What do you think of the Chevy Volt?

[mirak]

Haven't been following very closely, but I saw that GM recently confirmed a $41k sticker price for the Volt. I'm assuming that's a base price, and I have no idea what sort of options come standard.

 

Obviously, the price seems way too high for a compact car, even after a $7,500 tax credit (thanks for your money, taxpayers).

 

But beyond the price, the whole technology just seems dumb. The car lugs around an ICE, but it only serves as a generator to recharge the battery? The way I see it, if you need an ICE to drive at higher (highway) speeds and extend driving distance, it would be more efficient to just use hybrid technology, which actually incorporates the ICE into the drivetrain. And you've gotta think hybrid technology is going to get even better once they improve the batteries.

 

Of course, I'm not an engineer, not even a government engineer, so I could be totally wrong, but I'm really glad I went with the Fusion. I got a fully loaded mid-size sedan which gets over 40mpg for right around $30k. I just don't see how the Volt can compete.

[VonoreTn]

Chevy claims that the Volt will get 50 mpg after the first 40 miles, but I am very skeptical of that conclusion. It is heavier than a Prius and it has the additional inefficiency of generating electricity for charging batteries that in turn drive motors. Each operation is at best a 70% efficient energy conversion, thus combined it is only a 49% efficient process after the 30% efficiency of the ICE, for a total of 15% overall efficiency. A direct drive by an ICE like the Prius and Fusion Hybrid have, gives you the 30% ICE efficiency plus 85% mechanical drivetrain efficiency for an overall of 25% versus the Volt 15%. After the first 40 miles on the Volt I think not only will the Prius beat the Volt, so will the Fusion Hybrid with it's approximate 40 mpg.

 

But there is no question that the first 40 miles on the battery is a big plus since most Americans make lots of short runs in a day. Assuming that their electrical energy cost is currently reasonable. I'm just not sure it's worth the extra even $2-$3 grand for someone who spends a lot of time highway driving. I think GM engineers are well aware of this situation which one reason it's release keeps getting delayed.

 

And I do resent the fact that my tax dollars will be subsidizing the Volt's competitive position against the FFH, since I am a retired Ford employee. That's just not fair. They should subsidize all hybrids or no hybrids, not just the Government Motors hybrid.

 

 

Haven't been following very closely, but I saw that GM recently confirmed a $41k sticker price for the Volt. I'm assuming that's a base price, and I have no idea what sort of options come standard.

 

Obviously, the price seems way too high for a compact car, even after a $7,500 tax credit (thanks for your money, taxpayers).

 

But beyond the price, the whole technology just seems dumb. The car lugs around an ICE, but it only serves as a generator to recharge the battery? The way I see it, if you need an ICE to drive at higher (highway) speeds and extend driving distance, it would be more efficient to just use hybrid technology, which actually incorporates the ICE into the drivetrain. And you've gotta think hybrid technology is going to get even better once they improve the batteries.

 

Of course, I'm not an engineer, not even a government engineer, so I could be totally wrong, but I'm really glad I went with the Fusion. I got a fully loaded mid-size sedan which gets over 40mpg for right around $30k. I just don't see how the Volt can compete.

[akirby]

Chevy claims that the Volt will get 50 mpg after the first 40 miles, but I am very skeptical of that conclusion. It is heavier than a Prius and it has the additional inefficiency of generating electricity for charging batteries that in turn drive motors. Each operation is at best a 70% efficient energy conversion, thus combined it is only a 49% efficient process after the 30% efficiency of the ICE, for a total of 15% overall efficiency. A direct drive by an ICE like the Prius and Fusion Hybrid have, gives you the 30% ICE efficiency plus 85% mechanical drivetrain efficiency for an overall of 25% versus the Volt 15%. After the first 40 miles on the Volt I think not only will the Prius beat the Volt, so will the Fusion Hybrid with it's approximate 40 mpg.

