Volvo to Phase out Combustion Engines by 2019

[Mark Gregory]

So I assume the other manufactures will follow suit . But what is the impact to the world Economy ? ? I was told you do not need as many parts and repairs are down to brakes and batteries . So where are all these mechanics , part manufacturers , etc jobs going to go ? ?  Someone try and Cheer me up ! 

[auburnseeker]

It will be quite some time still.  Maybe even near a lifetime for it to all end in the electric motor.  You still have trucks and big trucks and equipment and bigger equipment.   Then there is all the stuff still out there that will need fixing.   I didn't even know Volvo made an electric car at present.  Body shops will still be busy.  All the electronics in the world can't fix stupid.  Though they do help to try to contain it some. 

[Frantz]

Volvo makes up what.... 5 cars of the global auto industry? As in total sales.... 5.... maybe a few more. Niche makers have always been able to get ahead of or stand behind the curve, but I don't think ICE is going anywhere for a least a decade. Repairs are far more than brakes and batteries too. Actually very few repair cars are for motors until the car is getting a bit old and then often anything more than a sensor sends it to the scrap yard... it's all the electronic stuff. Suspensions don't have any difference in work and most electric motors have some sort of transmission still (though simpler.... for now). The big pain will be finding replacements for fuel taxes to fix the roads/make a slush fund for other non road related projects, and we're starting to face that now just with improved efficiency.

[R W Burgess]

Who's going to sit around waiting at a "charge station" so you can drive the 50 miles back to your home. Remember the Chevy Vote that Eric Bolling was driving?

[billorn]

1 hour ago, R W Burgess said:

Who's going to sit around waiting at a "charge station" so you can drive the 50 miles back to your home. Remember the Chevy Vote that Eric Bolling was driving?

 

Who's going to find gasoline in a motorcar just to go 5 MPH back to your house on a rutted dirt road? My horse is faster and more reliable and costs less.

 

Just because the technology isn't perfect today doesnt mean it never will be. Seems like we have gotten pretty good at making things work over the past 100 years or so. Of course lately we have also gotten pretty good at giving up instantly when things are not perfect right out of the box.

[CarlLaFong]

I heard Volvo is going all electric AND hybrid. Big difference. I bet 90% of the sales will be hybrid.

[mike6024]

Volvo was bought by a Chinese company in 2009, Chinese motor manufacturer Geely Automobile.

 

That has a lot to do with it. And China is a big, and will be growing market for them.

 

The Chinese government has poured subsidies into the electric-vehicle market, driven by fears over urban pollution and a desire to make its local industry leaders in green technology.

Earlier this year, China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology set a target of 2 million electric car sales, or 20% of all auto sales, by 2020.

Chinese carmaker Geely, and Volvo, plan to be a big part of that.

Led by its charismatic chairman, Li Shufu, Geely purchased Volvo in 2010 to lift the Chinese brand, which had failed to even crack the top 10 in its own market.

The ambitious parent company is determined to make China synonymous with cars the way Japanese and South Korean automakers did decades ago.

Li expanded the company’s portfolio to buy a majority stake in Lotus Cars, the British luxury automaker. He announced plans to make Geely the first Chinese carmaker to market its own brand in Europe and North America with Lynk & Co., a joint initiative with Volvo.

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-volvo-electric-motors-20170705-story.html

[TerryB]

In China it's easier to get a zero emissions vehicle registered for use than a gas engine auto.  You kind of get put to the head of the line with the electric auto so people with the income to buy that kind of car do so for that reason.  Business decisions  that don't seem logical for the North American market make perfect sense in places like China or Europe.  

 

Terry

[cheezestaak2000]

sad but true, china apparently has a calendar, and noticed it's the 21st century.they are getting so far ahead of us in clean energy, and have you wondered where all the older classic american cars have gone? just go down to the port and see what's being shipped overseas.

 

[Digger914]

Volvo isn't the only Swedish borne Chinese owned car company and Volvo's plans are pretty blasé compared to what's been going on at NEVES, the auto manufacturer formerly known as Saab.

 

It was the advancement in magnet and battery technology that made the electric car a viable option and by the time all the bugs of the electric are worked out and the infrastructure to support them is in place, something else will come along to make them obsolete. In the mean time, you can expect to see street rudder's replacing their 350 GM V8's with 35,000 watt GE's. Or not. Anything big enough to be called cataclysmic, natural, or man made and we're all back to walking. In the transition yesterdays mechanics will probably still have enough work to finish out their careers, today's mechanics already come out of school with enough electronics to get by for a time and tomorrows mechanics will need to be as good with electronics as they are with engines and transmissions.

