Quit blaming everything on Obama. GM had this car in development way before Obama was even thinking about running for President.

Another Glenn Beck paranoia freak.

Sounds like real paranoia here. No matter what Obama does and no matter how much good it does, you'll find some kind of conspiracy in it. You've been watching too much Fox News.

David some people will always think its obama fault. Yes GM has this car in development for years. It was probably in the first stage when the first bush was in office. Hell i am not blaming him either. Honestly i have to see proof before i buy a car like that.

Jeania,

The old GM electric car was the EV-1. Yes - they were pulled back from the market and most were scrapped, but much of the technology was put into the Volt - which is why GM is years ahead of most of their competitors.

The issue with the EV-1 was range and battery life. It used a lead-acid battery pack weight 1600 lb. (think golf cart batteries) vs. smaller and more powerful pack on Volt that weighs less than 500 lb. Improvements in battery technology were the real key to making this car viable - we are definitely getting there, and the batteries are good enough now that they will perform very well for most people for many years. GM could have put this car out a year or two ago - but has been testing the hell out of the batteries since they will make or break the launch of this car.

I could not agree more with getting Obama out of the mix. I hate that GM had to get assistance from the government (I am ex-GM engineer, and was 3rd generation in my familiy to work for company.) From my view though, the government caused much of what happened to the auto industry. It was government interference in the subprime mortgage industry - pushing Fannie Mae into making loans for people that could not afford them - that put the whole financial mess in motion. When that crisis caused a 40% drop in market size - EVERY auto firm, and any company in a highly capitalized business was screwed - Toyota lost MORE MONEY in the most recent quarter than did GM. GM was just caught at the most vunerable time in their history, when they were trying to push off the retiree healthcare and other costs to the union, and had no cushion of cash to fall back on. Ford only has survived without gov't help because they issued huge numbers of new bonds right before the crisis - so much that they were getting criticism because of the debt that they had taken on, but lucky for them they had the money to tell the government to stay away.

If GM can shake free of the government shackles next year - look out - they will be poised for huge gains ahead as they implement new products like the Volt, where they have spent billions in development costs and have yet to see the returns.

It was called EV-1, from 1996-99, leased ONLY by GM due to zero emissions legislation passed in California, all were recalled after the lease and crushed, even though the "owners" really wanted to buy out the lease. Interesting, the new Volt only has 1/3 of the range of the EV-1. On purpose? Gotta keep burning that gas.... Need to watch "Who Killed the Electric Car" movie.

Ron Coleman,

What good has Obama done the US? Huh?

Jim,

The biggest hurdle GM has to get by is the fact that the Volt's batteries caught on fire more often than they didn't.

None of this has anything to do with Obama except the fact that his actions, as well as Bush's in December, may have saved them from liquidation.

I agree though that this car is what will either save GM or be one of the last in a long line of nails in its coffin. Hopefully, the stimulus package can jump-start battery production here in the states. We are currently behind several competitors.

It was called the EV1. Obama schemed to have those thrown away back in his 20's. Now he has turned reasonable and is scheming to get the Volt produced. Quite the schemer, similar to how he plans to create a death committee for our aging population. Better watch out if you got a tooth ache and your over 65. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F

You are absolutely correct. They crushed them because they had no maintanence and there would be no money for the manufacturer or dealers in repairs or upkeep. The technology has been here for years but we werent allowed access to it. They have had electric cars and much better technology and the cost was in the 15000 dollar range if I remember correctly.

Don't BLAME President Obama.... Praise him for goosing along the new technology, cleaning up the air, and maybe helping to save the environment.

Dont be a moron, please?

