com/companies/ford_id36), Honda (http://www.just-auto.com/companies/honda_id205), Hyundai (http://www.just-auto.com/companies/hyundai_id74), Nissan (http://www.just-auto.com/companies/nissan_id202), Volkswagen, and soon GM (http://www.just-auto.com/companies/gm_id73) and Toyota (http://www.just-auto.com/companies/toyota_id119)), energy providers (BP, Shell, Texaco), fuel cell companies (Ballard Power Systems and International Fuel Cells), and government agencies (the California Air Resources Board, California Energy Commission, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Transportation, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District).

Volkswagen has been a member of the "Fuel Cell Partnership" since October 1999.

As one of the world leaders in helping make the car industry an environmentally responsible one, Volkswagen is excited to be a part of this historic consortium. With the debut of its HyMotion prototype, Volkswagen hopes to further demonstrate its commitment to the Fuel Cell Partnership and making fuel-cell vehicles a reality and a success.

Hi Ptero:

When did you think that FCV's died? Every major has their feet deep into that water because it is only infrastructure away from working at a cost that makes sense. And GM is at the top of that heap with Toyota, Ford and Honda in making it happen.

While the Volt is a dog and pony show due to sales numbers, it is doing exactly what it was intended for. Create a Green Buzz (it has) and place GM at the peak of engineering prowess with the first and only PHEV on the market today.

Wayne

Wayne: "When did you think that FCV's died?"


Ptero: Fuel cell cars will not happen without government support of a national hydrogen fueling infrastructure. With the anti-science Republicans owned by Big Oil, there was little progress made under Bush. It was then a great shock to the U.S. fuel cell industry when nuclear industry stooge Energy Secretary Chu announced he was canceling the domestic automotive fuel cell research and testing programs and continuing support only for stationary fuel cell system research. Only the outrage from the green scientific community kept the Congressional funding mostly intact for the first two years of the Obama administration, but now industry support in the U.S. is drying up and America's spin-off hydrogen tech companies continue to be snapped up by overseas interests, making 20 years of taxpayer-supported fuel cell research a gift to foreign countries like Germany and Norway who are enlightened enough to begin building a serious hydrogen fueling infrastructure based on renewable energy.


Fuel-Cell Backers Criticize DOE Budget Cuts (http://www.autoobserver.com/2011/02/fuel-cell-backers-criticize-doe-budget-cuts.html)
By AutoObserver Staff (http://www.autoobserver.com/email-disclaimer.html) February 22, 2011

President Obama’s proposed 2012 budget boosts Department of Energy spending, especially for electric vehicles, while it drastically cuts hydrogen and fuel-cell research, to the dismay of backers of those technologies. President Obama's proposed fiscal year 2012 budget raises Department of Energy funding to $29.5 billion, a nearly 12-percent increase from the current 2010 fiscal year level of $26.4 billion, and it includes $588 million to stimulate sales of one million electric vehicles by 2015. It also - despite the overall hike and the nod to EVs in general - cuts deeply the DOE's funding for research and development of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies, work that could help to build a future market for fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs).


A similar effort last year by Energy Secretary Steven Chu to slash automotive fuel cell research in his 2010 budget proposal (http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2009/05/energy-department-slashes-hydrogen-transportation-funding-in-proposed-budget.html) was reversed (http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2009/10/senate-okays-appropriations-bill-restoring-automotive-hydrogen-research-funds.html) in Congress – but with budget-cutting Republicans in control of the House of Representatives this year, that's not as likely an outcome. For fiscal year 2012, the proposed DOE budget devotes $100 million to hydrogen and fuel cell technologies, 41 percent less than the $170 million budgeted for fiscal year 2010. It also eliminates funding of the Solid State Exchange Conversion Alliance (http://www.seca.doe.gov/) (SECA), a DOE-managed program to develop solid oxide fuel cells that would be used as range-extending auxiliary power units in electric trucks.
While the brunt of the cuts would not be felt for a while, there is an immediate effect: raising the ire of fuel cell and hydrogen energy proponents at their annual national conference, which opened last Monday just as the figures were made public and concluded on Wednesday.


"We have hundreds of fuel cell electric vehicles on the roads, and more hydrogen refueling stations in the state of California alone than in the entire rest of the world," said Ruth Cox, president and executive director of the Fuel Cell Hydrogen Energy Association (http://www.fchea.org/), in her opening remarks. Despite that, she continued, "America's leadership in fuel cells and hydrogen energy is in jeopardy, because although we have a President who is committed to creating a clean energy economy, his administration has been misguided about the critical role fuel cells and hydrogen energy have to play in its realization." [more]

Wayne: "[The Volt] is doing exactly what it was intended for. Create a Green Buzz (it has) and place GM at the peak of engineering prowess with the first and only Phev (http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/glossary.php?do=viewglossary&term=38) on the market today."

Ptero: "Engineering prowess"???? I can't believe you said that. You have to be aware that several boutique shops have been modding Priuses into PHEVs for years and that Toyota made a business decision against PHEVs although they could easily have put them into production. Why? Because the battery packs would have to be doubled in size and cost, and since they were running in the red or close to it already, it made no economic sense to put PHEVs into production. Worse, sophisticated HEVs like the Prius and Insight were designed to treat battery packs gently. Poorly engineered PHEVs, particularly either/or types like the Volt, were the hybrid industry's nightmare because they are nothing but golf carts on steroids, inefficiently lugging around heavy engines and oversize battery packs that stress the recharging ability of the insufficient grid infrastructure.

Remember, battery packs are a two-edged sword. It costs a lot to put them into production, then the manufacturers take a second hit down the road by replacing them to keep the early adopters happy. When battery tech is marketed aggressively and performance is emphasized, as with the Tesla and Volt, the life of the packs falls off rapidly. If you think sales of the Volt are bad now, wait until the early adopters start getting decreased range with electric drive. I predict we'll see the government sponsor mass battery pack replacements by GM to the tune of $10,000 or more apiece.

This brings up another flaw in this wishful-thinking, government-forced PHEV catastrophe. Physical limits to improvements in battery efficiency were widely recognized in the scientific community as the Obama administration came into power. By this I mean fundamental barriers in physics, which were resulting in greater costs and complexity yielding smaller and smaller gains in performance and longevity. So what does this Chu do? He issues directives to the national labs to forge ahead with battery research, while at the same time canceling the fuel cell programs that were demonstrating efficiency gains that were essentially doubling every year. It was incredibly short-sighted, counterproductive and stupid. Now you get glowing press releases promising better batteries but you'll never see them in production because they cannot be profitably mass-produced. The whole program is a fraud.

Hi Ptero:

We did the story on the FCV cuts here and its nothing new. I can tell you after talking with insiders deep within the industry that the cars and trucks are ready to go. The Infrastructure build out will happen but the question is when and how. The reason? H2 can be made from anything. Watch this one catch up and blow by everybody without them actually understanding what really happened over the next 20-years because the tech is here now and only waiting for a model where the stations make a lot of money. You will hear a lot more about this in CA in the coming months and years as they are not waiting for Fed support.

Regarding first and second PHEV converters, have you ever driven one? To get over the 41 mph limitation, you have to hack the hell out of the thing and even then they are not worth their price because they are unsalable after the fact. That is where the power of an OEM arrives. The new Prius PHEV-12/13 (we still do not know the cost) is such a spectacular addition even with its 62 mph EV limitation. But it is not hear yet. The VOLT is and would I take a $38K OTD VOLT over a goofed up and converted second gen Prius PHEV? It is not even a question.

While I do not have time to look it up, you may remember the story about Hybrid Plus’ PHEV conversion that burned it and a house to the ground two summers ago IIRC. We have the story around here somewhere. This was at the time thought to be the best in the business and I am not sure if they are even business anymore.

Regarding the Volt, when someone hears of the cause of the fire, we will all know but right now, I have not so it will have to wait.

And to think aca2983 was accusing me of GM bashing yesterday within the Insignia OPC article :rolleyes:

Wayne

I'm not sure where the $10K for the battery pack cost is coming from... it is possible now to buy 25KW of batteries as a consumer (definitely not a bulk purchase from manufacturing point of view) for under that amount if you want LiFePo4 chemistry. Fuel cell vehicles also need batteries.

I'm really interested to hear any plans that are in the works to overcome the shortcomings of hydrogen as a fuel. It takes more energy to make than you can get out and currently the most economically favorable method of production is by stripping it out of natural gas. That last may be convenient right now but still ties us to "fossil fuel" in a fashion we really need to abandon if we want to switch to H2 propulsion. This is quite aside from the fact that it takes a fair energy input to compress the stuff enough to give useful quantities in a volume feasible for integration into a vehicle.

I keep seeing references to wonder catalysts that produce hydrogen but they never seem to pan out (and they don't seem possible from an energy input perspective). Electrolysis works but takes a lot of power. I'm not sure how that consumption compares to what is currently used by refineries but it would likely take some dedicated power plants to produce enough hydrogen to be meaningful.

Don't get me wrong -- I'd love to see this tech out there in use. Who wouldn't? I just don't see how it is feasible from a fuel production standpoint. Sure, we could make it work if we just decide to go that direction as a country and resign ourselves to switching from a net positive (transportation) energy production scheme to a net negative one, but I just don't see that happening unless we have no other alternative.

Hi Sean:

Even when made from NG and the conversion to H2 including compressions, it is more efficient than burning NG in the common day ICE.

The guys and gals that are doing the studies are not going to bother with electrolysis as that is not a working solution. There are high temp catalysts that are powered by the sun producing the stuff in labs in quantities that are almost mind boggling. The University of CO at Boulder is where I believe the individual leading that research is based and his presentation was solid.

In addition, there are the waste plants with Tri-gen production and H2 as an effluent. A CA municipality is building one as we speak and it alone will be sufficient to fuel a few "thousand FCVs"!

Wayne

That is good news! I'd love to see some links on that stuff.

YouTube -- News 8: Barkhamsted garage fire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-KUiqoZcdQc#at=22 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-KUiqoZcdQc#at=22)

Right Lane Cruiser: "I'm not sure where the $10K for the battery pack cost is coming from."

Ptero: I can't find a quote for the Volt battery (not that I'd believe anything). I made it up based on a quote I read about for a Gen II Panasonic Prismatic replacement NiMH battery from a California Toyota dealership for $3,900, although I've seen claims for a thousand dollars less. A 30% additional cost for Li-ion over NiMH would bring that to $5070. Using my experience with GM dealerships as a guide, I added a 70% markup and 20% for installation and tax. I know that sounds cynical, but in the context of a government-sponsored replacement program, with taxpayers footing the bill, it may not be. Because the price of Li-ion battery packs hinges on mass production, in light of the fact that initial orders are languishing, these costs may not come down as far as hoped.

Toyota actually road-tested 126 Priuses outfitted with much more expensive Li-ion battery packs for 3 years in the U.S. and decided against them. One of the reasons was safety. Li-ion batteries sometimes spontaneously combust. No doubt, Toyota feared placing the company at risk, although Honda is moving ahead with Li-ion for the Civic.
The Volt uses a custom Compact Power (LG Chem of Korea) Li-ion battery pack that I understand is 5 feet long, weighs 375 lbs and is rated at 16 kW/h. People with rose-colored glasses see a marketable hybrid. I see a politically motivated financial disaster.

I'll have to dig it up, but I saw a recent price drop to about $8800.
The new Prius PHEV will have lithium in it as well.

I had a tainted view of GM until the past year. Mark Reuss announced last year at the auto show that "The chains of the OLD GM have been broken. In the 15 months since I heard those words spoken, I have seen those words turned to reality.

Did the government help them set the new sales record in the first quarter of 1.1 million vehicles?

More info:
http://www.courant.com/business/hc-hybrid-car-possible-fire-20110418,0,94353.story

"Engineers from General Motors Corp. (http://www.courant.com/topic/economy-business-finance/manufacturing-engineering/automotive-equipment/general-motors-corp.-ORCRP006407.topic) and insurance representatives investigating whether a Chevrolet Volt or its charging station caused a fire last week that destroyed a garage in Barkhamsted (http://www.courant.com/topic/us/connecticut/litchfield-county/barkhamsted-PLGEO100100203010000.topic) were surprised Monday when the unplugged hybrid electric car began smoldering, four days after the early morning blaze."

"...there is clear evidence based on moderate damage to the cord set and charging system that neither component caused the fire."

The findings of the GM engineers "indicate that the vehicle was damaged by the fire, but was not the cause."
___________________________________________

Lithium ion battery fires: VIOLENT! (http://hybridhazards.info/lithiumionhazards/)

What was that line from ROCKET MAN?

"It wasn't me!"

G.M.’s Electric Lemon (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/opinion/30neidermeyer.html?_r=2&ref=opinion)
By EDWARD NIEDERMEYER

So the future of General Motors (and the $50 billion taxpayer investment in it) now depends on a vehicle that costs $41,000 but offers the performance and interior space of a $15,000 economy car. The company is moving forward on a second generation of Volts aimed at eliminating the initial model’s considerable shortcomings. (In truth, the first-generation Volt was as good as written off inside G.M., which decided to cut its 2011 production volume to a mere 10,000 units rather than the initial plan for 60,000.) Yet G.M. seemingly has no plan for turning its low-volume “eco-flagship” into a mass-market icon like the Prius.

Quantifying just how much taxpayer money will have been wasted on the hastily developed Volt is no easy feat. Start with the $50 billion bailout (without which none of this would have been necessary), add $240 million in Energy Department grants doled out to G.M. last summer, $150 million in federal money to the Volt’s Korean battery supplier, up to $1.5 billion in tax breaks for purchasers and other consumer incentives, and some significant portion of the $14 billion loan G.M. got in 2008 for “retooling” its plants, and you’ve got some idea of how much taxpayer cash is built into every Volt.

________________


You realize, I hope, that if they call in TEPCO it will be too late to sell your GM stock. -- Ptero

GM stock hits new low (http://www.detnews.com/article/20110419/BIZ/104190352/1001/biz)
Detroit News April 19, 2011

Did you notice that your Electric Lemon link is dated July of last year... before the car was ever even released for the captured test fleet and well before the first one was ever sold?

As for the dangerous batteries link, it is well known that the lithium-cobalt battery chemistry widely used in personal electronics is highly thermally reactive. In fact, all you have to do is puncture such cells and they can cause a big flame:

http://i500.nopdesign.com/hw/index2.html

As far as I know, the only manufacturer really using this type of battery is Tesla -- and a large part of the cost of the "pack" is the expensive cooling at an individual cell level to prevent the thermal runaway reaction seen in that laptop video. They picked that chemistry because it is the cheapest and highest energy density cell available. Cycle life isn't that great and that explosion thing is kind of a problem, but hey. Tesla is busy working on a different cell chemistry for their new vehicles -- a much less reactive chemistry. One with very little cobalt in it... like the pack used in the Volt and soon in the Ford (PH)EVs as well.

Lithium isn't the problem here. Check out the videos of A123 cell abuse and you'll see what I mean. A123 cell:

http://www.youtube.com/v/rb_J2QQ0k-4&hl=en&fs=1

For comparison, a standard LiCo cell from something like a laptop battery:

http://www.youtube.com/v/f30fBFitkSM&hl=en&fs=1

As far as I am able to determine, the cells used in the Volt are a bit more reactive than the A123 chemistry, but not much. Smells like fear mongering to me, honestly.

I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories. If the Volt did cause the fire the experts will reveal that. Independent analysis will confirm it as well -- determining where an electrical fire began usually isn't too difficult because of what the heat does to the surrounding materials. If it is a problem with the Volt in some fashion I believe GM will fix it, though I doubt it originated there. The car didn't look slagged enough to me in the footage I've seen.

I have to agree. Until a source is confirmed, I'm sticking with "Garage burns down with Volt inside" and assigning no blame anywhere.

Media wanting to push the Volt burns down theory is similar to the Prius unintended acceleration farce that was pushed and pushed.

I am staying open to what the experts find. Personally, I am more inclined to suspect a home-built several year old vehicle.

Now look here, some of you folks are as smart or smarter than the experts. This isn't a knitting forum. Myself, I'm an expert on spin. You want to win an argument? Buy an expert. The other guy wants to win an argument? He buys two experts. You lose.

Everything's on a warfare footing these days. Truth doesn't matter. Making money and losing money matters. Gaining power or losing power matters. Truth is no longer a currency. Truth has become a commodity. Truth is for sale. The only thing that matters is winning.

So if you want the truth, you have to be cynical. Especially when the guys who want to win and don't care about the truth have lots and lots of money and lots of lots of experts. Sitting back and saying you'll wait for the experts doesn't cut it here the way it does on the knitting forum.

So it's okay to speculate. The question is, "Why did the Volt catch fire?" Use Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) -- it works for me.

You've got three possible ignition sources working here:

1) A garage with circuit breakers.
We know that garages sometimes burn down. We also know that circuit breakers keep garages from burning down.

2) A homebuilt EV was in the garage.
We know the guy had had it for years. We know it didn't have a gas tank. We know it didn't have lithium-ion batteries.

3) A new Volt was in the garage.
We know Volts use lithium-ion batteries. We know lithium-ion batteries can burst into flames.

Occam's Razor suggests that simpler theories carry more weight. Now look at the three theories.

1) Garage Fire Theory
The wiring shorted (a), then the circuit breakers didn't trip (b), then the garage burned (c) and the Volt caught fire from the burning garage (d).

2) Homebuilt EV Theory
The wiring shorted in the EV (a) and the fire spread to the garage (b) and the garage burned (c) and the Volt caught fire from the burning garage (d).

3) Lithium-ion Fire Theory
One of the lithium-ion batteries sparked off, setting the Volt on fire (a).

A few of you obviously have a philosophical, enthusiast or capitalist attachment to the Volt or to hybrids in general. I don't. I drive a Smart car and I am convinced that I get better well-to-wheels lifetime mpg than any of you.

Yes, it's true that I don't like the Volt or hybrids in general. But I think, in this case, it leads to objectivity in the face of a possible corporate and/or governmental whitewash.
_______________________

Now for more intrigue. This is Storm's blog (http://stormselectric.blogspot.com/). It covers building the Suzuki Samuri EV in detail. You will absolutely eat this up!