[Restorer32]

We are about to begin a full restoration of a 1916 Rauch and Lang electric. Interesting that a technology that has been around over 100 years is still trying to become dominant. Maybe its time has come, finally.

[mercer09]

sad but true, china apparently has a calendar, and noticed it's the 21st century.they are getting so far ahead of us in clean energy, and have you wondered where all the older classic american cars have gone? just go down to the port and see what's being shipped overseas.

 

 

 

funny, that you need to walk around every major city in China with a "smog" mask, due to pollution...........................

 

lung cancer is horrible over there.

 

and yes, life is also quite disposable.

[billorn]

8 minutes ago, mercer09 said:

sad but true, china apparently has a calendar, and noticed it's the 21st century.they are getting so far ahead of us in clean energy, and have you wondered where all the older classic american cars have gone? just go down to the port and see what's being shipped overseas.

 

 

 

funny, that you need to walk around every major city in China with a "smog" mask, due to pollution...........................

 

lung cancer is horrible over there.

 

and yes, life is also quite disposable.

 

Your looking at it backwards. The Chinese are not getting cancer DESPITE clean energy and smog (and you seem to be implying that clean energy is bogus), they are switching to clean energy BECAUSE there is smog and cancer. It is easy to dismiss them as not caring about life but when quality of life gets too bad governments know that the peasants rise up. Besides it seems that China is going to take the lead in the world now that we're falling apart and part of that is clean energy so they dont have to rely on the middle east for oil or the US for natural gas and coal. Meanwhile were trying to make coal a thing again while China focuses on cuttingedge technology. Why not bring back the horse and buggy while we're at it. Its backwards thinking like this that has dug this hole for ourselves. Just because a technology isnt perfect now doesnt mean it wont be later and ignoring that tranisional period means were that much farther behind later. What if we sat out the early days of the automobile and only decided to get in after WWII? Since cars were not perfect in those early years why did we even bother?

[TerryB]

China will soon be the go to folks for renewable energy technology.  They are hungry for that position and will work hard to get there.  Cars are just part of the movement.  Lots of Chinese money is going into EV technology today.

[RPrice]

It seems to me that China has a lot to gain by going electric.   Currently China air is polluted and can only get better by going to electric cars.    During the Olympics a few years ago, they had to shut down much of industry in the vicinity of Bejing.    Our son is an airline pilot and used to tell us that, when he would fly into a destination in China, he could see the thick pollution in the air.

Rog

[TerryB]

I did a lot of trips to China in the first five years of the 21st century for work.  It was hard to tell a nice day from an overcast day, they all looked the same.

[trimacar]

I'm amused at all the talk about how "electric" is so much better for the environment.  Well, up to a point, it is.  I'd love to ask the general public the question, if you plug your electric car into a receptacle to recharge, where's the electricity coming from?  I'd bet a majority would check the box "It's just out there...."

 

The electricity has to come from somewhere, although the green enthusiasts would think that it's just "out there" free and clean for the taking.

 

So, it's electricity from: fossil fuel, hydro, nuclear, solar, wind farms.  In order, traditional, traditional, excellent but OH MY GOSH NUCLEAR, "free" but very expensive, and ditto.

 

So, again, going electric isn't going to cure everything.  Because, basic engineering, that energy has to be generated somewhere, and the most economical means are NOT solar and wind. 

 

In my professional life, I did analysis of solar power in California about 8 years ago, with land available, and the payback was over 10 years...which is fine, but the solar panels only had a life of 8 years....so at the time not economically feasible, and in the end, it's all economics.  I'm sure that the numbers of payback will change as time goes on, but when you calculate the land area, and maintenance, required to supply a city with solar power, it's interesting.

[Guest BillP]

I'd consider buying a Volvo. The one that looks like a 48 Ford, or the one they call Amazon. That and a Saab 2 stroker. But electric? I'll pass, thanks,

[billorn]

48 minutes ago, trimacar said:

I'm amused at all the talk about how "electric" is so much better for the environment.  Well, up to a point, it is.  I'd love to ask the general public the question, if you plug your electric car into a receptacle to recharge, where's the electricity coming from?  I'd bet a majority would check the box "It's just out there...."

 

The electricity has to come from somewhere, although the green enthusiasts would think that it's just "out there" free and clean for the taking.

 

So, it's electricity from: fossil fuel, hydro, nuclear, solar, wind farms.  In order, traditional, traditional, excellent but OH MY GOSH NUCLEAR, "free" but very expensive, and ditto.

 

So, again, going electric isn't going to cure everything.  Because, basic engineering, that energy has to be generated somewhere, and the most economical means are NOT solar and wind. 

