California consumers interested in a Fiat 500e will be getting a sweetheart deal from Fiat; a $199 lease for 36 months with a $999 down payment.

At retail, the car will cost $32,500 plus a $7,500 tax credit. But as the Los Angeles Times reports, customers who lease won’t be able to collect the tax credit.

Those leasing the car can also get a special $2,500 rebate that California offers for electric cars, which will cover the down payment and about six lease payments.

Fiat’s move is an agressive one. Nissan recently cut the base price of the Leaf  to$28,800, or $6,400 less than it was in 2012. Nissan also offers 36-month lease deal of $199 a month and a $1,999 down payment. But the Leaf is sold nationwide, unlike the 500e, which is limited to California only. The reason for this is economic. Fiat stands to lose money on every single 500e, and is only selling the car to comply with California emissions standards. Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne has gone on record with his displeasure over the 500e’s money-losing nature, telling Automotive News

“I will try to sell the required numbers for me to optimize compliance with the emission standards and not one more.”

Until the modern day revival of electric vehicles like the Teslas, Nissan’s Leaf or the Chevy Volt, the best selling electric car ever was the Detroit Electric, produced by the Anderson Carriage company from 1907 to 1939. They sold thousands of them (1914 was the high water mark with ~4,500 produced). Among the people who drove Detroit Electrics were electricity pioneers Thomas Edison and Charles Steinmetz and the wives of automotive industrialists  Henry Ford and Henry Joy (he ran Packard). Interestingly, John D. Rockefeller, who made his enormous fortune from petroleum products like gasoline, owned a pair of Detroit Electric Model 46 Roadsters. Now, not only has the electric car industry been revived, but also the Detroit Electric company, which says it will start producing battery electric sports cars in a Michigan facility by the end of this summer. Following Tesla’s example, their first car will be based on a Lotus, in this case an Exige coupe, and the company promises two other “high performance” models in 2014.

Teaser of the Lotus Exige based Detroit Electric sports car

Using a Lotus glider as the basis of an EV, as mentioned, isn’t a particularly original idea. Besides the Tesla Roadster if you remember, before their bankruptcy, Chrysler showed a raft of electric powered concept cars including the Circuit EV based on the Elise derived Europa. With aluminum superstructures and composite bodies, Lotus cars are light enough to still have good performance after being fitted with heavy electric battery packs. The choice of the Exige is an interesting one since that car is not sold in the United States – apparently because of a regulatory issue with its airbags. Perhaps Detroit Electric’s chairman and CEO, Albert Lam, who used to run Lotus, will use his connections with the British firm to get the gliders federalized.

John D. Rockefeller had two Detroit Electric Model 46 Roadsters, like this one for sale at RM’s 2012 St. John’s auction

In addition to announcing that Detroit Electric is going to be more than just a placeholding website that’s been around since Lam acquired the rights to the brand and logo in 2008, the company has signed a lease for its headquarters to be located in Detroit’s historic and automotively connected Fisher Building. The new car will have a press launch in Detroit early next month, followed by a global reveal at the Shanghai auto show later in April. In addition to signing the lease on their HQ, Detroit Electric has selected what they call a “dedicated production facility” in Michigan that will have an annual capacity of 2,500 cars a year. Since they’re working with the quasi-governmental Michigan Economic Development Corporation, most likely it will be a facility that has formerly been used to build relatively short production runs of specialty cars. My WAG would be either the facility in Troy where Saleen did final assembly of the Ford GTs, or the former GM Lansing Craft Centre that built the Chevy SSR. Between the offices in Detroit and the production plant, Detroit Electric hopes to create 180 new jobs in Michigan over the next year.

Detroit Electric logo on the aluminum running board of Helen Newberry Joy’s 1914 Detroit Electric. Note the broken shoe scraper.

Apparently that production facility will not be owned by Detroit Electric. Before working at Lotus, Lam’s resume includes stints in Asia with Apple and Sun Microsystems, and Detroit Electric will be following an “asset light” business model, focusing on R&D and marketing and jobbing out production.

When the new Detroit Electric sports car is first revealed next month we’ll have coverage of the event. Press release here.

Ronnie Schreiber edits Cars In Depth, a realistic perspective on cars & car culture and the original 3D car site. If you found this post worthwhile, you can get a parallax view at Cars In Depth. If the 3D thing freaks you out, don’t worry, all the photo and video players in use at the site have mono options. Thanks for reading – RJS

Note the date of publication is 1914, not 2013

While following the he said he said back and forth between the New York Time’s James Broder and Tesla’s Elon Musk, over Broder’s unsuccessful drive from New York to Boston in a Tesla Model S, it seemed to me that one important factor affecting consumer acceptance of EVs is being obscured by all the Sturm und Drang of the NYT and Musk both working this story for maximum bad publicity for their respectless enterprises. That factor, ironically, is why Tesla set up the media road trips in the first place, the fact that EVs will need a publicly accessible charging infrastructure if they are going to be seen as anything other than town cars. The Model S press trips from DC to Beantown were supposed to demonstrate Tesla’s expanding network of locations equipped with Tesla’s “Supercharger” quick charging stations.

