Audi Prez thinks people who will buy the Volt are idiots

Well, I think he really overshoot with this one. He's not going to make many friends anywhere with such statements, nor is he going to help his own brand's sales by calling potential customers idiots...

I wish Volt all the best, although I personally have strong doubts about its success. He is right in the sense that it is overpriced and underperforming (not to mention imaginary ).

He seems to be frustrated with the government subsidy policy, because it is helping his competition... Which is partially understandable, but such statements are not going to help anything .

Just my 2 cents...

 

This guy sounds like an idiot himself. He isn't just insulting the Volt; this guy is insulting everyone who sees value in EVs, PHEVs, and everyone that is glad that someone is experimenting and trying new things for the future instead of doing nothing about the impending problem that the earth's inhabitants face. "They’re for the intellectual elite who want to show what enlightened souls they are," he said.
I'm sorry, but the "intellectual" elite are concerned more with function than fashion statements. Fashion statements are for the unintellectual elite.
It looks like Audi may be going the direction of the dinosaurs if they keep this guy around too long. Wise and successful leaders in this world are open-minded and never quick to insult large groups of people (environmentalists and the rapidly growing percentage of the population that care about the environment and global warming).

"Diesels have been shown to emit 25 percent less carbon dioxide than gasoline engines, while using 25 to 35 percent less fuel."
Diesels use 25 to 35 percent less fuel because diesel is more compact than gasoline. In other words, it's like comparing compressed natural gas to liquid natural gas. One is just more compact than the other so you can go further on the same volume tank. But that's not the point. The point is that it is still burning petroleum and it is still contributing significantly to global warming.

Update: This guy doesn't even know what he is talking about. First he says those who buy the Volt are idiots, and then: "He did add that plug-in hybrids are good in concept and hold advantages over diesels ... de Nysschen noted, electric vehicles (EVs) are more about making a statement." THE VOLT IS A PHEV! So, this guy is insulting his own company! And with the EV statement, is he insulting Nissan, Tesla, Mitsubishi, or any other auto company that has explored electric? According to this guy, anyone who tries to be innovative and experiment and try to develop new things for the future is, in his words "an idiot."
.

 

His statement that EVs emit more CO2 than fossil-fuel based vehicles is false even when ALL the electricity comes from coal.

 

Hmmmmm . . . seems like if wasn't too long ago that the tag team of Lutz & Wagoner were throwing the idiot word around pretty much, regarding the Prius ... and now GM is still stuck playing catch up. Makes we wonder if Audi / VW is entering the same 'missing the boat' phase.

 

Scary thought for you,
That is just what I was thinking!!

 

I was going to post some gnarly comment but my wife asked me to get some dog biscuits. So I put the dog on a leash and hopped on:

This is our Ebike, an electric bicycle. The dog had a great run and the Ebike made short work of the 1 mile (1.6 km) trip over and back from the grocery store.

This evening, I'll take the Ebike down to a local sports bar and perhaps over a beer or two, I'll think of something more effective than using an EV to run local chores.

Bob Wilson

 

No, it is not. It depends on the vehicles compared. The Prius for example will generally come out on top. The typical energy requirement per mile I've seen is about 0.25 kwh/mile, and that doesn't include charging or transmission losses. So even if it is about 0.2 kwh/mile, adding these inefficiencies will put you in the ballpark of 0.25. Coal produced electricity in the U.S. emits 2+ lb/CO2 per kwh.

At 46 mpg combined, and ~20 lb/CO2 per gallon of gasoline, the Gen II Prius will emit (20 lb/CO2/gallon) / (46 miles/gallon) = 0.435 lb/CO2 per mile. The coal fired EV will emit (0.250 kwh/mile)*(2 lb CO2/kwh) = 0.5 lb CO2/mile.

The negative for EV is that it gives coal fired plants a lifeline.

Diesel of course emits 22.4 lb/CO2 per gallon, so the VW TDI crowd (or the Audi) fairs poorly in an EV comparison for CO2 emissions. Full hybrids like the Prius do not.

 

Wrong. The truly enlightened rarely drive at all.

And who does he think he's selling Oddys to, if not the elite?

 

What he said makes sense but he was completely ignored the smog related emission.

Isn't VW and Audi are merging? There can't be two presidents in the new company.

 

With a longer leash and some rollerblades, you could have a dogbrid.

 

Well his tone is going to insult a lot of people. But you always have to keep in mind where someone is coming from.

"Modern diesels already power half of Audi’s cars in Europe and have helped Audi dominate recent runnings of the 24 Hours of LeMans."-From the article.

So of course he's not going to be supportive of EV technology or upcoming cars such as The Volt.

Does that mean he's right?-No, Does that mean he's wrong?-No. Just that he does have an agenda with his comments, and he is doing his job.

I think he's wrong in thinking that people won't buy the Volt. First of all his contention that it competes with The Toyota Corolla is incorrect, The Volt competes with really nothing, because there really isn't anything on the market like it. The Prius is a far more mainstream product, and designed to be a parallel hybrid. How "mainstream" The Volt could become is really unknowable. At $40,000, I don't expect to see one on every block, but that's not really the point. It's change and of course since Audi has nothing on the horizon in that arena of change, EV or Hybrid, they are heavily commited to Diesel, of course he is going to be unsupportive of EV.

I don't want to sound too cliche, but the wheel is in spin in relationship to a lot of these technologies. We need products like The Prius, The Volt, The Leaf, and continued advancement with clean Diesel. What rises to the point of acceptable mainstream adoption? Only time will tell. The Prius has climbed that mountain so assuming that The Volt, The Leaf, or any other technology would not be able to, is not really foresighted.