 

In my professional life, I did analysis of solar power in California about 8 years ago, with land available, and the payback was over 10 years...which is fine, but the solar panels only had a life of 8 years....so at the time not economically feasible, and in the end, it's all economics.  I'm sure that the numbers of payback will change as time goes on, but when you calculate the land area, and maintenance, required to supply a city with solar power, it's interesting.

 

From a textbook used in some Texas schools:

 

 

This is not the thinking that will get us to the next level. What are we doing to our kids???????

[mike6024]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France          

 

Nuclear energy is the primary source of electric energy in France. ...76% out of the country's total production of 546TWh of electricity was from fission-electric power stations, the highest percentage in the world. France's nuclear power industry has been called "a success story" that has put the nation "ahead of the world" in terms of providing cheap energy with low CO2 emissions.

 

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx

 

Including fuel reprocessing

 

France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over €3 billion per year from this.
The country has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and especially fuel products and services have been a significant export.
About 17% of France's electricity is from recycled nuclear fuel.

 

The green nation of Germany needs to buy some of their electricity from France. TWH btw is trillion watt hours. 10 to the 12th watt-hours, or 1,000 billion watt hours.

 

California's Diablo Canyon Nuclear plant is 1200 mega watts, or 1200 million watts so if it is run at full power all year you can multiply by the number of hours in a year to get the T-watt-hours annual total energy production. It has been in operation since, 1982 I think it was.

 

[capngrog]

Last week, a friend of mine sent me an online article about the real cost per mile of electrically-powered vehicles.  I did a little quick research and came up with the following conclusions:

 

Below is a table ( I believe the table dates from circa 2000) outlining the efficiencies of some common devices/machines:

 

 

Efficiencies of common energy conversion devices

 

Energy Conversion Device Energy Conversion Typical

 

 

             Efficiency, %

 

 

          Electric heater Electricity/Thermal 100

Hair drier Electricity/Thermal 100

• Electric generator Mechanical/Electricity 95
• Electric motor (large) Electricity/Mechanical 90
• Battery Chemical/Electricity 90
• Steam boiler (power plant) Chemical/Thermal 85
• Home gas furnace Chemical/Thermal 85
• Home oil furnace Chemical/Thermal 65
• Electric motor (small) Electricity/Mechanical 65
• Home coal furnace Chemical/Thermal 55
• Steam turbine Thermal/Mechanical 45
• Gas turbine (aircraft) Chemical/Mechanical 35
• Gas turbine (industrial) Chemical/Mechanical 30
• Automobile engine Chemical/Mechanical 25***
• Fluorescent lamp Electricity/Light 20
• Silicon solar cell Solar/Electricity 15
• Steam locomotive Chemical/Mechanical 10
• Incandescent lamp Electricity/Light 5

 

The overall efficiency of a modern electrical power plant (fossil-fueled by coal, steam boiler, steam turbine, electrical generator) is on the order of 45%, and the overall efficiency of a combined cycle power plant is approximately 54%.  Considering other sources of power (hydroelectric, thermoelectric, nuclear, etc.), I think we can safely assume that the average efficiency of the generating plants supplying our distribution grid is on the order of no more than 50%.  Let's not discuss the efficiencies of the power transmission and supply grids, but I believe (I could be wrong by a little bit here) that they approach 95%.

 

The efficiency of a large electrical motor is around 90%, whereas the efficiency of a "small" electric motor is more on the order of 65%.  The motors presently used in electrical vehicles are at the small end of the spectrum, so, just for the sake of discussion, let's say that the efficiency of your typical Tesla motor is around 70%.  We all know that considerable energy, in the form of heat, is lost during battery charging.  Tesla claims that the overall efficiency of their charging process is 92%, whereas, typical charger efficiencies are more on the order of 80%.

 

Considering the foregoing, the overall efficiency of an electrical vehicle (when considering the efficiencies of power generation, charging etc.) is more on the order of 28%, just a bit more than that of an internal combustion automobile engine (25%).  The electric motor is much more efficient in getting power to the ground since it requires no transmission, so "score" another for electric-powered vehicles.  The bottom line, in my opinion, is that electric vehicles, when looking at the larger picture here, are only about 15 - 20% more efficient than the internal combustion engine-powered vehicles.  Of course, this can be a BIG deal in the overall scope of energy consumption.