That need for public charging stations has been obscured by other issues in the discussion of electric cars, which it seems to me have been focused more on range than anything else. Tesla is not unwise to create it’s own charging infrastructure for its customers because the simple fact is that if you could recharge an EV as quickly and as conveniently as you can refuel a gasoline or diesel powered vehicle, and if you could find a charging station within your EV’s range, range becomes more of a non issue. Let’s face it, how many owners of gasoline cars really consider range on a single tank of gas when buying a new car? As long as you can get ~300 miles between fill ups, the vast majority of car consumers don’t really care about range. Gas mileage yes, but I’d bet that total range is only important to a minority of gas/diesel drivers.

This is nothing new. Like 3D photography and movies, this is not the first go-round with EVs. Electric cars and were marketed more than a century ago, at the dawn of the automotive age and soon enough electric car companies, electric component makers, trade organizations, tire and battery companies, and publishers rushed in to help EV owners find a charge.

The EV side of the auto industry understood that drivers of EVs would need public charging facilities at the same time that it promoted electric cars as suitable for touring. The Electric Vehicle Association of America even published a charging station guide to the Lincoln Highway, America’s first attempt at a coast to coast road. Since the longest distance between charging stations was about 120 miles, well beyond the range of any contemporary electric car, it’s doubtful than any early electric automobilists completed the entire route, but the EV industry did what it could to dispel the image that electric cars could not be taken on long trips. Tesla is doing the same today.

The fact that the Electric Vehicle Association agreed on a standard charging plug that was used by most EV makers made things a little easier. In the photo above, the charging port on a 1922 Milburn Light Electric is being held open so you can see the terminals in the photo above. The photo below shows a similar charging port, though closed, on a 1914 Detroit Electric runabout.

By 1912, the Detroit Electric Car company, the most successful of the first wave of EV makers (it has only been in the past year that the Nissan Leaf surpassed the Detroit Electric as the most successful EV ever, in terms of total sales) had both standalone charging garages as well as combined sales branches and charging stations in Detroit, Manhattan, Chicago , Boston, Brooklyn, Buffalo, Cleveland, Evanston, Kansas City, and Minneapolis.

In 1914, the New York Electric Vehicle Association, in conjunction with Automobile Blue Books started publishing route guides for “electric touring”, that mapped the locations of charging stations and provided suggested touring routes.

The guide was updated, apparently annually. In an emergency, drivers of electric cars could get a charge from electric streetcar or trolley wiring – as this Tom Swift story relates.

While General Electric sold  mercury arc rectifier based residential chargers to EV owners, the majority of the more than 14,000 chargers that GE sold a century ago were sold to public facilities like hotels and parking garages.

The Exide battery company, perhaps the major EV battery maker in the early days of the automobile, set up its own storage and charging garage (many city dwellers didn’t have residential parking for their cars) and “battery depot” in New York City.

In addition to public charging facilities, taxicab companies that operated electric cabs set up their own charging garages and had chargers installed for their drivers’ use at hotels they serviced.

As was shown 100 years ago, broadscale consumer acceptance of electric cars needs a publicly accessible charging infrastructure. It’s unfortunate that the war of words between Mr. Musk and the New York Times is obscuring rather than illustrating that need.

Ronnie Schreiber edits Cars In Depth, a realistic perspective on cars & car culture and the original 3D car site. If you found this post worthwhile, you can dig deeper at Cars In Depth. If the 3D thing freaks you out, don’t worry, all the photo and video players in use at the site have mono options. Thanks for reading – RJS

While Johnson Controls and China’s Wanxiang Group have competing bids to acquire the assets of advanced battery maker and Fisker supplier A123, a more serious battle is occurring in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware between the startup automaker and what is arguably its most important vendor. A123 wants the bankruptcy judge to void its contracts including those for supplying batteries to Fisker. That could stop production of Fisker’s only car, the Karma. A123 says that the existing contract with Fisker is burdensome and that the amount they are getting paid for those batteries is below market value. Fisker attorneys, in a filing with the court, have challenged A123 and said that “Fisker’s ongoing business and operations will be severely disrupted and harmed” if the court voids the contract. The pas de deux between the two companies may be spinning into a danse macabre. Twenty five percent of A123′s revenue comes from its deal with Fisker, while A123 is Fisker’s sole supplier of the lithium-ion batteries it needs to make the extended range EV Karma. There is no way that Fisker can find a supplier who can engineer a replacement battery pack quickly enough to keep the Karma in production. Electric vehicle batteries are not like AA cells that you can pick up at the corner store. While there are standard lithium ion battery formats, the Tesla Roadster is the only high profile EV that uses standard format Li-Ion cells. All other electric cars, including Fiskers, use cells specifically designed and engineered for them. The Fisker 20 kWh battery pack manufactured by A123 is made up of 315 individual Li-ion cells.

