Counting down the days until the end of General Motors

[Nancy]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

As far as I know Lithium Ion batteries are the one of the most reliable and efficient batteries out there, so I don't know if they just don't hold a charge any more like the cell phone batteries.

As for the increase cost/break even point. You are also paying for the look and performance of the vechicle. Most decent non high end sports cars sell for upwards of 50+ thousand dollars, with some being even higher than the Tesla at 109K.

Honestly, for me the thing that is disappointing is that you can only purchase a tesla if you live in the states......

Where is all of the additional electricity going to come from to power these cars? Not from nuke or hydro power, it's all going to come from new coal plants. Even in BC or MB, the additional demand for hydro would result in an equal displacement of surplus power sold to coal jurisdictions, resulting in more coal production in other states/provinces. Zero sum gain.

[Azure]

I think the future will depend on a wide range of car companies all trying to stay competitive by developing the most fuel efficient car out there.

Let the market do its work.

Its too bad you have a big government administration in office right now down in the US, because letting all the car companies crash and burn would benefit everyone immensely down the road.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Looks like European subsidiaries of GM - Opel/Vauxhall and SAAB are going bankrupt:

BERLIN (Reuters) – German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Saturday that General Motors (GM.N) must improve the rescue plan for its German unit Opel if it wants government support for the struggling carmaker.
Merkel has told party members that Opel is not systemically crucial to the German economy, and weekend reports suggested her government would not inject any cash directly into the firm.

...

GM Europe submitted a rescue plan for Opel last week under which the German unit along with UK-based Vauxhall Motors would be partly spun off from its parent. It said the independent unit needs 3.3 billion euros ($4.17 billion) in state aid.
German weekly magazine Der Spiegel said on Saturday that Opel was threatening to close its German plants in Eisenach and Bochum as well as its Belgian site in Antwerp.
Citing documents it said Opel had submitted to the German government, the magazine said this scenario would lead to 20 percent of the company's 55,000 staff in Europe being laid off.
An alternative plan involved the loss of only 3,500 jobs -- providing wage concessions were made, it added.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090307/...s_germany_opel

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...611271,00.html


And here comes the fun part:

FRANKFURT (AFP) – The stricken US car maker General Motors has ceded patents obtained by its German unit Opel to the US Treasury in exchange for public aid, the daily Bild-Zeitung reported on Friday.
Dow Jones Newswires quoted a German government source meanwhile as saying that GM, which holds Opel's patents, sold them to the US Treasury in anticipation of buying them back at a later date.
All of Opel's patents were transferred to its US parent, and the German auto manufacturer also no longer owns its factories and other sites, the government source said.

...

German officials are concerned that Opel's strong dependence on GM would lead to state aid being transferred to the United States.
Conservative German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said that Opel should consider declaring bankruptcy, in comments published Friday.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090306...ycompanygmopel


So, basically GM sucked out of Opel everything that was worth anything, patents, factories, etc. The company is an empty shell and now they are asking for 3.3 billion euros...to be...I don't know...sucked out of Opel right to GM coffers in the US? Well done, GM. Well done indeed.

[Locke]

At least the German government isnt blindly throwing cash at the problem just because its GM.

They realized that this looks shady and denied aid until they were satisfied. The US had already signed the cheque before they even started asking questions.

[Flame Of Liberty]

The German government was not impressed by the "business plan" either:

Media reports suggest that the German government was angry that the bail-out proposal - which asked for 3.3bn euros (£2.93bn; $4.16bn) - was simply a glossy 217-page brochure which read like an advertisement, rather than presenting any viable business plan.
Finance minister Peer Steinbrueck said the plan was "no basis" for the government to make a decision on whether to grant state aid.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7927924.stm

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

The German government was not impressed by the "business plan" either:

Media reports suggest that the German government was angry that the bail-out proposal - which asked for 3.3bn euros (£2.93bn; $4.16bn) - was simply a glossy 217-page brochure which read like an advertisement, rather than presenting any viable business plan.
Finance minister Peer Steinbrueck said the plan was "no basis" for the government to make a decision on whether to grant state aid.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7927924.stm

Doesnt this make the US look like a bunch of chumps for already having handed over the cash after likely receiving the same unimpressive dog and pony show?