 

But there is no question that the first 40 miles on the battery is a big plus since most Americans make lots of short runs in a day. Assuming that their electrical energy cost is currently reasonable. I'm just not sure it's worth the extra even $2-$3 grand for someone who spends a lot of time highway driving. I think GM engineers are well aware of this situation which one reason it's release keeps getting delayed.

 

And I do resent the fact that my tax dollars will be subsidizing the Volt's competitive position against the FFH, since I am a retired Ford employee. That's just not fair. They should subsidize all hybrids or no hybrids, not just the Government Motors hybrid.

 

The tax rebate is available to all mfrs just like the hybrid tax rebate was available to everyone. The FFH took advantage of it against the Prius and Camry hybrid and if Ford comes out with an electric Focus next year it should get the same rebate. It's not discriminatory as far as I can tell.

[lolder]

I think the battery charge/discharge and motor/generator efficiencies of our hybrids are above 90% now but still less than direct drive. If you drive a Volt 40 miles in EV every working day, you will save less than $200/year in gasoline. The electricity for 40 miles is about $1.50, the gas for 40 miles about $2.25, $0.75 saved each day. No road tax YET on the electricity. The biggest advantages are removal of the energy generation to a remote power plant which could be fueled with renewable non-polluting sources. Most are not. The hybrids are here now and even meet the next fuel economy standards. There are going to be even cheaper hybrids. The new Hyundai, even though it's technology is not as advanced as the eCVT,s will probably get competitive economy and put price pressure on the market. Like Vonore, I was an engineer (long ago EE) and this hybrid technology is extremely elegant and fascinating. Other than your home computer, it is arguably the most high tech device you own.

[akirby]

But beyond the price, the whole technology just seems dumb.

 

Really? Better tell the train manufacturers because that's exactly how they work. They have diesel engines that work as generators and the train itself runs off electrical power.

 

There are several advantages. One drivetrain with no complicated integrated motors and clutches and transmissions to switch power back and forth between electric and ICE. The car always operates off batter power so it's a much simpler design.

 

But the biggest advantage lies down the road. ANY type of engine can be used down the road - gasoline ICE, ethanol, diesel, CNG, hydrogen fuel cell, you name it.

 

It also allows the engine to run at optimum efficiency (e.g. constant 2500 RPM) all the time rather than throttling up and down like a conventional ICE.

 

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it bad.

[mirak]

But there is no question that the first 40 miles on the battery is a big plus since most Americans make lots of short runs in a day. Assuming that their electrical energy cost is currently reasonable.

 

Right. The pure EV commuting is a nice feature that is currently superior to what hybrids can offer, but the Volt will lose even this advantage once plug-in hybrids arrive with lighter, higher capacity batteries (Li-Ion). I'm sure that's coming soon, perhaps as early as the 2012 Prius (and hopefully, Ford isn't far behind). In my opinion, that's what GM should have done with the Volt.

 

And, back to price, I seriously doubt a buyer will ever recover in gas savings the premium paid for the Volt over a conventional compact car, many of which already get 35mpg+. I really only see this car appealing to wealthy collectors, wealthy tech enthusiasts, and wealthy environmentalists. Of course, the folks who think they're helping to save the planet by purchasing a new Volt - or any new car - are more delusional than most Prius owners, but that's a different topic.

 

Didn't GM say a couple of years ago that the Volt was GM's "moon shot"? I can't believe the government funneled so much of our money into this failed enterprise. It's depressing.

[mirak]

The tax rebate is available to all mfrs just like the hybrid tax rebate was available to everyone. The FFH took advantage of it against the Prius and Camry hybrid and if Ford comes out with an electric Focus next year it should get the same rebate. It's not discriminatory as far as I can tell.

 

It's true that most (all?) hybrids have been eligible for tax credits, but not anywhere close to a $7,500 tax credit. I guess the government figures less people will claim it, so it will probably cost less money.

 

Really? Better tell the train manufacturers because that's exactly how they work. They have diesel engines that work as generators and the train itself runs off electrical power.

