Advertisement

On Bad Electric-Car News: A Note To Our Valued Readers

 
3,760 views Mar 9, 2012
Follow John

2012 Chevrolet Volt

2012 Chevrolet Volt

Enlarge Photo

Related Photo Galleries


See more photos »

The news cycle can be a funny thing.

We happen to have three stories today about concerns with plug-in cars: Consumer Reports' dead Fisker Karma test car, questions on the real-world range of the 2012 Tesla Model S at speed, and the so-far all-but-invisible 2012 Ford Focus Electric.

We often get criticized in story comments for being biased against one particular plug-in vehicle or another, or for reporting negative news about some automotive startup company.


Let's be clear about one thing here: Our job is not to be advocates for any specific type or make of green car.

Our job is to report the news, to surface stories that usage data show readers are likely to be interested in, and to provide context around the often-muddy topic of fuel efficiency and electrified vehicles.

If you're looking for rosy advocacy, there are many other fine organizations and sites that can provide that.

For the record, these days we're feeling pretty optimistic. From now through 2025, it's clear that every class of vehicle will become much more fuel efficient.

This isn't happening through the goodness of automakers' hearts; they'd rather have kept doing what they're doing. It has been forced by legislation in the U.S., Europe, and Asia.

We will also see a slow emergence of plug-in vehicles into showrooms across the country.

Some of them are volume production vehicles; others are no more than test fleets or low-volume conversions to meet manufacturers' specific needs.

The word "slow" is the key item here.

We're always shocked how many otherwise rational people truly believe that every third car in the showrooms will have a plug on it by, say, 2015.

Trust us, folks: That ain't gonna happen.

Among other reasons, the production capacity for that volume of lithium-ion cells doesn't currently exist--and would cost hundreds of billions of dollars to build.

It will happen gradually. It will come in fits and starts and there will be many failures along the way, as there are in the launch of any new and transformative technology.

Meanwhile, there remains a portion of the public, of our political parties, and of the media who are apparently doing their darnedest to obfuscate (at best) and deliberately spread misinformation (at worst) about these cars along the way.

We will report on all of this.

As always, we thank you for following GreenCarReports, and we welcome your comments. Have a good weekend.

+++++++++++

Follow GreenCarReports on Facebook and Twitter.





Tags:
Posted in:
 
Contribute
Send us a tip Comment Contact the editor
Follow Us

 

Have an opinion?

  • Posting indicates you have read this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
  • Notify me when there are more comments
Comments (23)

  1. fb_1001015277 avatar John Briggs Posted: 3/9/2012 12:33pm PST

    News is a funny thing. Somehow, most new is bad in one way or another. After all, a bunch of cars working properly really isn't a story. But have one fail spectacularly, that is news. If it bleeds it leads.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  2. fb_100002494343393 avatar Jason Hendler Posted: 3/9/2012 7:23pm PST

    Having done product development, bad news is just new information by which to improve your design. No battleplan survives first engagement with the enemy, and no new product survives first exposure to its market.

    I am disappointed that you chose to denegrate automakers in this article, and raise legislators to the level of savior, because of the increased restrictions in CAFE and emissions standards. In reality, these changes were coordinated with automakers, who, along with everyone else, can see rising fuel prices from supplies not keeping up with demand (and the falling dollar). Having a clearly forecast, gradual increases in those standards reduce risk as automakers can improve their products without going out on a limb.
     
    Post Reply
    0
    Bad stuff?

     

  3. john_v avatar John Voelcker Posted: 3/10/2012 3:49am PST

    @Jason: Thanks for your thoughts. You're right; the latest set of CAFE requirements was coordinated not only among NHTSA, EPA + CARB but also *almost* all of the largest carmakers selling in the States.

    But do you *really* think the automakers would have raised fuel economy on their own, absent the legislation? The industry has an almost perfect record of fighting *every* legislative initiative proposed for its products since the 1960s. It fought seat belts, fer crissakes--and hard. It fought the 1st emissions controls & every round since. And airbags. And fuel-economy regs. Etc.

    The problem: consumers will rarely pay for any of this, so carmakers have little sales incentive to offer it.
     