On that note, isnt Canada planning on giving these guys more cash too? Maybe its time someone actually read whatever GM has been handing out.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Locke

Doesnt this make the US look like a bunch of chumps for already having handed over the cash after likely receiving the same unimpressive dog and pony show?

On that note, isnt Canada planning on giving these guys more cash too? Maybe its time someone actually read whatever GM has been handing out.

From what I remember is that the funds were delayed because GM didn't submit an independent Canadian business plan, they submitted the American play with a one page summary stapled to the top.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

As far as I know Lithium Ion batteries are the one of the most reliable and efficient batteries out there, so I don't know if they just don't hold a charge any more like the cell phone batteries.

As for the increase cost/break even point. You are also paying for the look and performance of the vechicle. Most decent non high end sports cars sell for upwards of 50+ thousand dollars, with some being even higher than the Tesla at 109K.

Honestly, for me the thing that is disappointing is that you can only purchase a tesla if you live in the states......

Don't you have to replace the batteries every 100,000 miles, and isn't that cost upwards of 20,000.

I remember reading that somewhere, and if true, there's no point in subsidizing Tesla until they come up with something that everyone can afford.

Right now with the economy the way it is, subsidizing a niche company that sells 1 or 200 cars a year isn't worth while.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Locke

Doesnt this make the US look like a bunch of chumps for already having handed over the cash after likely receiving the same unimpressive dog and pony show?

More like a bunch of incompetent fools.

[3 Justin 3]

Tesla is not the future because it takes 16 hours to charge, which lasts only 200miles, that's ridiculous. The Clarity takes the same amount of time as petrol car to refuel, and it gets 270miles out of a tank.

I understand the infrastructure problems, obviously there is no Hydrogen stations in the world besides California, but there isn't any Electric places either (as of my knowledge there aren't that many).

Also, the Prius sucks, and all Hybrids are a joke. Thats my opinion (about the Hybrids), the Prius just sucks.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

Tesla is not the future because it takes 16 hours to charge, which lasts only 200miles, that's ridiculous.

I believe the Tesla gets closer to 250 miles on only a 3 1/2 hour charge. But i completely agree with you, that Tesla is not the solution, it's a niche vehicle and a very nice one at that.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I fail to see how they are different enough to know whether one is the future over the other.

In order to get either of the technologies out on the streets in large numbers requires a huge expansion of our power generating capabiltiies. They both also have no emissions. If I had to guess at this point, making the electricity and putting it straight into the car seems more efficient then using the electricity to create hydrogen, and then turning the hydrogen back into electricity for the car to use.

They are competely and utterly different. You have to think about how cars are vital and engrained in our culture and how that is so.

Tesla runs on big heavy batteries, requires recharging often, and quite simply - Pure electric vehicles are not compatible to the way society has developed car culture or how our city infrastructures and road/highway systems are set up. To charge your car requires a very long time. You can't just refill and go. It's like charging your cellphone or your laptop overnight. You basically need 2 cars. One to drive for when the other one is charging. This is of course, not compatible to the way society drives or how the roads are setup. If you are halfway to your destination and you run out of juice, what do you do? Check into a motel and plug in your car? It's a nice thought to flirt with but what are you going to do when you have nowhere to plug in? What are we going to do with parking lots full of cars that are recharging (you can't just drive off and go in 5 minutes)? What about people stealing electricity? How are we going to generate all that extra power for a continent of electric vehicles unless we come up with a great alternative cleaner way to generate power (just expand nuclear as I usually advocate). Batteries also have a limited lifespan of charge/recharge cycles and are extremely expensive. Their weight also means the car is made unncessarily inefficient and uneconomical. Battery technology hasn't changed that much in 30 years. There is no reason to believe some magical battery will come along that will be light weight, occupy a small footprint, store tons of power, and can be recharged in one zap. We already have all those advantages when we look at hydrogen fuel cells and thusly the FCX Clarity.