Of course this is about money. One reason why A123 is in bankruptcy court in the first place is because of the financial hit the company took due to a recall of defective batteries supplied to Fisker. Since the companies are interdependent, my guess is that if the judge does throw out the contract, a new one will be cut, either between A123 and Fisker, or between whichever company, Johnson or Wanxiang, ends up owning A123′s battery factories.

With such an important vendor in bankruptcy court, Fisker is between a rock and something that would peg a Rockwell tester.

According to Fisker attorneys, “ the rejection of the Fisker contract represents an immediate threat of significant disruption and harm to Fisker’s business, with a corresponding negative impact on Fisker’s lenders, suppliers, customers and investors.” One of those lenders, of course, is the United States Treasury, American taxpayers having loaned Fisker almost 200 million dollars.

Ronnie Schreiber edits Cars In Depth, a realistic perspective on cars & car culture and the original 3D car site. If you found this post worthwhile, you can dig deeper at Cars In Depth. If the 3D thing freaks you out, don’t worry, all the photo and video players in use at the site have mono options. Thanks for reading– RJS

With sales of the third-generation Ford Taurus lagging, the Blue Oval decided that an entry-level variant would be just what was needed to help kickstart sales. Faced with slumping sales of their Leaf EV, Nissan is apparently taking the same route.

Without the $7,500 tax credit, a Leaf costs $36,050, and there’s no indication of how much the entry-level trim will knock off the sticker price. The new base model will forgo the high-tech, energy-efficient LED headlamps in favor of traditional HID units, as well as some unspecified features integrated into the car’s GPS system. The LED lamps are considered integral to the Leaf’s battery performance, since they use far less energy than traditional headlights.

Nissan will also switch production of the Leaf and its battery components to Tennessee, allowing the Leaf to escape the unfavorable exchange rate between the U.S. dollar and the yen. Leaf production hasn’t started Stateside, but battery production at the Smyrna, TN plant is set to begin shortly.

Is the US EPA fudging the way it calculates miles per gallon equivalent ratings for electric and hybrid cars, making EVs appear to be more energy efficient than they really are, increasing their consumer appeal? That’s what Lindsay Leveen, author of Hydrogen – Hope or Hype? A Primer on Energy and Sustainability, says.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency calculates MPG ratings based on energy at point of delivery. That means that it ignores the energy costs of drilling, pumping, refining and transporting the gasoline to the corner gas station. When calculating miles per gallon equivalent (MPGe) ratings used to evaluate fuel costs for electric vehicles and hybrids, the EPA also ignores the energy costs of producing and transmitting electricity as well as the energy costs of transforming transmission line voltage to 110/220 VAC and then losses in converting to the Direct Current needed to charge batteries. The EPA also assumes that EV batteries have a charge/discharge efficiency of 100%. Essentially the EPA is treating EVs as though electricity is 100% efficient until it gets to the vehicles’ motors. You could say it does the same for gasoline, not looking at the total energy costs of getting that fuel to market. The agency then mileage tests EVs, dividing electricity consumed by an energy conversion factor of 33.7 kilowatt hours per gallon of gasoline to arrive at MPGe ratings.

So what’s the problem? As long as the EPA is evaluating energy costs at the point of delivery, it’s comparing apples to apples, right? Well, it seems as though some apples take more energy to plant, grow and get to the fruit market than other apples. It’s true that there are extraction, processing and transportation energy costs for all fuels, including the coal, natural gas and uranium used to generate electricity as well as for gasoline. Drilling, pumping, and refining crude oil plus trucking and dispensing gasoline consumes the equivalent of about 10% of the energy in the crude oil.

That 10% energy cost is comparable to the 90% efficiency of electrical transmission lines and local distribution systems, or the 90% efficiency of AC/DC conversion and battery charge/discharge cycles. Those 90% efficiencies, though, if I remember my math terms correctly, are associative – together they yield 81% efficiency, not 90%. Of course, with gasoline, unlike electrical generation, that 10% energy cost is all that’s involved.

You may use some energy getting petroleum out of the ground and then turning it into a useful fuel, but electricity generation that isn’t hydro or geothermal necessarily involves consuming fuel, either fossil or nuclear. Most of America’s energy comes from coal fired power plants. In the near term, what won’t get generated from coal will probably be generated from natural gas (owing to the ongoing boom in gas discoveries and production), not wind and solar power (which have their own energy costs).

Essentially, to run an electric vehicle you’re converting chemical or nuclear energy into heat into electricity. As we know from internal combustion engines, turning chemical energy into heat into power involves waste heat. As Leveen seems to enjoy saying, you cannot avoid the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Entropy exists. Average energy efficiency of electrical power plants is about 42.5%. Multiplying all the efficiencies in getting electricity generated and charged into your car’s battery pack and you come up with 34.4%.