Ptero, I've no particular attachment to the Volt but it seems to me that just making assumptions without direct evidence to base it on isn't productive. I'd like to have a look for myself but I don't have access to the site of the fire. Right now the only facts we have are that the garage burned and so did everything inside it. A lot more details are needed to determine which caused the other… and we simply don't have them.

You may be right that the Volt is the cause of the fire. I sincerely hope that there is a speedy identification of the root issue with a rigorously implemented solution if that is the case. However, the worst thing you can do when approaching an issue is to investigate with a set of preconceptions and assumptions.

You may be right that the Volt is the cause of the fire. I sincerely hope that there is a speedy identification of the root issue with a rigorously implemented solution if that is the case. However, the worst thing you can do when approaching an issue is to investigate with a set of preconceptions and assumptions.

:thumbs_up: I found the above statement to be true as it relates to just about any part of life you can think of.

"The worst thing you can do when approaching an issue is to investigate with a set of preconceptions and assumptions."

That's ridiculous.Every human approaches any issue with a set of preconceptions and assumptions. The trick is to modify your outlook as you examine and learn. In science, you present a hypothesis based on your assumptions. Everyone else tries to knock it down. If they can't, it becomes a theory.

What you never should do, if you are really looking for truth, is attempt to stifle a hypothesis, based on your own set of preconceptions and assumptions. No hypothesis is valid by default. You needn't fear them. They're just someone's guess. But to declare that a hypothesis is politically incorrect before it is vetted is outside the pale and a possible pathway to accepting a wrong answer.

You guys must not follow the nuclear accident at Fukushima. Your "let's listen to the experts" philosophy would have lead you into a BS quagmire. (See http://www.fairewinds.com (http://www.fairewinds.com)) I suspect the same may be true for the Volt. But that's just my hypothesis.

Now, back to the garage fire. After reading Storm's blog (http://stormselectric.blogspot.com/) about building the electric Samurai -- and in particular, reading about his "bad boy charger" --I began to think that maybe his charging system was the culprit. But the "experts" stated that, although the charging system had experienced "moderate damage", it did not appear that Storm's system was the cause.

I also discounted the "smoldering" battery pack in the Volt that was observed on the fourth day after the fire. It has no relevance to the event that triggered the fire. After the fire, the pack was obviously damaged.

"The worst thing you can do when approaching an issue is to investigate with a set of preconceptions and assumptions."

That's ridiculous.Every human approaches any issue with a set of preconceptions and assumptions. The trick is to modify your outlook as you examine and learn. In science, you present a hypothesis based on your assumptions. Everyone else tries to knock it down. If they can't, it becomes a theory.

Despite of your first sentence, you just agreed with me. If you want the truth you have to be objective. Objectively, we don't have enough facts to draw a conclusion.

As for "let's listen to the experts"... unless you can get yourself in to examine the site personally and just happen to have the right expertise to draw relevant conclusions, who else are you going to listen to? The guy down the street who saw a Volt once, builds camp fires, and heard the story on his radio?

I'm sorry but arbitrarily labeling "the experts" indiscriminately as master manipulators and/or incompetent seems just a tad less than objective to me. If you have some reason to distrust the particular investigators involved in determining the cause of this particular blaze please, by all means discredit them and do your best to bring in some honest replacements to get to the bottom of this. Either way, we'll have to wait for "the experts" (either the ones already there or your nominations) to render a decision and present us with corroborating facts.

"Doug Parks, GM's global electric vehicle executive, said earlier this week that its findings indicate the vehicle was damaged by the fire, but was not the cause.

"While the Volt's battery pack sustained damage, it was not extensive enough or of the type that would suggest that it caused the fire," Parks said Monday. "In addition, there is clear evidence based on moderate damage to the cord set and charging system that neither component caused the fire."

http://articles.courant.com/2011-04-20/business/hc-chevrolet-volt-garage-fire-folo-20110420_1_chevrolet-volt-fire-marshals-barkhamsted-fire

I'm going to post some crow recipes for the constant Volt bashers soon.

So current bottom line is we don't know what caused the fire??

If the BP "caught fire" it should have made a real mess.
I had a Lithium battery powered flashlight "go bad once."
In the middle of the night it made a loud "pop" with a blue flash, and an acrid smelling fire. Impressive for a couple of small 123 batteries.
It melted the aluminum flashlight body.
Charlie

Not to beat a dead horse, but another Volt just went up in flames, taking some other cars with it.
http://www.freep.com/article/20111111/BUSINESS0101/111111039/Chevrolet-Volt-catches-fire-weeks-after-crash-prompting-closer-look-safety?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

Do we have reports of Priuses or other electric hybrids doing this? And yes, I know the car had been damaged. ----SEVERAL WEEKS BEFORE?!?!?!?!?!?!?

:-0

Ptero beat me by ten minutes.

http://jalopnik.com/5858690/chevy-volt-crash-test-fire-explodes-into-federal-investigation?utm_source=Jalopnik+Newsletter&utm_campaign=bdbe985277-UA-142

Since we don't want to jump to conclusions on this forum, possibly unfairly condemning an electric hybrid high mpg holy grail-type vehicle, perhaps people with Volts should just wear fire suits when driving and park outside - away from other vehicles, houses, buildings, forests, etc., maybe near fire hydrants - until we get this settled.

Not to beat a dead horse, but another Volt just went up in flames, taking some other cars with it.


Eventually someone will get hold of a scrapped Volt battery pack and set fire to it in front of cameras, the results should be entertaining once the venting hydrogen gets ignited.. you may even get a visible jet of flames.

This car had been crash tested! It sat for 3 weeks after the side impact crash test.

I hope the paramedics are skilled enough to pull me from the wrecked car before three weeks is over. :p

Fire Marshal Says NC Garage Fire Started Away From Chevy Volt: Exclusive (http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41742)

Uh, like I really, really hate to beat this dead horse again but now TWO MORE Chevy Volt battery packs have burned up - one erupting in flames and the other shooting out smoke and sparks, as reported here
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/nov/25/2nd-electric-car-battery-fire-involving-chevy-volt/?ap

I don't think it is sufficient to say that this is not a problem. Remember how GM solved ALL its car problems at once?*

(* They refused to honor all warranties after the collapse of the company.)

Anyway, I've figured out a new accessory for the Volt that should sell like hotcakes (no pun intended).

An asbestos car cover!

Seriously, it looks to me that the Volt battery packs, built at huge expense to taxpayers, are not robust enough for automotive use. This is going to be an expensive fix.

This was a new test that was done to see if it was possible "to replicate the May fire" where a crash-tested Volt burned up, taking some nearby cars with it.

So here we've got
1) The garage fire
2) The May fire
3) A burned up battery pack this week and
4) Another smoldering battery pack in the same test.

This is a smoking gun (no pun intended).

You don't even want to know what this is going to do the resale value of your Volt!

Front page news (http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41853)

"We" are willing to drive around with gasoline as our primary energy source and at the same time worry about a Volt's traction battery catching fire a few days after a serious accident if we happen to turn it upside down. Priorities might be rather upside down.

Looks like the front page news isn't going away. This morning, I see "GM offering loaner cars to worried Chevrolet Volt owners".
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/11/gm-offering-loaner-cars-to-worried-chevrolet-volt-owners/1

I found this strange: "GM says it believes the car's electronics may be at fault, not the advanced battery itself."

And the question now arises, what if Volt owners, who are worried that their Volt will burst into flames and burn down their garage, get a free loaner car from GM, then park it in their garage next to their Volt - and it burns down their garage AND THE LOANER CAR - will the Volt owner have to reimburse GM for the cost of the loaner car?

Seriously, this takes us right back to the original garage fire. It was determined that the Volt's battery wasn't at fault, right? Well, now we have GM saying it believes "the car's electronics may be at fault, not the advanced battery itself." So where do we stand on that investigation? Huh?

This is really a screwed up situation. I can't believe anything right now. Like I said from the beginning, when the government has too much skin in the game, you can't trust any investigation.

In fact, Wayne, you should start the poll over, based on this new information or spin or whatever it is.

I found this strange: "GM says it believes the car's electronics may be at fault, not the advanced battery itself."

And the question now arises, what if Volt owners, who are worried that their Volt will burst into flames and burn down their garage, get a free loaner car from GM, then park it in their garage next to their Volt - and it burns down their garage AND THE LOANER CAR - will the Volt owner have to reimburse GM for the cost of the loaner car?

Seriously, this takes us right back to the original garage fire. It was determined that the Volt's battery wasn't at fault, right? Well, now we have GM saying it believes "the car's electronics may be at fault, not the advanced battery itself." So where do we stand on that investigation? Huh?

You're confusing two different events.

In the garage fire, the car was not at fault, just a victim. Could have been a Corvette or Fiat for all it matters.

GM's "car electronics at fault" comment is about the crash-tested car.

I'm not confused at all. I don't believe anything I hear. That makes me skeptical. Skepticism is healthy. It sometimes leaves you as the last man standing in situations of massive spin.

In fact, I'm so skeptical that when GM says the problem is not with the battery, I am left wondering what they are trying to hide about the battery. I mean, these were battery fires. To me, it's a stretch to blame parts outside the battery. (Think "fuse.")

I'm not confused at all. I don't believe anything I hear. That makes me skeptical. Skepticism is healthy. It sometimes leaves you as the last man standing in situations of massive spin.

No, that makes you cynical (in the modern sense). A skeptic doubts, they don't disbelieve.

If you were really a skeptic you wouldn't have a position on this issue, since you don't have enough information to make a decision. Instead you immediately jumped on the first report of a fire and suggested it was probably the Volt. You used Occam's Razor to come to that conclusion, something which no real skeptic would do.

Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor) - "Simple explanations are generally the best"

....however, that's not always the case.

I'll be interested if a different make of EV such as the Leaf catches fire.

Still, I'm not convinced this is a likely hazard to lose sleep over with the Volt - yet.

I'm telling you its the Nissan Black Ops Ninja team.. first they did a job on Toyota and now its GMs turn.. the Leaf shall reign supreme!.. so says Ghosn.

A skeptic doubts, they don't disbelieve.

Whatever it is you are trying to say, I doubt anyone will believe it.

Well here is something new on the story.

Duke Energy Warning (http://www.rokemneedlearts.com/carsindepth/wordpressblog/?p=5222)

After a house fire in Mooresville, NC which started in the home’s garage was traced the the area near a charging station for an electric vehicle, WSOC-TV reported that Duke Energy, which installed the Siemens built charging station, has warned customers to not use similar units while the investigation into the fire proceeds. When fire investigators went through the burned out garage, they found a Chevy Volt plugged into the 240 volt station, the second garage fire reportedly involving a Volt. Since it was not the only electrical appliance plugged in that area of the garage, the charging station may not be at fault. The Iredell County Fire Marshal’s office said, “The charging station was in the known area of origin, but the cause of the fire has not been officially determined.”

Ptero, your avatar says you like hydrogen -- there is nothing more unstable and explosive than hydrogen under very high pressure.

As has been pointed out many times, gasoline is incredibly explosive -- each gallon is equivalent to several sticks of dynamite. The fact that it took 3 weeks for the crashed Volt to burn makes this fairly minor, I think.

There certainly can be serious problems with electric battery systems, and maybe this is serious. But, it can be solved / corrected.

As has been pointed out many times, gasoline is incredibly explosive -- each gallon is equivalent to several sticks of dynamite. The fact that it took 3 weeks for the crashed Volt to burn makes this fairly minor, I think.

There certainly can be serious problems with electric battery systems, and maybe this is serious. But, it can be solved / corrected.

Absolutely! If a damaged gas car had a very small undetected gas leak of 1 drop per hour, what is the potential danger of this quantity leaking for 3 weeks? Would it burn? Would it explode?

My latest theory is that the Volts battery pack is insulated, the Leaf's is not.. once you have a an active cooling failure a shorted cell can generate enough heat to damage nearby cells if the heat cant dissipate.

The lithium manganese spinel chemistry is resistant to thermal runaways, but it will do it if provoked to about 500° F, by contrast all it takes for the cobalt chemistries is 290° F

Ptero, your avatar says you like hydrogen -- there is nothing more unstable and explosive than hydrogen under very high pressure.

As has been pointed out many times, gasoline is incredibly explosive -- each gallon is equivalent to several sticks of dynamite. The fact that it took 3 weeks for the crashed Volt to burn makes this fairly minor, I think.

There certainly can be serious problems with electric battery systems, and maybe this is serious. But, it can be solved / corrected.

Neil, hydrogen is not unstable at all under high pressure, nor is it explosive. Hydrogen becomes explosive only when mixed with 4 percent or more of oxygen. That's a good thing because it is the hydrogen in all of our fuels that reacts with oxygen to produce power. The wonderful thing about pure hydrogen is that when it burns with oxygen it produces pure water as its only byproduct. All the other hydrogen carriers that we use - gasoline, natural gas, propane, diesel - are much more dirty when they work and much more dangerous in an accident. Why? Because they stick around while hydrogen heads toward the stratosphere at a fast clip.

When scientists and engineers spearheaded American industry, they saw a future for refuelable batteries (fuel cells) that used oxygen from the air and hydrogen from renewable energy to create a transportation network to replace the fossil fuel one. They were actively developing that future with significant success, but when the economy collapsed in 2008, the politicians chose the quick fix of advanced chemical batteries to attempt to achieve this goal. Unfortunately, there exist fundamental physical barriers that cannot be overcome in the materials science of chemical battery energy storage. The most serious is fracturing of the lithium storage medium at the microscopic level which creates accumulative resistance, ultimately resulting in heat failure.

Lithium battery technology is the most striking example but the problem becomes apparent whenever high discharge or recharge rates are forced. Aggressive charge and discharge cycles contribute to the breakdown of the material over time. This is not something that can be fixed because, as I have said, it is a fundamental physics problem.

So the situation we are facing with the GM Volt is the politicians telling the engineers what to do. This never turns out well. You may have noticed some very competent companies refusing to go the lithium battery route and stick with metal hydride battery packs instead. This is the reason. Lithium batteries, subjected to aggressive charging and discharging cycles, degrade in their internal structure. This is not a problem you can design out. You can only design in features to deal with the failure. Tesla did this with a ridiculously cost-prohibitive level of modularity. The Volt battery packs, on the other hand, were rushed - and they are nowhere near as modular as the Tesla design.

So what I expect to see is a lot of spin and finger-pointing, then acknowledgement and capitulation. Some heads will roll as scapegoats are designated, the Volt battery packs will be recalled and redesigned at twice the cost, half the range and three times the charging time. This will be financed by taxpayers like me. I don't like it. I like hydrogen.

Not to beat a dead horse to a pulp, but here we go again. I didn't hear about this garage fire that did nearly a million dollars worth of damage to an early adopter's home. Of course, there was a Volt in the garage and it was charging when the fire started.
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/29687054/detail.html
http://www.wsoctv.com/video/29685429/index.html

I don't think this will cause insurance rates to go up for homeowners with Chevy Volts.
I don't think they are going to be able to get homeowner's fire insurance at all.
Kind of like having a shake roof, but worse. Much, much worse.
This won't help sales.
And I don't think the story's over, yet.

To update the hot list:

1) The May garage fire that started it all
2) The NHTSA post-test fire
3) The Charlotte garage fire on November 5
4) A burned up battery pack (post-test) last week and
5) Another smoldering battery pack from the same November test.

Next?

The million dollar fire was proven to NOT come from the car. Toyota, Kia, Tesla are all using lithium and others will follow.

Toyota, Kia, Tesla are all using lithium and others will follow.
Honda too.

Not to beat a dead horse to a pulp, ...
but here we go again.

Here we go again ... beating a dead horse to a pulp.

You're so not a skeptic and so much an opponent it's tragicomic.

Lets hope this doesn't poison the Volt and GM.

Poor Audi TOOK 20 years to recover from the "run away killer car" BS in the 80's.
It was a SCAM- probably lawyer driven- and it nearly ruined Audi in the USA.
Turned out to be oldsters and idiots who hit the go pedal instead of the stop pedal.

I sure hope this is unrelated to the Volt- or something relatively simple-maybe incorrect installation of charging system??
Not good-glad GM is getting ahead of it-loaner cars etc.
Charlie

Chevrolet to offer refunds? http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_VOLT_BATTERY_FIRE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-12-01-14-56-43

Kirk

It wont take much to tarnish the reputation, how many Pinto fires were there?

Yeah the Pinto hurt Ford-not sure how many fires and deaths?? I seem to remember 1 or 2 actual fire caused deaths. Just a few actual fires after accidents-not 100's or anything like that.
Now the EXPLODER(Explorer) problem was actually a big deal with HUGE news coverage for the time (pre internet more or less). I think there was one or two heavily reported accidents with deaths(maybe most of a family).There were many blowouts, but certainly not 100's-or even 10's of deaths injuries.
Somehow Ford managed to get thru the Explorer Episode without being tarnished much.
Not sure how Ford managed that?
It was all caused by a forum pet peeve -TOO LITTLE TIRE PRESSURE!! Ford used "about" 26psi(?) or so for tire pressure. 26 PSI seems awfully low, maybe my memory is wrong.
They were trying to get a cushy ride-instead they got a nightmare.
Firestone however took a huge hit from the Exploder problem.Bankrupt maybe??
Not sure how Ford managed to recover so quickly??
Toyota had the carpet accel problems-and the later scams, oldsters,idiots hitting the wrong pedal- but they really didn't get hurt much by it.
GM is handling this well.Guess they have studied Toyota and Fords responses.

Charlie
PS Maybe they should buy them back then sell one at a HUGE discount-TO ME!!

Akerson said that if necessary, GM will recall the more than 6,000 Volts now on the road in the U.S. and repair them once the company and federal safety regulators figure out what caused the fires. "If we find that is the solution, we will retrofit every one of them," Akerson said. - AP today
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_VOLT_BATTERY_FIRE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-12-01-14-56-43

So what I expect to see is a lot of spin and finger-pointing, then acknowledgement and capitulation. Some heads will roll as scapegoats are designated, the Volt battery packs will be recalled and redesigned at twice the cost, half the range and three times the charging time. This will be financed by taxpayers like me. I don't like it. - Ptero, this a.m.
______________________________

You're so not a skeptic and so much an opponent it's tragicomic. - ItsNotAboutTheMoney

I'm no fan of the Chevy Volt. I didn't like the way it was rushed into production under government pressure. - Ptero, post #3 on this thread
______________________________

The million dollar fire was proven to NOT come from the car. - misirch

Yeah? There's proof, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, opinion, spin and blatant manipulation of sheeple. Pardon me if I don't believe anything just yet (at the risk of being accused of being - gasp! - a skeptic. Or worse, an opponent of cars that burst into flames.) Anyway, aren't you mixing up the fire in Connecticut with the Nov 4 fire in Charlotte? GM was investigating that one, too, shoulder to shoulder with the local fire marshals. - Ptero, now.