- The FCX Clarity is going to be or is already on-sale in California where there are Hydrogen pumps at gas stations. This operates just the same way our society has been conditioned to gas and go and works the same way by giving us something similar to the milage to gas station ratio to highway/road design of modern cities. You can drive until your tank is empty and then just fill up again. The only emission is pure water. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the entire known universe. Heck, it's 75% of the universe's elemental mass! The abundance is what makes using electricity to isolate hydrogen a much more efficient and logical choice to actually directly storing that electricity in inefficient batteries requiring metals and many polluting materials. It's not pure electricity vs. pure hydrogen. It's chemical/metal batteries v. hydrogen fuel. The earth is full of hydrogen sources, we just have to redirect all the money going to Oil & Gas research & development into coming up with more efficient ways of isolating it, processing it, and commercially transporting it to fueling stations until it becomes as cheap as dirt. At the moment, hydrogen in California costs about the same as regular gas.

The advantage over hybrids is that there are no emissions, there are no heavy batteries, no complicated mechanical parts so maintenance like we used to know it is greatly reduced (one moving part basically). With hybrids, you have all the negatives of batteries as well as I spoke about in the tesla section combined with the negatives of modern combustion engines in one car even though they are engineered well to complement each other. Hybrids are only a stop-gap to the future.

[3 Justin 3]

Originally Posted by Dan02

I believe the Tesla gets closer to 250 miles on only a 3 1/2 hour charge. But i completely agree with you, that Tesla is not the solution, it's a niche vehicle and a very nice one at that.

Oh yeah it is awesome, I won't argue there I mean 0-60 in less than 4 seconds from an electric car! I just don't see the point of a $180,000+ car that is electric. I would rather spend it on a DB9 or Porsche 911 Turbo, or used Ferrari, etc. and cause global warming, because obviously that is going so well. *Looks outside*

I don't have any proof of the stats, I was just watching Top Gear and they said it takes 16hours to charge the batteries. I haven't seen anything otherwise, so I stick with my 16 hours claim.

Also, about the Clarity and why it is different from other Electric cars, for those who don't know, it uses Hydrogen as fuel. It uses an electric engine, because it has a power station in the car which turns the Hydrogen into electricity. I don't know the logistics of it however, turning the Hydrogen into electricity. This eliminates the time you need charging a car, thus it is like the cars of today, but we won't run out of fuel, and the only emissions are water.

[Mr.Coffee]

You know if what's been posted in terms of GM trying to raise funds in foreign markets is true... then they truly do not appreciate how grave their situation is.

I think it's a little sad if the company collapses because of the magnitude on individuals and families that rely on that company to feed them. But ultimately... ultimately this kind of ineptitude cannot go on and society must demand more from its "top" businesses.

So a bit of mixed feelings on this one.

[3 Justin 3]

Wow, I missed Hack&Lube's description of the Clarity, 100% true. Hydrogen apparently is hard to distill into pure hydrogen what they need, but if they spent the money they spend on Oil into that, they could no doubt solve it within a few years. I mean, if they can drill into the ocean and get oil, why can't they figure out how to get Hydrogen, which we have an tremendous amount of.

By the way, the Tesla has about 1000lbs of batteries in the car. Apparently around 6000+ laptop batteries.

And I wouldn't say Hybrids are a stop-gap to the future, considering they don't really do any good to the environment if you want to get technical. Like how the cars are made, how they get the resources to make the cars, etc. As I have said, Hybrids suck, people who drive them are idiots. My opinion of course.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

They are competely and utterly different. You have to think about how cars are vital and engrained in our culture and how that is so.