That means that the EV version of the Honda Fit’s EPA rating of 118 MPGe, multiplied by electricity’s inefficiencies, would actually work out to 40.6 MPG. A conventional petrol fired Fit has a combined EPA rating of 35 MPG. Taking that 10% energy cost of production and distribution of gasoline into consideration yields 31.5 MPG. While that still puts the EV Fit as 29% more fuel-efficient than the gasoline version, that’s not nearly as impressive as triple digit MPGe figures. If you’re running a government agency that wants to encourage the sale of electric cars, using the larger figures might make sense but then political science and real science, as Leveen points out, aren’t the same thing.

Ronnie Schreiber edits Cars In Depth, a realistic perspective on cars & car culture and the original 3D car site. If you found this post worthwhile, you can dig deeper at Cars In Depth. If the 3D thing freaks you out, don’t worry, all the photo and video players in use at the site have mono options. Thanks for reading – RJS

When government, media and industry agree that a trend exists, it’s generally taken as fait accompli. After all, these three institutions wield immense cultural power, and together they are more than capable of making any prophecy self-fulfilling. But there’s always a stumbling block: acceptance by the everyday folk who actually make up our society. And when a trend is taken for granted, the ensuing rush to be seen as being in touch with said trend often generates more heat than light. Such is the case with the trend towards “green cars.” Few would deny that they are “the future,” but at the same time, there’s been precious little examination of how this future is to be realized. And when such examination does take place, it tends to raise more questions than it answers.

Case in point: the Union of Concerned Scientists recently published a report examining just how “green” the “greenest” cars available, namely electric cars, are. By examining the average C02 emissions of the various regional power grids, they are able to show on a roughly apples-to-apples basis how carbon-efficient EVs are in comparison to their gasoline-sipping cousins. And their findings show that in broad swathes of the US, pure-electric cars are little better than hybrids like the Prius in terms of average C02 emissions.

This ACS report is something of a dual-edged sword. On the one hand, it makes an important point about EVs: that they are only as environmentally-friendly as the grid from which they draw their power. This fact has long been ignored by policymakers who take the “greenness” of EVs for granted and create uniform national EV stimulus, as if EVs were uniformly “green.” On the other hand, the ACS clearly has a pro-EV agenda, and its report concludes that

There are no areas of the country where electric vehicles have higher global warming emissions than the average new gasoline vehicle.

Given that EV offerings are currently limited to the Compact and Subcompact segments, this is hardly a fair comparison. And since the EPA includes cars like the Bentley Continental GTC as a “subcompact,” a fair comparison would take some real work. To be fair though, the UCS is correct when it points out that 45% of Americans live in the coastal regions where relatively clean grids offer strong environmental incentives for EV use. More importantly, those areas which have dirtier grids tend to be the same regions (the South and Midwest) where geography and development patterns create more practical disincentives for EV use. For this reason, the somewhat disappointing results of the study are unlikely to dramatically hurt the nascent EV market.

Still, this geographical distribution has important consequences for public policy. For one thing, it points out the futility of a nationwide EV incentive program, at least as an environmental policy. Luckily, this reality seems to have taken hold in D.C., where EV-only incentives are being broadened to include multiple fuels and encourage local solutions. On the other hand, the fact that EVs are a hot trend means local governments are often more anxious to show off their trend-awareness than craft sensible policy based on local realities.

For example, Colorado has one of the least “green” grids in the country, and yet its state government has been one of the most aggressive in handing out EV tax credits. Prior to 2010, Colorado allowed Tesla buyers to take up to $42,000 in credits. Today EVs get a $6,000 incentive in addition to the $7,500 (soon to be $10k) federal credit, and a local group has received half a million dollars in federal grants to promote EVs in the state. Given that Colorado-based EVs emit equivalent emissions to a 33 MPG combined gasoline car (think: Hyundai Elantra), this is proof that hopping on a PR-driven bandwagon often outweighs the actual benefits of such “environmental” policies.

But, in a profoundly ironic twist, Colorado may well become a leading market for EVs… and not just because of its generous government incentives either. In fact, Colorado’s relatively dirty grid actually makes it one of the cheaper states in which to operate an EV. In its cost analysis of individual cities, the UCS finds that Colorado Springs’ 2.4 cents-per-mile operating cost for a Nissan Leaf is one of the cheapest in the country, especially when compared to cities with the best emissions scores. Though there’s not enough evidence in this study to support a direct link between the cost and cleanliness of electrical grids, it’s no surprise to find that they do trade off with each other to some extent.

This is one of the key takeaways from the report for the simple reason that running cost, rather than pure environmental benefit, is what will drive the EV market beyond its early adopter niche. And as utilities invest in ever-greener powerplants in hopes of improving the environmental performance of EVs, running costs will rise. And as EVs become more popular, increased demand on the grid will further drive up prices. This tradeoff encapsulates the dilemma of all EV stimulus: the hoped-for environmental benefits are dependent on the mainstream economic viability of EVs, which in turn depends on cheaper (rather than cleaner) power and much, much cheaper EVs. The UCS report’s conclusion attempts to square this circle by pushing EV adoption as the overriding concern, noting

Of course, cleaning up the nation’s electricity production won’t deliver large reductions in the transportation sector’s emissions and oil consumption unless electric vehicles become a market success. While they are now coming onto the market in a much bigger way than ever before, EVs still face many hurdles, including higher up-front costs than gasoline vehicles. Lower fueling costs for EVs, however, provide an important incentive for purchasing them, and our cost analysis of 50 cities across the country shows that EV owners can start saving money immediately on fuel costs by using electricity in place of gasoline.