As it stands now, the "area of origin" of the fire is the garage, but the "point of origin" has yet to be determined. Investigators will continue to inspect items in the garage.
If they come up short, they may have to resort to sifting through the dirt, ash, debris, and other material from the garage floor, Cloer said. ...Cloer stressed repeatedly that his assessment was preliminary, characterizing it at one point as a "pure unscientific observation" based on his professional experience. Among other information, he is awaiting data from the charging systems in both the Volt and the Siemens charging station. "I've been caught by surprise before," he said, and "there's always something I haven't seen" in fire investigations. - what misirch calls proof
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1068564_fire-marshal-says-nc-garage-fire-started-away-from-chevy-volt-exclusive/page-2
_________________

Akerson also stressed that standard gas engine cars also have problems with fires after crashes. AP today

"All our cars burn up. What's the big deal?" - Ptero paraphrasing now.

Who's head is gonna roll first?

You're so not a skeptic and so much an opponent it's tragicomic. - ItsNotAboutTheMoney

I'm no fan of the Chevy Volt. I didn't like the way it was rushed into production under government pressure. - Ptero, post #3 on this thread

The million dollar fire was proven to NOT come from the car. - misirch

Yeah? There's proof, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, opinion, spin and blatant manipulation of sheeple. Pardon me if I don't believe anything just yet (at the risk of being accused of being - gasp! - a skeptic. Or worse, an opponent of cars that burst into flames.) Anyway, aren't you mixing up the fire in Connecticut with the Nov 4 fire in Charlotte? GM was investigating that one, too, shoulder to shoulder with the local fire marshals. - Ptero, now.[/QUOTE]

You claimed yourself to be a skeptic in an earlier post. You have no expertise and little knowledge and are expressing an opinion. You're not a skeptic. If you were a skeptic you'd be waiting for actual experts with actual knowledge of the incidents to present actual evidence and opinion. Claiming skepticism is a way for people to try and make their opinions seem considered and yours isn't. I just wanted to make that clear with a second post since after my previous post you didn't seem to understand.

Ptero
You said implied that bureaucrats made decisions that should have been made by engineers-just what do you have in mind? Using Lithium?? Or just building the Volt?
I'm sure you have mentioned this, but how do you plan to produce the H2?
Everyone likes H2 as a fuel- but producing it most cleanly (water)takes plenty of energy-producing it from coal "wastes" the coal since "SOME" of coals energy is "with" the C.
Maybe using off peak wind turbines to split water-compress it then ship/pipe it-lotta infrastructure-easier to ship electricity?
It is just tough to economically make.
No one thinks it is more dangerous than gasoline- it isn't.
Charlie

The statement coming out of NHTSA is, "Based on the available data, NHTSA does not believe the Volt or other electric vehicles are at a greater risk of fire than gasoline-powered vehicles," the agency went on to say. "In fact, all vehicles - both electric and gasoline-powered - have some risk of fire in the event of a serious crash."

Ptero,

I have not been very involved on this thread, nor plan to, but a few very general observations.

Influencing minds is your objective - isn't it?

If so, why not start out with a better tempered response and even post on other topics?

It's just human nature when someone comes off strong against some thing, their supporters naturally harden their position - feel a bit like martyrs....I see that happening on this thread. This has been a good thread and everyone has behaved well - I'm just suggesting if you intend to change minds to your viewpoint to change your tactics.

I don't know if the Volt fire is a GM thing, a user thing, or a lithium battery thing. I do know about NiMH batteries in Hondas too well. :(

Just saying....

So many gullible sheeple. So many dead horses to cudgel.

All you starry-eyed folks who think you are witnessing the wonder of American technology at its best being trampled by Ptero need to get a healthy dose of skepticism. History shows two methods of government involvement. Both involve excessive amounts of money being thrown at the problem but one is PUSH and the other is PULL.

NASA was an example of PULL, where the government offered money to corporations who developed new technologies in competition. But The Chevy Volt is an example of push, where the government tells the engineers how to proceed and by what time schedules. Rushing development always turns out badly.

The Volt is going to go down in history as a classic example of this type of mismanagement.

It is now being reported that 33 Volt owners have received loaner cars BUT 5000 more Volt owners are inquiring (or requesting) loaner cars. 5000! That is incredible. (In fact, I don't believe it but there it is, in print.)

And it is also being reported that "the NHTSA held off on its public report to protect [GM] from any hit the Volt might take to its already creaky sales." Just like I had warned you, the government wasn't going to give us the straight dope on this because they had too much skin in the game. (If anyone here has read The Arms of Krupp by William Manchester - doubtful! - you can see where this is all headed.)
http://jalopnik.com/5865082/did-feds-delay-public-disclosure-of-chevy-volt-fire-risk-to-protect-gm-sales
(http://jalopnik.com/5865082/did-feds-delay-public-disclosure-of-chevy-volt-fire-risk-to-protect-gm-sales)
This is exactly what I told you would happen all along. So when you dish out these buckets of criticism based on wishful thinking, be aware that they're splashing right back onto you.

USA Today reports that 12 Volts have been bought back by the company but that dozens of additional requests are waiting in the wings, threatening a flood tide of buy-backs.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/12/few-dozen-owners-ask-gm-to-buy-back-their-chevrolet-volts/1

And this is before first adopters get a chance to see how rapidly the battery packs lose their ability to maintain a full charge (you think this isn't going to be a surprise?).

I like the GM spokesman's response to all this. "Cars catch fire all the time.!" Indeed, USA Today reports that 200,000 burned up last year. Thanks, GM, for making safe cars for us.

Looks like the Volt is destined to become a collector's item (in a burned-down museum).

By the way, my Smart Car is a lot greener than a Volt by any well-to-wheels measure. I could have bought 4 of them for the price of one Volt (with the government $7,500 subsidy). And the subsidy itself would have paid for nearly 100,000 miles of travel at $4/gallon (I've only accumulated 42,000 since 2008).

Just speaking for myself, I have not formed a conclusion yet on if this is another big GM screwup.

GM must have known the Volt would have been scrutinized from top to bottom by luddites.. so yes I blame GM.

This is the best thread I have read on here in a long time. Keep it coming Ptero.

The way these online discussions go, the current "winner" or leader of the discussion (IMHO) is usually determined by the one who can keep posting with minimal response (note some early posters have jumped ship already) and has the longest posts (note: that is my completely non scientific or logical conclusion :)). By that measure, it appears that Ptero is currently ahead (not to be confused with the actual truth or facts).

Guess you folks have already mentioned/seen the report that the fires were caused by a coolant leak - coolant drying causing a short??
FOX reported it-but I don't see tham having any particular ax to grind on the "why" of the fires.

Ptero-the Volt would be relatively easy to transform to a H2 fuel cell vehicle-just as the original GM EV would have been. Just dump the generator-install fuel cell-downsize BP to Prius size(90 lbs)-remove gas tank-install pressure tank-Voila-500 lbs lighter-much much cheaper-
All they would need would be a reliable supply of H2.I'm guessing all the EVs have been built with this in mind.
Charlie

It's not looking good, but remember the Toyota scandal. I'm avoiding forming any opinion until we have more information.

Here's the latest damage from the Volt problem:

Tesla stock has just been downgraded by JP Morgan from $77 to $44. There are claims being made from the investment community that part of this - perhaps the trigger - is due to the Chevy Volt fires.

Charlie, yes, I read about the coolant system rupture in the Volt battery pack. The question immediately arose, "Why would that matter if the battery pack was not charging?" So the obvious suspicion is drawn that the heat build-up was caused by a short. And not just by a typical short, but by the most dangerous kind: a creeping short that develops when the battery is not being used. If so, would passive cooling have played a role? My first thought is to doubt that it would. So for now, to me the coolant rupture is irrelevant. I suspect, based on the NHTSA delay and what I regard as spin and obfuscation, that the problem may be deeper than what is now on the table.

Some of you may have seen the spin documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" Virtually none of the big auto companies ever had much enthusiasm for battery electrics because of range. They realized electric battery vehicles could not compete with petroleum vehicles except in very limited markets. And even if they entered those markets, the capital costs for such limited production would be too high to be profitable without massive government assistance.

But looking down the road, virtually ALL big auto companies saw that the King Hubert curve for peak oil indicated a price entry level for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles using "dirty hydrogen" from natural gas about ten years out. So every big auto company globally embarked on research in electric drive and fuel cells. The scale of this is relatively unknown by the general public. Daimler, for instance, exceeded 2 billion US$ back in 2003. By 2008, every big auto company globally had prototype fuel cell vehicles on the highways of many nations. (BMW stuck to hydrogen ICE engines with a small hydrogen fuel cell to run the electrical systems.)

With the electrical drive chassis fully developed and PEM fuel cells decreasing in size and cost while increasing in power output and efficiency, the US government cut funding of automotive fuel cell research. These funds were at first restored but the action destroyed all confidence by the big US auto makers that they would establish a viable market anytime soon because the market would depend on an enthusiastic government-encouraged build-out of a hydrogen fueling infrastructure.

Charlie, you asked me earlier in a PM if the oil companies could meet the demand. Air Products told USDOT over ten years ago that it would be NO PROBLEM because they were already producing enough hydrogen in their industry (for gasoline enrichment) to supply every hydrogen vehicle that could be built or converted. But the big auto companies were first to understand that the success of hydrogen vehicles in the US depended on a commitment that was lacking. Even worse, they watched the ethanol debacle waste any funding that could have been used for a hydrogen infrastructure. Then to add insult to injury, the message of almost total government incompetence was hammered home in the kangaroo court investigations of auto industry bankruptcy before Congress.

So Obama gets elected to to try to recover the country from the financial disaster brought on by this lack of regulation and incompetence. A lawyer with little technological training, he goes out and picks Steven Chu, a Nobel-winning nuclear physicist, to advise him on what should be done. Chu, a disaster for American technological progress, ignores the protests of the big auto companies, cancels the automotive hydrogen program and tells the companies to put batteries on the electric drive chassis that have been developed. The batteries don't exist, so they throw government money at the problem, telling the engineers what to design, produce and deliver on schedule. But do they require the batteries be made in the U.S.? No, I think LG of South Korea won the contract.

Now we have the Volt to park in our garages. Meanwhile, Tesla, who has really done everything right, takes a huge hit today from the Volt mess. Analysts say that GM did a "mea culpa" with the buy-bake (my typo - ha, ha!) er, buy-back and loaner program which is going to blow everything out of the water. Of course, the Japanese are no fools. If the idiot Americans will subsidize unprofitable electric cars, they'll make them. So we have electric cars that can make a fifty-mile round trip to park next to the Volt in our garage.

We have today two carrier fleets off the coast of Iran. Enjoy the good life while it lasts, folks. Everything is about to turn to ****.

But looking down the road, virtually ALL big auto companies saw that the King Hubert curve for peak oil indicated a price entry level for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles using "dirty hydrogen" from natural gas about ten years out. So every big auto company globally embarked on research in electric drive and fuel cells. The scale of this is relatively unknown. Daimler, for instance, exceeded 2 billion US$ back in 2003. By 2008, every big auto company globally had prototype fuel cell vehicle prototypes on the highways of many nations. (BMW stuck to hydrogen ICE engines with a small hydrogen fuel cell to run the electrical systems.)

How much did your HFCV cost you?

Since there is only one HFCV available to consumers that I know of, it would have to be the Honda Clarity and, if I had one, I would have to live in southern California where there is a hydrogen fueling network, and, if there are any left, you could lease one for $600/mo.
http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/

However, I'm in the niche enrich-natural-gas-with-H2 ICE camp. Although I do own a BMW V12, I haven't begun modifications, so Daimler doesn't have anything to worry about, yet.

On a more serious note, this just came out from The Hill
http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/automobiles/198233-issa-accuses-obama-administration-of-hiding-problem-with-electric-car-batteries

Issa accuses Obama administration of hiding problem with electric car batteries
By Keith Laing - 12/08/11 03:34 PM ET
The chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), and a pair of other Republicans is accusing the Obama administration of hiding problems with the batteries of Chevrolet's Volt because they favored electric cars.

Issa and Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) wrote a letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this week asking for documents related to the agency's inspection of the Chevy Volt.

The electric car's battery has reportedly been catching on fire, according to recent reports, which the lawmakers said NHTSA covered up because the Obama administration was pushing higher fuel efficiency standards.

“As you are aware, the proposed [Corporate Average Fuel Economy] regulations rely heavily on the commercial deployment of electric vehicle technology, and provide manufacturers significant incentives to produce electric vehicles," the lawmakers wrote Wednedsay to NHTSA Administrator David Strickland.

"The administration has heavily touted that Chevrolet Volt as an alternative technology vehicle that could ‘meet or surpass’ the fuel efficiency targets by 2025," they continued. "In light of the administration’s clear promotion of electric vehicle technology, we are deeply troubled by the fact that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has deliberately suppressed public knowledge of the safety risk posed by the Chevrolet Volt’s lithium-ion battery system.”

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has defended the highway safety agency. He told reporters Thursday that it was "absolutely not true" that issues with the Volt were hidden, according to reports, and he has said that the electric cars are safe to drive.

Ptero
"he goes out and picks Steven Chu, a Nobel-winning nuclear physicist, to advise him on what should be done. Chu, a disaster for American technological progress, ignores the protests of the big auto companies, cancels the automotive hydrogen program and tells the companies to put batteries on the electric drive chassis that have been developed"

If it is so obvious that battery power is a loser-no real range, too heavy,too expensive-sure looks -for now- like a loser-
And H2 is just a few hundred billion$$(maybe 2 years of the Iraq war) from being the perfect answer to our foreign oil problem
WHY WASN'T THIS OBVIOUS TO CHU ???
When someone tells me someone smart is doing something really dumb-I need a WHY?
1)PAID OFF CORRUPT?Can't be since coal,oil,natural gas companies should love H2- no way battery companiescan out pay them.
2) OR SUDDENLY GOT STUPID/STROKE/CRAZY/
3)CHINESE DOUBLE AGENT?
4) Or Is he just far less optimistic about the ease/efficiency with which H2 can be produced?

Yeah smart people make huge mistakes-
for 50 years bright MDs operated on millions of people((100,000's died)-cut nerves etc-to "cure/treat" ulcers
and completely ignored/discounted the easily treated bacteria that were actually causing the ulcers.In hindsight it was obvious-,but smart folks believed smart folks-so...

Why did Chu do it?
Charlie
PS So we hit the wall on oil-price spikes-will drive us to other energy sources-we have more resources than China(Coal,oil,NG,wind,water arable land, stable GOV -lotta well educated people who actually want to be here)-
China on the other hand-who wants to live in China-smog ridden, overpopulated ,polluted near hell on earth marginally stable, amoral people (poison their own babies to make a $$)
Yeah,I don't see such a bleak future.--China-reminds me of all the whining about Japanese buying the USA in the 70's-80's-
USA still has lots going for it-more than anywhere else

WHY WASN'T THIS OBVIOUS TO CHU ???
When someone tells me someone smart is doing something really dumb-I need a WHY?
1)PAID OFF CORRUPT?Can't be since coal,oil,natural gas companies should love H2- no way battery companiescan out pay them.
2) OR SUDDENLY GOT STUPID/STROKE/CRAZY/
3)CHINESE DOUBLE AGENT?
4) Or Is he just far less optimistic about the ease/efficiency with which H2 can be produced?


Obama Hydrogen Fuel Failure Conceded by Chu Paring Budget: Cars
By Alan Ohnsman and Brian Wingfield
BLOOMBERG
June 14, 2011 12:00 AM EDT
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-14/obama-hydrogen-fuel-failure-conceded-by-chu-paring-budget-cars

Energy Secretary Steven Chu, whose mandate includes getting more fuel-efficient cars on U.S. roads, is disregarding advisers in his own department and seeking to cut almost half the federal funding for hydrogen-powered autos.
A Nobel Prize-winning physicist who also researched advanced biofuels, Chu says hydrogen fuel-cell technology developed by carmakers such as General Motors Co. (GM), Daimler AG (DAI) and Toyota Motor Corp. (7203) isn’t yet practical. Auto companies and members of a government panel say he’s wrong and that they will be ready to market such cars by 2015.
“Secretary Chu has firmly set his mind against hydrogen as a passenger-car fuel,” Mary Nichols, chairwoman of California’s Air Resources Board, said in an interview with Bloomberg Government. Her agency’s regulations affect more drivers than any other state’s. “Frankly, his explanations don’t make sense to me. They are not based on the facts as we know them.”
The Obama administration’s fading support for hydrogen is a challenge for carmakers who say advanced gasoline engines, batteries, biofuels and fuel cells are all needed to curb U.S. oil consumption and carbon emissions. Chu’s proposed budget, which cuts funds for hydrogen stations, creates roadblocks for retail sales of fuel-cell cars, the companies say.
Chu is “hostile to hydrogen,” Robert Walker, a former member of the Energy Department’s Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee, said in an interview. Walker, executive chairman of Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates, a Washington lobbying firm, and a former Republican House member from Pennsylvania, resigned from the panel in April over the budget proposal.

‘More Likely’ Options
Chu, 63, has advocated battery cars and biofuels as options more likely to meet U.S. energy and environmental goals in the near term. Discounting hydrogen means the U.S. risks falling behind Japan, Germany and South Korea in the technology because those nations are moving ahead with plans for extensive fuel- station networks to serve buyers of the cars.
“The secretary believes that we should fund fuel-cell research and development as part of a diverse energy portfolio, including both stationary and mobile applications -- and we are,” said Stephanie Mueller, an Energy Department spokeswoman.

Chu, who said in 2009 that the Obama administration was “going to be moving away from hydrogen-fuel cells for vehicles,” declined a request for an interview.