 

There are several advantages. One drivetrain with no complicated integrated motors and clutches and transmissions to switch power back and forth between electric and ICE. The car always operates off batter power so it's a much simpler design.

 

But the biggest advantage lies down the road. ANY type of engine can be used down the road - gasoline ICE, ethanol, diesel, CNG, hydrogen fuel cell, you name it.

 

It also allows the engine to run at optimum efficiency (e.g. constant 2500 RPM) all the time rather than throttling up and down like a conventional ICE.

 

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it bad.

 

Thanks for the info. Like I said, I'm not an engineer. Maybe the Volt is the superior technology. What do you predict will be more prevalent 5 years from now: plug-in hybrids, or Volt-style (not even sure what the technology is called) cars?

Edited July 29, 2010 by mirak

[drolds1]

 

And I do resent the fact that my tax dollars will be subsidizing the Volt's competitive position against the FFH, since I am a retired Ford employee. That's just not fair. They should subsidize all hybrids or no hybrids, not just the Government Motors hybrid.

 

Buyers of The Nissan Leaf are entitled to the same $7500 rebate.

 

And it's enough with the tired 'Government Motors" thing already. We get it.

 

I resent my tax money being used for a lot of other things I consider worse than a credit for EVs. Not much we can do about , can we?

Edited July 29, 2010 by drolds1

[jay2000]

Just some thoughts off the top of my head.

 

I believe the Volt is using "series hybrid" technology. To me it seems more simple. Use regen and ICE to put juice in the battery, use the battery and the motor to push the car. Over the years I was very suprised to see that this was not the first hybrid. Parallel seems complicated.

 

I do not think trains use regen. Seems like a good idea if you had a long train coming down out of the mountains. It may be on the new engines, not sure.

 

My guess is that the higher cost is because they are using a more expensive battery. As costs come down plug in hybrids will be the norm, we will all have them. Will they be parallel or series? If you had a big battery and a big motor (so that you could go freeway speeds on electric only) maybe parallel would be the way to go????

 

All that said, the efficiencies of electric only for the first 40 miles is going win out at some point. All electric will win out to some extent. Most of use will have 2 cars, just like now. One will be a hybrid when we need range and one will be all electric for one spouse to commute daily.

 

Jerry

[akirby]

I do not think trains use regen. Seems like a good idea if you had a long train coming down out of the mountains. It may be on the new engines, not sure.

 

They do use the electric motors to brake the train but they don't store the resulting electricity. It's turned into heat and vented. My guess is the batteries required to supply enough power to the wheels are simply too big and too heavy, so the motors run directly off the generator. So the only difference is there are no batteries between the generator and the motor and therefore no regen from braking into the batteries.

 

Because of this setup the train's diesel engine runs between 270 and 900 rpm with no transmission. If it was directly connected to the wheels it would require a 30 speed transmission to get up to max speed.

[Oman]

The first RESS train was built in 1986 I think. RESS is what you are thinking of when you say "hybrid train". It is the standard diesel generator tied to electric traction motors, but with a battery and energy management system added.

 

There are a few locos operating here and there that are hybrid but they have not been produced in any quantity. G.E. has been making noise lately about it but they still don't have any quantity in production that I know of. My guess is that there just isn't enough savings with something that large to justify the extra costs. The battery banks have to be massive.

 

 

Jon

 

 

 

 

 

They do use the electric motors to brake the train but they don't store the resulting electricity. It's turned into heat and vented. My guess is the batteries required to supply enough power to the wheels are simply too big and too heavy, so the motors run directly off the generator. So the only difference is there are no batteries between the generator and the motor and therefore no regen from braking into the batteries.

 

Because of this setup the train's diesel engine runs between 270 and 900 rpm with no transmission. If it was directly connected to the wheels it would require a 30 speed transmission to get up to max speed.