While this is true enough, it fully ignores how the market works. For one thing, the fuel savings touted in the report are in comparison to an “average gasoline compact vehicle,” and therefore fails to account for most of the market segments. Consumers buy cars that fill their needs, and many Americans need cars larger than a compact. Furthermore, though those savings are estimated to be as much as $1,220 per year (for a Nissan Leaf), these savings do not include amortization of the EV’s up-front cost premium. Consumers will see “immediate savings” on fuel costs, but will be far behind on total ownership cost for years.

Currently the EV market is truly a “green” market, as potential EV consumers are currently motivated by the desire to reduce their carbon emissions. But EVs simply won’t have much of an impact on national emissions until they offer the kind of “green” that actually motivates consumers: money, in the form of real savings. As long as federal and state governments focus, as the UCS has, on carbon emissions, EVs simply won’t find much of a market. If, as the UCS claims, reductions in transportation-sector C02 emissions require mass EV adoption as a prerequisite, the carbon question is currently little more than a distraction. Environmental benefits must give way to economic reality, lest all of the possible “green” benefits of EVs remain a permanent mirage.

Even though Fisker is enduring the kind of misfortune that Job would be hard pressed to shrug off, the newer, smaller Fisker, dubbed the Atlantic, got an early reveal thanks to a Czech auto site that leaked these early images.

Looking like a shrunken Fisker Karma, the Atlantic should have an appropriately reduced pricetag – around $50,000 if rumors are accurate. A BMW turbocharged 4-cylinder will apparently act as a range extender. We’ll have more coverage starting April 4th once the car is revealed at the New York Auto Show.

Ontario’s 2012 budget was released this morning, and while the United States under the Obama administration seems intent on boosting subsidies for alternative fuel vehicles, including EVs, those in the Great White North’s most populous province are able to see the writing on the wall with regards to EVs.

Two programs, designed to encourage EV charging station infrastructure and provide generous tax rebates to EV owners (as much as $8,500 for vehicles with a 20 kWh battery like the Fisker Karma) are being merged. Despite the provinces vision to have one out of every 20 vehicles on the road in 2020 powered by electricty, only 200 grants have been handed out under the Electric Vehicle Incentive Program and only six charging stations have been built. That’s in a province with an estimated 7,000,000 vehicles on the road, and a far cry from the projected 350,000 EVs that were supposed to be on the road in 8 years time.

Details of the merger are murky, but the move is expected to save $43 million dollars for the cash strapped province over three years, but the news merited only a brief blurb in the addendum to the 2012 budget.

An article in the New York Times Dealbook blog claims that Tesla is using their customer deposits on upcoming models as a major source of cash to finance operations.

The article states that

“Tesla is increasingly using customer down payments to finance operations. Without the deposits, the company’s operations would have consumed $175 million of cash last year instead of $114 million…

But that money could dry up if the company experiences production delays or other bumps in the road. Then Tesla would be more reliant on a clean-energy loan from the government.”

Those loans, as we know from Fisker’s trials and tribulations, are rather fickle and are not a reliable source of incoming for a struggling “green” automaker. While customers generally put down about $5,000 to reserve a Model S, deposits for customized cars can run much higher (one interviewee in the article put down $40,000) – and customers may be unable to get back their money if Tesla tanks.

Tesla apparently does not put their customer deposits aside, and uses the money to finance their operations. If the company goes bust, customers will have to wait until other major creditors, like the federal government, get paid. Customers have yet to sign formal purchase agreements, though that will apparently be happening soon.

Washington state is so far the only location where Tesla uses segregated accounts to hold customers money. California, by far Tesla’s biggest market, does not require this. Tesla has collected about $61 million in deposits in 2011, up from $5 million in 2010. While Tesla’s enthusiastic customer base has no problem forking over cold, hard cash (significant sums, at that) to reserve one of the so-far unreleased models, the idea of it being largely unaccountable once received by Tesla seems a little disconcerting, especially in light of the volatile nature of the “green technology” business and Tesla’s track record for releasing new product.

General Motors sold 1023 Chevrolet Volts in February of 2012, but production figures totaled 2,347 units. Uh oh.

As we all know, GM originally targeted 45,000 units sold in the United States this year. GM only sold 603 in January and just restarted product a few days ago – the discrepancy between production and sales has long been documented at TTAC, and even my second-grader math skills can figure out that sales of the Volt are a long way off from their initial targets.

Hardcore skeptics may roll their eyes at the inevitable retort of “bbbuut…bbbbutt…gas prices are going up!”. Volt apologists are far from the only people worried about this – analysts at UBS, in their excellent February sales report, noted that dealers are very worried about how the cost of a gallon of gas will impact sales, with pickups likely to take a big hit. Nobody buying a Silverado is going to switch to a Volt, but since we all know that perfectly rational behavior is non-existent, and people do dumb things when gas prices go up, the Volt may be in for a bit of a sales spike, right as West Texas Intermediate starts to hit $110 a barrel.

