Neil Young offers advice for ailing Detroit 3
Neil Young suggests that we "turn the page" in the drama that is the Detroit 3's history of producing automobiles by cutting out all internal combustion engines. The rock star says that the automakers "should only get [a bailout] if they agree to stop building autos that contribute to global warming now." That's a tough one. How does Young suggest that the American auto companies put an instant end to cars powered by fossil fuels? Keep building the same cars and trucks that are currently being assembled, minus the drivetrain. Interesting... cars that can't power themselves coming from Detroit - Young calls them Transition Rollers. What next? Each of the Detroit automakers would need to convert one factory to "repower" the rollers to "self charging electric vehicles."
Mr. Young's idea is novel to say the least, but entirely impractical. As Young himself has proven with his Linc Volt electric car, it is possible to create electric vehicles that are powered by motors and batteries, but there are simply not enough batteries around to power every new car sold. Plus, Young's idea of a "self charging" electric car needs a little work, as no such thing currently exists with known technology - including with on-demand hydrogen. We happen to be proponents of alternative powertrains, but we also understand that such a drastic switch in our automotive manufacturing is impossible.
[Source: Huffington Post via Autofiends]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Mike Z 4:22PM (11/17/2008)
Why is this post worthy?
Reply
michael e. v. knight 4:42PM (11/17/2008)
ok so we do not require them to make it 100%, but how about starting somewhere, maybe 5% first year, 8% second year etc..
So we do not have self charging, make them plug in.
Reply
stevejust 4:44PM (11/17/2008)
I'd settle for something short of revolution from the ICE.
For example, it'd be much easier for me to stomach a bailout of these "American" companies if they hadn't sent production to Mexico and Canada, and supply chains to all over southeast Asia.
And it'd be much easier for me to stomach a bailout of these "American" companies if they'd at least sell the fuel efficient cars they sell in Europe here in the US... let alone bring back EV technology they insist there's no consumer demand for.
And it'd be much easier to me to stomach a bailout of these American companies if they weren't run by a bunch of flippin' fcuktards.
I would love to hear politicians predicating the bailout on conditions like: they start making cars in the US, source products from the US, and make cars that get better gas mileage than my 2004 Honda Civic Hybrid. I'm sick of driving that car, but there's not a car made today that gets better gas mileage (because I have a manual transmission, I get the same MPG as the second generation Prius.)
Reply
Matt 5:12PM (11/17/2008)
It does seem like there is opportunity for some solutions like this. We're stuck in this mindset of having to have 100mph, 200 mile range vehicles. Why don't we start offering 60mph EV's with 50 mile range on lead acid batteries. The Ford Ranger would be a perfect choice. It's old and about to be retired anyway (recently got a stay of execution until 2011). All the tooling is in place, less the EV part. It's about as rudimentary and cheap to make as any vehicle around (cheap and sturdy is good as the building block of an EV). There have already been Ford-made and backyard mechanic Ranger EV's. How hard would it be to offer a "drivetrain delete" option and a Ford-designed EV kit which could be factory or even dealer installed? I bet Monster Garage or a race team, or how about SVT, could fab up a prototype kit/install in a week. Sure it would be a compromise since it's not designed from ground up as an EV, but it would be a start.
Wow, just looked up and Invoice is $13.7k on a base '08 Ranger. What would that be without engine, transmission, gas tank, etc? Seems like if you're starting at $10k or so, you could get it into EV trim for under $20k... cheaper than a Smart.
Reply
SIR 9:43AM (11/18/2008)
This is surely the right track- to start with understood,respected mechanical platforms, and-as with software- offer safety and efficiency -related updates.
This could go in stages, from approx 10-15% improvements from H2o updates, thru full electrification as the infrastructure/power grid expands.
Government and business/trucking fleets should take the initiative to develop expertise and maintainance contracts with current and newly formed dealer networks.
This cannot depend, however on the hobbiest/individual tinkerer- for-1.safety,2.reliability. This is BIG, and should be repeatable for many fine, useable platforms. This must be approached industrially, so that we can rescue our entire fleet.