Good gracious it must be hard to be so negative

The OEM's should really be checking out the Scuderi Air Hybrid. It costs alot less to produce. You don't have batteries to recharge or throw away. The milage is nearly the same with increased horsepower and reduced emmisions. Because it costs less to produce, it will cost you less to buy. It also has a desile application and a compressor tank that will alow vehicles to run air compressed tools from it. You can bet that these batteries are going to cost a mint to replace. And, what are we going to do with all those dead batteries? Why isn't anyone else producing a car like the volt? Because most feel that it's not cost effective. It's going to take along time to recoup your investment. And, now we come to the "used" Volt. Who's going to buy a used car with 50,000 miles on it that most likely needs battery replacement soon, 5 years old for say $17,000 ++++. Check out www.scuderigroup.com

The EV-1 died in the 90's because Clinton/Gore let gasoline be so cheap in the '90's to help sustain their economic prosperity the Democrats remember so fondly. If the highway tax had been raised by $1 a gallon in 1995 (gas was less than $1), we would be driving many electric cars on a much better infrastructure. One of the prices we pay so that politicians can make themselves look good.

All patents to the EV-1 were bought from GM by Exxon-Mobile in 1997. There is a good documentary called "Who Killed The Electric Car" on the subject.

In some ways Rob Scan is right, but mostly he is wrong in 1) implying that Clinton/Gore had that much control over gas prices, 2) they chose economic prosperity over the EV-1 , and 3) that any money going into the Highway Trust Fund would have help since Reagan looted it and it was full of IOU's.

Yeah, they did it was the EV-1

If stupidty were painful, you would be rolling around on the floor in utter agony, and the world would be better for it. Stupid Repulican losers like you are who got us all into this HUGE mess in the first place.

The EV series is horrible compared to other electric engines. Go check out the American made Tesla S Series. 49k and gets more range and is nicer looking.

If you want to believe the conspiracy theories, then Chris is correct. The "Who Killed the Electric Car" is on the library shelf just a little ways down from the 9-11 Conspiracy videos. Fact is that GM didn't see production costs for the EV-1 getting below $80k for many years and the market was too small at that price. Yes, Texaco bought GM's 60% share of the patent technology, but that wasn't the reason GM make the bad mistake of not continuing to develop the technology. It was just a business decision to keep making cars that could be profitably sold and ran on petroleum fuels.

I'm not saying that Clinton/Gore had control over gas prices. What they controlled was influencing the introduction of legislation to raise the tax so that electric cars could compete with petroleum based cars. Did they even try? No. Why? because it would have slowed the hot economy and they wanted to be known for their "prosperity". What does raiding the HTF have to do with it? The Social Security trust fund has been raided every year for the last 40+ years but seniors still get their checks. The gas tax could have paid off the IOU's and then some. Similar to how SS taxes will have to double in the near future to pay IOUs and keep it solvent. Clinton and Gore could have done plenty. They just didn't have the guts or the foresight.

A lot of bad information out there --- the EV-1 had a NiMH battery pack, for example. Its leasee's loved it and a number of them wanted to absolve GM of all legal responsibility and maintenance and keep them. It had a lot of features that are actually more advanced than the Volt. But many of these advanced features that they developed had the patents sold to Exxon-Mobile.

Here is a like to Wikipedia that i pretty good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

Wow, the Bush - Cheney crime syndicate are the ones who started the bailouts to help their cronies so they wouldn't lose money. Obama got stuck with the half a$$ job the Bush - Cheney criminals started, too bad Obama didn't just pull the plug and let them all fall so we could pick up the pieces after the dust settled and start over again........without outsourcing ALL of our technologies to get the job done and procecuting the guilty (greedy) parties along the lines of Madoff's sentence. I'd like to have a job where I get to run a company into the ground and get a huge salary along with a huge 7 or 8 digit bonus at the end after the government bails the company out. Thank you Reagan administration for starting the de-regulation boom that got us into this mess. The Bush - Cheney crime syndicate took a huge budget surplus and turned it into the largest defecit in U.S. history by lying, cheating and stealing. Then the repuglicans who started it all point the finger at the new administration and try to blame them for the mess they got us into. Hopefully it won't take a World War, like it did the last time, to get us out of the depression they got us into.

Some people don't know a good thing when they see it. If it is this good now just imagine how good it will be in 20 yrs. So stop beening a sore loser blaming Obama for this car. No one can take credit or blame, no matter how you feel about the car but General Motors.I just hope it don't turn out to be a lemon where it cost too much to keep it running.All of the republican presidents got rich off of oil investment so they didn't want this to happen. Everyone will benfit from the electric car.

