Audi Chief Calls Chevy Volt “A Car For Idiots”
Bring on the war of words. In a frank conversation with MSN writer Lawrence Ulrich, Audi of America President Johan de Nysschen has said that the Chevy Volt will fail and that anybody who buys the car is an idiot. Not only that, de Nysschen has lumped proponents of any type of electric car into a category of “intellectual elite who want to show what enlightened souls they are.”
I’m guessing that means a fair amount of the people reading this would be considered idiots and pompous intellectual elites in Mr. de Nysschen’s book. Funny that. Hearing an Audi executive mocking any other car as being for intellectual pompous elites is, err, interesting, given that Audi is known for being in exactly that category themselves. Agh.
>> Interested in solar power? See if group discounts are available in your city
>> Don’t forget to: Sign up for our electric car interest list.
So taking the diplomatic view, ignore, for a minute, his purposely inflammatory and derogatory statements, and consider his analysis. In de Nysschen’s mind, no one will be willing to pay the expected $40,000 base price of the Volt when the cars it’s competing with are $15,000 less (he thinks the Volt will be competing with Toyota Corollas). Also, he noted, the Volt doesn’t deliver a premium luxury experience and, therefore, its eco-lux price tag is inexcusable to the average consumer.
Keep in mind that de Nysschen is a strong proponent of diesel technology and Audi is currently investing a lot of energy and capital promoting diesels to Americans. He feels that modern fuel-sipping low emissions diesel technology has been largely ignored by the US government and that people have been wrongly convinced into thinking that electric cars are the answer.
His preference for diesels over electric and plug-in cars is based on his following conclusions:
- A wholesale shift from gas to electric cars in the US would result in a net increase in carbon dioxide emissions due to the fact that about 70% of American electricity currently comes from coal plants.
- Recent advances in diesel technology have resulted in very high mileage cars with extremely low emissions.
- Diesels already have the infrastructure needed to provide a fuel supply. Electric cars need to have infrastructure built and completely upgraded.
On the surface, he may have some thought-provoking points. But I’ve done some thinking on this topic in the past too, and this is what I’ve concluded:
- While it’s true that about 50% of American electricity currently comes from coal, that number is changing quickly as more renewables come online. In some areas of the country, large amounts of electricity already come from renewable sources. Given that EVs will come on relatively slowly as well, it makes sense to conduct the switch simultaneously.
- Regardless of that, there is research that shows even given the current ratio of coal power in the US, it would be less polluting to switch to plug-in hybrids and electric cars.
- It’s much easier and more cost effective to regulate a relative handful of single source emitters such as power plants than it is to regulate hundreds of millions of tailpipes. When new pollution reduction technology comes online all you have to do is go to your power plant and add the new technology there. Imagine trying to get that new technology into all 250 million cars.
- Transmission of electrical power is orders of magnitude more efficient than shipping refined oil all around the country to thousands of different fuel stations.
- If the power source in your car (electricity) is independent of the power generation method (coal, natural gas, wind, solar, geothermal, wave, biomass burning, etc.) you ensure that not only will your transportation method be adaptable to future changes, you also increase the stability and security of your transportation infrastructure because you have a diverse variety local power sources to choose from.
While I agree with Mr. de Nysschen that the US should be taking a good look at the viability of diesels (especially considering that Europeans can already buy a huge variety of high mileage diesels), his analysis of why electric cars are doomed to fail is completely off base. And his method of delivery of the message is tasteless and unnecessarily mean.
Source: MSN autos
Image Credit: Audi USA
You Might Also Like
Audi Chief Responds to “Volt is a Car For Idiots” Comment
Top 10 Electric Cars Coming to the US in 2009/2010- GM Damage Control: Chevy Volt is Full Speed Ahead
- Volt Beats Tesla: Series and Plug-In Hybrids More Likely to be Game Changers
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:23 am
cause he would know whats best for us right. tell him and his 70’s porn mustache to shove his junk Audi’s where it hurts, and concentrate on actually making a new model cause they haven’t changed their crappy over priced lineup in forever and hair
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:50 pm
While I love the idea of the electric car I am not in love with the 10 million batteries that it takes to move them.
I am not a scientist nor an engineer but I believe batteries are made up of toxic chemicals. I also realize today’s batteries will not last the life of a car. A car owner will have to purchase multiple sets of them throughout the lifespan of the vehicle.
Batteries are not only insanely expensive but also insanely heavy. Pushing an extra thousand pounds of batteries around does not seem very “fuel” efficient to me.
If you can make a light inexpensive battery that will last for 20 years and is made out of non-toxic chemicals sign me up. Till then a 70 mpg diesel VW makes a lot more sense.