Charles 5:27PM (11/17/2008)
I would like to see any Big 3 directed bailout money redirected to companies competing in the X-Challenge, like the Poulsen Hybrid. They could then crank out a bunch of their hybrids and the Big 3 could put them on their gas guzzling inventory.
Reply
dhofmann 5:48PM (11/17/2008)
We were able to ramp up production during WWII. We could do it again if we put our minds to it.
Reply
Yanquetino 5:55PM (11/17/2008)
While Young's suggestion goes too far, too fast, his underlying premise has merit: under no circumstance should we bail out the auto companies unless they agree to certain conditions.
For example, former California state senator and LA city councilman, Nate Holden, intends to hold a press conference at the LA Auto Show this coming Wednesday, Nov. 19 (press day), at 10:00 A.M., to demand that, if GM wants a bailout... they have to resurrect the EV1.
Sounds good to me! Power to the people! What goes around, comes around!
I would suggest to Mr. Holden an alternative variation on the condition: in lieu of resurrecting the EV1, GM could instead opt to produce a pure EV model of the Volt (the eVolt) alongside the PHEV model (the hVolt). It would be a simple matter of substituting the ICE generator with more batteries, enough to give the vehicle at the very least a 125-mile range --just like the EV1 Gen II had. Yes, the eVolt might cost more than the hVolt, but there are now many taxpayers out there who would gladly pay more to never have to burn gasoline again for the majority of their driving needs.
I would also demand that, if GM wants public funds, it must finally disclose to said public the confidential agreement with which it sold the NiMH patents to Texaco/Chevron. As for its part of the deal, the government would grant GM immunity from any lawsuit by Chevron for the disclosure.
Reply
jpm 4:30PM (11/18/2008)
Hell yes. That's the right idea. Bring back the EV1 if they want a $25,000,000,000 loan taken from our pay checks. It makes so much sense if the majority of people aren't driving > 25 miles per day. Although, Gorr needs a 200+ miles range.
But I doubt law makers have the courage, hindsight, and foresight to go through with a decision like that.... seeing as how they were easily duped into thinking that hyrdogen power cars viable. Well, then again, that was the Bush administration. Thank god those retards have been displaced.
gorr 6:08PM (11/17/2008)
This rocker is just doing the prayers of jesus. I remember in 1967 the rockers were supposed make smash records and send a little fee to jesus and all the major rockers had agreed on that but in 1982 when jesus was 21 year old , roger water was the one in charge to find jesus to give some money and they said no and put a knife in the back of jesus and we can see the picture on the pink floyd record ' the final cut'.
Only their records between 1967 to 1973 were great. Now they are ranting retirees.
Reply
rob 7:06PM (11/17/2008)
I know he's an artist and all, but you'd think in the intervening 40 years since he was last in school, that he could have picked a basic physics class somewhere...
Reply
Tom 11:09PM (11/17/2008)
Neil Young might not have all the technical lingo down, but Korzeniewski's persnickety criticisms strike me as small-minded and counterproductive.
In contrast, Matt's recommendation (comment #4), strikes me as eminently reasonable and completely in line with the point of view Young is advocating.
Korzeniewski's no-can-do attitude is misplaced on this blog.
Reply
hh 8:36PM (11/17/2008)
Celebrities like this shouldn't speak. The only thing more ludicrous than this idea is the media attention it gathers. Someone save this man from himself.
Reply
Frank 9:29PM (11/17/2008)
I was around when JFK said we'd put a man on the moon. During the previous era that was far more fantastic in a real sense than going to a pure ev. I know dozens of technologically inept (compared to industry R&D) teens, housewives, farmers who USE pure electric vehicles THEY BUILT!!! What the "hey" we can't imagine GM either rebuilding or releasing the total rights to replicate the EV-1 (which I drove)...by total rights I mean reclaiming the rights to the NiMH batteries as well. If everyday people I know find lead acid works well enough such a simple release would change our understanding of reality as much as if we had an African American president. If. We. Dared. we would find the present technology developed by the EV-1 exceeds our REAL WORLD use for 90% of our present car driving. Many of my friends drive gliders (example: a Ford Ranger without the ICE or its components) they converted to electric AND POWER THEM WITH WIND OR SOLAR!!! I agree with Neil and with the idea that GM either bring back the EV-1.