What an idiot you appear to be. This has nothing to do with President Obama or Democrats (who are not all liberal) or any political party. This is an attempt by GM to do the right thing ecologically and socially but of course their ineptness in their business acumen is obvious with their proposed pricing. It would seem that any living being know more than you do. Please just read a little from different sources instead of primarily watching Murdoch & Ales Faux News as your learning resource.

Yes, that's what I saw - Who Killed the Electric Car?

Thanks for all the info, guys.

I'm still reeling from the waste from the Cash for Clunkers.

I heard a dealer talking about the program, and he said the dealers hate it, and are in big trouble and many will go out of business.

Here's a bit of a summary of what he said --

The dealers have to buy the cars, so they are out of the money and so their Cash Flow is a Big Problem because they will not be reimbursed for months because of the incompetence and the bureaucracy.

He said out of about 400 clunkers turned in to his place, only about 8 have been approved so far and they - the Obama people - are not approving most of them.

Because - The Govt requires proof - Proof the car is 25 years old or newer, Proof of Ownership, Proof it was insured for the last year.

He said the System Crashes all the time and they have to start over, and it is so time-consuming, a nightmare of paperwork.

He said then they have to call the Crusher and have the Crusher come and destroy the car, and then they have to get a Receipt from the Crusher for Proof that it was Destroyed.

Then After it is destroyed, they have to apply to the Government to see if it is Reimbursed or not, and if it is not Reimbursed, they are out the money.

He said all dealers will lose money on it and all the dealers he knows do not want to do it anymore.

Oh, yeah - get this! He said if you make a mistake with the red tape, and bureaucracy, etc., you are fined $15,000 for Any Mistake.

He said the Government hired 30,000 people to handle the Red Tape.

This is a Nightmare, and the Government is now going to take over Healthcare!!!

I feel sick.

it cant be obamas fault its bush's fault . . . damn people get it straight, obama does NOTHING wrong. . . .

Jeania: So disappointing. Last month folks blamed the President for strong-arming GM, now he's a conspirator.

"[For being as he is] a man of two minds (hesitating, dubious, irresolute), [he is] unstable and unreliable and uncertain about everything [he thinks, feels, decides]."

They're talking about the ACTUAL mileage, even taking into account how much the gasoline engine will have to run to recharge. Please do your homework before calling people liars ... and even then, treat others the way you'd want to be treated (i.e., maybe don't call people liars).

Tom,

The mileage rating comes from using the same test protocol as for other cars. When a car is tested by the EPA, it runs through a simulated driving course (while on a dyno) that mimics what people do in either city or highway driving. The simulated course for the Volt is the same course as used for the Prius, or any other car. The difference is that with the Volt, most of the energy will come from electricity put into the car overnight, and for many people their "city" mileage may actually be much higher - if they can make their commute and return home in less than 40 miles.

The Volt will actually get lower mileage on the highway, when the on-board engine kicks in to extend the range. Not sure what this will be - probably somewhere above 50 mpg, perhaps around 70 mpg, but no one should buy the Volt if they make frequent long trips.

The key is that for people who want a car for short commutes, running to the neighborhood grocery store, etc. - the cost for mile for electrical power and the overall cost per mile to operate will be far lower than for a standard car (or even a "Prius" style hybrid.).

My Prius is getting 51 miles to a gallon of gas. I get 580 mile on a tank of gas at 11.9 gallons.

Ecomcon and Jim: you are wasting your time. The right-wing America bashers will never let you confuse them with facts.

That was an EPA rating not a GM number. Read dude! Face it GM is doing a good job. Don't be a hater. This is a winner for all of us.

The arguing is pointless. First off, the car will cost too much. Figure the purchase price of the vehicle into the cost per mile driven. Secondly, if everyone bought a Volt tomorrow, you'd see the prices of natural gas and coal start to go through the roof. Energy is energy and it will cost money to get from point a to point b. Third, this technology would be difficult to implement into truck lines. Trucks are used to do a lot of towing. I doubt battery power is sufficient enough to tow these types of loads.

I'll agree that the Volt certainly has its place but I don't think it will go beyond being a flash in the pan. The cost will have to come down considerably before it appeals to the majority of the purchasing public.

