GM advices not to charge more than 90%, and discharge less than 70 miles. So, effective range of 60 miles? Not much more than my 50 miles Leaf. At least, Leaf batteries don't catch on fire. Leaf batteries are inefficient but over-engineered.
"GM is buying back some affected cars in the US, which is a welcome measure to a situation if failed to solve. Bolt EV owners reported they are not able to sell their cars even for very low prices due to the fire repercussions."
They have a helluva problem on their hands. Sounds like another government bailout in the making.
Jeez Louise. Anyone'd do better just buying a golf buggy. The technology just isn't there yet.
If the price is right, perhaps around $10,000. I would buy a bolt.
To be more precise, the estimated range is: Bolt: 40% (90% - 50%) of 60KwHr = 24KWhr or 71 miles Leaf: 70% (90% - 20%) of 24KwHr = 16KWhr or 48 miles
How long do these pieces of crap take to re-charge?
Yup, it'll be orders of magnitude more lucrative than striking gold or finding oil was in the early 20th century.
Around 45 min. Correction: Bolt: 50%(90%-40%) of 60KwHr = 39KWhr or 100mi effective range.
Try again: Bolt: 55% (90%-35%) of 60 KwHr = 30KwHr or 100mi effective range.
The other day I saw a poster touting the idea of inflatable sails on container ships. Since the wind doesn't always blow it would obviously make more sense to use oarsmen. And a guy banging a drum.
Golf buggy's aren't as quick as a Bolt. The Bolt doesn't seem to embody state of the art technology. Rick C would argue that the Tesla incorporates more advanced technology, and I'd be inclined to agree with him.
Cursitor Doom hasn't a clue about what the technology can deliver now, and doesn't want to know. What he wants is the kind of malicious misrepresentation that might get published in Zero Hedge - anything more constructive would set his teeth on edge.
I think what Bill Sloman fails to understand is that someone is going to have to come up with something a hell of a lot better than lithium-based chemistry for a new power source. Just because something sounded fancy in Star Trek half a century ago doesn't mean it's genuinely a contender for the future of electric vehicles to a standard which would make them an obvious choice over ICE vehicles, and until that breakthrough comes, we are still looking at yesteryear's solutions.
The sails are a supplement to reduce the cost of transport, not a solitary means.
Electric Amphibious Assault Vehicle?
So the reason is that it's economical.
And they didn't do it 100 years ago because nobody knew how to do cost/benefit analysis before the environmental movement.
Are you asking or telling?
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required