[DaveM]

Chevy claims that the Volt will get 50 mpg after the first 40 miles, but I am very skeptical of that conclusion. It is heavier than a Prius and it has the additional inefficiency of generating electricity for charging batteries that in turn drive motors. Each operation is at best a 70% efficient energy conversion, thus combined it is only a 49% efficient process after the 30% efficiency of the ICE, for a total of 15% overall efficiency. A direct drive by an ICE like the Prius and Fusion Hybrid have, gives you the 30% ICE efficiency plus 85% mechanical drivetrain efficiency for an overall of 25% versus the Volt 15%. After the first 40 miles on the Volt I think not only will the Prius beat the Volt, so will the Fusion Hybrid with it's approximate 40 mpg.

 

But there is no question that the first 40 miles on the battery is a big plus since most Americans make lots of short runs in a day. Assuming that their electrical energy cost is currently reasonable. I'm just not sure it's worth the extra even $2-$3 grand for someone who spends a lot of time highway driving. I think GM engineers are well aware of this situation which one reason it's release keeps getting delayed.

 

And I do resent the fact that my tax dollars will be subsidizing the Volt's competitive position against the FFH, since I am a retired Ford employee. That's just not fair. They should subsidize all hybrids or no hybrids, not just the Government Motors hybrid.

 

You have to think different here. First off the gas engine is not the same type of engine a normal car has to propel it. This gas engine is a generator which powers an electric motor that drives the wheels. Lots of generators make some to all of their power at a certain RPM where as a car engine can go from about 700 to 6, 7, or 8000 rpms which means different mpg at different speeds. I don't know what the volt will do but I can see if say the generator always runs at 3600 rpm's where as it puts out max voltage it is possible being I think the engine is smaller than the prius engine could get 50mpg. I guess within a couple months their should start being some road tests being done by the different mags so time will tell.

[DaveM]

Buyers of The Nissan Leaf are entitled to the same $7500 rebate.

 

And it's enough with the tired 'Government Motors" thing already. We get it.

 

I resent my tax money being used for a lot of other things I consider worse than a credit for EVs. Not much we can do about , can we?

 

I agree on the gov. motors cr-p. It is old, but what I resent is my hard earned money being used to rebate some yo-yo buying a foreign car that does nothing for this country except send mega bucks back to that country to support their schools, build their roads and make their standard of living better than ours.

[lolder]

The battery of a non-plug-in hybrid like the FFH goes through tens of thousands of very shallow charge discharge cycles. It need not be very large or powerful. It's requirements are that it be durable, cheap and relatively efficient. Changing the HVB in the FFH to a Lithium type would have very little effect on the operation of the car. Once you have a plug-in EV or hybrid, the requirements for the battery change. Then, a better battery will yield performance improvements. One of the facts of a hybrid is you do not want it in EV mode at higher speeds and when the load demands are high. That's not because of battery or motor limitations but due to the fact that EV mode is less efficient than ICE mechanical drive. There are not going to be large savings in plug-in EV per mile costs over non-plug-in hybrids. The savings are much less than the additional cost of the more expensive batteries presently.

[rfruth]

The Volt, an extended range EV is a good idea for a lease, hope GM moves a lot of um (betters our TARP money investment odds)

tarp

Edited July 30, 2010 by rfruth

[sullied]

I think a lot of you are misunderstanding the old hybrid credits and the new hybrid credits. The old credit is pretty much said and done for a lot of manufacturers. Ford sold it's allotted number of units that were eligible for the credit, so their cars are no longer eligible. The $7500 credit is a new credit that is based on battery capacity. It's not aimed specifically at the Volt one bit. Every manufacturer has the same shot at it. There's other things that are much worse that our tax dollars are being wasted on. Upgrading our infrastructure and providing incentive to consumers to move toward a new standard of vehicle will help in the long run. EVs = no gas...no oil...no oil spills...energy independence.

 

Sure this car will compete somewhat...it's great for those with a short commute every day. The technology is hardly dumb as some have stated...it's a pretty good idea actually. The big problem with EV is the short range...the Volt solves that problem and still offers pure electric driving for the first 40 miles of a charge.