$4 a Gallon
Consumer interest in alternative-fuel vehicles has grown this year as gasoline neared $4 a gallon. U.S. drivers bought about 275,000 gasoline-electric hybrids last year, led by Toyota’s Prius, and GM and Nissan Motor Co. are boosting sales of rechargeable Volt and Leaf vehicles.
“Fuel-cell technology is viable and ready for the mass market,” Chris Hostetter, Toyota’s U.S. group vice president for advanced planning, said in a May 10 interview at the opening of a hydrogen filling station in Torrance, California. “Building an extensive hydrogen refueling infrastructure is the critical next step in bringing these products to market.”
Automotive fuel cells are layers of platinum-coated plastic film sandwiched between metal plates that create electricity from the chemical reaction of hydrogen and oxygen. Vehicles use the same type of electric motors and controls as battery-only models, and neither emits tailpipe pollutants.

$10 Billion Bet
Toyota plans to sell a fuel-cell car in the U.S. and other markets by 2015 or sooner, Hostetter said. Japan’s largest automaker has said the model may sell for about $50,000, without elaborating.
Honda Motor Co. and Daimler offer a limited number of fuel- cell vehicles for lease in the U.S. Honda reported 17 leases last year, none yet this year. Daimler reports four leases through May this year. Automakers estimated the cost of fuel- cell vehicles was about $1 million each as recently as five years ago.
Globally, automakers have poured an estimated $10 billion into fuel-cell vehicle research, saying hydrogen provides range and rapid fueling that is comparable to gasoline and superior to plug-in electrics.
The Energy Department cut hydrogen funding to make way for biofuels, battery vehicles and increased fuel-efficiency standards, Steven Chalk, deputy assistant secretary for renewable energy, said in an interview.

‘Folks Are Frustrated’
“If folks are frustrated with that position, I understand that,” Chalk said. In a time of budget constraints, “we’re trying to focus on the things that are going to make the impact in the time frame that matters, which is in the next five years.”
The $100 million the department is requesting for hydrogen, down from $177 million provided in the 2010 fiscal year, “is still quite an investment, and we think we can be competitive,” he said.
President George W. Bush announced a $720 million research and development effort for hydrogen-powered cars in his 2003 State of the Union address. Congress in 2005 created the advisory committee that Walker ran, which tracks progress by fuel-cell manufacturers, automakers and energy companies pushing to commercialize hydrogen technology.
During his two years on the job, Chu hasn’t met with the committee, according to Walker and Chalk.
Chu told the Senate Appropriations energy and water development subcommittee on May 18 that hydrogen tanks for fuel- cell vehicles are inadequate and that the technology contributes to carbon emissions, linked to climate change, because natural gas is the main source of industrial hydrogen.

Carbon Emissions
Toyota, Honda, GM, Daimler and Hyundai Motor Co. (005380) all say the hydrogen tanks on fuel-cell vehicles they’re testing in California and elsewhere provide the same range of 250 miles (402 kilometers) to 400 miles as gasoline autos.
Vehicles powered by hydrogen made from natural gas produce at least 50 percent fewer carbon emissions than the cleanest gasoline autos, according to Energy Department estimates.
Natural gas “will have to be significantly more abundant and less costly,” to make hydrogen affordable, Chu said at the Senate hearing.
Natural gas prices have fallen 66 percent since July 3, 2008, when it reached $13.577 per million British thermal units. The price for July delivery declined to $4.646 per million BTUs yesterday on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
“Why is it that the secretary can’t look at the data, look at the facts, and arrive at the same conclusion that his own advisory committee has reached?” Robert Shaw, who is chairman of the 18-member advisory panel, said in an interview. Shaw is president of Arete Corp., a venture capital-fund manager based in Center Harbor, New Hampshire.
Taxpayer Funds
“It’s just not a good use of taxpayer funds,” Joseph Romm, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said in an interview. Romm’s duties as an Energy Department official during the Clinton administration included supervising the hydrogen program.
Without an adequate refueling infrastructure, few consumers are going to buy hydrogen vehicles, he said. Without knowing whether the autos will be a success, there’s little incentive to build stations.
The U.S. has 58 hydrogen fueling stations, according to the Energy Department.

Germany, Japan
In 2009, Germany announced plans for 1,000 hydrogen stations. In January, Japan said it will have 100 hydrogen stations in place by 2015, and South Korea may have 50 by the end of next year and more than 100 by the end of the decade.
Electric vehicles can plug directly into wall outlets. They have the highest “bang for the buck,” Romm said.
Making hydrogen from natural gas costs $3 to $4 per kilogram, or the equivalent of a gallon of gasoline, Shaw said in a March letter to Chu, and fuel-cell vehicles are twice as efficient as gasoline autos.
Air Products & Chemicals Inc. (APD), the second-biggest U.S. industrial-gas producer, estimates it can sell hydrogen from natural gas for about $5 per kilogram, Ed Kiczek, the company’s senior business development manager, said in an interview.
The company, based in Allentown, Pennsylvania, plans to install hydrogen fuel pumps at 10 or more Southern California gasoline stations in the next two years, he said.
California expects automakers to sell at least 53,000 hydrogen vehicles in the state to comply with emissions rules in 2015 through 2017, Nichols, head of the state air board, said, citing her agency’s surveys of automakers. Those saying hydrogen vehicles won’t be ready haven’t been keeping pace with advances made by automakers, she said.
“The conventional view is always a few years out of date, unfortunately,” Nichols said. “There’s also just a wrong premise that these different fuels have to compete with other, and one has to be a winner. We need all of them.”
To contact the reporters on this story: Alan Ohnsman in Los Angeles at aohnsman@bloomberg.net; Brian Wingfield in Washington at bwingfield3@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Larry Liebert at lliebert@bloomberg.net; Kae Inoue at kinoue@bloomberg.net

In an appearance on MSNBC's Morning Joe, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) compares subsidies for Chevrolet's electric car to the Iran-Contra scandal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRBI-IyDJ0k

California electric vehicle maker Aptera closes doors
December 2, 2011
San Francisco Chronicle
...The company was headquartered in Carlsbad, Calif., the district of House Republican Darrell Issa, a big critic of bankrupt Fremont solar manufacturer Solyndra.
_______________

Issa is pissed at Chu. He thinks Chu is fiscally incompetent. He's not against green tech, that I can tell, and he co-sponsored the original hybrids in Diamond Lanes bill in California. He must suspect that Aptera failed in part because a lot of the money available for electric vehicle start-ups had been siphoned off by the government assistance to the Chevy Volt. Of course, Tesla got a chunk of that and my personal opinion is that Aptera would have failed even if it had received the OUTRAGEOUS $150MM funding it wanted. Only nuts like me would have bought one.

Anyway, Issa may be the front man to force removal of Chu. Things are moving fast. Personally, I doubt any good will come of anything anyone does. I disagree with the previous poster that America leads the world. We threw our lead away. The billions of dollars spent on research by the US government in hydrogen tech resulted in what should have been lucrative patents, but as companies floundered due to lack of government clarity and support, a great deal of that intellectual property was SOLD to foreign nations, i.e. Russia: PLUG POWER and a host of others. The only way it's coming back is when we import hydrogen PRODUCTS built in other countries, just like any other marginalized, bankrupt nation. But we'll never be able to pay for a hydrogen infrastructure now. Get ready to see what $200/bbl oil does to America (aka get out of the cities now).

I'm just curious about the proposed supply of hydrogen. If a big part of the point of using HFCEVs is to reduce dependency on a finite, non-renewable fuel source, why would we consider it when the most cost competitive method of obtaining hydrogen is from another finite, non-renewable fuel source? Not only does that appear to be a delay tactic rather than a solution (what's the next step when NG runs low, too?), but the lowest cost proposed for commercial production is over a dollar higher than gasoline? We can't even get most people to pay a substantially lower premium for diesel fuel.

Don't mistake my questions for a dislike of the tech – I think it is a beautiful dream and I'm impressed with the recent improvements in fuel cell durability. I've said many times in these forums that I think a hydrogen infrastructure is perfectly possible… but it is going to require a conscious, national decision to simply pay the extra cost of a sustainable generation mechanism and the net negative use of energy. It is hard to convince people to switch when it both costs more and has to compete with oil (which still returns more energy than we put into recovering and refining it).

the lowest cost proposed for commercial production is over a dollar higher than gasoline

Sean, hydrogen has been cheaper that gasoline for decades and is getting cheaper with every new solar roof and wind turbine. The real cost of $60/bbl oil in 2006 is explained below. Believe me, things have not gotten better.

In fact, the less oil there is, the more oil companies make from it. Do you know how that works? Or is it just me? This is not going to work out well...

TESTIMONY OF MILTON R. COPULOS
PRESIDENT, NATIONAL DEFENSE COUNCIL FOUNDATION
BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE
MARCH 30, 2006 (http://lugar.senate.gov/energy/hearings/pdf/060330/CopulosTestimony060330.pdf)

...The principal reason why we are not fully aware of the true economic cost of our import
dependence is that it largely takes the form of what economists call “externalities,” that 4
is, costs or benefits caused by production or consumption of a specific item, but not
reflected in its pricing. It is important to understand that even though external costs or
benefits may not be reflected in the price of an item, they nonetheless are real.

In October of 2003, my organization, The National Defense Council Foundation, issued
“America’s Achilles Heel: The Hidden Costs of Imported Oil,” a comprehensive analysis
of the external costs of imported oil. The study entailed the review of literally hundreds
of thousands of pages of documents, including the entire order of battle of America’s
armed forces and more than a year of effort. Its conclusions into divided the externalities
into three basic categories: Direct and Indirect economic costs, Oil Supply Disruption
Impacts and Military Expenditures.

Taken together, these costs totaled $304.9 billion annually, the equivalent of adding
$3.68 to the price of a gallon of gasoline imported from the Persian Gulf.

As high as these costs were, however, they were based on a crude oil refiner acquisition
cost of $26.92. Today, crude oil prices are hovering around $60 per barrel and could
easily increase significantly. Indeed, whereas in 2003 we spent around $99 billion to
purchase foreign crude oil and refined petroleum products, in 2005 we spent more than
$251 billion, and this year we will spend at least $320 billion.

But skyrocketing crude oil prices were not the only factor affecting oil-related
externalities. Defense expenditures also changed.

In 2003, our armed forces allocated $49.1 billion annually to maintaining the capability
to assure the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf.

I should note that expenditures for this purpose are not new. Indeed, last year marked the
60th anniversary of the historic meeting between Saudi monarch King Abdul Aziz and
U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt where he first committed our nation to assuring the
flow of Persian Gulf oil – a promise that has been reaffirmed by every succeeding
President, without regard to party.

In 1983 the implicit promise to protect Persian Gulf oil supplies became an explicit
element of U.S. military doctrine with the creation of the United States Central
Command, CENTCOM. CENTCOM’s official history makes this clear stating in part:
“Today’s command evolved as a practical solution to the problem of projecting U.S.
military power to the Gulf region from halfway around the world.”

I am stressing the long-standing nature of our commitment to the Gulf to underscore the
fact that our estimates of military expenditures there are not intended as a criticism. Quite
the opposite, in fact. Without oil our economy could not function, and therefore
protecting our sources of oil is a legitimate defense mission, and the current military
operation in Iraq is part of that mission.

To date, supplemental appropriations for the Iraq War come to more than $251 billion, or
an average of $83.7 billion per year. As a result, when other costs are included, the total
military expenditures related to oil now total $132.7 billion annually.

So, where does that leave us?

In 2003, as noted, we estimated that the “hidden cost” of imported oil totaled $304.9
billion. When we revisited the external costs, taking into account the higher prices for
crude oil and increased defense expenditures we found that the “hidden cost” had
skyrocketed to $779.5 billion in 2005. That would be equivalent to adding $4.10 to the
price of a gallon of gasoline if amortized over the total volume of imports. For Persian
Gulf imports, because of the enormous military costs associated with the region, the
“hidden cost” was equal to adding $7.41 cents to the price of a gallon of gasoline. When
the nominal cost is combined with this figure it yields a “true” cost of $9.53 per gallon,
but that is just the start.

Because the price of crude oil is expected to remain the $60 range this year, expenditures
for imports are expected to be at least $320 billion this year. That amounts to an increase
of $70 billion in spending for foreign oil in just one year. That increase would raise the
total import premium or “hidden cost” to $825.1 billion, or almost twice the President’s
$419.3 billion defense budget request for fiscal year 2006. If all costs are amortized over
the total volume of imports, that would be equivalent to adding $5.04 to the price of a
gallon of gasoline. For Persian Gulf imports, the premium would be $8.35. This would
bring the “real” price of a gallon of gasoline refined from Persian Gulf oil to $10.86. At
these prices the “real” cost of filling up a family sedan is $217.20, and filling up a large
SUV $325.80.

Come along get you ready, wear your bran, bran new gown,
For dere's gwine to be a meeting in that good, dum strange town,
Where you knowed ev'ry body, and they all knowed you,
And you've got a rabbits foot to keep away the hoodoo;
Where you hear that the preaching does begin,
Bend down low for to drive away your sin
And when you gets religion, you want to shout and sing
There'll be a hot time in the old town tonight!
_________________________________

Complete Letter from Chairman of House Subcommittee on Oversight and Government Reform
and from Chairman of Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight, and Government Spending
to the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
demanding information on why the NHTSA delayed the release of information concerning the Volt battery fires
December 7, 2011

PDF
http://www.freep.com/assets/freep/pdf/C4182668128.PDF

Excerpts

"In light of the Administrations clear promotion of electric vehicle technology, we are deeply troubled by the fact that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has deliberately surpressed public knowledge of the safety risk posed by the Chevrolet Volt."

"Despite the serious risk posed by these vehicles, NHTSA delayed disclosing the safety deficiencies in the Volt battery system. According to reports, NHTSA became aware of the battery fire in June 2011 - shortly after the crash test - but did not publicly disclose the problem until November 2011."

"NHTSA was aware of the safety deficiencies when you testified before the Subcommittee on October 12, 2011. ...Yet at no point did NHTSA publicly acknowledge any deficiencies or safety concerns with alternative technologies needed to meet the increased fuel economy/emissions mandates."

"On Dec. 6, 2011, Secretary LaHood reportedly stated that the Volt is 'safe to drive.' It is unclear how this conclusion can be reached before NHTSA has concluded a full evaluation of the cause of the vehicle fires."

"Did NHTSA delay disclosure of the safety problems so as not to harm sales of the Chevrolet Volt?"

"Did anyone within the Executive Office of the President request that NHTSA delay the public release of the fire risk posed by the Chevrolet Volt?"

"Did anyone within the Executive Office of the President communicate with NHTSA about the risk posed by the Chevrolet Volt?"

"Please provide all documents and communications referring or relating to safety concerns for lithium-ion batteries in general and the Chevrolet Volt in particular."

http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Ktg7PkwqF0pcLmNOhZND8w--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://l.yimg.com/os/290/2011/12/01/chevrolet-volt-plug-melt_182915.jpg

Another Chevy Volt fire risk? Power cords may ignite (http://autos.yahoo.com/news/hot-wired--chevy-volt-cords-prone-to-melting.html) Autoblog Dec 1 2011

Buyers Are More Skittish About Chevrolet Volt, Says New Survey (http://www.insideline.com/chevrolet/volt/buyers-are-more-skittish-about-chevrolet-volt-says-new-survey.html) Edmunds Dec 8, 2011
The study found that 47 percent of EV enthusiasts said they would consider a Volt in December versus 71.2 percent in March.

Extension cords or multi plugs are both banned by Chevy and Nissan. There are large labels and warnings on the charging cords to plug them into an outlet ONLY.

Yeah, it kinda points out a problem all electric car manufacturers are going to have - having their cars driven by dummies. Like the problems with people smoking and gassing up their cars at the pump.

But that 3-way plug incident occurred a year ago and is not the main point of the article. You should read it.

Have you calculated how much solar power you'd need to create enough hydrogen just to fuel a typical neighborhood of vehicles?

You know those solar cells are made in China right?.. they eat kittens overthere

they eat kittens over there
... the other white meat.

__________________________________

*** CHEVY VOLT LITHIUM BATTERIES - WHY THE PROBLEM IS SERIOUS ***
__________________________________

GM Inks Chevrolet Volt Battery Contract (http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-inks-chevrolet-volt-battery-contract.html#)
October 24, 2008

"The Volt’s lithium-ion batteries have been seen as the vehicle’s linchpin, with the deal likely indicating the Volt’s biggest obstacle has been overcome."
__________________________________

DOE Report: Lithium-ion Batteries Are Not Ready for Prime Time (http://seekingalpha.com/article/120764-doe-report-lithium-ion-batteries-are-not-ready-for-prime-time)
February 16, 2009

"Abuse Tolerance – Many Li batteries are not intrinsically tolerant to abusive conditions such as a short circuit (including an internal short circuit), overcharge, over-discharge, crush, or exposure to fire and / or other high temperature environments. The use of Li chemistry in these larger (energy) batteries increases the urgency to address these issues."
__________________________________

Lithium-Ion Battery Safety Study Using Multi-Physics Internal Short-Circuit Model (http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/energystorage/pdfs/45856.pdf)
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
June 9, 2009

"Li-Ion thermal runaway due to internal short-circuit is a major safety concern. Other safety concerns may be controlled by electrical and mechanical methods. Initial latent defects leading to later internal shorts may not be easily controlled, and evolve into a hard short through various mechanisms: separator wear-out, metal dissolution and deposition on electrode surface, or extraneous metal debris penetration, etc."
__________________________________

Researchers offer hope of solving Lithium battery safety problems (http://www.gizmag.com/solving-lithium-battery-safety-problem/15164/)
May 20, 2010

"The reason lithium-ion batteries do catch fire involves tiny lithium particles that form fibers known as dendrites. Over several charge/discharge cycles, these dendrites can accumulate on the battery’s carbon anodes. Once that happens, short circuits can occur, resulting in rapid overheating and combustion. Scientists have previously been able to study the principles of dendrite formation using theoretical models and microscopes, but had not been able to quantify the amount of dendrites formed... until now. Using Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, the Cambridge scientists were able to watch the chemical reactions actually taking place within a 1-cm long battery enclosed in an aluminum bag. While they have yet to figure out a way of dealing with the dendrites, it’s definitely a step in the right direction."