As much as some of the B&B would like, this isn’t another nail in the Volt’s coffin. I for one, am curious to see how the HOV lane approved Volts sold in California will fare – and if demand keeps up once the supply of HOV lane stickers themselves run out.

You heard it yourself. When Obama is out of office, he’ll buy a Chevrolet Volt and drive it himself. The Secret Service, which famously wouldn’t let Obama drive the Volt down the Hamtramck assembly line, generally protects the President for up to 10 years after they leave office – we’d assume that the “no driving” clause applies here. So Obama’s Volt may sit for a long time – hopefully it won’t brick.

Meanwhile, the DoE’s projection of 120,000 Volts produced in 2012 (let alone sold to consumers) still looks a little optimistic. GM just restarted production of the car a few days ago. Their sales target of 45,000 in 2012 has been abandoned after coming 2,300 units short of their 10,000 unit goal in 2011. GM now says that they will adjust “supply to meet demand”.

Fisker Automotive has laid off a total of 66 people, including 20 at a former GM plant in Delaware, and another 40 contractors in California. The layoffs come as Fisker attempts to re-negotiate loans from the Department of Energy that were contingent on Fisker meeting sales targets for its Karma sedan, which Fisker failed to do.

While the DOE loaned Fisker $509 million, Fisker has only $193 million so far. The money was earmarked to help engineer a new vehicle, dubbed the Nina. Fisker had hoped to employ 2,000 people at the Delaware plant. The Karma has been hampered by a series of delays and false starts, leading to speculation that the project was little more than vaporware. Fisker is also pursuing private equity financing in lieu of government loans.

NHTSA has closed their investigation into the Chevrolet Volt’s fire risk, stating that the agency “does not believe that Chevy Volts or other electric vehicles pose a greater risk of fire than gasoline-powered vehicles.”

NHTSA began the investigation in November after a Volt caught on fire following a crash test. Starting in February, GM will modify the Volt’s battery pack structure by reinforcing the steel surrounding the battery and adding a sensor that can monitor coolant leaks (as shown in the diagram above). Leaking coolant and a punctured battery pack were identified as the culprits. The text of NHTSA’s press release is below.

PRESS RELEASE: NHTSA Statement on Conclusion of Chevy Volt Investigation

WASHINGTON, DC – The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released the following statement today regarding the conclusion of its safety defect investigation into the post-crash fire risk of Chevy Volts (PE11037):

Today, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration closed its safety defect investigation into the potential risk of fire in Chevy Volts that have been involved in a serious crash. Opened on November 25, the agency’s investigation has concluded that no discernible defect trend exists and that the vehicle modifications recently developed by General Motors reduce the potential for battery intrusion resulting from side impacts.

NHTSA remains unaware of any real-world crashes that have resulted in a battery-related fire involving the Chevy Volt or any other electric vehicle. NHTSA continues to believe that electric vehicles show great promise as a safe and fuel-efficient option for American drivers. However, as the reports released in conjunction with the closure of the investigation today indicate, fires following NHTSA crash tests of the vehicle and its battery components—and the innovative nature of this emerging technology—led the agency to take the unusual step of opening a safety defect investigation in the absence of data from real-world incidents.

Based on the available data, NHTSA does not believe that Chevy Volts or other electric vehicles pose a greater risk of fire than gasoline-powered vehicles. Generally all vehicles have some risk of fire in the event of a serious crash. However, electric vehicles have specific attributes that should be made clear to consumers, the emergency response community, and tow truck operators and storage facilities. Recognizing these considerations, NHTSA has developed interim guidance—with the assistance of the National Fire Protection Association, the Department of Energy, and others—to increase awareness and identify appropriate safety measures for these groups. The agency expects this guidance will help inform the ongoing work by NFPA, DOE, and vehicle manufacturers to educate the emergency response community, law enforcement officers, and others about electric vehicles.

For additional information on the Volt investigation and others, visit www.SaferCar.gov.

A fellow auto journalist posted this video of the Chevy Volt dance from the 2009 Los Angeles Auto Show on his facebook page. At that point in time, nobody was paying me to write, and I was not yet a “social media influencer”, so I was unable to attend the L.A. show (and I still haven’t). In honor of Bertel’s post detailing General Motors deciding to “match supply and demand” for the Volt, let’s all take another look back at a very memorable marketing initiative.

General Motors announced changes to the Chevrolet Volt’s design after a NHTSA investigation into why a Volt caught fire following crash testing.

The changes will go into effect once production restarts at the Hamtramck, Michigan facility, but customer cars already sold will follow a different protocol.

Starting in February, GM will initiate a “voluntary customer satisfaction program” to make the necessary changes to the Volt. According to GM’s Rob Peterson said that  formal recalsl must be initiated by NHTSA, and their lack of movement prompted GM to enact a voluntary one instead.