Tom,

People are having too much fun telling you how wrong you are. Here is a link to a wikipedia article on the Volt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt

There are a lot of pros and cons to the Volt, but the EPA sets the protocol for measuring mileage (both city and hwy). It is not important how accurate they are so long as all cars are measured the same way and the protocol is reasonable. That gives you a good RELATIVE measurement so you can tell which cars are the most efficient and by how much rather than how much mileage you're going to actually get. My next door neighbor is elderly and drives with one foot on the gas and one at the brake --- and complains that she gets crappy gas mileage --- down in the teens for a Taurus and that her brakes only last 5,000 miles or so and she keeps having to have the disks turned or replaced. So, it is a RELATIVE, not an ABSOLUTE measure --- she would probably only get 100 mpg in a Volt and her brakes would still only last 5,000 miles. LOL

I think it was a good use of marketing spin...to create some buzz. At double the price of a Honda or Toyota Hybrid...they needed a way to clarify the advantage gained by owning the Volt.

Still too expesive in my mind. If it had a bit more curb appeal, maybe.

Don't forget the golden rule of the Bush - Cheney syndicate:

Do unto others before they do unto you.

(Screw them first so they can't screw you and screw the taxpayers the most!)

A few well to do will buy this car - bragging rights. Mainstream buyers won't.

GM still doesn't "get it". Produce a car that is easy to maintain - gets good gas mileage and is affordable for mainstream buyers. Why do they insist on building for the "upper crust"? That isn't what the auto industry needs.

Just another example of why GM failed in the first place.

Thanks to Jim and some of the others for being positive on this. I've thought for years that Toyota, Mits, and Nissan would kill our American cars for various factual reasons and they almost have...combined with the greed of our oil industry which effectively crushed our past innovations for electric vehicles. Remember when a personal PC was expensive? only be getting these things on the road can we bring the price down. What do you really want? what kind of oil dependency do you want to commit to? Take a look at Dubai - the money for solid gold bricks comes from us. We carry a large percentage of Japan's economy on our backs by buying Asian cars. The reliability statistics for these cars has leveled in the past few years but americans are still buying into albeit a well-earned reliability rate for asian cars...but its over. Let's push our american producers hard to earn thier way back to the top!! Whine about cost all you want - but which cost are you willing to pay?

Getting them on the road so the price will come down?

I agree - instead of "cash for clunkers" give me a $15,000 to $20,000 tax break for buying this car. I would rush out to buy this car.

They made one: the Solstice.

Cheap, fun, fast, and good looking.

But now there dumping Pontiac so I guess thats gone.

then let's take the Smarts, Minis, Prius, etc... off the road as well... ??

Hey Bill... this IS the car consumers want to buy.... this is the future. ALL cars are going to be downsized, no more of the "land yachts" that you seem to think are the future. NO WAY.

It's a tad too expensive right now, but increased demand will drive the prices down over time.

what... are you pissed that there may not be room in the back window for your gun rack?

There is nothing wrong with having a gun rack in the back window.

Bill has a good point, for us working class it's kind of hard to tow our work trailers and gear behind a golf cart, so were going to demand a full sized pickup, gas, diesel, or hybrid.

When my full sized pickup, gas, deisel, or hybrid pile drives into your tin foil electric skate board, one of us is going to loose.... I'd be willing to take bets on who that is.

So now the far left is screaming FOUL- it's not fair that I'm at risk because of the type of the unsafe vehicle I choose to drive.... So me the working class (once again) gets penalized in the form of higher insurance premiums to overcome the libility of bone heads driving skate boards.....

My gun rack is called the console...

there is if you have a little car- The ends stick out.

Bill in Houston: Why the mixed message? Talking / texting on cell phones is a TODAY problem, not restricted to the roads (Trolley collision in Boston, 18 Wheeler kills family as he is texting, Commuter Rail rearends another train). Separate issue.

NOW, Cars have evolved after introduction. VW Beetles and vans, Pintos and even the Hummer. ONLY the Hummer has a possible chance against an 18 wheeler. Depends on who hit who, from which directions, at what speed. MOST passenger sedans will fail due to the increased height and reinforcement of the Hummer / full sized pick up bumpers.