"Fire safety is a major problem that must be solved before we can get to the next generation of lithium-ion batteries and before we can safely use these batteries in a wider range of transportation applications. Now that we can monitor dendrite formation inside intact batteries, we can identify when they are formed and under what conditions,” wrote Professor Clare Grey of the Department of Chemistry. “Our new method should allow researchers to identify which conditions lead to dendrite formation and to rapidly screen potential fixes to prevent the problem."
____________________________________

NMR gets inside lithium-ion batteries (http://www.spectroscopynow.com/coi/cda/detail.cda?id=23778&type=Feature&chId=5&page=1)
June 1, 2010

"In rechargeable lithium batteries, the positive electrode is commonly made of lithium cobalt oxide, the negative electrode of carbon, and the electrolyte is an organic solvent. In use, lithium ions migrate from the negative electrode to the positive electrode, producing an electric current as they do so. In the reverse process, to recharge the battery, positive lithium ions are now pushed through the electrolyte from the positive to the negative electrode by an external current. Rapid charging can sometimes cause the build-up of lithium metal deposits on the negative electrode, the Li ions plating on the electrodes rather than inserting inside the graphic carbon."
____________________________________

2010 DOE Vehicle Technologies Program Review (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/merit_review_2010/electrochemical_storage/es094_janke_2010_p.pdf)
June 8, 2010

"Lithium metal batteries are plagued by short lifetimes that have prevented their application in hybrid electric vehicles. The short lifetime results from roughening of and lithium dendrite growth on the lithium surface. This dendrite punctures the separator or polymer electrolyte and creates an internal short."

"The objective is to significantly harden the PEO surface to prevent dendrite growth with no or little effect on lithium ion mobility, hence no or little performance
reduction. The problem of current technology is that once you harden PEO to acceptable levels, it loses its conductivity."
____________________________________

Improved lithium batteries (http://www.materialstoday.com/view/10581/improved-lithium-batteries/)
June 28, 2011

"There have always been concerns over their fire safety – as after several charge and discharge cycles, potentially dangerous tiny lithium fibres, known as dendrites, can form on the carbon anodes. These fibres can short circuit the battery, causing it to overheat and catch fire. This can also happen if the battery is charged too quickly, where Li is deposited on the carbon-forming dendrites rather than inserting into the carbon."
_____________________________________

First Chevrolet Volt Delivered on December 11, 2010 (http://www.gizmag.com/two-firsts-for-chevy-volt/17289/)
_____________________________________

Ptero sez: The only logical explanation for Chu going ahead with the Volt and its known faulty lithium-ion batteries is that he planned to recall the faulty packs and issue advanced, supposedly safer packs after a year or two; redesigned battery packs that had a better chance of not exploding (later) into flames. This is not a business model. This is wishful thinking, ignoring your own scientists, and playing fast and loose with taxpayer money. He must have assumed the packs would have lasted that long. But it looks like he was wrong. Or stupid. Either way, you Volt owners are sooooooooooo screwed. It's not likely, in my opinion, that the next packs will be much better. Although this is just beginning, you have my condolences in advance. Oh, one more thing. Remember what happened to ALL GM warranties the last time the company ran out of money? Don't think it can"t happen again.

Have you calculated how much solar power you'd need to create enough hydrogen just to fuel a typical neighborhood of vehicles?

8 kW per car
http://ieahia.org/pdfs/honda.pdf

Wow. Look at this.
The Ford Focus Electric uses essentially the same batteries as the Volt...

http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2012_Focus_Elec_Specs.pdf

I bet they're panicked right now.

Ptero
1)If it is a nearly unsolvable "big" lithium battery problem-then The Leaf should start bursting into flames.
2)If the Leaf battery folks solved the problem-then the GM hired guns should be able to solve it (or steal the solution-pretend to change it a bit)-and dodge any patent protection.

In any case it isn't that big a deal since GM isn't making anything from these Volts-and maybe the whole project is just an exercise on the way to fuel cell electric cars.
Granted it did cost a few $$
And even if the batteries could carry 3x the energy(same price same bulk but certainly heavier) a Leaf would not be trip to granny or beach capable.
Pure EVs sure look like tiny market share vehicles strictly for affluent green liberals.
Frugal greens and frugal conservatives will buy a Sonic.

Back to the in the ground "H2 CH4" COAL MINING.
If there is 100 joules of recoverable coal in the ground-how maybe joules of H2 do you get-at the top of the well?
Thanks
Charlie
PS Guess it is in that article but I just scanned it-

http://www.mpoweruk.com/images/lithium_window.gif

The trick to preventing dendrite formation in Li-metal batteries is to keep the charge/discharge cycles within this window. Push the boundaries and you're asking for trouble. I've always thought this to be a pretty dangerous technology better suited to military rather than consumer applications - but even then, for backup power, not for primary propulsion of military vehicles, which would be ridiculous.

In a competitive commercial environment, bragging rights fall to the company that comes closest to endangering the public by pushing the materials science boundaries. We are likely witnessing this now, buried in the ubiquitous spin. Manufacturers ready to prove their li-metal battery-equipped cars are safer than the Volt will have to deliver lower performance, flawless control systems and mil-spec quality. The Japanese are very good at this. But one look at the extension cord supplied with the Volt or the lack of battery protection (common among Japanese competitors) tells you all you need to know about GM's approach.

In October, GM contracted A123 Systems to produce Li-Phosphate batteries (http://wot.motortrend.com/chevrolet-not-using-volt-technology-on-spark-electric-battery-144657.html) for the upcoming Spark Electric. Analysts are saying that an announcement by GM to replace all the Volt battery packs with Li-Phosphate battery packs is only weeks away. Why? Lithium metal is proving to be too dangerous - just like the National Laboratories warned Stephen Chu. (Li-Phosphate batteries have their own set of problems but the energy release of internal shorts is much lower.) Say goodbye to your electric range numbers, Volt owners.

And I disagree with you that this isn't a big deal. The build out of short-range urban electric vehicles is a very important part of turning away from imported oil and ensuring our national security. Public perception is key. Things have to be done right. GM has floundered under the flawed guidance of the US government. Now the entire roll-out of BEVs has gotten a black eye.

Neat graph, and accurate.. do you have one for gasoline?

I must have mentioned that I had a lithium battery flashlight "blow up" on me in the middle of the night.
Flash-POP- acrid smoke and blue/green flame from the burning flashlight-guess it was the rubber coating burning-vaporizing a bit of lithium
I was impressed.
Bulb went kaput earlier in the evening-didn't turn it off-must have shorter-5 hours later-POP
two of those 3v 123?? batteries
Charlie
ps-yeah it isn't great, but $30,000 and $40,000 small cars without much elect ric range weren't going to make much difference.Most folks are completely oblivious to it.
And we aren't going to shed foreign energy with $100 oil-it will take maybe $175 and $6 gas to do that.

In October, GM contracted A123 Systems to produce Li-Phosphate batteries (http://wot.motortrend.com/chevrolet-not-using-volt-technology-on-spark-electric-battery-144657.html) for the upcoming Spark Electric. Analysts are saying that an announcement by GM to replace all the Volt battery packs with Li-Phosphate battery packs is only weeks away. Why? Lithium metal is proving to be too dangerous

That article COULD be wrong, my bet that GM chose A123 because they got a good deal.. plus a more durable battery..

There is no lithium metal used in the Volt's battery.. it's in a lithium oxide form, otherwise it would be dangerous. You can get lithium metal plating out of the electrolyte if you overcharge at high voltages, it will ruin the battery and could be bad if you get enough pure lithium deposited.

Lithum-Ion cells have to be properly managed or they can be expensive failures or even a fire hazard. I think dripping gasoline around a hot exhaust manifold is worse, the Feds should have banned gasoline years ago and mandated diesel.. far safer.

Just think about it, a $0.25 gasket is all that stands between you and a gasoline fire in your car. They ought to do something..

Well, I'm a NASCAR fan. I can't understand why 35 thousand people are dying on our highways every year. It must just be me. The auto companies really care about us.

I have an idea for their gasoline cars. Let's mount a lithium battery underneath the gas tank.

Oh. They already did that?

They did, there is a video around of the bottom of a Volt undergoing a crash test, they color the battery and fuel tank different so you can see whats going on.. the tanks buts up to the battery.. Here is a module crash test:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4DrJ5iqWOM

I must be hearing things. Didn't GM say they'd buy back the Volt if people were worried about it?

General Motors will buy a Chevrolet Volt back from any owner who is afraid the plug-in extended-range electric car will catch fire, the company's CEO told the Associated Press today.
USA Today December 2, 2011
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/12/gm-general-motors-buy-back-chevrolet-volts-crash-fires/1

Now they're saying they wouldn't do that because "there's a third group we've heard from that said, hey, I love my Volt, unfortunately I'm a little bit over miles on my lease. I'm going to take advantage of the loaner program and use it to kinda protect myself" (from putting exceeding the mileage limitation of their Volt lease agreement).

It's you rotten, coniving customers that are the problem!

GM Denies Buy-Back Program for Volt
http://www.autoobserver.com/2011/12/volt-spokesman-says-battery-reports-off-the-mark.html

But you rotten customers don't need to worry. GM will take care of any problem. Unless they choose not to.
I mean, the Volt was designed by the "Old GM", right?
It's not really New GM's fault.

GM says bankruptcy excuses it from Impala repairs
New GM said not responsible to fix Impala made by old GM
Fri Aug 19, 2011
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/19/gm-impala-lawsuit-idUSN1E77I0Z820110819

But in a recent filing with the U.S. District Court in Detroit, GM noted that the cars were made by its predecessor General Motors Corp, now called Motors Liquidation Co or "Old GM," before its 2009 bankruptcy and federal bailout.

The current company, called "New GM," said it did not assume responsibility under the reorganization to fix the Impala problem, but only to make repairs "subject to conditions and limitations" in express written warranties. In essence, the automaker said, Trusky sued the wrong entity.

"New GM's warranty obligations for vehicles sold by Old GM are limited to the express terms and conditions in the Old GM written warranties on a going-forward basis," wrote Benjamin Jeffers, a lawyer for GM. "New GM did not assume responsibility for Old GM's design choices, conduct, or alleged breaches of liability under the warranty."

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
No sympathy.
http://youtu.be/rWHniL8MyMM
http://youtu.be/kk-LH0-Wq4g

I must be hearing things. Didn't GM say they'd buy back the Volt if people were worried about it?

General Motors will buy a Chevrolet Volt back from any owner who is afraid the plug-in extended-range electric car will catch fire, the company's CEO told the Associated Press today.
USA Today December 2, 2011
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/12/gm-general-motors-buy-back-chevrolet-volts-crash-fires/1

Now they're saying they wouldn't do that because "there's a third group we've heard from that said, hey, I love my Volt, unfortunately I'm a little bit over miles on my lease. I'm going to take advantage of the loaner program and use it to kinda protect myself" (from putting exceeding the mileage limitation of their Volt lease agreement).

It's you rotten, conniving customers that are the problem!


GM Denies Buy-Back Program for Volt
http://www.autoobserver.com/2011/12/volt-spokesman-says-battery-reports-off-the-mark.html


Just to be clear to people who don't bother to read the linked article:
- the article says they'll consider any buy-backs on a case-by-case basis rather than have a formal program.
- the above quote relates to the loaner vehicle that GM are currently making available to Volt owners and lessees and it wasn't given by GM as a reason not to do a formal buyback program.

Ptero, did GM kill your father or something like that?.. throw in an anti-Toyota rant once in a while for balance.

There is one Volt that I know of that GM is considering giving him a new 2012 for his 2011 so they can study it. He has not had any trouble with his and is NOT considering a buy back.

Good one, Herm !

Ptero, did GM kill your father or something like that?.. throw in an anti-Toyota rant once in a while for balance.

Ask and ye shall receive:
__________________________

Consumer Reports’ Chevy Volt Safety Double Standard
Submitted by Mark Modica on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 08:51

In January of 2010 USA Today reported that Consumer Reports (CR) temporarily suspended its recommended rating for eight Toyota models. This was in response to the possibility of Toyota models being unsafe as accusations were made that the vehicles had sudden acceleration problems and NHTSA investigated the alleged incidents. In CRs' words, "Although incidents of sudden acceleration are rare, we are taking this action because the vehicles have been identified as potentially unsafe without a fix yet being available to consumers." CRs' response to the Chevy Volt NHTSA fires is quite different from the Toyota response.

Change a few words on CRs' comments to fit the Volt situation and we would have justification for removal of CRs' recommended rating on President Obama's favorite car. That's not happening. The latest internet headlines to hit regarding CR and the Volt tout that the Volt, as well as the Nissan Leaf, are "cheaper to run" than gasoline cars. CR supplies a chart that uses hypothetical driving circumstances that benefit the Volt and only assumes gas usage as the "cost" of a vehicle. Usually, cost of operating or owning a vehicle would take into consideration the price of the vehicle and depreciation, the most important aspects of net costs. It is ludicrous to suggest that the Chevy Volt, which cost over $40,000, saves owners money over similar gas vehicles which are priced about half as much. CR continues to lose credibility with its apparently biased (or influenced) coverage of the Chevy Volt.

A few months ago, CR gave the Volt a recommended rating based on favorable predicted reliability data. The problem with the credibility of the rating is that the surveys utilized to predict reliability were done early this year at a time when there were limited numbers of Volts on the road. CR, the Obama Administration and General Motors would have consumers believe that Volt reliability could be predicted after having been in use for only months, and in limited numbers!

So, what did CR have to say about the Volt safety issues and how does it compare to their response to the Toyota NHTSA investigation? Regarding the Volt fires, CR stated, "As with any new technology, indeed any safety concern, it is imperative to follow all manufacturer-recommended safety precautions. The public has had more than 100 years to adapt to the safety requirements of gasoline, an inherently dangerous fuel. Now the challenge is to develop the same awareness for electrified and electric cars." While CR erred on the side of safety for Toyota issues, they continue to promote the Volt, even though they initially denounced the vehicle and stated that it didn't make a lot of sense. Somewhere between then and now, CR has suspiciously changed their tune on the Volt.

The fact that the Volt utilizes "new technology" is even more reason to be cautious before recommending the vehicle. Lithium-ion based batteries are volatile having unknown environmental consequences and should have been studied further before being thrust upon the public. Apologists for the Volt that bring up limited numbers of fire incidents compared to the Toyota investigation should do the math on the proportion of vehicles with alleged issues compared to total vehicles on the road. There were literally thousands of times more Toyotas on the road than Volts, it would make sense that there would be more suspected issues. The limited number of Volts sold should be all the more reason to be cautious now, before the public is put at a larger risk.

Congress is correct to investigate NHTSA's delay in reporting Volt safety issues. The Volt has been a cesspool of deception since before its rollout. False claims have been given regarding rated MPG (GM wrongly claimed it would get 230 MPG) along with misrepresentations that the vehicle was a pure EV (it's a hybrid) and bogus suggestions that demand far exceeded supply. Auto journalists were fooled into believing that there were huge waiting lists of consumers ready to swoop up Volts when they became available. No such lists exist and sales continue to underwhelm even as supply increases. Now NHTSA's actions reek of a cover-up and mainstream media continues to give Government Motors a free pass.

The Chevy Volt is an embarrassment that has cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Unfortunately, the ones being embarrassed (General Motors, the Obama Administration, Consumer Reports and mainstream media) will not admit their folly as they continue to lose credibility as the Chevy Volt story unfolds. Taxpayers and American motorists deserve better.

Mark Modica is an NLPC Associate Fellow.
http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/12/12/consumer-reports%E2%80%99-chevy-volt-safety-double-standard
____________________________

Admit thy folly, Herm, and repent!

It is ludicrous to suggest that the Chevy Volt, which cost over $40,000, saves owners money over similar gas vehicles which are priced about half as much.

Saving gas with a Volt

Instead of buying a Chevy Volt, I paid about $14,000 for my Smart Car.
That means I saved more than $27,000 over buying a Volt.
What will my odometer read when I spend as much money on the Smart Car as I would have spent on the Volt?

$27000 / $4 gal = 6750 gallons

Let's see, I get 50 miles per gallon - but let's go with the EPA 41 mpg

6750 gal x 41 = 276,750 miles

Yeah. I can save a lot of money on gas with a Volt. Right.

Then there's this. I drive about 15,000 miles per year. But let's call it 20,000.

276,000 / 20,000 = 13.8 years. How long is the warranty on that lithium battery pack?

Ptero, did GM kill your father or something like that?

No. They forced me to be an unwilling partner in financing a car that only a bunch of idiots would buy.
Did CleanMPG kill your common sense?

Think about this. Say your Volt gets 60 (EPA combined) mpg and you go 276,000 miles.

276,000 mi / 60 mpg = 4600 gallons

$4 gal x 4600 gal = $18,400 in fuel cost

So in the end, the Volt cost $41,000 + $18,400 = $59,400
And the Smart Car cost $14,000 + $27,000 = $41,000

The per mile cost for the Volt would be $59,400 / 276,000 = 21.52 cents per mile
While the cost per mile for the Smart Car is $41,000 / 276,000 = 14.86 cents per mile

The philosophy of CleanMPG is to save money and fuel, right?
The Smart Car wins hands-down over the Chevy Volt in saving money.
But what about gas?
The Volt saved 6750 - 4600 = 2150 gallons BUT AT NO MONETARY SAVINGS.

Then there is the rather serious question about well to wheels efficiency.
What did it cost in fuel to mine the lithium in South America, ship it to South Korea to make the batteries then ship them to Detroit?
What did it cost in fuel to mine the copper, rare earths and assemble the motor and management systems? And so on.
The Smart Car incurred none of these costs.
But the value of fuel is 2150 gal x $4 gal = $8600
or 2150 gal x $3.49 gal = $7500 which by coincidence is the value of the rebate the taxpayers were screwed out of for each Volt.

I got $2100 back for buying a 2007 Honda Civic Hybrid and $875 back for buying a 2008 Toyota Prius. Should we diss Toyota and Honda?

Saving gas with a Volt

Instead of buying a Chevy Volt, I paid about $14,000 for my Smart Car.
That means I saved more than $27,000 over buying a Volt.
What will my odometer read when I spend as much money on the Smart Car as I would have spent on the Volt?

$27000 / $4 gal = 6750 gallons

Let's see, I get 50 miles per gallon - but let's go with the EPA 41 mpg

6750 gal x 41 = 276,750 miles

Yeah. I can save a lot of money on gas with a Volt. Right.

Then there's this. I drive about 15,000 miles per year. But let's call it 20,000.

