Chevrolet Volt may have a lower price tag than expected...

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by 5thGenOwner

I still have a hard time putting this under a "green" car. Just because we use the facad of "electric", that doesn't necessarily mean it is better for the environment.

Between the current methods for making electricity (coal), and the fact that most batteries head to the landfill once dead, the difference between this current form of electric car and a conventional combustion engine are argueably minimal.

IMHO... this whole "green" movement is a joke, aka gimmick to sell products. And without anyone questioning in public, they just go about stating lies. Uh-hum... global warming sound familiar? (lies)

Don't get me wrong, when/if we really do invent the technology, assuming it is possible, electric will be the way. Combustion won't be able to even compete. But batteries need much longer life than 40 or even 100 miles. I mean... no plane could use this! We arn't there yet, forcing something that isn't feasable is a waste of time, and may cause the real solution to take even longer than it should.

My $0.02.

Even with coal, electric cars are more energy efficient than ones with ICE engines. And coal does not generate 100% of the power either, its only about 50% and something like 30% comes from sources that don't emit any CO2. But no matter how the electricity is generated, it is not coming unfriendly nations. Uranium for nuclear power comes mainly from Canada and pretty much everything else is fueled domestically.

End of life impact is very difficult to predict. However, last I checked Li-ions were recyclable, so why would they end up in a landfill? Its not as if you're going remove a 400 lb, 5 ft long battery and put it at the curb 10 years from now when it dies.

Where did planes come from? You're right that an electric airplane makes no sense at all, but what about continental high speed electric rail? No batteries required and it reduces the congestion, pollution, and noise of airports.

Can we eliminate fossil fuel use? Not for the foreseeable future. That will only be possible after hydrogen can be produced cheaply and efficiently. But in the mean time, why not reduce fossil fuel usage? While I doubt its causing global warming, I know its not helping the situation. So why not reduce its potential impact, while gaining energy independence, increasing efficiency, reducing other pollutants (CO2 and water are not the only things coming from tailpipes) and keeping more money within your own borders? Green for green sake is stupid. Opposing something simply because its green is equally stupid.

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

+1. And at this point, they are still expected to maintain 80% +/- of their capacity.

A lower-than-40k pricetag would be fantastic!! I won't get my hopes up for anything below 35k, though...

It would be fantastic if the one time I'm pessimistic, I turn out to be wrong.

At $35k, they wouldn't be able to keep them on the lots.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Even with coal, electric cars are more energy efficient than ones with ICE engines. And coal does not generate 100% of the power either, its only about 50% and something like 30% comes from sources that don't emit any CO2. But no matter how the electricity is generated, it is not coming unfriendly nations. Uranium for nuclear power comes mainly from Canada and pretty much everything else is fueled domestically.

End of life impact is very difficult to predict. However, last I checked Li-ions were recyclable, so why would they end up in a landfill? Its not as if you're going remove a 400 lb, 5 ft long battery and put it at the curb 10 years from now when it dies.

Where did planes come from? You're right that an electric airplane makes no sense at all, but what about continental high speed electric rail? No batteries required and it reduces the congestion, pollution, and noise of airports.

Can we eliminate fossil fuel use? Not for the foreseeable future. That will only be possible after hydrogen can be produced cheaply and efficiently. But in the mean time, why not reduce fossil fuel usage? While I doubt its causing global warming, I know its not helping the situation. So why not reduce its potential impact, while gaining energy independence, increasing efficiency, reducing other pollutants (CO2 and water are not the only things coming from tailpipes) and keeping more money within your own borders? Green for green sake is stupid. Opposing something simply because its green is equally stupid.

I'd like to take this opportunity to pitch the viable interim solution of Green Crude oil...or algae. Just sayin'.

[Kyle2k]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

I'd like to take this opportunity to pitch the viable interim solution of Green Crude oil...or algae. Just sayin'.

Hopefully, I would kind of like to have my cake and eat it too

[Xanthos]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

At $35k, they wouldn't be able to keep them on the lots.

Isn't that the point?

Since when did we want the cars to stay on the lots?
- X

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

I'd like to take this opportunity to pitch the viable interim solution of Green Crude oil...or algae. Just sayin'.

forgot about green crude ... yes, a very good supplement for conventional fuel sources

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by Xanthos

Isn't that the point?

Since when did we want the cars to stay on the lots?
- X

Yes...that's what I'm saying.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Xanthos

Isn't that the point?

Since when did we want the cars to stay on the lots?
- X

never but its much better to sell 20,000 cars at a $5k loss than 40,000 cars at a $10k loss.

[AngryAmish]

Originally Posted by Mr_Draco

The IRS website says it is a credit "ranging between $2,500-$7,500".

Thank god. A deduction would just take it off your earnings. A credit means you get the money back. That was exactly what I wanted to hear.

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

At $35k, they wouldn't be able to keep them on the lots.

At 35K, they wouldn't need lots..lol.

[FenwickHockey65]

Whitacre just said that it'll sell in the low 30s and for a profit.

Not sure if that's a low-30k MSRP or low-30k with the tax incentive.

Pleaaaaaaase be MSRP...

[coolman]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

The Volt's batteries are designed for 10 years or 150,000 miles.

Are the batteries warranted for that long are just designed for that long?
Two different things.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by coolman

Are the batteries warranted for that long are just designed for that long?
Two different things.

they are to last that long with minimal reduction in range. Its my understanding that they will come with excess capacity that won't be used until the battery degrades.

[coolman]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

they are to last that long with minimal reduction in range. Its my understanding that they will come with excess capacity that won't be used until the battery degrades.

To me that would be a selling point if GM would give a ten year warranty or even maybe an eight year. (give a couple of years for fluff).

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Whitacre just said that it'll sell in the low 30s and for a profit.

Not sure if that's a low-30k MSRP or low-30k with the tax incentive.

Pleaaaaaaase be MSRP...

Whitacre strikes me as the type of person to talk before he thinks...I hope this is true though!!