Tesla runs on big heavy batteries, requires recharging often, and quite simply - Pure electric vehicles are not compatible to the way society has developed car culture or how our city infrastructures and road/highway systems are set up. To charge your car requires a very long time. You can't just refill and go. It's like charging your cellphone or your laptop overnight. You basically need 2 cars. One to drive for when the other one is charging. This is of course, not compatible to the way society drives or how the roads are setup. If you are halfway to your destination and you run out of juice, what do you do? Check into a motel and plug in your car? It's a nice thought to flirt with but what are you going to do when you have nowhere to plug in? What are we going to do with parking lots full of cars that are recharging (you can't just drive off and go in 5 minutes)? What about people stealing electricity? How are we going to generate all that extra power for a continent of electric vehicles unless we come up with a great alternative cleaner way to generate power (just expand nuclear as I usually advocate). Batteries also have a limited lifespan of charge/recharge cycles and are extremely expensive. Their weight also means the car is made unncessarily inefficient and uneconomical. Battery technology hasn't changed that much in 30 years. There is no reason to believe some magical battery will come along that will be light weight, occupy a small footprint, store tons of power, and can be recharged in one zap. We already have all those advantages when we look at hydrogen fuel cells and thusly the FCX Clarity.

- The FCX Clarity is going to be or is already on-sale in California where there are Hydrogen pumps at gas stations. This operates just the same way our society has been conditioned to gas and go and works the same way by giving us something similar to the milage to gas station ratio to highway/road design of modern cities. You can drive until your tank is empty and then just fill up again. The only emission is pure water. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the entire known universe. Heck, it's 75% of the universe's elemental mass! The abundance is what makes using electricity to isolate hydrogen a much more efficient and logical choice to actually directly storing that electricity in inefficient batteries requiring metals and many polluting materials. It's not pure electricity vs. pure hydrogen. It's chemical/metal batteries v. hydrogen fuel. The earth is full of hydrogen sources, we just have to redirect all the money going to Oil & Gas research & development into coming up with more efficient ways of isolating it, processing it, and commercially transporting it to fueling stations until it becomes as cheap as dirt. At the moment, hydrogen in California costs about the same as regular gas.

The advantage over hybrids is that there are no emissions, there are no heavy batteries, no complicated mechanical parts so maintenance like we used to know it is greatly reduced (one moving part basically). With hybrids, you have all the negatives of batteries as well as I spoke about in the tesla section combined with the negatives of modern combustion engines in one car even though they are engineered well to complement each other. Hybrids are only a stop-gap to the future.

Charging your car does not take a long time. Tesla's website says it takes 3.5 hours from completely dead, two hours from an average 100 mile drive. Unless you are someone who drives more then the cars range every day, no change in culture is needed. Sure, there are some people for whom an electric car doesn't really work right now, but that is a very small percentage of people.

You ask how we are going to generate the extra power. Currently, that's a question that needs to be asked about hydrogen as well, as hydrogen is produced by using great amount of electricity as well.

You say battery technology hasn't changed in thirty years? Looking in any hardware store will show you just how wrong that is. The fact is, battery technology has increased greatly. Battery packs have greatly decreased in size over the last 10-15 years. Charge-discharge cycles (an issue in the past) are no longer an issue with Lithium Ion Batteries and computerized charge controllers.

The battery packs weigh more, yes, but the engine weighs much less then a gasoline car. The overall mechanical system doesn't weight more the na regular car. Hydrogen cars need virtually indestructable tanks to store that hydrogen, those tanks can't be very light either.

Also, you claim the cleanliness of hydrogen, but electric cars are every bit as clean to run. Modern batteries don't have all those heavy metals and acids that old batteries have. From Tesla's website:

Originally Posted by teslamotors.com

Unlike other batteries that came before them, Lithium ion batteries are classified by the federal government as non-hazardous waste and are safe for disposal in the normal municipal waste stream. However, dumping these batteries in the trash would be throwing money away. Even a completely dead battery pack contains valuable, recoverable materials that can be sold back to recycling companies for cash.

I'll agree with you that Hybrids are merely a stop gap system to extend the life of the gasoline engine. And they are fairly good at that, they are significantly more efficient then a non hybrid system.

I'm also not going to say that Hydrogen cars have no future, because they do. The technologies will improve, and this will probobly be the technology of choice for people who either drive long distances, or for some other reason where pure electric cars don't meet their needs.

[3 Justin 3]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Charging your car does not take a long time. Tesla's website says it takes 3.5 hours from completely dead, two hours from an average 100 mile drive. Unless you are someone who drives more then the cars range every day, no change in culture is needed. Sure, there are some people for whom an electric car doesn't really work right now, but that is a very small percentage of people.