PC-man! IF your full sized ANYTHING drives into my ANYTHING... I will own your butt in court or at least waste your resources until you need gov't support just like GM. Sounds a little bit like Palin spewing "death lists" and then calling for rational "discussion"!

Higher premiums WILL come from actions that only you can control. Pile into is definately NOT one that will please the insurance adjusters, but will the lawyers.

Hey Rick, You better make sure who ever hits your "golf cart" is at fault otherwise you can't sue for crap even if your killed in the accident. But then again after an accident with a golf cart you wont be around to file a lawsuit. Also Rick, when someone is willing to defend themselves in court from a M.V.A. usually the insurance company will provide a lawyer for that person at no charge because they are defending their interests as well, so you better have ALOT of resources to waste in any lawsuit that your family would file because again driving a golf cart and a M.V.A. = Death. Just like any of the KIA cars that are made, I know my Dad was killed in a M.V.A. driving a KIA. KIA = Killed. In. America!

If there is something wrong with having a run rack in your pickup, where do you guys keep your umbrella?

My umbrella? I keep it under the seat.......right next to my self defense tool, a gun.

  i agree. im one of the ones who prefer power over fuel economy. i dont mind getting 15-16 mpg to be able to drive a car that can accelerate when needed.

 also what happens if these cars become mainstream? electricity demand and cost will more than likely sky rocket. what happens when thousands of people plug in their car at the same time? how much will it cost for each recharge? power plants still use non-renewable fossil fuels. lots to think about as this technology progresses.

We are going to need to build more power plants to provide this additional electric demand.
Since Obama has ruled out Nuclear this means fossil fuel plants which burn up coal, natural gas or some other resource.

How much pollution from manufacturing and recycling the batteries can we expect? Any boot leg mechanics for these jems?

What if gas cost you $5 to $8 a gallon? Europe and Asia have been paying prices like that since the 70's. Those prices will eventually come to the US as demand from China and India increase and resources decrease. Maybe for once this country can and put the horse in front of the cart?

as for using more energy than we can produce.... as I understand it, the cars would probably be plugged in over night, when demand is at it's low point.

Scientific American published a report from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratories, a lab under the Department of Energy, back in December 2006 that studied this issue and concluded that 72% of the US car fleet could be replaced by electric or plug-in hybrid cars without buidling a single new power plant when the cars are charged overnight because of the large amount of spare electrical capacity overnight on the grid.

As for recycling, old cars are already recycled as the cash for clunkers program amply demonstrates. Currently the vast majority of electric vehicles use either lead-acid batteries which are 95% recycled and Nickle Metal Hydride batteries like those in the Prius. Toyota pays a bounty to dealers who recover the spent batteries from the Prius. Even the batteries from the Volt will be useful and too valuable to throw away so they will also be recovered and used in stationary applications.

with the solar technology now at a 17% efficiency and wind turbines that are coming on line there will be no need for nuclear power plants. I know that any one who lives in the I 5 corridor in Oregon, who can install a 4000 watt grid tie solar panel system would be able to produce enough power for most households including charging the car. We are known for rain out here so it's pretty green. And for the power drivers check out the Tesla for it's power and note the acceleration curve it's better than most gas powered cars. I want to see a light truck hybrid. And as far as containment we in Oregon have been safely disposing of nerve gas for years I'm pretty shure that we can take care of the environment while we are protecting the environment from fossil fuel combustion byproducts

Your right RickC.... the power plants are generating electricity whether or not its being used, which is why they typically take generators offline at night... but even one that generates power, lets say 1 megawatt ,will still generate it...Its not like everyone is going to arrive home at exactly the same moment and plug in their car...besides...they are supposed to be made to plug into household current...which shouldnt be any different than plugging in the vacuum. Or, for quicker charging, there has been talk of 240v or even 440v home charding stations that could charge the car in less than 30 mintues.

As for renewable energy sources....why not build more nuclear power plants...if they are anything like aircraft carriers...they wouldnt need to be refueled for 25 years... that would save a lot of pollution and CO2 emissions...not to mention all the strip mining and other environmental issues that come with getting the fuel for those plants. Oil and other fossil fuel companies are big business that dont want to give up on their slice of the multibillion dollar pie. The future is here and now...its time to move on people!