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Well I am an engineer and I have come to understand that EVs are already very sensible on the engineering scale but so too are the very efficient VW diesels at 70mpg, and esp that 280 mpg slim mobile. I used to think EVS were a flaky idea too, but the physics is on the side of EVs and peak oil is against the ICE.
The electric drive train is already very efficient in motion, recaptures energy in breaking, and no drive energy used in idle or parking (save for cabin use). It is true that batteries are expensive right now and somewhat heavy and are toxic in manufacture but things are changing. Many improvements are on their way for EVs that are not yet in many models.
Supercaps can be added that will allow batteries to be tuned for storage density rather than performance giving perhaps a 2x storage increase even with lead acid cells but any cell type works better with super caps.
There is a super cap company called EEStor that promises radical improvement in energy storage. Most engineers don’t believe it yet, but the latest leaks I have studied gives me a much better feel for it than before based on a new type of aqueous manufacture process rather than packed powder.
Lithium Ion has many variations and many new types are in R/D. There are preliminary designs that could have a 10x fold increase in charge storage density using nanotube technologies.
Just as the PC has evolved in performance and cost by a million fold over the last 30 years, a tiny fraction of that improvement will happen in energy storage too, just wait a few more years for the dozens of new research projects to yield fruit.
A very long time ago the CEOs of IBM and DEC thought the world wide markets for computers would be very very limited, little did they predict the microprocessor revolution and the spirit of silicon valley. That spirit is alive and well all over the world working on all the problem areas of EVs.
Even ICEs may yet see a nice bump in efficiency by mixing diesel and gas burning in the same unit, about 20% better than gas or diesel alone and there are also TEGs to recover wasted tailpipe energy.
Just follow the various stories here and physorg or science daily.
I would say this Audi CEO is a complete idiot (as most CEOs are) and doesn’t know what he is talking about. Most all gas powered vehicles must eventually give way to electric drive trains no matter what. There are exceptions but most commuter trips will eventually be electric or hybrids.
There are some concerns though already about EVs, such as potential world shortages of rare earth metals needed for the motors, batteries etc. Right now these mostly come from China, but there are supplies world wide if we are prepared to mine and pollute locally. Also Lithium may yet go into tight supply, as usual, higher prices will lead to more exploration.
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:15 pm
i don’t care what anyone says I’m sticking with my horse and buggy these “automobiles” will never be affordable or safe…never…
yea 70 mpg diesels are great too bad that Americans don’t force car companies to sell them here i mean its been almost 40 years since the embargo you would think if we wanted diesel we would have them by now…
there are batteries that are non toxic look at the zero motorcycle and if we think we know everything than we will get nothing… we must do what Americans do best, innovate. Or did we forget/forgetting how to do that?
September 3rd, 2009 at 6:14 pm
This was probably one of the most well spoken articles i have read in a long time and it is what i have been saying for a long time now! Yes 70mpg diesel is good but it is not getting us anywhere. All it is doing is slowing the problem down until eventually we will have to switch to electric anyway. Even though much of the energy we use in our houses comes from coal plants, this will not last and they will be changed. Also i was reading an article about being able to power 250,000 homes from a satellite that would send energy down through microwaves. If somehow this could be done safely than the possibilities are endless. So many things can be done with electricity and with technology moving the way it is today, there will be new ways and more efficient ways to do almost everything.
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:49 pm
The real idiots in this case are Chevy with their 230 mpg claim based on completely non-practical measurements.
I am surprised that Audi can allow anyone to blurt out such a damaging statement. I wonder if this guy will keep his job after this, considering that more and more ‘enlightened souls’ are seeing that any advancement in petroleum technology is just delaying the inevitable rush towards peak oil.
I can install a solar panel or wind turbine at home that will recharge my future EV, but I would never consider trying to install a diesel bowser in my home. Go figure
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Call me a idiot because I would love to have a Volt. I am 73 years old and I am running out of time. 70 MPG VW would buy that, but how many 90 year old men buy cars? Been reading about the Volt for years, heck GM can’t even put their Equinox in the show rooms. Guess the best I can do is get a Toyota Prius.
September 4th, 2009 at 5:26 am
Nice post JJ, fair & balanced w/ a healthy dose of optimism…like it. I also think that EV technology will go the way of the pc, although I wonder if it’ll be much faster than the pc. As soon as someone produces a lightweight, long-life, & high density electric storage system, all hell is going to break loose. I’d like to see EESTOR pave the way and hope that their EESU works out. It’s been really secretive from the get go, but then again, so was the Manhattan project.
September 4th, 2009 at 5:38 am
Frank said on September 3rd, 2009 at 8:49 pm
The real idiots in this case are Chevy with their 230 mpg claim based on completely non-practical measurements
———————–
Although I think there are better ways to publicize the capabilities of the Volt the EPA-designed driving cycle is entirely practical and statistically valid.