276,000 / 20,000 = 13.8 years. How long is the warranty on that lithium battery pack?



No. They forced me to be an unwilling partner in financing a car that only a bunch of idiots would buy.
Did CleanMPG kill your common sense?

Think about this. Say your Volt gets 60 (EPA combined) mpg and you go 276,000 miles.

276,000 mi / 60 mpg = 4600 gallons

$4 gal x 4600 gal = $18,400 in fuel cost

So in the end, the Volt cost $41,000 + $18,400 = $59,400
And the Smart Car cost $14,000 + $27,000 = $41,000

The per mile cost for the Volt would be $59,400 / 276,000 = 21.52 cents per mile
While the cost per mile for the Smart Car is $41,000 / 276,000 = 14.86 cents per mile

The philosophy of CleanMPG is to save money and fuel, right?
The Smart Car wins hands-down over the Chevy Volt in saving money.
But what about gas?
The Volt saved 6750 - 4600 = 2150 gallons BUT AT NO MONETARY SAVINGS.

What happens if you use the $10+/gallon cost (the one including externalities) that you used earlier in the thread?
What happens if you assess the cost of the car to the national economy instead of to the individual?

What happens if you assess the cost of the car to the national economy instead of to the individual?

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20051218161743/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/8/8f/Trabant.jpg/500px-Trabant.jpg
Renewable energy-powered Trabant - no history of garage fires
Where's the rest of the car? Go here http://youtu.be/W2VBH9KRbYA

Chevy Volt Costing Taxpayers Up to $250K Per Vehicle
Analyst: 'This might be the most government-supported car since the Trabant'
By TOM GANTERT Dec. 21, 2011
http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/16192

Each Chevy Volt sold thus far may have as much as $250,000 in state and federal dollars in incentives behind it – a total of $3 billion altogether, according to an analysis by James Hohman, assistant director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

Hohman looked at total state and federal assistance offered for the development and production of the Chevy Volt, General Motors’ plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. His analysis included 18 government deals that included loans, rebates, grants and tax credits. The amount of government assistance does not include the fact that General Motors is currently 26 percent owned by the federal government.

The Volt subsidies flow through multiple companies involed in production. The analysis includes adding up the amount of government subsidies via tax credits and direct funding for not only General Motors, but other companies supplying parts for the vehicle. For example, the Department of Energy awarded a $105.9 million grant to the GM Brownstown plant that assembles the batteries. The company was also awarded approximately $106 million for its Hamtramck assembly plant in state credits to retain jobs. The company that supplies the Volt’s batteries, Compact Power, was awarded up to $100 million in refundable battery credits (combination tax breaks and cash subsidies). These are among many of the subsidies and tax credits for the vehicle.

It’s unlikely that all the companies involved in Volt production will ever receive all the $3 billion in incentives, Hohman said, because many of them are linked to meeting various employment and other milestones. But the analysis looks at the total value that has been offered to the Volt in different aspects of production – from the assembly line to the dealerships to the battery manufacturers. Some tax credits and subsidies are offered for periods up to 20 years, though most have a much shorter time frame.

GM has estimated they’ve sold 6,000 Volts so far. That would mean each of the 6,000 Volts sold would be subsidized between $50,000 and $250,000, depending on how many government subsidy milestones are realized.

If battery manufacturers awarded incentives to produce batteries the Volt may use are included in the analysis, the potential government subsidy per Volt increases to $256,824. For example, A123 Systems has received extensive state and federal support, and bid to be a supplier to the Volt, but the deal instead went to Compact Power. The $256,824 figure includes adding up the subsidies to both companies.

The $3 billion total subsidy figure includes $690.4 million offered by the state of Michigan and $2.3 billion in federal money. That’s enough to purchase 75,222 Volts with a sticker price of $39,828.

Additional state and local support provided to Volt suppliers was not included in the analysis, Hohman said, and could increase the level of government aid. For instance, the Volt is being assembled at the Poletown plant in Detroit/Hamtramck, which was built on land acquired by General Motors through eminent domain.

“It just goes to show there are certain folks that will spend anything to get their vision of what people should do,” said State Representative Tom McMillin, R-Rochester Hills. “It’s a glaring example of the failure of central planning trying to force citizens to purchase something they may not want. … They should let the free market make those decisions.”

“This might be the most government-supported car since the Trabant,” said Hohman, referring to the car produced by the former Communist state of East Germany.

According to GM CEO Dan Akerson, the average Volt owner makes $170,000 per year.
__________________________________________________

Revision of my previous post based on the above analysis

It is ludicrous to suggest that the Chevy Volt, which cost over $250,000 in taxpayer investment plus $41,000 retail, a total of $291.000, saves owners money over similar gas vehicles which are priced about one-seventeenth as much.

Saving gas with a Volt

Instead of buying a Chevy Volt, I paid about $14,000 for my Smart Car.
That means I saved more than $277,000 over buying a Volt.
What will my odometer read when I spend as much money on the Smart Car as I would have spent on the Volt?

$277,000 / $4 gal = 69,250 gallons

Let's see, I get 50 miles per gallon - but let's go with the EPA 41 mpg

69,250 gal x 41 = 2,839,250 miles
This is how many miles I can drive my Smart Car before I have spent as much money as it cost to deliver a new Chevy Volt with zero miles on it.

Yeah. I can save a lot of money on gas with a Volt. Right.

Then there's this. I drive about 15,000 miles per year. But let's call it 20,000.

2,839,000 / 20,000 = 142 years. How long is the warranty on that lithium battery pack?

Ptero, did GM kill your father or something like that?

No. They forced me to be an unwilling partner in financing a car that only a bunch of idiots would buy.
But if my father, God rest his soul, had read this, he would have had a heart attack to learn how the government had devalued his savings by printing money to foster their poorly-thought out pet projects.
Did CleanMPG kill your common sense? If battery tech had had commercial potential, it would have been marketed by the private sector without government incentives long before now.

Think about this. Say your Volt gets 60 (EPA combined) MPG and you go 2,839,000 miles.

2,839,000 mi / 60 MPG = 47,317 gallons

$4 gal x 47317 gal = $189,267 in fuel cost

So in the end, the Volt, having traveled exactly as far as the Smart Car, cost $291,000 + $189,267 = $480,267
And the Smart Car cost $14,000 + (69,250 gal x $4) = $291,000

The per mile cost for the Volt would be $480,267 / 2,839,000 = 16.93 cents per mile
While the cost per mile for the Smart Car is $291,000 / 2,839,000 = 10.25 cents per mile

The philosophy of CleanMPG is to save money and fuel, right?
The Smart Car wins hands-down over the Chevy Volt in saving money.
But what about gas?
The Volt saved 69,250 - 47317 = 21,933 gallons over 142 years BUT AT NO MONETARY SAVINGS.

Then there is the rather serious question about well to wheels efficiency.
What did it cost in fuel to mine the lithium in South America, ship it to South Korea to make the batteries then ship them to Detroit?
What did it cost in fuel to mine the copper, rare earths and assemble the motor and management systems? And so on.
And, of course, how many times and how much more would it cost to replace the Volt's battery packs over 142 years? We forgot to factor that in. Duh...
The Smart Car incurred none of these costs. No taxpayer was forced to fork over a cent of hard-won money for me to drive my Smart Car.

But the story of Jay Leno going 11,000 miles in 1 year without refueling is only 1 story. There are several in California that that have not filled with gas in 1 year.

What about other cars that have fires without crashes. An Isuzu Axiom flamed while driving in Madison, WI a few weeks ago. A friends Ford Edge caught on fire while driving down a street this summer.

As far as GM doing Impala repairs from the old GM, I have no direct experience. My mother-in-law just had a front hub repaired by a Chevy dealer on her 08 Pontiac Grand Prix under warranty and without any hassle. I was pleasantly surprised as I was ready to "go to bat" for her.

Are you related to Matt Drudge?:D

Chevy Volt Costing Taxpayers Up to $250K Per Vehicle

I'll repeat my question since that doesn't answer it.

What if you look at the cost to the economy instead of the individual?

Hint: cost to the economy is {Money exiting economy} - {Money entering economy}.

E.g.
Cost of an imported car and/or components is money exiting economy.
Cost of imported fuel is money exiting economy.

Small point but
"The philosophy of cleanmpg is to save fuel money"
I think it is more like to get us off foreign energy which make us-USA- and our economy extremely vulnerable to the vagaries of the market and blackmail (1973 1979- embargoes) by folks who don't have our interests at heart.
Of course using less fuel is the most obvious direct way to do that.
The point being USA produced wind energy-maybe even using off peak wind to produce you buddy H2- might eventually be "better" than using very little gasoline.
Nitpicking I know.

A question-just what did CR originally say about the Volt that was so negative??
Not trying to debate- just too lazy to look it up.

Everyone must agree you aren't going to save money with a $40,000 car- not when you can buy a Sonic or Cruze for $170000!! Cars that project to be reliable-and get good mpg!
Almost no original owner runs a car the -350,000 miles it would take to break even-probably 1/100,000 original owners get 1/3 million miles from their car.
Thanks
Charlie
PS Has the origin of the fires been determined-what about the "coolant leak-conduction trail" theory- no go??

"Gasoline HEVs will provide only a temporary reduction in GHG emissions and oil imports, as increasing vehicle miles traveled eventually cancel out the improved fuel economy of HEVs, and pollution and oil consumption rise inexorably thereafter. Hydrogen made initially from natural gas and transitioning to renewable hydrogen over the next few decades provides the only option for permanently decreasing GHGs and oil imports. Furthermore, hydrogen-powered ICE HEVs like the Prius could provide an interim transition to fuel cell vehicles that would substantially reduce GHGs and oil imports."
--- Responses to Joe Romm’s Seven Points on the Hydrogen Economy
by C. E. Thomas, President, H2Gen Innovations
http://www.evworld.com/library/h2price_cethomas.doc

Most HEV/PHEV/BEV advocates believe their technology is a solution. Unfortunately, it only gives us maybe 10 years of additional time to implement a real solution.

The renewable hydrogen FC/ICE community never had an argument with HEV/PHEV/BEV technology. They thought it was an elegant step toward a hydrogen economy.

The problem arose when the Obama administration decided that the solution was either hydrogen or HEV/PHEV/BEV. But HEV/PHEVs run on fossil fuel and without a strong push for renewable energy, so do BEVs. So there is no solution in the absence of hydrogen technology. There is only this dead-end kludge that everyone on this board is raving about.
____________

At General Motors, we see the future quite differently. We believe there are many compelling reasons to move as quickly as possible to a personal mobility future energized by hydrogen and powered by fuel cells. These include substantial reductions in vehicle exhaust and greenhouse gas emissions, energy security, geopolitical stability, sustainable economic growth, and, most importantly, the potential to design vehicles that are more exciting to own and operate than today's automobiles.
GM has demonstrated this design potential with our Hy-wire prototype, the world's first drivable fuel cell and by-wire vehicle. We also have made great progress in testing our fuel cell technology in real-world settings. We have vehicle demonstration programs under way in Washington, D.C. and Tokyo, Japan, and are partnering with Dow Chemical on the world's largest application of fuel cell power in a chemical manufacturing facility.
Given the fuel cell's inherent energy efficiency, we estimate that the cost per mile of hydrogen is already close to that of the cost of gasoline used in today's vehicles. In fact, our analyses have shown that the first million fuel cell vehicles could be fueled by hydrogen derived from natural gas, resulting in an increase in natural gas demand of only two-tenths of one percent. Our analyses also project that a fueling infrastructure for the first million fuel cell vehicles could be created in the United States at a cost of $10-15 billion. (In comparison, the cost to build the Alaskan oil pipeline in the mid-1970s was $8 billion, which equates to $25 billion in today's dollars.)
Based on our current rate of progress, GM is working hard to develop commercially viable fuel cell propulsion technology by 2010. This means a fuel cell that is competitive with today's engines in terms of power, durability, and cost at automotive volumes. Beyond this, GM plans to be the first manufacturer to sell one million fuel cell vehicles profitably. Like all advanced technology vehicles, fuel cell vehicles must sell in large quantities to realize a positive environmental impact. How quickly we see significant volumes depends on many factors, including cost-effective and conveniently available hydrogen refueling for our customers, uniform codes and standards for hydrogen and hydrogen-fueled vehicles, and supportive government policies to help overcome the initial vehicle and refueling infrastructure investment hurdles.
For the past 100 years, GM has been on the leading edge of pioneering automotive development -not just because we have worked the technology but, equally importantly, because we have been willing to lay out a long-term vision of the future and use our considerable resources to realize the vision. We are committed to the future-so it is not a question of whether we will be able to market exciting, safe, and affordable fuel cell vehicles, but when. all it will take is the collective will of the auto and energy companies, government, academia, and other interested stakeholders. Today, we see this collective will building toward a societal determination to create a hydrogen economy.
This is not hype. It's reality.
-- Letter to "Issues in Science and Technology" July 1, 2004
LARRY BURNS, Vice President, R&D and Planning, General Motors

Has the origin of the fires been determined-what about the "coolant leak-conduction trail" theory- no go??

Well, if you want to believe the rabid pro-EV blogger junk I saw posted here this morning, the solution has been found and there was never anything much amiss anyway. And anyone who disagrees with that must be Rush Limbaugh or somebody.

Or you can do your own thinking.

DECEMBER 12, 2011
Probe of GM's Volt Fires May Be Lengthy
By SHARON TERLEP and KATE LINEBAUGH
Wall Street Journal

DETROIT—General Motors Co. could be in for a lengthy investigation over why the batteries on several Chevrolet Volt cars caught fire, potentially hurting sales of the plug-in vehicle.

GM repeatedly has said a coolant leak is behind the problem, which caused three of the Volt's lithium-ion batteries to spark or catch fire days or weeks after being damaged in crash tests. GM has said the battery is safe and that the company likely can fix the problem without a major redesign.

But the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration isn't sure that explanation is correct, people familiar with the agency's thinking said.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204336104577092292258380790.html

The NHTSA can be pretty slow, GM says they have a fix that will cost about $1000 per car.. they should know, its their car and they have been working on it since day one.

"Or you can do your own thinking."

Dont store a totaled Volt in your garage is probably a good place to start your thinking.

Ptero-thanks.
Herm-Whaaaat?
The Volts that caught fire in someone's garage-they hadn't been in wrecks,right??

GM must have managed to get 3 fires by wrecking 3 or a lot more than 3-and just waiting- or trying to recharge them??

In any case we'll know soon enough-investigation or no investigation.
If fixed-retrofitted Volts catch fire then it isn't the coolant leak-assuming GM actually fixes the coolant leaks.

So we'll know in a year or so-just wait for more fires.No thinking involved- just wait and count the fires or no fires.All the investigating in the world won't trump the numbers.Just wait and count.
Usually the obvious answer is THE ANSWER-
Toyota's killer cars-floor mats from day one.
Ford Exploders- 26 psi tire pressure on a 4500 lb top heavy SUV going 75 mph- poor QC Firestone tires.


Herm if I win the Powerball and wreck my Volt-and buy a new house with a garage-I won't store it there-with my Lambo Ferrari MB BMW ETC.

Charlie

Reminds me of the Pinto scene in the 1984 movie Top Secret!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT0J0rcJTLo

Look, guys

Japanese corporations like Toyota are massively government subsidized. Worse, I've heard the entire country of China as a company disguised as a nation. The US has resisted this game for years. The prime example is Boeing left to struggle alone in the face of EU/UK-backed Airbus.

So now we have unadvisedly entered the game with a focus on the Chinese market for the Volt. It might have actually been a good commercial play if the Volt was a properly designed competitive product.

Go drive a Prius V. End of story. This is why investment risk is left to commercial endeavors. They fail, not the government (us).

Or the prologue is don't let amateurs run your fascist agenda.

The bottom line is why are we even engaged in this folly? Has anyone (besides me) read the U.S. Constitution? I feel like a pariah here in your socialist playground when I should be presenting the central free market capitalist argument.

But on the bright side $4 billion just isn't a lot of money. We spent that in maybe 10 days in our two wars, right??

If we had correctly looked at the $$ and cents of it we would have dropped a punitive A-bomb- on Kabul maybe $30,000,000 or so delivered and paid for maybe 35 years ago-and threatened Iraq with the same.
Now Iraq is going to be a Shia dominated Iranian pawn-Afganistan will be the same tribal s$#%*&^le it has been for 2500 years-
We paid 6000 USA lives Trillion$$ 15,000 permanent injuries- maybe 250,000 dead Iraqis and Afgans-many many injured.
Remember a Republican administration got us in both wars-and one of them-Iraq- was strictly optional. I will hold that against the Republicans forever.The Republicans used to want to avoid foreign entanglements- not this bunch! And they want to take credit for the Arab Spring-yeah lets see what that brings.
Bush 1 had a lot more sense than this bunch of mofos.
We should have bailed on foreign fuel in 1979-embargo- and we were, but we lost our way.

So $4 billion is nothing- a jobs program not a bad one at that.

I do have to agree with Ptero-the problem with EVERY other small car is
THE PRIUS IS SOOOO GOOD AND SOOO CHEAP.
50 mpg- no effort-3100 lb car- beat that!
Someday switch to H2 fuel cell-Bigger electric motor-fuel cell H2 tank-maybe keep a small BP to catch regen energy??

Yeah HUGE battery packs look like a dead end- but if they get cheaper-say $2000 instead of $10,000-might work out.
All the crazy cost safety concern is in the BP right??
Maybe it will work out.

In the meantime we need to pray for $9 gasoline-roughly what happened in 1979.
Yep $9 gasoline would do it-just like $1 gas did in 1979.
Charlie

Yeah HUGE battery packs look like a dead end- but if they get cheaper-say $2000 instead of $10,000-might work out.

If EVs were just BEVs it'd be one thing, it'd be more of an all-or-nothing deal, but there are HEVs and, more importantly, PHEVs that mean even partial success in cost or energy density can have a significant impact on reducing petroleum-based fuel demand.

Not only do you reduce the use of petroleum for gasoline but you can shift a large amount of money away from petroleum and into the distribution of electricity, where significant investment is needed if we are ever to get to high utilization of renewable generation. It's not just that electricity bills will be higher, but that they will be higher without requiring significant additional capacity or infrastructure.

Uh-oh. Your Volt springs a leak and your house burns down. No big deal, you say.