One of the more innovative things I've ever seen that might get more interest if electric cars became more prevalent. That is the Raccoon Mountain Pumped Storage Facility that TVA built near Chattanooga. They hollowed out an entire mountain next to the Tennessee River (oddly not as expensive as you would think.) There are generator/pumps at the bottom. If you put electricity into them, they act as pumps, but if you let water run back through them they act as dynamos and generate electricity. During the night when demand is low, they use excess electricity to pump the mountain full of water. They during the day when demand is high, they release the water and those same pumps generate electricity. Then the next night they do it all over again. Neat, cheap to build and cheap to operate --- and completely environmentally neutral.

SK,

The reason nuclear power plants will not be built is that they are too expensive. It costs now between 10 and 12 billion dollars to construct a nuclear plant and when construction starts the costs will rise from there. Wall Street stopped funding these plants 30 years ago because they saw with 3 Mile Island how rapidly a 2 billion dollar asset, in 1979 dollars could quickly become 150 million dollar liability so they have to be totally underwritten by the government. With a projected cost of 20 to 25 cents a kilowatt hour it would be impossible to support industry there and the public would pay a steep cost in their utility bills in perpituity as long as their power is sourced from nuclear. The time to complete these plants ranges between 10 to 12 years so they are not an immediate solution either.

They are not clean either. Uranium ore is mostly the useless u238 at 99.3 % and the fissable u235 at 0.7% concentration. Extracting the uranium and enriching from 0.7% it to 5.5% commercial grade u235 concentration is carbon intensive because the gaseous diffusion process requires several cycles to reach that level of enrichment and the enrichment facility is powered by coal fired electrical generating plants at the only enrichment location in the country at Paducah, KY.

Then there's liability. The utility companies will not have anything to do with nuclear power unless they are totally indemnified against liability from lawsuits in case of radiation poisoning of the communities these power plants are in.

Also nuclear power plants produce enormous amounts of waste heat which is channeled away with cool water and with water shortages becoming an issue here in the southwest and with nuclear power plants requiring lots of water to cool their reactor cores these plants will not be viable for practical reasons. In France and in the southeastern US nuclear plants had to be shutdown due to extreme heat waves. With mean global temperatures rising this problem will only grow more accute in the future and will put a physical limit on the practical use of nuclear power.

The future of electrical power generation is in wind and a form of solar power called concentrated solar power. Wind turbines can be built cheaply and quickly with a much lower impact on the environment. But concentrated solar thermal power will be able to exceed the potential electrical generating capacity of wind and it will be base load power. It works well because an array of concave mirrors heats an oil filled tube that heats the oil to around 700º F to 800º F. This oil then is used to boil water to generate steam to turn the turbines that turn the dynamo that generates the electrical power. Because heat can be stored more efficiently than in batteries using molten sodium containers that work like a large thermos bottle the concentrated solar thermal plant can generate power after the sun goes down for 6 additional hours or when clouds appear overhead. Concentrated solar thermal plants have been in operation in California for over two decades now and one was just completed with a capacity of 60 MW of power just outside of Las Vegas. Plans are already underway to build additonal CSP plants in Florida and Arizona.

Actually, I chose #3 because GM makes junk. I had a Cadillac that I got new that had a rattle, I took it to the dealer and they basically called me a liar to my face. To humor me they drove it around their lot, which had been repaved the previous spring, and couldn't hear a rattle. I took it to a local shop, who test drove it on the streets, and they found it after only 10 minutes. Some worker at the factory had put his empty coke bottle in the body and put in the interior panels sealing the bottle between the quarter and the lining. If that Cadillac dealer had taken my car out on the road and not driven it only on his nice smooth lot I might still be a GM customer, but calling me a liar and charging me for the "test drive" was the last straw. I've been buying Ford/Lincoln/Mercury products ever since with no problems at all, unless you count the oil pump failure at just over 300,000 miles on a Lincoln Towncar that caused the engine to seize.

What are you talking about? The Tata Nano is not an electric vehicle. It is simply a dirt cheap Indian (not Chinese) car.