    Post Reply
    +2
    Bad stuff?

     

  4. fb_100002494343393 avatar Jason Hendler Posted: 3/10/2012 5:44am PST

    No, automakers would not offer these techs on their own, because they cannot risk the exposure of such a large investment, when their competitors continue to offer older / cheaper tech. It's business, not malevolence. Even venerated Toyota only introduced the Prius, because they believed the US government was going to mandate such vehicles.

    Interestingly, even with the introduction of EV's / PHEV's with much better utility / performance / styling, the overall marketshare of any / all hybrid and alternate propulsion / fuel vehicles is still only 3%. It's risky both politically / economically to try to force solutions on an unwilling market. These vehicles will only succeed when they achieve price / performance / utility parity with ICE.
     
    Post Reply
    -2
    Bad stuff?

     

  5. john_v avatar John Voelcker Posted: 3/10/2012 6:15am PST

    Where do you see "malevolence" in this paragraph?

    "This isn't happening through the goodness of automakers' hearts; they'd rather have kept doing what they're doing. It has been forced by legislation in the U.S., Europe, and Asia."

    I'd argue (as would Mulally, Bill Ford & a host of other luminaries) that a gasoline tax is the smartest way to sort it all out. Raise the price of gas and let the market decide what cars it wants/can afford. But in the current U.S. political climate, proposing raising any tax is equivalent to matricide--and seemingly the President is responsible for keeping gas prices low, LOL. So instead we put the entire onus on carmakers & mandate what they build.

    (cont.)
     
    Post Reply
    +5
    Bad stuff?

  6. john_v avatar John Voelcker Posted: 3/10/2012 6:17am PST

    (cont.) That said, it is historical record that automakers have unified to fight pretty much any attempt to regulate their products--and those regulations would have applied to all automakers at the same time.

    If they'd had their way, we'd be driving cars with no emissions controls and no safety equipment. Do you think otherwise?
     
    Post Reply
    +2
    Bad stuff?

     

  7. fb_100002494343393 avatar Jason Hendler Posted: 3/10/2012 12:33pm PST

    You needn't ask what automakers would do, when you have the recent experience of the latest CAFE / emissions standards. They would coordinate with government to layout an achieveable plan to gradually, affordably increase restrictions in a manner that would NOT kill the auto industry. As usual, California comes along and places mandated quotas for zero emissions vehicles on top, when we are seeing a cratering of sales for BEV's, and a dearth of FCV's until 2014 / 2015 at the earliest.

    Your insistance that automakers wouldn't do anything without "being forced" is wrong. Automakers are asking for an achieveable, market acceptable, coordinated restrictions, so that automakers succeed, instead of going bankrupt.
    -3
    Bad stuff?

  8. Monokel47 avatar Monokel47 Posted: 3/10/2012 12:55am PST

    I agree. Most important for all the players: be honest. About starting a SLOW evolution that will take 30-50 years, about ev's still being more expensive than ICE cars almost everywhere in the world and about range. It's range OR speed OR heating/AC - not "AND".
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

     

  9. ddavids1 avatar Don Davidson Posted: 3/10/2012 9:02am PST

    Slow evolution? The cost of fossil fuel at now more than $4/gallon has already done what a "gasoline tax" would do (price traditional IC vehicles out of the market). I do not understand why pure EV's are more expensive than their ICE counterparts, when the EV has very few mechanical parts compared to an ICE car. Yes, the first VCR, camcorder, cellphone & flatscreen TV cost thousands and now most are free (or close to it). I'm hoping that as each gene4ration of EV appears, the range increases and the cost of the vehicle decreases to the point where a traditional ICE is the more expensive of the two. It will happen. It has to.....
     
    Post Reply
    +1
    Bad stuff?

     

  10. john_v avatar John Voelcker Posted: 3/10/2012 11:44am PST

    @Don: In the consumer Li-ion cell market, we've seen roughly 6-8% improvement per year in price-performance. Assuming that applies to large-format automotive Li-ion cells, it means that battery costs will be roughly half of what they are in first-gen electric cars by, say, 2020. But there's no Moore's law for electric cars; 6 to 8% a year is about as good as it will get, plus cost reductions from mass production of electric components.
     