The fix involves changes to the Volt’s battery pack housing, as well as a coolant temperature sensor and a special bracket to prevent overfilling. The previous system allowed the battery housing to be punctured, which then resulted in coolant overflowing onto a circuit board causing an electrical short. The short was determined to be the cause of the fire.

Wamp wamp! That’s the sound of the sad trombone playing for the Chevrolet Volt, which missed its 2011 sales target by 2,329 units. General Motors hoped that the Volt would sell 10,000 units in 2011, but it was not to be.

Bloomberg reports that the bow tie brand sold only 7,671 Volts in 2011, but has plants to increase annual production to 60,000 units annually. 45,000 of those will be sold in the United States. The Volt had only been on sale nationwide for the final three months of 2011.

Adding insult to injury is the fact that the Nissan Leaf  had sold 8,720 units through November, compared to 6,142 Volts (according to data from Automotive News). Despite being hyped up as an electric car devoid of range anxiety, consumers evidently didn’t care, opting for the little Nissan instead.

While the Volt was helped by GM authorizing the sale of 2,300 demonstrator units in November, the Leaf, unlike the Volt, has still not been launched in all 50 states, instead remaining on sale solely in the coastal regions and the Chicago metropolitan area. It’s still to early to tell how the NHTSA investigation into the Volt’s battery-related fires has impacted sales, as our data only extends to the month of November, and the NHTSA announcement came on November 25th.

Because electric cars represent the first fundamental technological shift for the automobile since its invention, their appearance on the US market has elicited quite a bit of skepticism. And as with any new technology, the first generation of EVs does have some serious downsides. For example, you can charge a Nissan Leaf at any outlet, but it takes 21 hours. Also, the Leaf’s range that was once promised at 100 miles is typically under 70 miles in the real world. Plus, it’s not exactly cheap. In the face of these challenges, you might think the Leaf, the first mass-market pure-EV in the US, would be forever doomed to a small niche of the market. But small compared to what? To give a real-world taste of how America’s first pure EV is selling in the context of the broader market, here are the year-to-date sales numbers for the Leaf and 15 other vehicles that you might not expect to be selling worse than an electric car. Incidentally, all of these models are also selling better than the market’s other pioneering plug-in, the Chevrolet Volt… which now has its own graph in the gallery below.

We have no wish to dampen enthusiasm for any new development in the light commercial vehicles sector but at this point the prospects for all-electric vans are fraught with difficulties, despite the clear operating advantages of using one for specific kinds of work

The Commercial Vehicle Monitor editor for the British residual value gurus at CAP, Tim Cattlin, tells Honest John that the new electric Azure Transit Connect has a few issues that fleet managers may want to look at before buying Britain’s first electric van. To wit:

The £39,999 van is expected to have a value of £8,000 after three years and 30,000 miles, with CAP explaining that uncertainty over the unproven technology and expensive batteries are the biggest issues.

That’s a 20% residual value after three years of driving 10,000 miles per year. Yikes! (Incidentally, if you drove the Transit for its entire 80 mile range every day for a year, you’d rack up about 30k miles in that year alone). The Azure Transit Connect is reportedly available in the US for $57,400, although Ford doesn’t list a price on its website and production is said to only be about 600-700 units this year. Meanwhile, Ford had better hope that the residual value issues aren’t linked to Azure’s technology (which uses Johnson Controls batteries), because it’s just announced a plug-in hybrid Super Duty Chassis Cab for 2013… with Azure as a partner and fleet businesses in mind. Better take a look at those projected residuals first, guys…

A press release notes:

[HaloIPT's] partnership with Drayson Racing, which develops and races green motorsport technology, including electric vehicles, aims to pioneer the deployment of dynamic (in-motion) charging of zero emission electric vehicles. The racing cars, fitted with HaloIPT technology, will pick up power wirelessly from transmitters buried under the surface of the road or race track; transferring power directly to the vehicle’s electric battery, ensuring that the vehicle receives constant charging on the move. This innovation is made possible because HaloIPT’s tried and tested technology provides a significant tolerance to misalignment over the transmitter pads, automatically adjusting for changing vertical gap. The system has the ability to intelligently distribute power: ensuring a consistent delivery of power at speed.

The EV Cup isn’t involved yet, so don’t hold your breath for high-speed cordless charging just yet… in the meantime, Drayson and HaloIPT are developing a trackside inductive charging system to replace “internal combustion engine and fuel pit stops.” But it’s clear what Lord Drayson is dreaming of, when he says

Dynamic wireless charging will be a real game-changer, enabling zero emission electric vehicles to race over long periods without the need for heavy batteries. This is a milestone innovation that will have a dramatic effect not just on racing but on the mainstream auto industry. We’re looking forward to putting this technology through its paces as it charges electric race cars at speeds of up to 200 mph.

