[Mr. Wyndham]

First of all, it's not a "plug in Hybrid". So already the study sucks. This car will be the first to get a rating of 100mpg or higher from the EPA. So.......

Second, GM jumped on this steaming pile of ---- quick with their own rebuttle.

http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives....html#more-850

Our Real-World Learnings Differ From CMU Study
By Jon Lauckner
Vice President Global Program Management

This past weekend, I read some media reports about a study by Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) questioning the wisdom of vehicles like the Chevy Volt that offer more than a “token” level of gasoline-free driving. I’ve been deeply involved in the development of the Volt from the beginning, so I took some time to download and read the report to see what new insight the CMU study offered.

First of all, we appreciate CMU’s interest and efforts in furthering the research and knowledge about the future of electric vehicle transportation. Only by truly understanding the capabilities and benefits of plug-in electric vehicles will we be able to transition from vehicles primarily dependent on petroleum.

However, what we’ve learned during the development of the Chevy Volt differs from the study’s stated conclusion:

“The best choice of PHEV battery capacity depends critically on the distance that the vehicle will be driven between charges. Our results suggest that for urban driving conditions and frequent charges every 10 miles or less, a low-capacity PHEV sized with an AER (range) of about 7 miles would be a robust choice for minimizing gasoline consumption, cost and greenhouse gas emissions.” (pg. 22)

I’ll cut to the chase; for starters, the study’s endorsement of plug-in vehicles with only a “token” electric-only range (seven miles) overlooks the inconvenience of recharging for the vast majority of drivers (approx. 90 percent) with a daily commute that exceeds seven miles. I mean, honestly, how many customers are going to stop every seven miles and wait at least 30 minutes (if a car has a high-capacity charger like the Volt with the same level of electrical energy to match it) for their battery to be recharged? Without having done any market research, I’m guessing the answer is “very few”. And, if customers don’t recharge during the day, these “token” plug-ins will run primarily on gasoline. How is that consistent with reducing green house gas emissions and our dependence on petroleum?

At its core, the study’s conclusion is based on an incorrect assumption of the cost of battery packs. In the CMU study, the so-called “base case” used a Lithium-Ion battery cost of $1,000 per kWh ($16,000 for a 40 mile Volt pack) that was cited in earlier academic articles. The problem is this cost is many hundreds of dollars per kWh higher than the actual cost of the Volt pack today. Moreover, our battery team is already starting work on new concepts that will further decrease the cost of the Volt battery pack quite substantially in a second-generation Volt pack. Unfortunately, the impact of dramatically lower battery costs (to $250 per kWh) was treated only as a “sensitivity” in the CMU study when it probably should have been highlighted as THE critical element that would dramatically change the cost-effectiveness of plug-ins with greater electric-only range.

The study also failed to include incentives for customers and producers of plug-in vehicles that have already been legislated. In fact, the recently passed “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” (HR1) reconfirmed customer incentives that were included in an earlier bill passed last year for vehicles with a grid rechargeable battery pack. The legislation provides a Federal Tax credit ranging from $2,500 for 4four kWh battery packs to a maximum of $7,500 for customers of full-scale commercial plug-in electric vehicles. So, the PHEV-7 (3kWh battery) advocated in the CMU study would receive “zero” tax credit, while a Chevy Volt (16 kWh battery) with 40 miles of electric range will receive the maximum Federal Tax credit of $7,500. The State of Michigan, where we plan to produce the Volt battery pack, has also legislated incentives for manufacturers of battery packs and cells. So, when more realistic battery costs and customer and producer incentives are included, the calculations (and conclusions?) in the CMU study should change very significantly.

The bottom line is there isn’t anything in this study that would change the decisions we made for the Chevy Volt. We think a plug-in offering 40 miles of gas- and emissions-free driving like the Volt is the sweet spot for the majority of customers because nearly 80 percent of drivers can drive their daily commute and return home for an overnight recharge that avoids inconvenience for them and additional daytime load on the electric grid.

Actually, as I read the conclusions of the study I had a feeling of déjà vu. Some years ago, GM didn’t introduce hybrid technology as quickly as we should have because it wasn’t considered “cost effective” at the time - and we aren’t going to make that mistake again. In fact, the more vehicles powered by the Voltec system we can put on the road, the faster we’ll see the costs for batteries, power electronics and electric drive motors come down due to economies of scale and innovation. This will lead to even greater adoption of plug-ins and a new way forward for our industry.