    Post Reply
    -1
    Bad stuff?

     

  11. ddavids1 avatar Don Davidson Posted: 3/10/2012 12:21pm PST

    John: So, by 2020 the cost of Li-ion batteries will be half the cost of what they are today plus mass production of these components should drastically cut the cost to purchase an EV? As I have read, new battery technologies are developed daily as well as charging methods are also discovered daily. Who can predict what battery technologies will be discovered in the years to come? Continue to develop less expensive solar panels for residential homes-this too will reduce the cost of owning/operating an EV. I built my first EV in 1980 using lead acid technology. I fantasized about the day I could afford Li-ion. Who remembers Chevron locking up the patent in the mid-1980's for the Cobalsys battery?
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

     

  12. john_v avatar John Voelcker Posted: 3/10/2012 12:39pm PST

    Researchers all over the world are pursuing new energy storage chemistries, it's true. But from lab to volume production in cars is generally 10 years or more (it took 20 for Li-ion) and many promising lab results never pan out for high-volume manufacturing. We will be using Li-ion in the majority of electrified vehicles for at least the next decade. And I'll bet you dinner on that.
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  13. fb_1620175433 avatar William Cervini Posted: 3/10/2012 11:15am PST

    I agree 100% with John Voelcker on this. He is correct that the automakers fought every regulation that came down the line. Those of you too young to remember the catalytic converter/unleaded gas battle today benefit from sparks plugs that last 100,000 miles, not 5,000 miles, exhaust systems that last hundreds of thousands of miles, not 20,000 miles, fuel injection instead of balky carburetors, electronic ignitions which have not points and rotors to replace every 5000 miles and much cleaner air to breathe.
     
    Post Reply
    +3
    Bad stuff?

     

  14. ddavids1 avatar Don Davidson Posted: 3/10/2012 12:10pm PST

    William: you just listed a very few of the many components that do not exisit or require maintenance in an EV...oil/oil pumps; antifreeze/water pumps; air filters; exhaust pipes; O2 sensors (part of cat converters) just to name a few more items EV's do not require to operate...Add computers to the comparison...the drop in price of a PC and how quickly it's power and storage doubles...will we not see this same EVolution with EV's? EVen if the cost to purchase an EV doesn't drop radically, this cost is overcome by the lack of maintenance expense and inexpensive fuel used to power an EV
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  15. fb_1683037341 avatar Bob Jordan Posted: 3/10/2012 1:12pm PST

    I am a journalist (News Director of WFTV in Orlando) and a Volt owner. The misinformation that's out there regarding the Volt undermines the media's credibility and the Volt's (stellar, IMHO) position as a truly, ground-breaking car. If you haven't visited it yet, go to voltstats.net for real world, un-fooled around with data on this great car.
     
    Post Reply
    +1
    Bad stuff?

  16. CDspeed avatar CDspeed . Posted: 3/10/2012 10:09pm PST

    I think sometimes we read articles that sound a little negative and admittedly over react. But given all the negativity electric car enthusiasts face from skeptics, politics, and those who think they know all, the electric car enthusiast has almost had to become defensive. So if an article on GCR sounds skeptical or even borders on negativity some readers are going to go on the defensive. I sure I am guilty of this as well, so I apologize, I know I've fired off a few comments in the past wile not having been in the best mood to start with.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  17. Bearing avatar Mark Bearing Posted: 3/11/2012 10:18am PDT

    Of course the auto industry points to imposing a higher gas tax... It's not going to come out of their pockets. Taxation without representation - sound familiar? Gasoline tax is supposed to support building and maintaining the highway infrastructure. Not be yet another government cattle prod.
    Why not tax the electricity generated from coal vs hydroelectric? How about taxing the petroleum based poly used in clothing vs natural fibers? How about taxing asphalt vs cenment? Home heating oil vs solar, on and on Tax tax tax - it's the obvious solution.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  18. Bearing avatar Mark Bearing Posted: 3/11/2012 10:30am PDT

    If they'd had their way, we'd be driving cars with no emissions controls and no safety equipment. Do you think otherwise?
    I agree to a point - and if the government had their way we'd all driving cars powered by butterfly kisses.
    It's the market that drives innovation - not laws and taxes.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

     

  19. robok2 avatar robok2 Posted: 3/12/2012 5:46am PDT

    Ah, yes, Mark, when the government gets tired of 30 years of excuses and no improvement in mileage (much on emissions, however) and imposes a long-overdue increase, that's apparently showing the government's demand that cars be powered by "butterfly kisses."