Most people will get much better than 230 mpg CITY when they plug-in their Volts at night. My own driving patterns would have me fueling up once every 2-3 months.
The HWY number is what most people interested in the Volt are curious about even though that is not the most frequent length of trips they make.
September 4th, 2009 at 7:34 am
I never said not to continue working on electric vehicles or that they are not what we will be driving in the future. What I did say is that right now, today, this week the average person should not waste their money on an electric vehicle purely because battery technology is not where it needs to be to make electric vehicles cost effective. If you are wealthy and want to drive one feel free, for the rest of us it would be a lot smarter to wait a few years till battery prices, weight and lifespan improve.
The masses are not as stupid as they appear. When buying an electric vehicle will cost less than a gas vehicle and do most of what a gas vehicle can, almost everybody will jump on board.
September 4th, 2009 at 8:09 am
You need to revise your assertion that electrical transmission is orders of magnitude more efficient that the distribution of liquid fuels. It isn’t true, and suggesting that the differential is 100x or greater undermines your credibility.
September 4th, 2009 at 10:30 am
This isn’t the first time an Audi Executive has slammed the American Car Driver…..Recall back in the 80’s when Audi had the ‘lurching forward’ problem with their sedans…….The response was that Americans don’t know how to drive their cars……This only demonstrates the continued arrogance of Audi.
September 4th, 2009 at 11:41 am
One thing to keep in mind when we talk about diesel fuel is diesel fuel is yield as a curtain percentage of every barrel of crude oil.
So, you take one barrel of oil (42) and refine it. You get around 20 gallons of gasoline, 10 gallons of diesel and around 5 gallons of jet fuel and the rest includes other stuff (it all depends on the type of crude oil…).
So think about it, if all the cars on the road were diesel, the refinery would have to spend more time/money/energy into producing diesel from gasoline. Bad for the environment.
In Europe and the United States, there already is this problem. The United States uses more gasoline and Europe uses more diesel. The United States refines crude and ships some of the diesel over to Europe and Europe sends some of their refined gasoline over to the USA.
The bottom line, if more diesel cars are released in the USA, the price of diesel will go up and the price of gasoline will drop.
Do diesel cars make environmental sense? Not in my opinion… not by a loooooooooong shot.
September 4th, 2009 at 11:50 am
I agree with Mike, although we like EV, the current technology, or even the technology in the lab right now is not enough for the transition we are talking about.
As to power generation, I think California is struggling their way to reac 20% renewable before 2020. It’s a long way.
Yes, you can install PV on rooftop, but even with 30-40% of subsidy, the PV is not very cost efficient right now. Not to mention PV production process also involve high pollution and energy consumption.
Back to battery, power storage tech is not changing very fast even though the need of it is incredible in the past two decade. Look at the battery pack you have on laptop 10 years ago, they are not much different than today. The largest difference is the PC is more energy efficient and use less juice.
Expecting power storage tech to advacne follow CPU is unrealistic.
September 4th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
One more thought on the advisability of electric cars is the target for an Electro-Magnetic Pulse bomb, which would result. Such a bomb would wipe out all electric distribution systems in the country.
Can anyone think of a more inviting target?
September 4th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
LF, The “unintended Acceleration” problem was traced to many brands, not just Audi. It was also traced to drivers using the accelerator pedal for the brake.
September 4th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Look. The low price of E is largely because it’s not yet taxed to build roads. Fuel – gas or diesel – is. E will be, count on it (how do you think they’ll maintain the roads otherwise?) Right now, it’s irrelevant because there are too few E vehicles. When that changes, so will the tax structure, and there goes your low cost operation. This doesn’t change the environmental picture at all, but those of you who think this is inherently inexpensive, you’re hallucinating. Likewise high mileage fueled vehicles; if you end up going to the pump less often, you’ll pay more, because of the same reason: Someone has to pay for the roads based on something related to actual road use, and that someone is YOU.
As for batteries and rare metals, that’s going to be irrelevant. Ultracaps will be the energy storage mechanism used, regardless if it’s EEStor this month or some crazed, long haired nano-fiber chewing nutbar at MIT next decade. Motors don’t take rare metals to manufacture unless they’re exotic as heck; and most aren’t (nor would such a motor be likely to end up in a widely distributed vehicle.)
As for the Audi guy… the day I buy a diesel is the day the exhaust doesn’t smell like a garbage truck, the day the vehicle has the kind of power to weight ratio that the Tesla has, and the day that it all costs 20 grand. Which is to say, his remarks are irrelevant to me and always will be.
