The Electric Duds

US proven oil reserves: 22.3 billion barrels (2009).
US oil consumption: 21.4 million barrels per day (2004).

US reserves therefore contain 22.3 billion / 21.4 million = 1042 days of consumption, or 2 years 10 months.

Clearly, nobody can predict when a new oil discovery will be made nor how big it will be when and if it is found. But on the global scale, annual world oil consumption has been greater than annual new discoveries in every single year since 1983.

Don't you see a problem with that?

 

again with the deliberate disinformation, what's your real game here?...EPA rates the Volt at 37 miles electric only not 25 miles...and I've already explained cold temps and required insulated garage is a blatant misdirection, batteries can also be cooled...the 1.4 gas engine is more than adequate for a commuter and highway cruising, and expect better manufacturers are consistently getting better performance out of ever smaller engines...and price, 40k? be honest, rebates offered reduce the Volt's cost to 31K...then deduct fuel savings per year, for Mrs wyly her cost per day on electric only add up to 25 cents a day...


http://gm-volt.com/2010/11/24/official-2011-chevrolet-volt-epa-fuel-economy-released/

http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car/

 

That is "proven reserves" which is not the accurate measurement

"By Jim Ostroff
Provided by

Think the U.S. is running out of oil? Think again.

What is running low, given soaring demand for energy worldwide, is oil in fields that have already been tapped and are in production — in other words, the relatively easy-to-get stuff, which oil companies have proven exists and can get at with current technology. Those reserves are clearly being drained. The U.S. has around 20 billion barrels now, down from nearly 29 billion barrels a decade ago and about half the 1970 peak of 39 billion barrels. But…

The U.S. is sitting on the world’s largest, untapped oil reserves — reservoirs which energy experts know exist, but which have not yet been tapped and may not be attainable with current technology. In fact, such untapped reserves are estimated at about 2.3 trillion barrels, nearly three times more than the reserves held by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) nations and sufficient to meet 300 years of demand — at today’s levels — for auto, truck, aircraft, heating and industrial fuel, without importing a single barrel of oil.

What’s the problem then? Why aren’t oil companies jumping to pump the black gold?

Contrary to what some conspiracy theorists would have you believe, there is no cabal of oil companies and foreign governments blocking the way, bottling up U.S. oil production. The reality is much more mundane. Those untapped reserves are located in places that either Uncle Sam has put off-limits for environmental reasons or are too costly to get — or a combination of both.

Given current sky-high prices for crude oil and the likelihood that oil prices will remain high — at or above $100 a barrel — for the foreseeable future, it is now economically viable to tap some of those reserves. But environmental concerns — ranging from preservation of pristine lands to worries about increasing the use of fossil fuels and accelerating global climate change — remain a hurdle."
http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/07/11/untapped-oil-reserves-could-fuel-us-for-300-years/

And then there is

"Massive Oil Deposit Could Increase US reserves by 10x

America is sitting on top of a super massive 200 billion barrel Oil Field that could potentially make America Energy Independent and until now has largely gone unnoticed. Thanks to new technology the Bakken Formation in North Dakota could boost America’s Oil reserves by an incredible 10 times, giving western economies the trump card against OPEC’s short squeeze on oil supply and making Iranian and Venezuelan threats of disrupted supply irrelevant.

In the next 30 days the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) will release a new report giving an accurate resource assessment of the Bakken Oil Formation that covers North Dakota and portions of South Dakota and Montana. With new horizontal drilling technology it is believed that from 175 to 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil are held in this 200,000 square mile reserve that was initially discovered in 1951. The USGS did an initial study back in 1999 that estimated 400 billion recoverable barrels were present but with prices bottoming out at $10 a barrel back then the report was dismissed because of the higher cost of horizontal drilling techniques that would be needed, estimated at $20-$40 a barrel. "
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

We aren't running out of oil for decades and decades and decades......centuries.

 

So what that's not real world driving.

No it is not cold weather effects the charging time and power it can store. Then of course when you run the heater to stay warm you are draining the battery or the ac to stay cool you are draining the battery.

http://gm-volt.com/2011/01/26/real-world-chevy-volt-ev-range-experience-in-cold-weather-driving/

or

Wall Street Journal - Jonathan Welsh - Page D4 - 01/19/11

Article quote:

I just finished test-driving the Chevy Volt in temperatures that stayed below freezing for nearly the whole time I had the car. As a result, the battery's range fell more than 30%. In ideal conditions the Volt is supposed to go 40 miles on battery power alone, but I was traveling between 22 and 25 miles before its range-extending gasoline generator kicked in.

I'm not knocking the Volt, which is a technical gem. This is just the way batteries behave in cold weather. Other electrics I have driven suffered similarly in the cold. Count on losing at least 35% of battery range in winter driving.
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/...fell-more-than-30-cold-weather-testing-99554/

And in fact if it is cold the Volt will have to use additional electricity when plugged in to condition the battery by heating it and real cold the electric generator will actually use gas to heat up the batteries.

Cold affects batteries, law of physics and chemistry. It is a chemical reaction.

"Adequate" for $40 grand.

It COST $40,000. Period, that the cost is split between the person buying and the taxpayer does not change that cost.

It is failing, most likely will not survive unless Obama pours more taxpayer money into it.

 

The Volt would be acceptable at a price of maybe 20 grand.

The Leaf (and the Fisker and the Tesla) would be OK at a price of $9,000.