The Tata Nano is NOT technologically advanced, it is simply a stripped down Smart Car. The AM/FM radio will likely be a high end option.

By now we could of had a Ford that gets almost 70 miles per gallon if New York and California weren't so Anti-diesel. Because of them the Europeans get the high milage car and we get dumped on by government (local and state in this case) again.

100% agree!

Tom: Again, assuming that EPA comes to the same conclusion, they actually are taking the amount of gasoline to charge into account. And please be careful about calling people liars.

Tom, The only way to make it go farther without using an engine is to add more batteries. Current battery technology is far superior to the lead-acid battery most vehicles have under the hood, but there is a limit. When you pull power out of a battery, the result is heat. Space is required to prevent overheating (i.e. fire) and the american consumer demands 'cargo space.' If the vehicle were built with maximum battery capacity, limiting cargo space to permit only a briefcase and/or a maximum of 2 bags of groceries, then perhaps a 150 mile range might be acheived. Adding any more batteries would require space, which translates to a larger, heavier vehicle, thereby somewhat negating the addition of batteries.

You want an electric car that can go miles, have a respectable speed and not cost $40K? Try converting an old VW beetle. It's been done for under $20K including a vehicle. Two enterprising young men in Springfield, MO have a company. Check out the magazine, Hot VWs. There was an article about 6 months ago on them.

I can hear it now (after everyone is required to have an electric vehicle) "we are not collecting as much gasoline tax so we need to raise taxes to get the money we need".  This is after cap and trade has raised the cost of electricity to where we can't afford to recharge our electric car.

Tom, what you are missing is that this is truly an electric car. It is not a hybrid in the sense that a Prius is. The gasoline engine NEVER drives the car. It is a tiny 4-cylinder engine that only charges the battery. (4 cylinders to keep vibration and noise low.) Since the engine runs at a constant speed and only is used to charge a 53 kw generator (like one on a semi tractor), it can be very precisely tuned to get the absolutely best mileage. It also has the ability to charge the battery with energy recovered from braking.

This number came from plugging GM's numbers into the same EPA formula used for the Prius. The numbers are pretty bogus in many ways and are only intended for comparison purposes.

1) My wife drives to and from work. She never drives more than 4 miles each way. In that case she would never use any gasoline at all because she would plug in every night and would only use house current at around an equivalent of $.92 per gallon.

2) She occasionally drives to another town to shop or for meetings --- 34 miles each way. She would use no gasoline initially, but would use the range extension of the 4-cyl engine for only about 28 miles of the round trip. The range extension would only be in use for a short period of time and even before the batteries were charged by the engine, she would have plugged it into house current.

3) Some she drives 150 miles or so on a trip. Even a round trip is well within the range of the vehicle, so it has utility there as well. Longer trips would take a great deal of planning.

Cap and Trade or more properly the American Clean Energy and Security bill will cost each American the price of one postage stamp a day according to the Congressional Budget Office. The $3100 alledged cost for Cap and Trade is a distortion of a 2007 MIT study by the Republican Party. One of the authors, John Reilly stated it was a misrepresentation of their work. As Reilly explained it, "It's just wrong, ...It's wrong in so many ways it's hard to begin."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/30/house-republicans/GOP-full-of-hot-air-about-Obamas-light-switch-tax/

Reilly also wrote a letter to Republican congressman John Boehner's office to stop repeating these distortions of his work.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/republican.pdf

Gotta pay for the roads you drive on somehow, gas tax revenue goes down, other fees and taxes will take it's place. A good public transportation system, higher gas taxes, tire taxes, and licensing fees (both car and driver), along with high fee toll roads would help break most americans of their love affair with the automobile. Raise the taxes on gas now so that we are paying the same as the Europeans (about $8.00 per gallon) and use the proceeds to build up public transportation to the point where we are the world leaders once again and not the French, Germans, Chinese, Japanese or the Italians.

You wouldn't consider this car at this price. but you would buy a Prius at $60,000 and only get 50 mph in the city and 25 mph on the highway.

I think you should rethink your decision.