[mirak]

There's other things that are much worse that our tax dollars are being wasted on.

 

I hear this argument a lot. I really don't see the logic in justifying bad spending with other bad spending. In my opinion, this is just the latest "clean energy" government boondoggle. How many billions have we funneled into ethanol, and solar panels, and wind power, and how many more billions will we continue to spend? I'm sick and tired of my money being spent on subsidizing these efforts, just to they can compete with cheaper, more abundant energy sources. We're supposed to have a free market, where technology can succeed or fail on its own merits, not ont he backs of the taxpayers.

 

Upgrading our infrastructure and providing incentive to consumers to move toward a new standard of vehicle will help in the long run. EVs = no gas...no oil...no oil spills...energy independence.

 

How, exactly, do EVs equal energy independence? How do they equal no oil? How do they equal no oil spills? And speaking of oil spills, remember the recent gulf spill, dubbed the greatest ecological disaster in history? They're having trouble finding the oil. Scientists are baffled by how quickly the planet is healing itself.

 

Look, I've obviously got no problem with hybrids. I own two. I think they're awesome. They're fun to drive and save me money. I'm just tired of the government, in their infinite wisdom, spending my money to subsidize a product that makes no sense. A $33k (after massive tax credit) compact car doesn't make any sense!

 

Finally, you know its bad when the New York Times agree with me. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/opinion/30neidermeyer.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

[Scott A320]

When I began searching for a new fuel-efficient vehicle 15 months ago the choice was essentially between the FFH and Chevy Volt. Although Volt was in the final conceptualization phase, the FFH appeared a better choice due to a freeway commute weekly of either 100 or 160 miles RT. While we don't yet have a good read on Volt's combined MPG, it's clearly not optimized for my needs.

 

If solar technology efficiency were to markedly improve, a hot synergy would be home rooftop panels with sufficient yield to completely charge a vehicle battery in short order.

[cchaos]

I think the Volt is a good idea that's in it's first iteration. The ability to drive purely on electric for 40 miles fits the commute cycle for many folks, and the 300-mile gas range extender means the Volt can serve as a person's only car, unlike range-limited electric vehicles like the Nissan Leaf that are worthless for long road trips or emergencies when the battery is low. I would expect advances in battery technology will raise the electric mileage in the future.

 

The downside is that it's considerably more expensive than the FFH, and the Volt is basically a compact commuter car instead of a premium sedan like the FFH. I'm also not entirely clear what the mpg rating is once the gas generator kicks in, which concerns me as I do a good deal of extended highway driving.

 

If the FFH and Volt were the same price, I would have a tough time deciding between the two. As the prices are, the FFH is a much better value, but I'm still glad to see the Volt going to production and am interested to see where this technology goes.

[FFHdriver]

I think the Volt is a good idea that's in it's first iteration. The ability to drive purely on electric for 40 miles fits the commute cycle for many folks, and the 300-mile gas range extender means the Volt can serve as a person's only car, unlike range-limited electric vehicles like the Nissan Leaf that are worthless for long road trips or emergencies when the battery is low. I would expect advances in battery technology will raise the electric mileage in the future.

 

The downside is that it's considerably more expensive than the FFH, and the Volt is basically a compact commuter car instead of a premium sedan like the FFH. I'm also not entirely clear what the mpg rating is once the gas generator kicks in, which concerns me as I do a good deal of extended highway driving.

 

If the FFH and Volt were the same price, I would have a tough time deciding between the two. As the prices are, the FFH is a much better value, but I'm still glad to see the Volt going to production and am interested to see where this technology goes.

300 miles is a short trip for lots of people. Therefore you'll need another car for vacation travel.

[VonoreTn]

Three points:

 

One, the Volt will not have a 90% efficiency of making electricity, or the second process of running a motor at 90% efficiency. It has to do both. I'm sticking with 70% efficiency for both unless someone can show me some data otherwise, which gives a 50% overall, not very good. Even at a constant speed for electricity generation, there are big losses in coils passing through magnetic fields. I am eager to see the road tests on what this Volt will actually do for FE. I will stick to my projection that it will not get 50 mpg steady state after the first 40 miles. There is simply not sufficient magic going on with the strategy.