Reply
Chris M 2:30AM (11/18/2008)
Neil Young is speaking way outside his area of expertise, and I doubt Detroit will pay any attention.
The bit about "self charging electric cars" can only be 1 of 2 things:
1. An EV with a fuel powered generator, like the series hybrid GM Volt.
2. A perpetual motin exercise in wishful thinking designed by someone who doesn't understand the basic laws of physics.
If it is the 1st, they are already working on it, and if it is the 2nd, the Big 3 aren't going to waste precious time and money on an idea that can never work in the real world.
Reply
kal 5:39AM (11/18/2008)
Snide remarks about not understanding physics are what led to companies like GM playing catch-up to the rest of the World's automakers.
It's time they became proactive rather than reactive.
Many 'civilians' saw the demise of the low MPG ICE coming a long time ago, why didn't those in the industry?
Bold plans and lateral thinking are exactly what's called for just now, not condescending remarks.
Mr. Young is not just talking, as has been witnessed with the Linc Volt project he is also walking.
Reply
studemax 12:13PM (11/18/2008)
Neil Young DID NOT do all the work on his Lincoln, he HIRED an engaging fellow in Wichita, Kansas for his ideas and work.
So stop bagging on Neil, he's just a pie in the sky California greenie who got roped into the wild ideas of another guy.
Reply
Michael Rose 12:21PM (11/18/2008)
My Young's idea isn't really all that novel, it is certainly feasible and by all means practical.
Mr. Young is talking about Series Hybrid vehicles, like his LincVolt. Other Series hybrid vehicles include the Chevy Volt, the Fisker Karma, the Aptera Type 1h, the PML Flightlink Mini and Ford F-150 Hybrids, Volvo Recharge Concept, Volvo C30 Hybrid concept, Chrysler EV, Jeep EV, and many more. Diesel locomotives are also Series Hybrid vehicles.
Series Hybrid Vehicles can be plugged in OR they can generate their own power using some other fuel source (if the need arises). There is nothing mystical, physics defying, and technologically beyond our reach about Mr. Young's ideas as Mr. Korzeniewski negative and narrow minded view implies. The technology does exist and has for a very, very long time; it is called a generator.
Series Hybrid vehicles do not require the immense amount of battery capacity as pure electric vehicles. In practical terms, the battery pack would only need to be sized according to the prospective users daily commute. In America, most people drive about 33 miles a day. If the battery capacity were enough to simply cover that mileage, most people would never need to use fossil or some other fuel unless they were going on a longer trip or did not have the opportunity to plug in their car. There is no reason why battery production could not be increased to accommodate the needs of switching to Series Hybrids. According to Mr. Korzeniewski's logic, there would never be enough batteries for laptops, portable music devices, cellular phones, etc. And again, I stress we are not talking about full electric vehicles which to achieve a mile range to cover all possible travel needs would require significantly more and typically lighter weight batteries.
Moving to Series Hybrid vehicles is a crucial and necessary step in freeing ourselves from fossil fuel dependency. Series Hybrids are the ultimate in Flexfuel ability as just about any fuel can be used to generate the electricity that they require. Be it electricity that is fed to the vehicle over the grid to an on board stirling engine powered buy farm waste. The on board generators have no mechanical connection to the drivetrain (unlike parallel Hybrids, i.e Prius). As a result, the generator could be swapped out easily by the manufacturer to meet the fuel availability with little or no change to the rest of the vehicle. Electric drive trains are simpler, require far less maintenance, have less moving parts, and are more efficient then their ICE counter parts. The sooner Detroit wakes up and switches over to Series Hybrid vehicles the better. Detroit could use existing platforms and simply change to electric drive trains, as in the Chrysler and Jeep EV models. The Chrysler EV van and Jeep EV are the same as their ICE counterparts in all other respects aside from the engine and transmission.
For an explanation what a Series Hybrid is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vehicle_drivetrain#Series_hybrid
Reply
Dan Finnegan 12:50PM (11/18/2008)
of course an idiot "celebrity" would make a comment like this...
I love how when you have bottomless resources its extremely easy to make a huge transportation lifestyle choice. Lets see Neil Young only travel by rail and boat before he opens his mouth again.
Reply