You ask how we are going to generate the extra power. Currently, that's a question that needs to be asked about hydrogen as well, as hydrogen is produced by using great amount of electricity as well.

You say battery technology hasn't changed in thirty years? Looking in any hardware store will show you just how wrong that is. The fact is, battery technology has increased greatly. Battery packs have greatly decreased in size over the last 10-15 years. Charge-discharge cycles (an issue in the past) are no longer an issue with Lithium Ion Batteries and computerized charge controllers.

The battery packs weigh more, yes, but the engine weighs much less then a gasoline car. The overall mechanical system doesn't weight more the na regular car. Hydrogen cars need virtually indestructable tanks to store that hydrogen, those tanks can't be very light either.

Also, you claim the cleanliness of hydrogen, but electric cars are every bit as clean to run. Modern batteries don't have all those heavy metals and acids that old batteries have. From Tesla's website:



I'll agree with you that Hybrids are merely a stop gap system to extend the life of the gasoline engine. And they are fairly good at that, they are significantly more efficient then a non hybrid system.

I'm also not going to say that Hydrogen cars have no future, because they do. The technologies will improve, and this will probobly be the technology of choice for people who either drive long distances, or for some other reason where pure electric cars don't meet their needs.

A pure electric car is clean to drive because it doesn't produce anything, sure, and sure getting Hydrogen would be tough and produce pollutants. But would you honestly be happy charging your car every friggen day? I am not a 5 year old anymore, because that is all Electric cars are, supersized remote controls cars the way I see it. Recharge the battey, recharge the battery, drive a measly 120 miles, recharge the battery. Give me a break, it would change our culture enormously. Hydrogen doesn't, it is the exact same as we drive right now, except a different fuel. And it produces water, not harmful toxins, so it is the right now + no damage to the environment, isn't that we want?

By the way, Hybrids are a joke. Nothing more than a symbol of deuchebaggery. It is like a fohawk. People think your cool, when in reality your a pathetic human being. Fohawks suck by the way, either A) Get a real mohawk you puss, or B) kill yourself. But that is another discussion. :P

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

A pure electric car is clean to drive because it doesn't produce anything, sure, and sure getting Hydrogen would be tough and produce pollutants. But would you honestly be happy charging your car every friggen day? I am not a 5 year old anymore, because that is all Electric cars are, supersized remote controls cars the way I see it. Recharge the battey, recharge the battery, drive a measly 120 miles, recharge the battery. Give me a break, it would change our culture enormously. Hydrogen doesn't, it is the exact same as we drive right now, except a different fuel. And it produces water, not harmful toxins, so it is the right now + no damage to the environment, isn't that we want?

Why wouldn't people want to charge their car every day? What exactly is so hard about it? Instead of parking your car, you park your car and plug it in. Takes all of what? 5 seconds? A tesla can drive nearly twice the 120 miles you suggest before it needs a recharge, it can drive as far a most regular cars can drive on a single tank.

How would it change our culture? Like I said, people that drive long distances in one day wouldn't have one, or would have a hydrogen car, or something like that. For the 99% of us that don't drive more then 350-400km in a day, the only thing that would change is taking the five seconds to plug in your car when you got home, and the 5 seconds unplugging your car before you leave. How is that changing the culture "enormously?"

Electric cars are every bit as clean as hydrogen, probobly even more efficient as you aren't losing energy in the conversion from electricity to hydrogen back to electricity. Instead you are putting the electricity straight into the car, without the conversions.

Re hybrids: Why exactly are they a joke? They get significant fuel savings over non hybrids.

[sclitheroe]

What I want, and what is realistically gonna be practical for a typical suburbanite like myself, is the Chevy Volt. Pure electrical for short range trips like my commute to and from work, the grocery store, etc, plus a small gas engine for extended trips or times when the electric doesn't have the all day commuting range I need.

Hybrids as they are available now seem silly to me, but the pure-hybrid designs like the Volt make a ton of sense, imo, especially over the 15-20 years its going to take to concert to a new fuel/power distribution system.

[Gundo]

I wonder if cars & trucks will get sold off cheaper if they do go belly up?