 

Secondly the Volt has to use premium fuel. That is a serious competitive disadvantage over the FFH, which must be factored in.

 

Third, someone mentioned that diesel electric locomotives are efficient. Not really. Overall as a transportation mode they are very efficient because they haul a lot of cargo, and the steel wheel on a steel track has low mechanical losses. But for converting fuel energy into mechanical energy they are not more efficient than a 40 mpg mechanical drivetrain diesel car. For the reasons already stated, mechanical drivetrains are more efficient than converting to electricity to run electric motors. Holding locomotive diesel engines at a relatively constant low speeds is a good idea mainly for durability. If the diesel electric combo were more efficient than a diesel and mechanical drivetrain, you would see them in heavy trucks and you don't. Heavy trucks track every bit of efficiency because it impacts their profit margins.

 

I think the battery charge/discharge and motor/generator efficiencies of our hybrids are above 90% now but still less than direct drive.

[sullied]

I hear this argument a lot. I really don't see the logic in justifying bad spending with other bad spending. In my opinion, this is just the latest "clean energy" government boondoggle. How many billions have we funneled into ethanol, and solar panels, and wind power, and how many more billions will we continue to spend? I'm sick and tired of my money being spent on subsidizing these efforts, just to they can compete with cheaper, more abundant energy sources. We're supposed to have a free market, where technology can succeed or fail on its own merits, not ont he backs of the taxpayers.

 

 

 

How, exactly, do EVs equal energy independence? How do they equal no oil? How do they equal no oil spills? And speaking of oil spills, remember the recent gulf spill, dubbed the greatest ecological disaster in history? They're having trouble finding the oil. Scientists are baffled by how quickly the planet is healing itself.

 

Look, I've obviously got no problem with hybrids. I own two. I think they're awesome. They're fun to drive and save me money. I'm just tired of the government, in their infinite wisdom, spending my money to subsidize a product that makes no sense. A $33k (after massive tax credit) compact car doesn't make any sense!

 

Finally, you know its bad when the New York Times agree with me. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/opinion/30neidermeyer.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Not exactly the best place to debate this, but...

1. That article is an opinion article from a single person...not the entire New York Times...so that one person agrees with you

2. Where is the oil? On the beaches, on the wildlife...have you not been paying attention?

3. How does an EV equal energy independence? How do they equal no oil? Is this a serious question? First, EVs don't use oil and gas. Then, we use American energy from wind, solar, hydro, nuclear to power our electricity grid and then plug our EVs into that....that's total energy independence...no dependence on foreign oil for our energy needs.

 

I'd have to disagree with your first statement about this being a waste of money. Infrastructure spending is what the government should be spending money on. Subsidizing electric vehicles is related to infrastructure. If our country is going to move in the direction of energy independence (necessary from a defense standpoint), we need to electrify our vehicles and highways.

[lolder]

Extended range EV hybrids like the Volt are the future of transportation and will be the bridge to the non-petroleum world which will inevitably come. They're just not going to be cheaper. Energy is energy and it all tends to cost roughly the same. It takes the same amount of energy to run a 3500 lb. air conditioned car down the road at 70 mph whether it's electric or pedal powered; and it's a LOT of energy.

[DaveM]

Extended range EV hybrids like the Volt are the future of transportation and will be the bridge to the non-petroleum world which will inevitably come. They're just not going to be cheaper. Energy is energy and it all tends to cost roughly the same. It takes the same amount of energy to run a 3500 lb. air conditioned car down the road at 70 mph whether it's electric or pedal powered; and it's a LOT of energy.

We have to start somewhere. Do you think the engines of today were here 100 years ago? Of course not, but they did get better and better as time went on, and so will cars like the Volt. Look at VCR's. Where they started in the 70's and for the most part are gone due to new technology. So will the electric cars go that way but I see many years of them improving and being around to take some load off the importing of oil.