If electric cars are staying too expensive for the general public ( lower middle class), it makes no sense to have them. The idea is not only the minimizing of the use and affordability of the gas but mainly the minimum damage to the environment. How is it going to help if only a few can afford them? I smell a plan to satisfy the "requirements" of the public yet a scheme to keep things as usual. No real progress. More political crap.

KS2345: An article on autobloggreen.com last year indicated that GM expected the car to have at least 100K warranty on both the battery and electric motor, but they thought perhaps as high as 150K.

Xisle, I agree with your reasoning and I believe it is always better not to rely on foreign oil but currently our largest importer of oil is Canada from the tar sands. Saudi Arabia currently accounts for 9% of imports and we currently import about 72% of our oil.

A car like the Volt will help reverse the trend toward reliance on foreign oil and is an excellent first step towards that goal.

Does anyone know why we import oil? Because we don't have the capacity to be able to refine it. Anyone know when the last refinery was built in the US?

The problem with your logic Rick is that oil is a fungible resource. Thus the more we buy from Canada, the higher the price Saudi Arabia can charge for their oil thus making Saudi Arabia wealthier.

The actual source of the oil isn't significant, it is the relative demand vs. a fixed supply. All the oil is in effect mixed together in one big pool which is the commodity markets.

Socialism, even imported oil must be refined. The US imports very few refined products.

That's why we need to increase our own production of oil. No more fixed supply then supply/demand economics can work correctly. Incidently the last refinery built in the US was in 1976.

We import oil because the decision was made years ago to use up the worlds oil first before we tackle the oil here we only use a token amout of our own oil. We refine all of the oil used here, HERE. we do not import refined gas. We run the refineries at or near full production in order to squeze the last penny out of the process. If we built more refineries and they ran at full production we would have a glut of gas and the price would drop.

And that would be a bad thing because.........

..........the oil companies won't be raking in the huge profits, that's why it's bad.

James in Denver,

It is global demand that now dictates price and not where the US purchases oil. OPEC has lost the ability to set price because of the increasing global demand while oil output has remained steady at 84 million barrels of oil per day since about 2004 inspite of this increased demand. Spare production capacity has shrunk to the point where any disruption in the flow of oil, real or perceived, sets the futures market on a buying spree that drives prices up. Then there are the speculators who drive prices up in order to take profits. This was a significant part of the exponential rise in the price of oil. When the price collapsed it took a large part of the tar sands production in Alberta, Canada with it too. The tar sands project cannot exist unless the price is at or above $50/bbl.

raking in huge profits is a bad thing? That's one of the reasons that I work.

That tax incentive would benefit the automakers IF they had cars that got more than 100 miles per gallon AND if the oil companys didn't pay our congressmen (congresspersons) to vote against the tax incentive.

Want to make the consumer demand electric cars? Raise the gas tax so that we're paying the same as the Europeans, about $8.00 per gallon.

Most Toyotas sold here are built here, so jacking up the tariff on imported cars or limiting the amount shipped into the country wouldn't help. The U.S. automakers will have to put greed (huge profits) aside, when it comes to lowering the price of a car, before they can effectively compete pricewise with the "foreign" brands. Building american cars in Mexico or Canada to escape high labor costs (unions) hasn't helped them much, but has turned the U.S. automakers into "foreign" car manufacturers (go NAFTA!).

Japan, with no oil resources of it's own, has a valid point about limiting the number of gas guzzlers the U.S. automakers can send them each year.

If you have to ask you can't afford it.

The automakers will make sure that replacement batteries will cost more than the car is worth when replacement time rolls around.

If you depleted that battery in the Volt to 30% state of charge you will need to put 8 Kwh of electricity back into the battery. If your electrical rates are at 7 cents a kilowatt hour you would pay about 56 cents per night to charge the Volt or about 17 dollars a month. Double that if your paying 15 cents an hour like I am here in Houston.

Wake up to the reality that everything is not a conspiracy created by Obama!!!! Maybe for once and American car company will be the technology leader! Please do the world a favor and stop getting all your news from Fox and Rush.

I hate Obama as much as the next conservative. But, please don't let him take credit for this. GM has been working on the Volt project long before Obama might have had anything to do with it.