Audi's Johan de Nysschen responds to Volt for idiots story
Audi of America president Johan de Nysschen has issued a public response to the firestorm he created yesterday when he reportedly told a member of the media that the Chevrolet Volt is "a car for idiots." Anyone who has met de Nysschen in person knows he is not one to mince words. He (and Audi) has been a strong proponent of diesel technology as an important near-to-mid-term method to reduce petroleum consumption, but given that Audi is planning electric vehicles of their own – at least in concept form – the remark caught many offguard.
In his new statement released on Audi's Facebook page, de Nysschen declares that he doesn't specifically remember using the words attributed to him, although he doesn't deny the sentiment behind them. Essentially, he, along with many others, is highly dubious of the viability of General Motors' ER-EV concept, particularly from an economic standpoint. de Nysschen also highlights the fact that government policies are one of the driving forces behind electrification.
While noting that in the long-term, electrified propulsion systems will be a major part of the transportation system, he points out that many questions remain unresolved including the readiness of the power grid and generation systems to support large quantities of EVs.
Just as de Nysschen questions these elements, many will make precisely the opposite argument. The reality is likely to fall somewhere in between, with a number of these technologies playing an important part for the foreseeable future. The grid is probably more ready than most doubters think, but the time frame for driving down the cost of batteries may not be so easy to tackle. Increasingly efficient internal combustion engines will be critical, especially for long distance travel. While history sorts out what technologies will be winners over the long haul, you can read de Nysschen's statement right now after the jump. What do you think? Drop your fellow reader a line in 'Comments.'
[Source: Audi | Image: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty]
PRESS RELEASE:
A note from Johan de Nysschen, President, Audi of America:
An online report today, subsequently picked up by various other forums, left an unflattering sense of my feelings toward electric vehicles and the people who support their development. Let me clearly state that, in my opinion, electric vehicles will be part of the future transportation of society – but only if we go about it the right way. In fact, Audi is working on electric vehicles.
I do not specifically recall using the term "car for idiots" during my informal conversation with the writer. It was certainly not my intention to leave the impression that I'm opposed to electrical vehicles, and if I was unclear on either of those points then I need to eat crow.
What I do recall is the essence of my contention, namely that the feasibility of the Chevrolet Volt as a concept is questionable. And that policy decisions – and the industry's reactions to those decisions – are leading us toward a technology that may sound tempting on the surface, but, as of now, also contains many deep and unsolved economic and technological compromises.
"Mass electrification" of the vehicles on American roads could lead to problems like a strained electric grid. Large-scale utilization of electric vehicles will require massive investment in new power stations that are much cleaner than the ones in use in the U.S. today. Otherwise, it could merely shift greenhouse gas emissions from the tailpipes of cars to the smokestacks of coal-burning utilities. That's not just my opinion. The California Air Resource Board this past April concluded that electric vehicles presently are second only to hydrogen cars in greenhouse gas impact when measured on a well-to-wheel basis.
Returning to the Volt, my point was simply one of its economic feasibility today. The 50% or so price increase that the Volt represents over a similar gasoline car cannot be offset through the savings from reduced fuel consumption. The only way to offset the extreme premium for the Volt is through taxpayer-funded subsidies. So I question if that makes economic sense.
Does that mean the Volt and other electric vehicles are forever impractical? Of course not.
In recent broadcast interviews, discussions with journalists and meetings with policy makers I have asserted that the future of automotive transportation lies not in any one "silver bullet", but in a range of technologies that meet different needs – all while lowering emissions and fuel consumption. That includes plug-in electric cars when technological and economic hurdles make them more practical. It includes hybrid vehicles. And it includes clean diesel along with substantially more efficient takes on today's gasoline internal combustion engines.
Admittedly I am a passionate advocate for the role that clean diesel technology can play in easing this nation's challenges. Cutting through misperceptions about clean diesel and other technologies can be frustrating. If you'd like to hear my thoughts on these issues, go to a video of my recent remarks at www.audiusanews.com. Meanwhile, know that we are working toward a more sustainable future.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
fnc 8:43PM (9/03/2009)
Well, this makes him seem considerably less like a douchebag than the initial quote did. His statement is actually pretty reasonable and makes some sense, but this part gives me pause :
"Large-scale utilization of electric vehicles will require massive investment in new power stations that are much cleaner than the ones in use in the U.S. today. Otherwise, it could merely shift greenhouse gas emissions from the tailpipes of cars to the smokestacks of coal-burning utilities."