WRT energy distribution, the infrastructure is there NOW. Here’s how it’ll work: (1) You install a supercap based charging station in your home. (2) Overnight, when most of the power grid’s capacity is unused by the usual culprits, this thing sucks enough energy to give you a good charge. (3) In the morning, you dump this into your car in seconds and drive off. (4) You probably don’t use much, and next morning, you top it off, and bingo, you’re cycling the grid as it exists now in an efficient and effective manner that neither requires new transport infrastructure or new generation capacity.
You have to remember that old school operations like Audi have a real stake in misdirecting the consumer base such that they stick with them for more gas, diesel, etc. Just open your eyes, THINK about the issues, and don’t buy into such crap. EV’s are the future, and the sooner we learn to ignore pinheads like Mr. Audi there, the sooner we’ll have Evs.
September 5th, 2009 at 4:05 am
ChuckL – I’ve heard some dumb objections to EVs but vulnerability to an Electro-Magnetic Pulse bomb is about the dumbest.
EMP would wreck the computers in all vehicles. Without its engine management unit and host of computers, no modern vehicle will unlock, never mind start, even if the engine were a diesel. Battery vehicles are not especially vulnerable, and their heavy wiring might survive EMP better than the delicate sensors and actuators in all vehicles.
Without the electricity grid, nothing much will work. Gas pumps won’t dispense, pipelines won’t flow and the refineries won’t produce (even if their control systems survive the EMP). Traffic lights, signs, street lighting will all be out. Navigation systems and shipping will be paralysed. Cargo won’t be unloaded. Most aircraft will be grounded.
With the power out, there will be little point in making normal journeys. Lighting, heating and ventilation will be out. Elevators will be stuck. TV, radio, phones, the net and most communications will be down. Without computers, there will be no access to financial systems. Logistics will be in chaos. Food production, distribution and refrigeration will be out, and there will be looting and riots. Water and sewage systems will be out.
Standby generators (that survive the EMP) will run only until their fuel runs out. There will no spare fuel for non-essential journeys.
All bets will be off, and the only systems designed to survive intact will be the submarines deep in the ocean poised to rain down nuclear retribution on whoever started it.
The only upside I can see is that it will stop you posting idiotic comments.
September 5th, 2009 at 4:34 am
“Transmission of electrical power is orders of magnitude more efficient than shipping refined oil all around the country to thousands of different fuel stations.”
What?
Wikipedia tells me that transmission losses are 7% or so.
An order of magnitude is times 10. Orders of m are therefore, at minimum, times 100.
You are suggesting that the distribution of gas to gas stations takes 720% or more of the gas delivered to gas stations?
You sir are insane. Or grossly deluded, whichever.
September 5th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
The notion that the balance of electricity production is rapidly shifting is completely false. We are going to be generating coal fire electricity for the indefinite future.
September 6th, 2009 at 2:32 am
The Volt is revolting.
I blame Obama.
September 6th, 2009 at 8:08 am
de Nysschen is marketing baloney. see http://www.fueleconomy.gov for carbon gas emission statistics of any car, it shows the 2 Audi models which use diesel in 2010 make 6.2 tons of carbon gas (Audi 3) and a whopping 10.6 tons (Audi Q7). By way of comparing their “progress”, see the VW Jetta of 2010 diesel stats (6.2 tons), compare to the VW Jetta diesel stats of 1996 (5.6 tons), their diesel cars make more carbon today than they did 14 years ago. Then they speak about cars that get 70 mpg, (a) they don’t sell them here, and (b) even if that could be done, it will still make 3 tons of carbon gas in a standard year. these are 2 ton cars. a ton of a gas still weighs a ton, and its volume is massive, like the interior of a sports stadium.
Then he tells us an electric car’s charging indirectly makes more carbon gas at the electric plant than the internal combust. car makes, but this is pure lying. Even if charged with today’s dirty mix of plants (coal, nat gas, nuke etc), the electricity from charging is only 10% of carbon made by average car, only 20% of cleanest Prius today.
If you burn something, it always gives off big quantities of gases, whether you burn gasoline, diesel, bio-diesel, algae gas etc. Basic question is, do you have the right to pollute as much as you choose without limit forever?
September 10th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
There is an assumption that there are no alternatives to buying dirty coal fueled electricity. Communities and individuals could produce electricity for vehicles with:
1. Natural gas or propane fueled generators. Possibly micro-turbines.
2. Solar panels.
3. Wind power.
and there are other clean possibilities.
September 27th, 2009 at 1:48 am
Many families have two cars. Is it essential that both cars have >100 mile range? I would suggest not. I reckon that a 100 mile range car would be very attractive as the second car in a two car family. Bear in mind that it could be topped up every night so could manage 100 miles a day.
For families with only one partner working.. which car would be used for the daily commute to work? Given the lower running cost I suspect it would be the electric one.
Problem is there isn’t yet an electric car that manages 100 mile range with acceptable performance at the right price.