 

Transferring the demand for transportation energy consumption needs from the "filling station" to the electrical power grid will have its own challenges.  Each home (or charging station) will need to be wired to support the considerable energy demands of a high capacity battery charger, and, up the line all the way to the generating station, distribution grids, transmission lines and power plants will need commensurate capacity upgrades.  I believe that modern internal combustion vehicle engines achieve an efficiency more on the order of 30 -35% instead of the older figure of 25%; however, I still believe that electrically- powered vehicles will soon prove to be OVERALL more efficient than the individual internal combustion engine.  I  hate that!  What's more boring than a silent, powerful electric motor?. 

 

In an attempt to think globally, I've wondered about the effects of solar energy and windmill farms on "global mechanics".  Let's see, solar cells absorb solar energy, converting it to electrical energy, and windmill farms absorb atmospheric energy in the form of wind.  If the world eventually is able to tap these two sources for most of their electrical energy, will there be an impact on "global mechanics"?  Could the excessive use of solar energy result in catastrophic global cooling?  Who knows; however it is a topic of spirited discussion.

 

By the way, although I think my math is "in the ballpark", I'm sure that there are more accurate studies available somewhere; however, I haven't seen them.  Have you?

 

Just my opinion,

Bob (aka Capngrog)  Uh, oh, now folks know my real name

 

 

 

Edited July 9, 2017 by capngrog
confirm name of poster (see edit history)

[trimacar]

6 hours ago, capngrog said:

 

 

Considering the foregoing, the overall efficiency of an electrical vehicle (when considering the efficiencies of power generation, charging etc.) is more on the order of 28%, just a bit more than that of an internal combustion automobile engine (25%).  The

In an attempt to think globally, I've wondered about the effects of solar energy and windmill farms on "global mechanics".  Let's see, solar cells absorb solar energy, converting it to electrical energy, and windmill farms absorb atmospheric energy in the form of wind.  If the world eventually is able to tap these two sources for most of their electrical energy, will there be an impact on "global mechanics"?  Could the excessive use of solar energy result in catastrophic global cooling?  Who knows; however it is a topic of spirited discussion.

 

By the way, although I think my math is "in the ballpark", I'm sure that there are more accurate studies available somewhere; however, I haven't seen them.  Have you?

 

Just my opinion,

Bob

 

 

 

And a good opinion it is, Bob, thanks, interesting discourse on the efficiencies.

 

As to the "changing" of energy: 

 

Solar energy "absorbed" by the solar cells is later converted, through electricity, to some form of work (light, fan, AC compressor and so forth) which is heat generating, so that's a wash, as the heat is released again.  Basic principle, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only be converted to other forms of energy or, in some cases, matter.

 

I've thought about your wind farm example before, as the windmills themselves absorb wind power.  Again, that energy will be released at a later date, but will the ABSENCE of that amount of wind affect weather conditions?  I would think it might, not from a global heating or cooling standpoint, but from a more local area weather standpoint.  A rain cloud that would have been blown 1 mile might get blown .98 miles, that kind of thing.  I'm sure someone has studied that very thing at some point.  I would dare say that the affect is minimal, and if you think about it, think of the air movement caused by millions of cars going down the road, that probably has some affect on wind currents.

 

As to our cars, yes, they're not as efficient as one would like.  By the same token, though, they're converting stored energy in the oil to other forms of energy, such heat from engine and brakes and the wind currents mentioned above.

[mercer09]

Posted 14 hours ago · Report post

I'm amused at all the talk about how "electric" is so much better for the environment.  Well, up to a point, it is.  I'd love to ask the general public the question, if you plug your electric car into a receptacle to recharge, where's the electricity coming from?  I'd bet a majority would check the box "It's just out there...."

 

The electricity has to come from somewhere, although the green enthusiasts would think that it's just "out there" free and clean for the taking.

 

So, it's electricity from: fossil fuel, hydro, nuclear, solar, wind farms.  In order, traditional, traditional, excellent but OH MY GOSH NUCLEAR, "free" but very expensive, and ditto.

 

So, again, going electric isn't going to cure everything.  Because, basic engineering, that energy has to be generated somewhere, and the most economical means are NOT solar and wind. 

 

In my professional life, I did analysis of solar power in California about 8 years ago, with land available, and the payback was over 10 years...which is fine, but the solar panels only had a life of 8 years....so at the time not economically feasible, and in the end, it's all economics.  I'm sure that the numbers of payback will change as time goes on, but when you calculate the land area, and maintenance, required to supply a city with solar power, it's interesting.

Curti and capngrog like this

 

•  

•  
• Quote

---

well said Trim..................................... I did my masters thesis on energy 4 years ago and you are spot on.

the only reason we have solar and wind is because oil suppliments their use. At this point, they are still very inefficient and it will be a long time in hell, before they take over oil.

