theBike45’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  CMU study blasted by facts, CMU giant errors

  For a change GM has issued a rebuttal to the ill-conceived and rather silly CMU study. A devastating rebuttal. Start off witht eh fact that the CMU study, whose arguments all revolve around battery costs, is absurdly wrong in estimating battery costs. By over 30% just today, and certainly bu over 60% by the time 4 to 5 years hence when the Volt (or Volt-type cars) are out there in force. The study compoounds its errors by claiming that economics drives purchases of cars (Oh, yeah, since when?), and completely misses others in the field right now (like BYD) which is selling Volt type cars (with even MORE electric driving range - 62 miles) at 1/2 the cost of the Volt and a whole lot cheaper than the Prius. The study further distorts reality by claiming people will recharge every 7 miles. The study is so flawed that CMU should issue a public apology. Also in error is CMU's brainless claim of gas avoidance by the Volt. A commuting Volt, even without workplace recharging, can attain 285 MPG, whereas a 7 mile ranged vehicle would be lucky to exceed 75 MPG.
  CMU also mistakenly claims that battery weight will make a significant difference with respect to mileage. Well, electrically propelled cars, dear CMU people, are NOT the same as other cars and the weight of the Volt's battery pack (about 430 pounds) will make very little difference
  when compared to a model with a battery pack supporting a 7 mile range. Wind resistence and tire rollingresistence are the big factors for EV car mileages, not weight, since the car can recapture most weight induced penalties thru regen braking. CMU has produced perhaps the most invalid and brainless study I've come across in quite some time. This really isn't rocket science, CMU. I'm embarrassed that this college in located in our country. On CMU study suggests GM has wildly oversized the batteries in the Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid posted 8 months ago 37 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Bombastic claims

  Don't you just love how alternative energy technologies slant and distort reality? Here we have the claim that a solar plant will have a capacity of 1300 megawatts. At high noon on a cloudless summer day it might. At all other times it will be less. Much less. Even zero for large portions of the day. From the claimed output kilowatthours figure we see the real truth : the plant can average less than 420 megawatts of actual power. Compare this to a nuclear plant that can easily produce 3 to 4 times more power that also is reliable power. In other words - nuclear can eliminate three times more carbon than this solar plant can.  And the plant will last but 20 years while a nuclear plant will last 60 years.  Why, oh why, are you wasting money on crappy technology like this? On Biggest California utility contracts for world's biggest solar power deal posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago 23 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Bombastic claims

  Don't you just love how alternative energy technologies slant and distort reality? Here we have the claim that a solar plant will have a capacity of 1300 megawatts. At high noon on a cloudless summer day it might. At all other times it will be less. Much less. Even zero for large portions of the day. From the claimed output kilowatthours figure we see the real truth : the plant can average less than 420 megawatts of actual power. Compare this to a nuclear plant that can easily produce 3 to 4 times more power that also is reliable power. In other words - nuclear can eliminate three times more carbon than this solar plant can.  And the plant will last but 20 years while a nuclear plant will last 60 years.  Why, oh why, are you wasting money on crappy technology like this? On Biggest California utility contracts for world's biggest solar power deal posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago 12 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Wrong, wrong, wrong - learn the technology, people

  I'm amazed at how arrogant some greenies are in
  giving opinions about things they know nothing about. First, the Tesla uses first gen obsolete and impractical li ion batteries, while the Volt uses the best out there - from LG and guaranteed to last TWICE as long as those used by Tesla (all 6871 of them!!!). No one knows their exact cost, including you, so shut up already. Cuurent costs don't mean a whole lot anyway, since such large cell batteries (which the silly Tesla does NOT have) have never been mass produced. A123 Systems claims a price drop of over 50%. To demonstrate just how brainless this article is, I point out that the Volt's battery pack does have a capacity of 16 kWhrs, but only 8 of them are available, making your electric mileage calculations 100% incorrect. The Volt achieves exactly 5 miles per kilowatthour. I also note that using a smaller
  pack would reduce the power output (power output nat the moment, of course, equals that from the ENTIRE pack).
  I also note that electric mileage obtained is all about commuting distances and that a Volt with half the driving range would avoid far less than half the gasoline consumption. The math is so simple even our simpleminded President could figure that out. On Chevy Volt could cut costs by using batteries more efficiently and paying less for them posted 9 months ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  You're displaying your ignorance about the Volt

  Well, first off, it's obvious that nobody here keeps up with the Volt development. The fact that you would depdend upon an articel written by a britisher who's never set foot on this country's shores tells me you're more than a little confused. In yet another attempt to unconfuse - GM
  has already tossed around several variant ideas, one to offer the Volt as a battery-only (for the benefit of the brainless Californians), and the other to offer th vehicle with a smaller battery pack. But this shows just how little Romm knows about electrically propelled cars. If you cut the battery pack in half,you DO reduce the capacity by half, to 20 miles of range. But you ALSO reduce the amount of power the pack can pump out, making the car unacceptably slow. THAT's why Toyota, while they were fiddling with their silly NiMH design, could only use battery-only power during low power demand situations. The Volt is not overly powerful as it is - in fact, GM is advising battery replacement should it ever be reduced by around 15 to 20%.  YOU ARE ASKING THEM TO REDUCE POWER 50%. Fat chance. Now the Saturn Vue greenline will have enough electrical power to go 10 miles, I believe, if you are looking for a lesser costly battery pack, it is a dual power design, unlike the Volt. Perhaps, however, your biggest blunder is in 1) assuming the car will cost over $40,000. It will NOT. Secondly, you are , for some strange, inexplicable reason, acting as thought that price will not be reduced over time. Fat chance. If you all were even paying half attention , you would remember the words of the A123 Systems exec who predicted a 50% drop in battery prices over the next several years. You would also know, had you been paying attention, that GM Lutz has already
  stated that the car's high initial price will be OK because of the fact that early adopters  will be well-heeled. And the volume of production during the first year and a half can't even meet the demand already expressed - at the upper $30K price range.
  You know, I'm getting tired of listening to ignorant Joes spouting opinions when they obviously don't know enough about the technology to even have an opinion, much less try to "inform" others.  On Is a 40-mile all-electric range too much? posted 1 year, 1 month ago 20 Responses