As I discussed, LG has lost the next series of Volt batteries to A123 Systems. But now a report comes out that the Fisker's A123 batteries have been recalled due to a "misaligned hose clamp."

A misaligned hose clamp and your house burns down.

I don't imagine anyone here has ever had a leaky coolant hose. But I have. You see the puddle on the garage floor. You tighten the hose clamp. You pour in some more antifreeze. No big deal.

BUT with the Volt:

"OnStar."

"There's a puddle under my Volt!"

"You have to leave the garage now, mam."

"But my home is above the garage!"

"You have to evacuate your home now, mam. Get everyone out."

"I live in an apartment complex!"

"We have notified the police department and the fire department. Everything is fine."

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-27/a123-says-batteries-for-fisker-may-have-potential-safety-issue.html

A123 Says Batteries for Fisker May Have Potential Safety Issue
December 27, 2011, 8:16 PM EST


Dec. 23 (Bloomberg) -- A123 Systems Inc., the maker of batteries for electric vehicles, said it found a “potential safety issue” in batteries it supplies to Fisker Automotive Inc.

A123, which also sells batteries to automakers such as General Motors Co. and Daimler AG, said hose clamps that are part of the internal cooling system of its batteries supplied to Fisker were “misaligned” and may cause coolant to leak. Such a leak could lead to an electrical short circuit, David Vieau, chief executive officer, wrote in a memo on Waltham, Massachusetts-based A123’s investor-relations website.

“We have developed a confirmed repair for this situation,” Vieau wrote, adding that the company has begun to fix the fewer than 50 cars affected. A123 expects a “minimal financial impact” and its relationship with Fisker “remains strong,” he wrote.

Fisker, based in Anaheim, California, is ramping up U.S. deliveries of $102,000 Karma plug-in hybrid sedans. Shipments have begun with 225 sent to dealers and 1,200 units “in the pipeline,” Chief Executive Officer Henrik Fisker said in a Dec. 21 interview.

Karma production is now 25 units a day and may rise to 60 a day next year, said Fisker, a vehicle designer who has styled cars for Aston Martin and Bayerische Motoren Werke AG’s BMW.

A123 will supply battery packs for Detroit-based GM’s Chevrolet Spark electric subcompact going on sale in 2013. The company has reported losses in every quarter since 2008 and went public in September 2009.

A123 rose 5.2 percent to $1.81 at 3:04 p.m. New York time

"GM’s Chevrolet Spark electric subcompact going on sale in 2013."


Ptero- let's hope the name isn't a VERY BAD PUN!!
Charlie

Thinking about a coolant leak. I realized that most coolant leaks that I've had have been discovered by the smell of antifreeze, not a puddle underneath the car.

I've had leaks in the heater hose, in the heater core, in the intake manifold connection at the thermostat housing, in the manifold gasket, in the radiator core fins, in the upper and lower radiator connections and other places like heater Ys. These were little leaks that added up only over time, indicated only by residue and eventually resulting in overheating of the engine due to insufficient fluid if you didn't check your coolant level.

So have you Volt owners checked your battery pack coolant level? How do you do that? Do you take it to the dealer? Is there a dipstick? I don't know. The Volt is not something I'd buy. What does the dealer say if it's low? Does he even tell you?

"Oh, it's a good thing we found that. Your house could have burned down with you and your family in it. But we fixed it. We tightened the hose clamp and added more coolant. So you don't need to worry about it unless it leaks again and you don't bring it in to us in time."

Like I said. Coolant leak in the old days, your engine overheats. You pull over, add water. No big deal.

Today, coolant leak with a Volt, your house buns down. You die. Your family burns to death. No big deal. It hasn't happened. Don't worry about it. We don't cover hoses under warranty, so it's your fault, anyway.

So if GM is using the same ancient hose fastener technology to cool its "advanced" battery packs, and they don't puddle but seep, then after a while the coolant will go too low to cool the battery pack.

What then?

Your house burns down????

Couldn't we expect these batteries to use a more fail-safe technology?

I mean, isn't that reasonable?

And if you look at the fine print of your warranty contract, do you realize that any damages caused by coolant leaks are not covered because hoses are not covered???

You Volt people, you are screwed. Your $40,000 investment hangs by the goodwill of GM. To me, that's not attractive. I don't buy this GM crap.

WAIT A SECOND???
Hose clamp from factory isn't tight enough-lose coolant cook motor-
No warranty??
Hose clamp from factory too tight-cracks splits hose-lose coolant cook motor-no warranty?

You sure the "hoses not covered" doesn't mean 50000 mile hoses not covered?

I'm pretty sure Volt owners aren't screwed because of the leaks-GM will cover it.

Ptero-you dislike the battery cars soooo much your losing focus on why you think they are bad.
They are bad because BPs are sooo expensive and have so little range-and maybe they are dangerous(had a 123 lithium battery flashlight "blow up" one night several hours after bulb failed-so I kinda buy that- it impressed me). Not because they have inadequate warranty.

Stick to "The Truth" it is enough. The Volt isn't a good deal for cheap transportation.
Charlie

I didn't read about GM replacing the hoses on the burned-up Volts after the 2 garage fires. That would have been an admission of guilt. Of course, in the first fire, the fire marshal didn't find anything wrong with the Volt. He couldn't have known about the coolant problem at that time. How could he? The NHTSA wouldn't release the information. I smell a smoking rat.

Here's the list of warranty exclusions from GM's Chevy 100,000 mile/5-year transferable Powertrain Limited Warranty for all you GM lovers who forgot to read the fine print.
http://www.lonestarchevrolet.com/gm5-year--100-000-mile-warranty.htm

Excluded from the powertrain coverage are sensors, wiring, connectors, engine radiator, coolant hoses, coolant and heater core. Coverage on the engine cooling system begins at the inlet to the water pump and ends with the thermostat housing and/or outlet that attaches to the return hose. Also excluded are the entire pressurized fuel system (in-tank fuel pump, pressure lines, fuel rail(s), regulator, injectors and return line) as well as the Engine/Powertrain Control Module and/or module programming.

Excluded from the powertrain coverage are transfer case cooling lines, hoses, radiator, sensors, wiring and electrical connectors as well as the transfer case control module and/or module programming.

Excluded from the powertrain coverage are all wheel bearings, drive wheel front and rear hub bearings, locking hubs, drive system cooling, lines, hoses, radiator, sensors, wiring and electrical connectors related to drive systems as well as any drive system control module and/or module programming.

You're welcome.

Ptero-you dislike the battery cars soooo much your losing focus on why you think they are bad.

I love refuelable battery technology. Only refuelable batteries make real sense for automotive applications.

There's something screwy about the NHTSA "investigation"

Slow Burn: Chevy Volt Fires
That DOT Secretary Ray LaHood is always yakking about transparency – at his confirmation hearing, at budget hearings, about airline fees, and business flight plans. During the U.S. House of Representative’s Toyota Unintended Acceleration hearings in February 2010, when Congressman Ed Markey asked the Secretary of Transportation:

“What do you think about the public in terms of them providing – being provided with more information regarding potential safety defects that automakers tell the department about even before an investigation is opened or a recall is announced?

LaHood replied: “Need for transparency. The more information we can give the public, the better.”

Unless…..the defect is really bad, and the press will be on it like white on rice and it involves a major automaker, whose fortunes are tightly entwined with the government. Yes, we’re looking at you General Motors. (Or, as some would have it, Government Motors.)

On June 2, a Chevy Volt that had been subjected to an New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) pole impact test three weeks later burst into flames. The fire, apparently caused by intrusion into the lithium ion battery which ruptured the coolant line, consumed the Volt and burned three other vehicles parked nearby in a Wisconsin storage facility. Five months later, investigators ran three more tests on the battery alone to simulate a crash impact. One of the batteries caught fire; another emitted sparks and smoke. On Black Friday, NHTSA opened a low-level defect investigation – Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 11-037 was born.

But where oh where is the documentation? The test report for the toasted Volt? The Information Request Letter to GM and other manufacturers of hybrid electric vehicles? The subsequent battery test reports? A GM spokesman said that NHTSA worked with the automaker “for months” after the initial fire. Where’s the documentation of that?

Who needs any information? According to NHTSA everything’s just fine! Don’t be afraid to buy a Volt:

“NHTSA continues to believe that electric vehicles have incredible potential to save consumers money at the pump, help protect the environment, create jobs and strengthen national security by reducing our dependence on oil,” the agency assured consumers as it announced the investigation.

Indeed. (Although we’re not sure a burning car actually helps the environment, not to mention those pesky batteries and coal burning power plants that power much of the grid to charge them…)

This nascent investigation is already hitting a few troubling notes.

Things to ponder:

One would expect that this high-profile and technically specific investigation would require an investigator with lots of experience in hybrid electric vehicle systems and design – or at a minimum with an electrical engineering background. Instead, the lead investigator in this sensitive investigation is a mechanical engineer fresh out of college with no apparent electrical engineering background or experience. She joined the agency one month before the Volt ignited.

Why are there no documents in the public file? NHTSA, when it deigns to release key documents at all, likes to wait until the mainstream press has moved on and is unlikely to pursue a follow-up. Really – the ink isn’t even dry on the Office of the Inspector General’s October report rapping NHTSA for its lack of transparency and documentation (see DOT Inspector General Audit Finds NHTSA Defects Office Needs Improvement but Examination Falls Short). In levying the largest civil fine in the agency’s history against Toyota, the government neglected to provide any documentation explaining how the automaker had violated the recall regulations. In releasing the agency’s technical assessment of Toyota unintended acceleration, the agency withheld the lengthy technical report from reporters until the press conference, leaving them no time to read, let alone digest the report. Then, Mr. Transparency himself, X-Ray LaHood, had the temerity to complain that no one had read the report. It was full of unsupportable redactions. The agency got around to unscrubbing the report months later (see NHTSA Keeps Toyota’s Secrets, Part II).

When did it become acceptable for a federal regulator to give the public a sales pitch during an investigation? We saw the same odd behavior as the agency wrapped up the Toyota investigation. After effectively mischaracterizing the results of the technical review, Secretary LaHood declared: “I told my daughter that she should buy the Toyota Sienna, which she did. So I think that illustrates that we feel that Toyota vehicles are safe to drive.”

The entity you regulate and investigate is not and cannot be your “regulatory partner.” NHTSA must maintain its objectivity and oversight authority. NHTSA, you are not on Team GM or Team Toyota; you’re the ref, and those guys are workin’ you.

We all know that the American economy needs growth and that green energy is the future, but must we trample safety, scientific objectivity and consumers in the process?

We’ve somehow lost the ability to hold corporations accountable in the name of an allegedly greater good.
http://www.safetyresearch.net/2011/11/30/slow-burn-chevy-volt-fires/

Ptero, the Karma recall has been increased to 239 cars!!

Its getting worse! :(

Ptero

Thanks for the posting- not trying to start a fight-too early in the day-BUT
I think you are mis-reading it.
You are looking at the EXTENDED POWERTRAIN WARRANTY-5 /100,000
You should be looking at the 3/36000 Bumper to bumper warranty-which I have copied below.

Covered for 3 years/36,000 miles*
Chevrolet backs your new vehicle with its no-deductible, Bumper-to-Bumper New Vehicle Limited Warranty. The entire vehicle is warranted for repairs, including parts and labor, to correct problems in materials or workmanship, for three years or 36,000 miles, whichever comes first (except normal maintenance). The warranty covers towing to the nearest Chevrolet dealership, and there is no deductible for warranty repairs during the warranty period. The warranty transfers automatically with vehicle ownership during the warranty period.

Granted you have to be a chiseling lawyer (redundant) to figure out what it all actually means
BUT "The entire vehicle is warranted for repairs, including parts and labor, to correct problems in materials or workmanship, for three years or 36,000 miles,"

This certainly means the defective or incorrectly installed hoses and the resulting carnage-ARE COVERED!??

There is also some sort of 8/100,000 Hybrid Battery only warranty-didn't say exactly what that covered. Lotta legal gibbersish in these statements-explains why no one bothers to read fine print.All corps hire same chiseling lawyers to write this crap-safe bet it is NEVER WRITTEN IN THE BUYERS FAVOR!! Pointless to read fine print-it always says " we will screw you if we want"


Different subject-what is a refuelable battery?? -you mean fuel cell?

Thanks
Charlie

Charlie, I'm not saying that GM won't honor its warranty. I'm saying that if it quacks and has feathers, it's a duck.

GM Failed to Deliver on Warranty, Says Suit
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/general-motors-sued-2007-impala-defect-2008-impala/interview-general-motors-sued-2007-impala-defect-17046.html

General Motors is under fire in a national class-action suit for allegedly failing to honor its so-called bumper-to-bumper warranty and replace defective spindle rods. A class-action suit filed against GM says defective spindle rods caused customers to replace the tires on the vehicles, and rendered potentially hundreds of thousands of 2007 and 2008 Chevy Impalas unsafe to drive. ...It is estimated that there may be close to half a million owners of 2007 and 2008 Chevy Impalas in the US, all of whom would be eligible to join the class.

_________________

New GM said not responsible to fix Impala made by old GM
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/19/gm-impala-lawsuit-idUSN1E77I0Z820110819

* Suspension problem said to cause excessive tire wear

By Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK, Aug 19 (Reuters) - General Motors Co (GM.N) is seeking to dismiss a lawsuit over a suspension problem on more than 400,000 Chevrolet Impalas from the 2007 and 2008 model years, saying it should not be responsible for repairs because the flaw predated its bankruptcy.

The lawsuit, filed on June 29 by Donna Trusky of Blakely, Pennsylvania, contended that her Impala suffered from faulty rear spindle rods, causing her rear tires to wear out after just 6,000 miles. [ID:nN1E7650CT]

Seeking class-action status and alleging breach of warranty, the lawsuit demands that GM fix the rods, saying that it had done so on Impala police vehicles.

But in a recent filing with the U.S. District Court in Detroit, GM noted that the cars were made by its predecessor General Motors Corp, now called Motors Liquidation Co or "Old GM," before its 2009 bankruptcy and federal bailout.

The current company, called "New GM," said it did not assume responsibility under the reorganization to fix the Impala problem, but only to make repairs "subject to conditions and limitations" in express written warranties. In essence, the automaker said, Trusky sued the wrong entity.

"New GM's warranty obligations for vehicles sold by Old GM are limited to the express terms and conditions in the Old GM written warranties on a going-forward basis," wrote Benjamin Jeffers, a lawyer for GM. "New GM did not assume responsibility for Old GM's design choices, conduct, or alleged breaches of liability under the warranty."

David Fink, Trusky's lawyer, declined to comment.

John Penn, a former president of the American Bankruptcy Institute who is not involved in the case, said the question of "successor liability" is common for manufacturing companies that go through bankruptcy.

"The fact it comes up now is not a surprise, as this type of issue was widely discussed during GM's bankruptcy," said Penn, now a partner at Haynes and Boone in Fort Worth, Texas. "The court will need to evaluate the claims to see if they fit within any cubbyhole of liability that New GM assumed."

GM said an argument similar to Trusky's failed this year in a case involving its OnStar security and navigation product.

"There are no specific factual allegations that New GM -- as opposed to Old GM -- did anything at all in relation to her vehicle," Jeffers wrote. "Plaintiff here is trying to saddle new GM with the alleged liability and conduct of old GM."

In late afternoon trading, GM shares were down $1.62 at $21.98 on the New York Stock Exchange.

The case is Trusky v. General Motors Co, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, No. 11-12815

Ptero

No question GM-and most other car companies- will play hardball on warranties if it suits them.
The New GM responsible for Old GM cars!?
Of course NOT! Ha,Ha- you are SOL trying to get new GM to honor Old GM warranties!!
The whole point of going bankrupt is to bail out on debt and other obligations.

My suspicion is New GM wasn't allowed to be sufficiently vicious in bailing out.

I don't expect New GM to cover my Suburban, or supply parts for it,so why should the owner of a tire chewing 2008 Impala expect it? They get a solid 10,000 miles on a set of tires-why complain!!??
Ha,Ha just joking- but they are screwed!!

No fires lately ,right?? Maybe it is the coolant leak-not that that would fill me with joy if I was an owner ? Owning a spontaneously combusting $40,000 car- my flashlight was just $40 - would not make my day.
Charlie

PS I've noticed that the cheapo Chinese Lithium AA rechargeable batteries DENT/Compress on the endS from the little bit of spring tension. This can't be a good thing!!

I think I would buy a 96 month bumper to bumper extended warranty.. not too expensive if you shop around.. but be careful, its a slimy field of business.

Now hear this.

http://i.usatoday.net/communitymanager/_photos/drive-on/2011/09/20/GMx-large.jpg

Remember all the money from U.S. taxpayers to develop battery technology for the Chevrolet Volt, and all the money to develop electric drive platforms for fuel cell vehicles (which was considerably more)? We are talking billions of dollars here.

General Motors agreed in Shanghai today to develop an electric vehicle platform with longtime Chinese partner SAIC. It effectively moves GM's future electric vehicle development to China. Unclear is whether this would also lead to assembly of future EVs for the U.S. market in China.

The deal came as the Chinese government is pushing foreign automakers to give Chinese companies EV technology they lack, according to an Associated Press report. U.S. lawmakers have complained that China is "shaking down" GM to get Volt secrets. Electric vehicle development in the U.S. has been developed with extensive U.S. taxpayer funding.

...The deal with Chinese government-owned SAIC was signed during a meeting of GM's board in Shanghai — a visit underscoring China's importance to GM. It was the board's first meeting outside the U.S.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/09/gm-cuts-china-electric-car-deal----a-china-shakedown/1

This underscores once again how far off track U.S. technology development has become. Instead of being the world leader in technology development, the U.S. has become a vehicle for transferring taxpayer wealth and intellectual property overseas. Overall, this will have the same economic consequences as losing a war and we are going to suffer for it.

http://www.hardwoodparoxysm.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/5695766522_4343904f69.jpg

Exactly what in the Volt is "state of the art"??
The battery pack is about it right?
The battery pack which might be a bit dodgy?
The Volt "seems" less tricky than the Prius.
It is just an electric motor driven car with an ICE generator and battery pack.
Are there any VOLT secrets?
Do you think anyone out there would care to produce a Volt if they could just produce and sell it for $30,000(What Wayne suggest it costs GM to build with a bit of Cruze profit built in)?? No development costs?

