From Is The Chevy Volt Just More GM Greenwashing?:
I was seduced back in May by GM’s seeming sincerity in developing a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, the Chevy Volt. We must always remember, however, GM is a master greenwasher.
An article in Edmunds, “Chevrolet Volt Goes to Washington To Underline GM’s Anti-CAFE-Increase Argument,” suggests GM is using the Volt the same way it used fuel cell cars to kill the electric car in California (as the movie explains):
General Motors’ North American operations chief, Troy Clarke, is meeting with legislators on Capitol Hill today, and he’s bringing along the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid prototype. GM hopes the Volt will help convince lawmakers that electric and alternative-fuel vehicles are the route to energy independence. The Big Three have strenuously opposed a proposed increase in CAFE standards, saying the cost of meeting higher mpg averages would take away resources that could be put toward development of alternative-energy vehicles.
I’m beginning to feel that even when GM announces something like the Volt they’re simply genetically programmed to play the same old, tired games with it.
As I keep saying, we’re in the process of finding out if the US car companies can learn anything from a third mule kick, the first two coming from the oil shocks of the 1970’s. That’s a flawed analogy, of course, in that this time around it looks like we’re in for a permanent change in the price of oil and gasoline, and not a relatively short-lived shock that they can stumble through and then go back to business as usual. If the Big Three don’t react the right way this time they could turn into the Big Two or the Big One, and that’s not in anyone’s best interest.
From Put some kilowatts in your closet:
Altair Nanotechnologies, which specializes in lithium ion batteries, said Monday that it will work with investor AES to develop home energy storage systems that can hold more than 500 kilowatts of energy.
AES, a power company, invested $3 million in Altair earlier this year.
Home storage is one of the holy grails of the clean technology field. With a big battery in the closet, the energy harvested from solar panels on the roof could be used by a homeowner at night. Home storage also gives utility owners breathing room. Get enough batteries out there and the risk of a brownout goes down.
I have to admit that this kind of storage is something I can’t quite get a handle on. I understand how it works and the notion of matching supply and demand, of course; my indecision has to do with how big a factor this will be. My gut feeling is that this is at best a long term solution that will take hold only once the battery cost drops a lot. Luckily it’s a change that can be retrofitted into existing solar PV systems.
(And yes, I know that kilowatts measure power, not energy, as the article claims. If I had a BTU for every time I’ve seen a power/energy error in the media I could boil the ocean.)
From Extinction or Innovation? U.S. Government Must Enact Clean Energy Policy:
The United States, often the world’s leader in technological innovation, could be about to cede the next wave of business breakthroughs and wealth creation — those that come from clean energy and other clean technologies — to other nations if it doesn’t act soon. The nation desperately needs an aggressive, comprehensive clean-energy package, including a national renewable portfolio standard (RPS), if it is to remain relevant on an increasingly competitive global playing field.
While the Senate, House and President get caught in a web of accusations, filibusters, back-room manipulation, and threatened vetoes, the future of our commitment to innovation and economic competitiveness suffers. It’s time that Americans get an energy policy that moves the nation into the future, not one based on the technologies and energy sources of the past.
Yep.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 27th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
As my July 19th comment implies, I lean toward less substantial motives from GM.
If not Green-Washing, then a vaporware cycle to diffuse the Prius impact.
We should be pushing the solutions we have today, even while being hopeful for better replacements later.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:53 am
In respect to your post on automakers and the CAFE standards I think they are starting to make progress on that point. I do some work with the AAM and I hear that the bipartisan Hill-Terry amendment that raises CAFE standards to a reasonable level is getting a lot of support from people on both sides of the issue which is good. Usually I think Washington is wrong when they try to legislate change instead of do thinks like incentives, but if the automakers get on board with it I think thats a great sign.
July 30th, 2007 at 7:49 am
greentech: The key is what every individual means by “reasonable level”.
Even assuming we all agree on what the impact of a range of various CAFE standards would be in the automakers (which would be quite a stretch, admittedly), then we still would have to agree on how urgently how much change is needed.