Research on wireless charging for mainstream cars is being conducted (so to speak) by Korean and German researchers, GM, Toyota, Google, and others. Motorsport seems like an ideal place to validate the technology, but ultimately the real challenge will be figuring out how best to deploy it. The public/private debate over charging on public roads alone could be huge. For now though, the goal of getting a race with on-track inductive charging seems like challenge enough…

The Zentrum für Sonnenenergie- und Wasserstoff-Forschung in Germany published a study that says that there is enough known lithium to power 10 billion cars. The world produces around 60m cars a year. If all of them would be EVs (and they won’t), then we have enough lithium for 166 years. And a few cell phones. Currently, most of the lithium is used to make glass or ceramics. Batteries come second. There will be enough lithium to go around, and around , and around.

When you think Volkswagen and alternative powertrains, only one kind of springs to mind, and it’s no very alternative. Diesel. They are pretty good at it in Wolfsburg. But these days it isn’t enough. Nowadays, we have E85, fuel cells, hybrids, more efficient petrol engines and many more. Volkswagen can’t afford to bet their future on Diesel. So where do they go from here? I hear California is quite nice…?

Mercury News reports that Volkswagen is expanding their Electronics Research Laboratory (ERL) in Palo Alto, California. They’re moving to a 157,000 square foot office (up from 40,000) and are expanding their workforce from 40 to 65, with a forecast to exceed 100. The justification for this expansion is that they’ll need more space for prototypes. Martin Winterkorn, Volkswagen AG CEO, visited Palo Alto and declared that he wants Volkswagen to be the top electric carmaker by 2018 (something else was supposed to happen in 2018, what was that again…?) and will start launching electric cars in 2013 (more about that later). “We want to conquer the market for electric cars,” Winterkorn said. Conquering the car market not enough? No, they also want to rule the electric world. Winterkorn then went on to call the laboratory in Palo Alto a “powerhouse for the car of tomorrow”. Someone’s got big plans!

Speaking of Herr Winterkorn’s plans: 2013 will mark the year VW will launch their assault on the alternative fuels scene. The Telegraph reports the Up! (or Lupo, as it’s now called) or the Golf will be launched as an all electric vehicle in the US by 2013. The Touareg will have a petrol-hybrid powertrain, followed by the Jetta. Martin Winterkorn wants low-carbon car to account for 3 percent of Volkswagen’s sale by (you guessed it) 2018. “Our goal is clear and ambitious,” said Herr Winterkorn at their Palo Alto facilities, “Volkswagen will be the automaker to mass produce the electric car for everyone.” More big words! With Honda announcing that they will throw their hat into the electric car arena, GM ramping up their Volt, Nissan touting their leaf, Ford readying their electric Focus and Toyota set to unleash their Tesla derived electric cars onto the market, Herr Winterkorn could be eating his words. But lest we forget, when Volkswagen announced that by 2018 they’ll be the biggest car maker in the world, many people wet themselves laughing. Now, they’re within spitting distance of GM and Toyota and, now, no-one is laughing.

The remote Goto Islands in the East China Sea, about 60 miles west off the port city of Nagasaki are turning into the world’s laboratory for massive EV deployment. The islands used to be known for heir unspoiled nature and their old churches. Soon, they’ll be know as the island of EVs. That because of a large-scale pilot project that began on the islands in April.

The islands are ideal for such an experiment. Range anxiety? The largest island of the Goto group, Fukue, measures some 16 miles across. If you really want to test the range of an EV, go to Nakadori island. 25 miles long and usually not more than 5 miles wide. The islands have an aging and falling population, gasoline prices are high. The cost of bringing gas to the island results in the islands having some of the highest gasoline prices in Japan. Electricity is cheap, brought in by undersea cable from the mainland.

What Fukue lacks in size, Fukue makes up in charging stations. Says The Nikkei [sub]: “While there are still only 150 rapid electric chargers in Japan, in June the islands will have 15, provided by the prefecture. In September, a new tourism information service will begin using the Intelligent Transportation System. No other place in the world has such a well-developed electric transport infrastructure.” By late March 100 of the plug-ins had arrived. A quarter of the island’s rentals are already electric cars, usually Mitsubishi i-MiEVs.

The electric rentals are popular. They cost the same as a gasoline powered car. The electricity is subsidized by local governments, so renters can charge-up free of charge.

Goto turns into a (fairly) big beta test site for EVs. Drivers complain about the chargers. “Too heavy!” “The plug won’t go in!” “The instructions are mystifying.”

The rapid charger uses high voltage that comes through a hefty able. Two levers must be operated. An assistant is standing by to help, but it’s already clear that the charger needs a work-over. Plugging it in requires handling two levers. It takes some practice to use. The city has a worker at each charging station to help, but improvements will be necessary, especially as more charging stations are built.

The people of Goto meet regularly for brainstorming sessions on how to improve the system. Like with portable generators, in case someone ran out of juice. Or to equip the chargers with the nattering voice instructions that are so popular in Japan.

Anyway, if your company is in the EV business, then you absolutely must put in for a trip to Goto Island. I hear, the beaches are nice, and summer would be the best season. Fly to Nagasaki, then take an island hopper, or the ferry.