If it is such a poor car-who cares what happens to the tech?
Charlie
Probably not-not with $3.50 gas- maybe $4-$5 gas.

Petro has a point on intellectual property - China demands knowing your trade secrets if you want to do business with them - wish I had a link handy. :(

Chuck- sure it certainly is hardball capitalism/nationalism.
"If you want access to 1.2 billion consumers-you have to give us your secrets"
And all the corps do it since they are all short term oriented and all CORPS have ZERO interest in the USA national interest.
Corps don't care about The USA-just look at how the leaders of financial corps act- first order of business -buy off our leaders-

if you dont want to share, take your ball and go home. No more coolie exploitation.

Right- no free access to cheap labor and 1.2 billion consumers.

Well, I see that today GM is about to recall EVERY Chevy Volt. Can't say I'm surprised.

If it is such a poor car-who cares what happens to the tech?

As I've explained before, Secretary of Energy Chu canceled support for the automotive fuel cell program. A big part of this over the years had been the electric drive platform. But without fuel cells, the electric drive platform reverted to batteries, a very poor replacement for fuel cells because they possessed only one-seventh the range and are an environmental nightmare on a large scale.

Here is the platform GM was working on in 2002. They had planned to skip hybrids and EVs completely.

http://www.accelerationwatch.com/newsletter_issues/images_newsletter/gm_autonomy_frame.jpg

When the intellectual cripples took over, waving "Who Killed the Electric Car?" as their bible, they trashed the potential of American industry and forced a 100-yr-old technology onto this magnificent spaceage platform. Now this still-birthed, billion (taxpayer) dollar atrocity is going to China.

The problem with the skateboards is that the upper passenger modules still need crash, rollover and side impact protections.. and since it cant take advantage of the rigidity of the skate some of the weight has to be duplicated..

I was gonna park my Smart Car on it.

Looks like things will get interesting again next week.
GM CEO agrees to testify at Volt hearing in D.C.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120118/AUTO01/201180396/1361/GM-CEO-asked-to-testify-at-Volt-hearing

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said in a letter sent to House members Monday that its subcommittee overseeing bailouts will hold a hearing Jan. 25.

The hearing is titled "Volt Vehicle Fire: What did NHTSA know and when did they know it?"

Strickland said last week the White House was informed in September of the June fire, but officials didn't ask the agency to keep the information secret. NHTSA didn't publicly disclose the fire until Nov. 12, when Bloomberg News first reported it occurred.

After an initial investigation concluded that damage to the Volt battery was the cause of the June fire that occurred three weeks after the government crash test, NHTSA briefed Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, according to letters Strickland sent to three House Republicans.

NHTSA opened a formal defect investigation Nov. 25, after a second Volt battery pack caught fire seven days after another government test.

GM, which received a $49.5 billion government bailout, is still 26 percent owned by the Treasury Department.

Republicans have asked GM and the Obama administration to answer detailed questions about why they didn't disclose the fire in a crash-tested Volt for several months, and whether politics was behind any decision to delay the disclosure.

A spokesman for Issa, Ali Ahmad, said Friday the committee would demand that NHTSA turn over records.

"NHTSA has stalled on responding to the committee's inquiry for six weeks and inexplicably refused to provide any documents. The committee expects full compliance with its request and will consider compulsory methods if NHTSA does not immediately change its position," Ahmad said.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2012/NHTSA+Statement+on+Conclusion+of+Chevy+Volt+Investigation

WASHINGTON, DC — The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released the following statement today regarding the conclusion of its safety defect investigation into the post-crash fire risk of Chevy Volts (PE11037):

Today, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration closed its safety defect investigation into the potential risk of fire in Chevy Volts that have been involved in a serious crash. Opened on November 25, the agency’s investigation has concluded that no discernible defect trend exists and that the vehicle modifications recently developed by General Motors reduce the potential for battery intrusion resulting from side impacts.

NHTSA remains unaware of any real-world crashes that have resulted in a battery-related fire involving the Chevy Volt or any other electric vehicle. NHTSA continues to believe that electric vehicles show great promise as a safe and fuel-efficient option for American drivers. However, as the reports released in conjunction with the closure of the investigation today indicate, fires following NHTSA crash tests of the vehicle and its battery components — and the innovative nature of this emerging technology — led the agency to take the unusual step of opening a safety defect investigation in the absence of data from real-world incidents.

Based on the available data, NHTSA does not believe that Chevy Volts or other electric vehicles pose a greater risk of fire than gasoline-powered vehicles. Generally all vehicles have some risk of fire in the event of a serious crash. However, electric vehicles have specific attributes that should be made clear to consumers, the emergency response community, and tow truck operators and storage facilities. Recognizing these considerations, NHTSA has developed interim guidance — with the assistance of the National Fire Protection Association, the Department of Energy, and others — to increase awareness and identify appropriate safety measures for these groups. The agency expects this guidance will help inform the ongoing work by NFPA, DOE, and vehicle manufacturers to educate the emergency response community, law enforcement officers, and others about electric vehicles.

So
No real world "battery" fires caused by crashes!
Potential for Unreal world fires should be reduced by the modification
The "not a real world problem" Probably didn't cost many sales
The $40,000 price is what costs sales-not great gasoline mpg doesn't help either- but the price is the problem.
Charlie

The $40,000 price is what costs sales-not great gasoline mpg doesn't help either- but the price is the problem.

Imagine how much worse sales would be without the $7500 tax credit that brings it down to $32,500.

The MPG is pretty good, 37mpg combined for a nearly 4000lb car.. and not taking into account the 40 miles of electric driving you get everyday at an equivalent of $1 a gallon gasoline.

Visualize a Ford Explorer with 40 miles of electric range, at a $10k hybrid premium... I bet it would sell.

The world needs more people that care................ and have $40,000.
I care, but I'm a few dollars short.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-20/chevy-volt-battery-fire-investigation-closed-by-u-s-regulator.html

Looks like they closed the investigation.

Kirk

Sure 37 mpg combined is great for a 4000 lb car,
but it only has the interior room comfort of 3000 lb cars

The PROBLEM is always the same-THE PRIUS IS SOOO GOOD-AND SO CHEAP
Charlie
PS-Low gasoline price doesn't help either-let's hope we don't get higher prices via an Iranian adventure-a 3rd pointless war would sink our economy for another 10 years(probably would get us off foreign energy-on to wind Nukes-maybe-conservation)

http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120123/RETAIL07/301239977/1261

"Some Chevy dealers spurn Volt allocation"

probably haters..

Look, I like the Volt. It has a few imperfections - an ICE that's too big for strict genset duties but not really big enough to propel a nearly 4000lb car if it's asked to - but otherwise, it's a good (not great) proof of concept if you look at it as a BEV with a range extender. Its other major flaw is that awful MSRP. I say shed a few pounds and use the ICE purely to drive a genset in the next generation. Hopefully by then, we will see a price significantly less than it is, and perhaps more advenced batteries. A Volt-II capable of over ~120miles on batteries (easier with less weight to propel) and with a small ICE for genset duties, selling for $10k less than the current Volt would make an impact. Conversely, upsize and atkinsonize the engine if you want it do drive the wheels as a hybrid.

In my opinion.. GM should use the 1.8L engine out of the Cruze, atkinsonize it with a 13:1 expansion ratio and solve the PZEV issue without having to use an additional air pump, thats primitive 70s emission control tech.

They may have to lower the 100 mph spec down to a more reasonable 85mph... 100mph requires 50kW of electricity, 85mph only requires 34kW or 46hp

MSRP is what it is, lots of compacts sell in that price range...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/B-24_hit_by_Flak.jpg

Looks like 603 people bought Volts in January 2012. That's 20 per day and almost as fast as Ford built B-24s (650 per month or one every 60 minutes) in 1943.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120201/AUTO01/202010410/1148/AUTO01/Volt-sales-fall-January

One poster commented that GM should hold a fire sale on the $42,000 Volt. But wasn't that the problem?
Another pointed out that when observers had noted that the Volt averaged a cost of $250,000 per car for GM to build, the administration said the number would fall with increased sales volume.

The Consolidated B-24 cost $297,627 in the year it was built.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_B-24_Liberator

Chevy Volt Costing Taxpayers Up to $250K Per Vehicle
Analyst: 'This might be the most government-supported car since the Trabant'
By TOM GANTERT Dec. 21, 2011
http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/16192

Oh, one more comparison.
"The B-24 was notorious among American aircrews for its tendency to catch fire."

Ptero, I need to balance out your anti-American leanings with some WW-II history, you probably are a secret Prius owner! (joking!)

The B-24 was a great plane, but built light and with less armor compared to a B-17. Another great plane was Martin's B-26.. I used to know lots of those pilots with many local stories.

"Once a day in Tampa Bay"

http://rwebs.net/dispatch/output.asp?ArticleID=14

"As production of an improved B-26B began in April 1942, two unrelated events seemed to threaten the Marauder's future. The first was the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo by 16 North American B-25 Mitchells, launched from the deck of the USS Hornet. North American used this notoriety to seek more contracts for its B-25. The second happening was a furor over the Marauder's high accident rate in training, especially at McDill Field in Tampa, Florida. To the cadets assigned to fly the B-26, the Marauder was becoming known as the "Flying Prostitute" and "Widow Maker." A Senate investigating committee arrived in Tampa to be greeted by the sight of two crashed B-26s still burning. "One a day in Tampa Bay" was a horrifying possibility.

However, the Army quickly determined that the Marauder's accident rate was due to inadequate multi-engine training of cadets, aggravated by the B-26's very high wing loading and high takeoff and landing speeds. The plane could not be flown by the "seat of the pants" but required careful attention to minimum airspeeds, especially with one engine out. The Cessna AT-9 and other twin-engine advanced trainers were part of the answer, and Martin designed a number of modifications to improve the Marauder's slow speed performance."

Hey
you are right Herm.
The B26 was one of the coolest looking of our WW2 planes.
It LOOKED FAST!!
The B17,24,25 looked sorta industrial
The B26 looked FAST!!
Kinda like the F104- looked fast-and was tricky to land because of landing speeds and not a lot of wing(which is why it was fast!)
Yeah cool plane

Ptero- hey low blow!!
The Volt isn't supposed to be a money maker- it is a test vehicle-maybe its sons will morph into your fuel cell vehicle someday.
Charlie

>>>The Volt isn't supposed to be a money maker- it is a test vehicle<<<

It is now. It tests the concept of government-mandated design, a design that was the result of a planning process that had originally been intended to design a fuel cell vehicle.
__________________

The Trabant was the result of a planning process that had originally been intended to design a three-wheeled motorcycle. -- Wikipedia
__________________

Eric Bolling on Fox -- 26 miles of electric use with full charge
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1430236461001/eric-bolling-test-drives-chevy-volt/

Wayne on CleanMPG - 71 and 75 mpg EV range with a full charge. http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39623

If you drive like a fool, you will waste fuel/charge at an accelerated rate. This is not news.

Eric Bolling on Fox -- 26 miles of electric use with full charge
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1430236461001/eric-bolling-test-drives-chevy-volt/

It's Fox! What do you expect?

That's the best you can do? Blame the messenger?

That's the best you can do? Blame the messenger?If the messenger distorts the story - it's not trivial.

It's Fox! What do you expect?
I think you mean "Faux News".

....in related Volt news, it turns out you can put a gun rack on it. (http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/elections/it-turns-out-despite-gingrich-statement-you-can-put-a-gun-rack-in-a-chevy/1217073)

President Obama not allowed to drive a Volt!

"The Secret Service wouldn't let me drive it. But I liked sitting in it. It was nice. I bet it drives real good."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/28/obama_five_years_from_now_when_im_not_president_im_going_to_drive_a_volt.html

Why didn't they let the Commander in Chief drive the Volt?

It was probably because they took the battery out before they'd let him sit in it.

Is he allowed to drive vehicles that aren't armored?

Is he allowed to drive vehicles that aren't armored?

Nope. That's it. The presidential car is an armored SUV.

President Obama not allowed to drive a Volt!

"The Secret Service wouldn't let me drive it. But I liked sitting in it. It was nice. I bet it drives real good."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/28/obama_five_years_from_now_when_im_not_president_im_going_to_drive_a_volt.html

Why didn't they let the Commander in Chief drive the Volt?

It was probably because they took the battery out before they'd let him sit in it.

And, poof. Not that you likely care but all credibility your posts might have once garnered for me is now gone. Your views are your own to hold, but that's me checking out of this thread forevermore.

Obama Drives a Volt (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/07/president-obama-takes-volt-for-a-test-drive.html)

http://www.adinnerguest.com/wp-content/uploads/toast-burning-cropped.jpg
The Volt is toast.
http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/automobiles/213889-gm-halting-production-of-chevy-volt

Obama isn't going to buy one.
Neither am I.

http://www.caranddriver.com/images/media/51/epa-sticker-576-photo-368625-s-original.jpg
False advertising

FIRE SALE: People unloading Chevy Volts on Ebay
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p3872.m570.l1313&_nkw=chevrolet+Volt&_sacat=See-All-Categories

:confused:

The first article is on a temporary shut down of the factory line and the second hardly has "firesale" prices listed for Buy It Now listings.

http://www.adinnerguest.com/wp-content/uploads/toast-burning-cropped.jpg
The Volt is toast.
http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/automobiles/213889-gm-halting-production-of-chevy-volt

Obama isn't going to buy one.
Neither am I.Might want to try more logic and less sensationalism - that's why I tune out PETA, even though I sympathize with a lot of their agenda on treating animals better.

My next car probably will not be a Chevy Volt, but I'm glad GM is working on that rather than the Hummer five years ago. Hummer sales were also influenced by the government with that ridiculous tax write off as "business vehicles."

The news dont look good

The Volt is a friggen joke.

But I did drive a new Vette, all 430 hp, 6MT with magnetic suspension to Nashville and back last week and got 38 mpg on reg. pure gas unleaded. No fas or anything extreme. Just 65 mph on the foot.

Think I'm liking a Grand Sport. :)

I wish 38 MPG made me happy. Maybe in 1980 it did.

The Volt is a friggen joke.

But I did drive a new Vette, all 430 hp, 6MT with magnetic suspension to Nashville and back last week and got 38 mpg on reg. pure gas unleaded. No fas or anything extreme. Just 65 mph on the foot.

Think I'm liking a Grand Sport. :)

:biglol:

I see what you did there. (I hope).

The Volt isn't supposed to make $$-Lutz said that YEARS ago.
It is a Test car-
Maybe it will morph-one day-into your Fuel cell car.

Yeah it is waaaaay too expensive-even with $4 gas.

It is expensive, but what is the cost of a Suburban, a pickup used for a car, etc. The Denali 2500 that Wayne and I took to Detroit had a sticker of over $68,000.:eek: What is the base price of a Suburban? Base model MSRP is $41,995. Cost per mile:$$$$

True
My 1998 Suburban had an actual selling price of $30,000 in 1997(bought used in 2007 for $2950 came with old bill of sale-MSRP was several grand more).
Average 1/2 Suburban probably sells for $45000+TTL now-but they will be dropping now with $4 gas
In 2008 loaded new Suburbans were being advertised for $28000(MSRP probably $40000)
I would bet the average 1/2 ton Chevy pickups have average actual selling prices of close to $25,000 now-a few V-6 strippers are just under $20,000- loaded 1/2 ton 4x4's 4 door maybe $40000-crazy $$.

The problem is no one will pay $40,000 for a little Chevy car.Caddy maybe-little Chevy car-no way.
Buyers look at the Sonic-way cooler-better gas FE-$18000 loaded-Cruze $20,000 loaded to gills-why pay 2X-
Chevys gasoline small cars are good cars-and cheap-why pay $40000??And the Sonic is being seem as cool-sorta's a USA Civic- but better than current Civics.
The Sonic ads are smart-sell it as a cool car with good handling to first time buyers-
no cheapo Aveo stench on the Sonic-.

No one-very few-will pay $40,000 for a $30,000 car(plug in Prius price-and the Prius is better-better FE on either fuel)
Just isn't worth $40000-not even close.

Volt European car of the year (http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/06/10591706-chevy-volt-named-european-car-of-the-year)

http://www.khon2.com/news/local/story/Fire-engulfs-two-homes-overnight/Zu-A3ZwUUUiOLij5bl_Gnw.cspx

I blame the Volt.

No one-very few-will pay $40,000 for a $30,000 car(plug in Prius price-and the Prius is better-better FE on either fuel) Just isn't worth $40000-not even close.

You have to pay for the pleasure of driving a BEV, it may not be be worth $32.5k to you (or me) but to many other people it is.. and prices will come down.. at what point will you change your mind?

article on the GM battery lab explosion:

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120418/AUTO0103/204180323/GM-lab-damage-might-hit-5M

http://cmsimg.detnews.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=C3&Date=20120418&Category=AUTO0103&ArtNo=204180323&Ref=AR&MaxW=640&Border=0&GM-lab-damage-might-hit-5M

General Motors Co. officials say damage could hit $5 million following an explosion last week in a battery-testing lab at its Tech Center in Warren, according to a police report obtained by The Detroit News. The blast injured an employee who remained in the hospital Tuesday.

The explosion happened in what GM officials told Warren police was its "abuse" room. The police report said the explosion "ripped through an adjacent area causing massive damage, blowing open steel doors and blowing out windows."

GM has said the battery being tested was not for a vehicle in production. A person familiar with the matter previously told The Detroit News that the prototype lithium-ion battery in the lab that was being tested was built by A123 systems.

At least two labs in the building's eastern wing were damaged, according to McAdams. Smoke traveled through part of the building, a portion of the roof is gone and a cinder block wall was damaged, McAdams said.

The Warren Fire Department continues to investigate the explosion, but a preliminary investigation reports that a gaseous chemical reached an ignition source in the lab, McAdams said. The battery being tested was meant to fail, but there wasn't supposed to be an ignition source, he said.

"We're trying to find which ignition source, but the damage to the lab is extensive, so we may never know which piece of equipment with 100 percent certainty — but we're working toward it," McAdams said. "We're getting full cooperation from the GM people."

GM opened its battery lab in 2009, and in 2010 doubled the size. It tests current and future battery technologies in the lab, which includes 176 test channels and 49 thermal chambers that duplicate extreme real-world driving patterns, hot and cold temperatures and calendar life.