Posted on 08/09/2012 10:20:31 PM PDT by Nachum
Detroit - A small battery company backed by General Motors is working on breakthrough technology that could power an electric car 100 or even 200 miles on a single charge in the next two-to-four years, GM's CEO said Thursday. Speaking at an employee meeting, CEO Dan Akerson said the company, Newark, Calif.-based Envia Systems, has made a huge breakthrough in the amount of energy a lithium-ion battery can hold. GM is sure that the battery will be able to take a car 100 miles within a couple of years, he said. It could be double that with some luck, he
(Excerpt) Read more at bottomline.nbcnews.com ...
Your post, 2IDV, raises a very sad point. There was a time in this country when our car makerswere discussing the possibilities of flying cars, even nuclear cars. The auto industry, and the American people looked forward to building and doing great things.
Now, they are selling a 200 mile range as a bold, earth-shaking innovation and the way of the future.
Imagine you're on the road and the car needs a charge. Now, if you're driving a gasoline-powered car and low on gas: no problemo. Just stop at the gas station, and in five minutes or so, you're on your way again. But sixty minutes for a recharge!!!! These recharging stations better have a lot of outlets, because they're going to awfully clogged with motorists. When the lefties succeed in banning gas-powered cars (or mandating all electric..same thing), I'm going to convince the wife to buy a charging station. If we're still alive that is.
Yep. Electric heat sucks wattage like nobody’s business. It’s just not practical in cold areas, compared to a combustion engine that produces heat *as waste* that can just be pumped into the cabin.
Gasoline...you can kiss my butt!
LOL awesome
Until you can get a 300-400 mile range and a 5-10 minute recharge the purely electric vehicle is nothing but a commuter vehicle at best, its not a practical replacement for the internal combustion engine.
Someday we may get there, but aren’t there yet.
Frankly why don’t we just put this money into teleportation, then we can be done with cars in their entirety.
Best car Gm ever made. Best engine 3800 V6 and they dropped the nameplate in 2005.
Thanks for your responses folks.
I don’t plan on frequenting any GM showrooms either. What took place with GM was wrong on a number of levels.
My only question would be, how do we best fix that?
Is driving GM out of business really the best outcome for the nation? It seems to me that some sore of activity to move the entity back to the model of American values we support, would be better.
Failing that, I pretty much think of it the same way you folks do.
I have been anti-union since my youth. All you have to do is look at what unions have been involved in, to know that they are essentially anti-American and consummately evil.
Bond holders with GM deserve to receive compensation for their monetary support for GM. Partial union ownership is also a no-go for me.
“Is driving GM out of business really the best outcome for the nation? It seems to me that some sore of activity to move the entity back to the model of American values we support, would be better.”
Thanks, but no. The only practical way to wipe out the UAW, at this point, is to simply let the unions have their victory, and bring down GM (and the others). At that point, the pieces can be picked up by non-union operations in this country and overseas, while, hopefully, new domestic (non-union) manufacturers take hold. That’s exactly what happened in retail, and it’s much, much, more efficient now.
“Yep. Electric heat sucks wattage like nobodys business. Its just not practical in cold areas, compared to a combustion engine that produces heat *as waste* that can just be pumped into the cabin.”
Electric cars also produce heat...although the heat is produced and rejected at the power plants that supply their energy (coal and gas, in particular).
That’s the problem they have.
Thanks for your response BobL. I’m not convinced you are wrong here. I don’t like seeing old brands wiped off the map. Unfortunately in this instance, the damage has been done, and the outcome is slowly playing out as it should.
I’m not trying to give you a dig here, but I wonder how many non-union jobs will disappear if GM goes down. I wouldn’t be surprised if from suppliers to sales, we’re talking far more than the number of those who are actually employed at GM.
Take care.
All that GM really waiting for is this technology to recapture the .50/gal gas tax the Feds lose when it kicks in...
“Im not trying to give you a dig here, but I wonder how many non-union jobs will disappear if GM goes down. I wouldnt be surprised if from suppliers to sales, were talking far more than the number of those who are actually employed at GM.”