But we still haven't addressed what to do about dead batteries.

 

I still want to know what they propose to do about road use taxes for electrics.

 

Do I need to run these numbers yet again??? Honestly how many times have I run the numbers on this (*)(*)(*)(*)? You will never EVER save more money driving an electric than you will a conventional fuel efficient car. You will never EVER make back the extra cost for the electric. And that is not even including that once the volts actually battery life starts to become more commonly known, FYI its not 100,000 miles, and if you read the fine print of their warranty they dont really cover it for 100,000 miles either natural degradation of the battery is not covered under the warranty. The car will have 0 resale value once people start finding out about that gem.

 

Just because the EPA gives it a rating doesn't make it so.

The EPA can be relied on to bend numbers all out of shape.

 

Dead batteries (and the enormous cost of replacement) is why first-generation Honda Insights are worthless on the used market. Parts cars.

 

That blanket statement is entirely dependent on the future price of oil. Please tell us what it will be five years from now. And ten years from now. We're all dying to know.

 

Please post a link to those sales figures for the full year of 2011, not just December.

I'll take care of that for ya.....

That's delivered not sold.

 

Liar.

The Volt numbers you posted were for January through March, not for the whole year of 2011, as you said. The link you posted was written in April 2011.

 

Its blanket statement because I've run the numbers every which way in the past.

The Chevy Cruz $17,000 30mpg combined

The Chevy Volt $32,000(after rebate)

Assume 100,000 miles for the life of the car. This is being generous despite people being fooled by GMs carefully worded warranty the battery of the volt wont last 100,000 miles.

Cruz
100,000 miles / 30 miles/gallon = 3333 gallons

Volt
35 miles/charge * 1 charge / 16kWh = 2.1875 miles/kWh
100,000 miles / 2.1875 miles/kWh = 45,714kWh

Holding electricity constant(this is being generous since green nutcases want more expensive electricity)

45,714kWh *0.112 dollars/kWh = $5120

So that is how much the fuel cost for the Volt will be.

So lets start solving for X and determine what our break even point on the cost of fuel will be.

3333X = $32,000 - $17,000 + $5120
3333X = 20,120
X = $6.04/gallon average

Now this is being as generous as possible. It includes the rebate which as a net tax payer I and anyone else would regard as my money. It also uses the very generous 100,000 miles estimate which the volt is proving to fall well short of in real life. It is also assuming 100% electric operation which is also best case.

If we take a more realistic estimation of about 60,000 miles and 33% of the time on conventional.

40,000 miles / 2.1875 miles/kwh = 18,286kWh

18,286kWh * 0.112 dollars/kWh = $2048

20,000 miles / 37 miles/gallon = 541 gallons

60,000 miles / 30 miles/gallon = 2000 gallons

2000X = $32,000 - $17000 + $2048 +541X
2000X = $17,048 + 541X
1459X = $17048
X = $17,048 / 1459

X = $11.68 / gallon

 

Why are you comparing the mid-sized Volt to the subcompact Cruz? For apples-to-apples, compare the Volt to the Malibu. Also, don't forget the price of oil changes that the Volt does without. And after 40,000 miles, I'm sure the Malibu is due for a radiator flush, too.

 

The Volt gas engine doesn't require oil? Doesn't require cooling?

 

Why shouldn't you be able to go 200,000 in the Cruz?

Try 26 real world.

 

I'm comparing the two because the goal is to save money. In the above example you are making a decisions based on the finances not the size of the car. That is apples to apples for this case. Nice try though.

Since we are looking at the average long term that is not important. The question is do you save money or lose money.

Since we are buying both cars new both will be covered by dealer warranty.

You just cant admit you were wrong and aren't the bright.

 

I was being generous with all the fictitious government numbers. I knew full well that even using their gaudy numbers the end results would still come out in my favor.

 

Or its conventional engine which poordebater doesn't seem to think exists.

 

No, you're comparing the Volt to the Cruz because your goal is to make an invalid comparison and try to pass it off as apples-to-apples, hoping that nobody notices. Your goal is deception.

If you had a defensible case, you wouldn't need to be deceptive.

 

People don't want these cars.
I wanna see some numbers on how much a family's electric bill goes up.

 

My original statement

The experiment begins with the assumption that the purchasers is going out looking to save maximum long term money. That is the motive of the purchaser. We assume that the purchaser will make the most economical buy. Buying the more expensive less fuel efficient conventional car is not a valid apples to apples comparison.

You can keep trying but that dog won't hunt. You didn't know how the numbers worked because you are not that bright. Admit you aren't that smart.

 

It was late and that was an error. You could have simply pointed that out instead of the CHILDISHLY calling me a liar. How old ARE you?

Here is the revision.

The Volt sold a whopping 8.6% of Camaro sales and less than 60% of the expensive elite Corvette. Can you say Edsel?

 

To try and simplify the argument so someone with the cognitive ability of poor debater can understand.

First he doesn't understand that are apples and what are oranges in a given example.

For example he compares the sales of the volt, a car that is intended to replace the commuter car with the corvette a high end sports car.

In my example the apples and apples isn't the cars. Its the consumer. Two consumers set out to save the most money. That is the apples and apples comparison. How does the consumer save the most money? Which choice should the like consumers make? When you set out to save the most money you will never ever equal your original investment driving a volt than if you went out and bought a conventional fuel efficient car.

 

Thanks for admitting your error. I retract my statement, and I apologize.