I have a 08 HHR with about 15K on it and I can only think of a couple times where it has went farther than 40 miles at one time. So just think of the many gal. of gas I could have saved. Heck I bet it would still be on its first tank of gas.

Edited July 31, 2010 by DaveM

[mirak]

2. Where is the oil? On the beaches, on the wildlife...have you not been paying attention?

 

Have a read: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews_excl/ynews_excl_sc3270 Here is an excerpt:

 

Where is all the oil? Nearly two weeks after BP finally capped the biggest oil spill in U.S. history, the oil slicks that once spread across thousands of miles of the Gulf of Mexico have largely disappeared. Nor has much oil washed up on the sandy beaches and marshes along the Louisiana coast. And the small cleanup army in the Gulf has only managed to skim up a tiny fraction of the millions of gallons of oil spilled in the 100 days since the Deepwater Horizon rig went up in flames.

 

So where did the oil go? "Some of the oil evaporates," explains Edward Bouwer, professor of environmental engineering at Johns Hopkins University. That’s especially true for the more toxic components of oil, which tend to be very volatile, he says. Jeffrey W. Short, a scientist with the environmental group Oceana, told the New York Times that as much as 40 percent of the oil might have evaporated when it reached the surface. High winds from two recent storms may have speeded the evaporation process.

 

Although there were more than 4,000 boats involved in the skimming operations, those cleanup crews may have only picked up a small percentage of the oil so far. That’s not unusual; in previous oil spills, crews could only scoop up a small amount of oil. "It’s very unusual to get more than 1 or 2 percent," says Cornell University ecologist Richard Howarth, who worked on the Exxon Valdez spill. Skimming operations will continue in the Gulf for several weeks.

 

Some of the oil has sunk into the sediments on the ocean floor. Researchers say that’s where the spill could do the most damage. But according to a report in Wednesday’s New York Times, "federal scientists [have determined] the oil [is] primarily sitting in the water column and not on the sea floor."

 

Perhaps the most important cause of the oil’s disappearance, some researchers suspect, is that the oil has been devoured by microbes. The lesson from past spills is that the lion’s share of the cleanup work is done by nature in the form of oil-eating bacteria and fungi. The microbes break down the hydrocarbons in oil to use as fuel to grow and reproduce. A bit of oil in the water is like a feeding frenzy, causing microbial populations to grow exponentially.

 

Typically, there are enough microbes in the ocean to consume half of any oil spilled in a month or two, says Howarth. Such microbes have been found in every ocean of the world sampled, from the Arctic to Antarctica. But there are reasons to think that the process may occur more quickly in the Gulf than in other oceans.

 

Our planet really is an amazing thing. It provides us with abundant, powerful energy sources, and even cleans up after our messes.

 

Onto the next argument:

 

3. How does an EV equal energy independence? How do they equal no oil? Is this a serious question? First, EVs don't use oil and gas. Then, we use American energy from wind, solar, hydro, nuclear to power our electricity grid and then plug our EVs into that....that's total energy independence...no dependence on foreign oil for our energy needs.

 

I'd have to disagree with your first statement about this being a waste of money. Infrastructure spending is what the government should be spending money on. Subsidizing electric vehicles is related to infrastructure. If our country is going to move in the direction of energy independence (necessary from a defense standpoint), we need to electrify our vehicles and highways.

 

Ah! So, we've just got to power our entire electric grid with wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear power! Is that all? Serious question: how much money do we need to spend, and how long will it take, for us to achieve this "energy independence"? Can't answer that? Don't feel bad. Nobody can answer that question. Instead, politicians and (ahem... liberals) just want to spend gobs of money so they can feel good about "moving in the right direction."

 

Pie. In. The. Sky. Do you really believe that now, now that we are currently running $1.5 trillion annual deficits, now is the time to be "investing" in clean energy? Again, if this energy is so great, why can't it compete without government subsidies?