My view is that the oil crunch is extremely close–less than one new car model development cycle away (4 years)–and it’s in the best interest of everyone, including the car companies, to push CAFE standards up a lot. If standards begin to rise immediately, we help educate the public, and we stop putting as many of the wrong kinds of vehicles on the road today that we’ll have to live with for many years. If we instead go with milder (or no) CAFE increases, then the market will force the situation to happen anyway, albeit with worse ramifications for consumers, the US car companies, and the country in general.
We’ve had just a taste of the gasoline price run-up that’s coming in a few years, and look what it’s doing to the US car companies. They were positioned so poorly, in terms of their product lines, that it almost looked as if they were trying to commit corporate suicide. The rise in gasoline prices started just before the 2004 elections, and look at how little the Big Three have done. It’s clear to me that no one running those companies gets, at a visceral level, just how serious this problem is. But it’s in no one’s best interest for them no to get it, so it’s up to the rest of us to try to force them to take action.
July 30th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
It will be truly interesting to see how GM follows through on the Volt concept vehicle. I think their past record of follow through on their own self created (non giant vehicle) opportunities could be summarized in the statement “never underestimate GM management’s ability to take an opportunity to miss an oppportunity..”.
In the late 90’s/early 2000’s GM created a prototype running deisel full hybrid car as part of a government program (as did Ford and Chrysler, it got better mileage than a Prius) along with their EV1 expertise and the original Saturn Vue hybrid was announced to be a full hybrid (not idle stop) vehicle, all tossed asside as time passed. I suppose you could throw the Saturn brand in there as well (its new small car will be imported, 180 degrees from the brand’s creationary purpose).
August 6th, 2007 at 12:55 am
I absolutely agree that we need real change, and that the sooner the better, I just question whether Washington legislating CAFE is the best way together. I read recently that a carbon tax is actually the most effective way to get something done but that really would be too unpopular to realistically think about. I liked the tax breaks they were giving people who bought hybrids for a while, I think programs that are more incentive based like that for consumers and business is a much better approach and less harmful to American business.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:12 am
greentech: The problem with gasoline consumption is that it’s so inelastic (meaning demand responds so little to price changes). If you imposed a carbon tax on all energy that was high enough to make any significant difference in gasoline consumption the $/ton rate would be so high it would strangle other parts of the economy. For example, electricity produced by burning coal would rise a lot (I don’t know the number off the top of my head).
I think we need a combination of efforts: A gas guzzler fee you pay every year as part of your vehicle registration renewal, plus an increase in gasoline taxes offset by a reduction in payroll taxes. (The payroll tax change could be structured to make the gasoline tax very progressive, which it would have to be to give higher income people enough of an incentive to make changes.) That combination would encourage people to buy more efficient vehicles (which we’ll all have to live with for years), as well as get them to use less gasoline no matter what they drive.
August 6th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Hopefully the new cars will be all they are supposed to be.
August 8th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Lou: An approach with a combination of efforts does sound like it would have the highest chance for creating the effect we want. Most important I think we need to avoid a position that doesn’t as you said “encourage” people to buy more efficient vehicles. Forcing change against consumer desire I do not think will yield the response we are looking for, and additionally our automakers have been taking quite a few hits to begin with. Additionally, I read recently that the more fuel efficient we make cars in the US, the more people drive because of our culture. Is that not something else we should be addressing with this issue?
August 9th, 2007 at 8:32 am
The issue of higher MPG cars being driven more assumes that we don’t increase the per-mile incentives. If we use just a higher CAFE standard then we could see the effect you mention offset part of the gasoline savings. But if we use a combination of incentives (as I mentioned a few posts upthread), then we can encourage people to buy more efficient cars and drive all vehicles, old or new, less.
In general, I am very concerned about not killing off the US car companies, but I also don’t think we should fall into the trap of seeing them as these poor, besieged, helpless entities that they often portray themselves to be. To be blunt, they’re playing politics. They have a very long history of claiming “if you make us do X, it will (1) put us out of business or (2) will add Y dollars to the price of every car”, where Y is some insanely large number. And in every case so far it’s turned out to be pure BS. I think it’s time we recognize this pattern and tell the car companies that they can either work with legislators, be innovative, and become part of the solution or they can watch their market share dwindle to single digits as other companies out-compete them.