I did think about the white collar jobs, but we cannot carry along sick companies to protect those workers...otherwise we don’t have a free market. Any time a company fails, non-union people lose jobs too - sometimes lots of non-union people. Often some of those non-union people are well beyond their prime and should have been let go (I work with a number of those), but management feels an (understandable) bond to these people. So the process of staying competitive does that job. Rough, but the alternative is much, much, worse.
I was saying that from a purely technical perspective, over the other alternative energy vehicles currently available.
It’s good to get the context before replying.
Well the thing that’s really pissed off a lot of leaf owners is that they are used to recharging rechargeable batteries fully. Apparently if you keep doing that with the leaf, you quickly start reducing the batteries’ capacity. I didn’t think Li-on batteries developed “memory” issues like other rechargeables but apparently this is an issue, at least with the leaf’s batteries and charging method. They say not to fully charge it every time you’re done driving.
“Yeah, Im thinking no song will be written about the Volt like Little Deuce Coup.”
the Volt....a 20K car that comes with a 20K...one gallon, 500lb fuel tank!!!!
I do agree with some of what you said. Look, the government has no place picking winners and losers. It has no business cutting bond holders off at the pass. It has no business intruding and giving unions management or ownership positions. I disagree with that across the board.
If ever there was a company that should go down, I believe GM to be one, due to government actions, due to union actions.
I will say that dismissing out of hand, all the non-union people that would be effected by this, is severely problematic in this business environment. You mentioned older dead wood, and that older dead wood would find it next to impossible to find new employment.
There are plenty of younger people in the work force looking for employment. Most businesses are going to opt for them. I’m not saying self-interest is bad here either, but there are misconceptions about long term employees too.
The characterization of older people not being productive, is a flawed premise. SOME are. Others have a long term expertise that is valuable to the business.
I have seen businesses chop employees that cost them a number of times what the employee was making, only to hire in someone at more money and far less key knowledge to replace them. Those new hires making more money could not rebuild (or would take a decade or more to rebuild) what was destroyed during the process.
I have seen many people treated this way, and I am still anti-union and argue with some family members regularly on the topic.
“The characterization of older people not being productive, is a flawed premise. SOME are. Others have a long term expertise that is valuable to the business.”
If you weren’t the most politest person I’ve ever come across on this site (seriously, your earlier posts set a standard here), I’d say some off-color things. So I’ll just try to one-up you...
...I believe that I may have mus-intentionally misled a fellow FReeper with an earlier posting. What I had been trying to convey, although not successfully (because of my carelessness, of course), was that there is a subset of older people, some with lots of experience, that are either marginally productive, or not productive at all. I have worked with both. I’ve also worked with a number of very productive older people - and some, definitely are irreplaceable, and I consider myself in that class (although not quite as old as some of them).
The point that I was trying to make was there are often some non-productive people that are very highly paid, due to their past positions. These people, not a lot of people, but some, should be let go, or have their salary reduced to a level commensurate with their present capabilities. It is often very difficult for a company to do without “outside help”.
As far as whether it’s inhumane, that’s a tough call, but I still have to come down on the side that companies must stay lean and competitive. If an older person working for a big company (for a long time) and making big bucks is broke, then that person, almost always, did not plan ahead, but chose to “live for the day”. Those people should not be carried, essentially as welfare cases, by companies trying to compete in a world market. There will be some exceptions, but in the corporate world, they are rare, as most deal with health-related problems, of which coverage almost always exists.
People make choices - they can buy cars and houses on extended credit, to keep up with the Jones’s, or they can choose to live on less than what they make. In some cases, it might mean living in an apartment and driving a (non-union) mid-size, rather than a big house and a Lexus SUV - but it is a choice that they make, and companies should not feel obliged to “help out” people that have made bad choices. I base that on knowledge of a person that I worked with that fit that description and was broke shortly after being laid off. We hired the guy...who was essentially useless, because my boss felt bad for him (and knew him from an earlier day). It was a long time ago, but probably played a small part in my company disappearing.
If GM dies, other companies will rise to replace it. I see no reason to reward their decisions with further business, not when there are superior options.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.