I find it interesting that evidently he concedes that "plug-in hybrids are good in concept and hold advantages over diesels in stop-and-go driving" but then goes on to say they are more about making a statement and “They’re for the intellectual elite who want to show what enlightened souls they are,” ....well maybe there is a percentage inwhich that would be true, but 10 years ago you could of made a similar statement about The Prius, and today? Toyota has sold over a Million of them in North America alone. The buying audience for The Prius is no longer just the intellectual elite if it ever was primarily the intellectual elite. Also I'd tell him, even if people are buying a automobile to make a statement, from a mainstream or marketing POV, that is not a bad thing. People have been buying automobiles to make supposed statements about themselves and their lifestyles probably since the first horseless carriages were built. That's human nature.

In the end, Diesel vs. Hybrid or EV, or some other technology, really who know's? It's going to be a battle ground with unforeseeable aspects. I also think there is room for more than one approach, and more than one technology. The only thing I think anyone can really say is that the next decade or two, change is coming. Somehow, I think it likely it won't end up ultimately being a fossil fuel based concept such as diesel, even if the benefits can be tweaked and improved. That doesn't mean I'm against Diesels or diesel technology, only that if I look out a decade or two in the future, I just don't see it really being the answer.

For now, it's the answer from Audi, and so I'm not suprised at his comments, outside of I think he's chosing rather blunt terms, a little unfairly. Only time will tell if he was being foresighted or defensive.

 

Maybe not so fast on that calculation... You're not adding in the CO2 cost for refining that gallon of gasoline. See this article and scroll down to paragraph:
How Much Electricity is used to run gasoline cars?

You might be surprised.

 

Are you sure you are not thinking VW and Porsche?

 

I think you are right. That's my mix up.

 

Too many squirrels in the neighborhood:


Bob Wilson

ps. The coloration matches our dog, Kiwi.

 

He echos a common opinion in Europe that hybrids are 'salesmanship' and not reality. Sad to say, this blinds them to the actual performance of hybrids and makes them into market place "dead meat:"

Hybrid Electric Vehicles Not As Green As They Are Painted, Analysts Contend

January 2008.

Bob Wilson

 

Amused, perhaps. That's not even close to accurate. It comes out as a free lunch for EV--which ought to wave red flags. As best I can tell the actual energy ratio for gasoline production is going to be about 1/5th. DOE gives the gasoline energy efficiency factor as 0.83.

Now, repeat the excercise for the coal extraction and transportation...to put things on a consistent basis.

I specifically left these out because I don't have good numbers for all of them, just like I left out the transmission losses and the charging efficiency losses for EV.

Actually, I've seen some decent national numbers posted for electrical transmission losses, something like 7.6% per the DOE. Tesla lists their charging efficiency as 86%. So there's another 26% overall to multiply by the kwh/mile for electric. And I guess that I should point out that this exceeds the 20% factor one would get from the DOE's gasoline figure. I don't think the energy cost of extracting and transporting coal is that great, but adding it will only make the comparison worse still.

The point is he's got a reasonable basis for claiming the CO2 footprint of an EV is worse with coal than a fuel efficient vehicle (such as a hybrid.) As it is I've got a coal fired plant about 2 miles away so I know where essentially 100% of my electric is coming from at the moment and can figure what the EV carbon footprint would be for me.

Coal is the first thing that needs to get the boot from a CO2 standpoint. Unfortunatley, EV's don't help in that regard unless directly coupled to sustainable electrical production sources.

 

Gasoline can NEVER be produced sans pollution, sans fossil fuels.

EVs CAN be powered from renewables, sans ANY fossil fuels. THAT's the point here. EV...future. Gas... a dying dinosaur, pun intended.

 

The problem is, they don't deliver on that any time soon. CAN and ARE are not the same thing. It would be great if the increments of capacity maintained or added for EV were renewables. Fact is, they are not except for a few non-grid connected renewable users. The most CO2 intensive bit on the grid (coal) will either stay, or have its capacity added in order to meet any incremental demand in addition to sustainable projects.

Capacity of sustainable will be put to use regardless, and nat. gas is replacing coal in some instances. But coal is cheap so it won't die easy. If we want to get rid of it, or halt it, we need to eliminate the increments that sustain it. Electrical efficiency improvements benefit from the flipside of this. If you replace incandescents or install more electrically efficient appliances you actually should consider it a credit against coal. Doesn't matter if you have a coal plant next door, or are primarily on nat. gas, hydro, or have solar panels on your roof. This is a grid connected commodity. So even if you think "I'm 100% hydro in my area, etc." the fact is that some percentage of the capacity you use will result in reduced transfers to other customers...thereby benefitting the dinosaurs (coal.)

Note that I'm not making the argument about EV killing the grid or such. Instead, I'm saying it makes transitioning to other electrical energy sources that much longer/challenging of a goal. I'm also not suggesting folks would be "idiots" to buy the volt. I just don't see how it can meet the expectations that some have for it. Being an early adopter rarely makes sense.

I'm not actually anti-EV, because eventually we have little choice but to move that way. I'm just not kidding myself about what the impact would be on carbon emissions in the interim. Electricity generation efficiency is poor, in the neighborhood of hybrid auto efficiency...and when you compare coal to gasoline it isn't pretty.

Now if one is comparing an EV to an F150 or traditional family size passenger car the CO2 numbers are of course much more favorable for the EV.