 

The US has always been at the forefront of energy {still is} and pollution control. Interesting how we need 20 sub countries to tell us how it is done. We buy 35k cars that are "clean" and out neighbors- the Chinese buy the Cherry- which blows smoke up our arse and geuss what? when the wind blows, we breath their crap.................. yes, their crap. So tell me again, how are we falling behind?

 

I would dare say the underlying debate is nothing more then political......................

 

and so I will remain silent  from here on.

[padgett]

That Texas schoolbook is interesting. I have "felt" electricity many times (one reason I do not wear rings).

 

Was just in a large multistory parking garage and saw two spaces marked "EV" with a charger on a column. It took credit cards.

 

We know how many cars are registered in this country and have some idea how far they are driven so should be able to calculate some idea of the energy impact if 25% switched to electric.

 

Then there is the time factor. In Florida the first thing people do when they get home from work is to turn the AC on. What if first they plugged a car or two in ? (am sure that chargers would be developed that did not come on until after midnight when the demand drops. Except in winter.

 

My point is that today our infrastructure can support a small percentage of electric vehicles but when do we reach a tipping point. I receive a discount on my power by having an energy management system and have experienced brownouts before. I am sure the power companies know how many EVs their grids can sustain but have not seen any mention of it.

 

Just a thought.

 

ps For about $500 I have 200W of solar panels & controller on my camper. In bright sun it can recover from making a cup of coffee in about 24 minutes but to use the AC I need to crank up the generator. Since the AC pulls about 1440W when running this would need at least 8 4'x8' solar panels or 264 ft2. Since my trailer has 168 ft2 of roof, I would need some extensions. Of course covering the roof with panels raised about an inch above the surface would remove the solar heating from the roof so might not need as much AC.

[Janousek]

 A lot of good points in here.  Chances are slim I'll ever own a coal fired car.  Maybe in the future if gas isn't available.  We had a Buick Lacrosse hybrid with a 4 cylinder gas engine and a 130volt electric motor to supplement the engine.  The thing was a dog and got 27 miles per gallon.  Replaced it with a cadillac XTS all wheel drive six cylinder that gets 28 mpg and actually goes when you accelerate onto the expressway.  It will probably be a cold day in hell when I dip my foot back into the hybrid pool.  

 

Crappy little electric cars that cost as much as a luxury sedan don't make sense to me.  The Tesla is cool but it's priced out for most people.  

 

Solar energy will work great in Michigan when the sun doesn't come out for weeks on end.  Some wind potential but lately I'm hearing stories where the wind generators are catching on fire and causing damage.

 

I know I'm narrow minded or just don't care. The greenies have been crying wolf for decades without any proof (or cooked books) of man made global warming. The US has done a pretty good job with cleaning up the environment just to be told by a bunch of hypocrites that we need to do more.   

[capngrog]

3 hours ago, trimacar said:

 

As to our cars, yes, they're not as efficient as one would like.  By the same token, though, they're converting stored energy in the oil to other forms of energy, such heat from engine and brakes and the wind currents mentioned above.

 

That's the one thing that concerns me about all of this global warming stuff.  We (humanity) are converting ancient stored energy (oil, coal, natural gas etc.) to heat energy through our use of the combustion process (campfires, internal combustion engines, boilers etc.).  Is our use of the combustion process really of significance when it pales into insignificance when compared to a single volcanic eruption?  What about naturally-occurring wildfires?  I think we are all familiar with the ability of our globe to radiate excess heat.  The coldest winter nights are the ones without cloud cover, because the clouds tend to act as insulation and consequently reduce the rate of heat energy being naturally emitted by our globe.  I guess that my point is that global atmospheric phenomena occur due to extremely complex processes, which we humans only partially understand.  To say that "The science is settled" with respect to global warming is absurd.  With that said, I think that we should take all PRACTICAL measures to limit and reduce pollution; however, we should not wreck out economy, our country and our way of life to do so.  I intend to keep driving my old, nasty inefficient cars ... so there! 

 

The ultimate answer to mitigating human-caused global atmospheric impacts is to limit the human population itself.  Boy, does that open up an entirely different can of rattlesnakes! 

 

Over the millennia, probably since man first acquired the ability to use spoken language, WEATHER has always been a topic of passionate discussion.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Cheers,

Grog

[mike6024]

4 hours ago, trimacar said:

I've thought about your wind farm example before, as the windmills themselves absorb wind power.  Again, that energy will be released

 

I believe he may have something, in theory, because some component of what is wind is due to the earth rotation on it's axis, and shear of the atmosphere. The windmills add more aerodynamic drag, and may tend to slow the earth rotation.