    Yes, expecting moderate 3-5% annual increases after 30 years of nothing, that's apparently unreasonable in your world, yet the OEMs can do it and have agreed, just as European and Asian makers have done much better for decades.

    And even more amusing was this," "It's the market that drives innovation-not laws and taxes."

    I'm sure that wins cheers at the Tea Party rallies, but stability control, air bags, seat belts and lower mileage... How many came from the market again? Zero.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  20. Bearing avatar Mark Bearing Posted: 3/12/2012 10:21am PDT

    Seat belts
    First offered as optional equipment in 1956 by Ford, GM and Chrysler.
    In 1959 they were standard equipment on all Volvos.
    In 1964 all 4 major US auto mfgs installed front seat belts as standard equipment
    Laws requiring use and fitment came much much later.
    What the government did give us was the "Automatic Seat Belt". Enough said.
    Stability control
    I'm not aware of a single country mandating any form of Stability Control. Yet it standard equipmnet on all but the most bare bones of cars.
    ABS
    Ubiquitous yet not mandated
    Fuel Economy
    American Motors, Ford, GM, Chrysler all have had cars targeting lower gas consumption for decades. VW, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, gained market share well before CAFE.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

     

  21. robok2 avatar robok2 Posted: 3/12/2012 1:56pm PDT

    Mark, not much time to respoind here quickly, but stabiloity control is 100% mandated by the U.S. govt. and has been since 2011. I also note that you left out air bags, which were the most egregious example of the OEMs fighting any change and claiming they would go out of business if forced to implement.

    For seat belts, I'm not sure we agree; in the U.S., All vehicles had to have the driver's seat belt from MY 1965, so that wasn't an option. In 1965, 1968 and 1974 the degree of compulsory seat belts gradually increased, so it wasn't just the OEMs gathering and deciding on their own it was suddenly a good idea.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  22. Bearing avatar Mark Bearing Posted: 3/12/2012 10:23am PDT

    Emissions
    I'll give you that one - legislation plays a key role as well they must. But it's become a forum for left wing environmentalists that oppose virtually any form of fossil fuel, nuclear fuel, and more recently even hydro electric power. Never been to a Tea Party rally and never will - same for the Occupy movement. They are both too far out in the wings to be of much use to me.
    30 years of nothing?
    ESP, ABS, Air Bags, attention assist, active speed control, run flat tires, seat belt pre tensioning, brake assist, automatic roll bars, pre crash automatic window/sun roof closing, automatic panic stop, HUD, night vision, DRL, variable intensity automatic high low beams, lane departure warning. The list could go on and on
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

     

  23. robok2 avatar robok2 Posted: 3/13/2012 10:45am PDT

    Mark, again, limited time, but please allow me to comment briefly.

    I did not mean all innovation, I specifically meant mileage and emissions since we are talking about green cars here, right? When run flat tires start providing better mileage, then I'll agree. I work in the industry for a company that is innovative and I respect all the innovation you mentioned. But again, when it comes to mileage and emissions, the D3 have been terrible, to be generous.

    On the other hand, I get tired of ignorant people whining about mileage not improving for 20-30 years. The test cycle is tougher and vehicles are much larger and heavier than long ago due to safety systems and our unfortunate fondness for huge vehicles.

    If the D3 had moved on their own..
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

 

Have an opinion?Join the conversation!

Advertisement
Advertisement

Find Green Cars

Go!

Advertisement

More from High Gear Media

 
 
Green Car Reports
  • Follow Us
  • Twiiter
  • Facebook
 
 
© 2013 Green Car Reports. All Rights Reserved. Green Car Reports is published by High Gear Media. Send us feedback. Stock photography by Homestar, LLC.