On what did they base this? I fail to see how a vehicle that requires about one third the energy to travel the same distance results in more emissions. Especially if that vehicle is using excess energy produced by an under utilized power plant at night.
Reply
Mike!!ekiM 11:25PM (9/03/2009)
This gives me pause too. How did someone so uninformed get this position at Audi? This question has been asked and answered at least 5 times in the last 3 years on this blog. Any engineer, in his company, get him the facts in about 20 minutes, or he could Google it in 2 seconds.
Lad 11:34PM (9/03/2009)
This CEO is following his own script and business plan. Part of the plan appears to sell diesel cars to the U.S. drivers as an interim measure until Audi can catch up with their slow electric car projects.
Studies presented here on this blog clearly conclude that air pollution is much easily controlled at the power stations than from a distributed source like "fossil fueled cars. Mr. de Nysschen is wrong and when a CEO misstates facts while PRing, he loses creditability. Kind of remiinds ya' of the ex-leadership at GM!
CaramelZappa 11:19PM (9/05/2009)
And like most people against ev's, he ignores the fact that EV's allow progress to be made to reduce that tailpipe. Initial adoption of ev's allows us to use our existing infastructure and already be more efficient, and then slowly switch to solar and wind power and reduce our emissions, hopefully reaching zero emissions someday. Gas and Diesel can become more efficient, but there will always be a tailpipe.
Greg Blencoe 9:53PM (9/03/2009)
In my opinion, Toyota is the best company by far to ask about the viability of plug-in battery vehicles. After all, the first Prius came out in Japan back in 1997. And Toyota currently spends almost $1 million per hour on R&D. A lot of these other companies that get mentioned have much less experience bringing a viable vehicle with a hybrid system to market. On the other hand, Toyota makes money with the Prius and has sold over 1 million of them in the U.S.
And yet, a lot of people don't pay enough attention to what Toyota says.
Here what Toyota thinks about plug-in hybrid vehicles:
http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/bill-reinert-and-irv-miller-from-toyota-set-record-straight-on-plug-in-battery-vehicles/
And I would highly recommend reading the following article which is titled "Plug-in battery Priuses get less than 50 miles per gallon in extensive fleet study done by Idaho National Laboratory":
http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/plug-in-battery-priuses-get-less-than-50-miles-per-gallon-in-extensive-fleet-study-done-by-idaho-national-laboratory/
Will mainstream consumers pay a lot more for the larger batteries when the mileage is typically not much better than a standard Prius?
Greg Blencoe
Chief Executive Officer
Hydrogen Discoveries, Inc.
"Hydrogen Car Revolution" blog
Reply
Joe 1:17AM (9/04/2009)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZrzg62Zj0&feature=related
Stop it Greg. Just Stop. You're hurting America. Stop Hurting America, Greg. Please.
Rick 1:45AM (9/04/2009)
I admire Greg's dogged persistence in the face of ridicule. I would have quit by now.
lets hear it for hydrogen!
Give me an H! Give me a Y! -
Y is the problem with hydrogen isn't it.
miles 7:52PM (9/04/2009)
Holy macaroni Greg, you must be heavily invested in Toyota's favorite lip gloss
:o
Carney 9:43AM (9/08/2009)
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax
elponce77 10:43PM (9/03/2009)
How can Nysschen think a long term solution to using a non-renewable fuel is using, well, another non-renewable fuel which actually comes from the very same raw material? Who's the idiot?
Reply
skierpage 12:53AM (9/04/2009)
"The California Air Resource Board this past April concluded that electric vehicles presently are second only to hydrogen cars in greenhouse gas impact when measured on a well-to-wheel basis."
Can you get a citation from Audi? I can't find this anywhere.
Audi of America doesn't have a hybrid, doesn't have an electric, doesn't offer its start-stop system in the US, and doesn't have a 40mpg car, let alone a 50mpg car. No wonder he's downplaying what he doesn't have and can't sell.
Reply
wxman 2:43AM (9/04/2009)
@skierpage -
>Can you get a citation from Audi? I can't find this anywhere.<
Not sure, but he may be referring to CARB's "Proposed Regulation to Implement the
Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Volume I" (although it was actually issued in March 2009).
In it (Table IV-5 on page IV-15), CARB calculates that the current "carbon intensity [CI] values" (in g CO2e/MJ) is 142.20 for hydrogen (from reforming of NG) and 124.10 for electricity (California average electricity mix). The carbon intensity of RFG is 96.09 and of ULSD 94.71 per CARB. The higher CI of hydrogen and electricity is more than offset by the higher efficiencies of fuel cells and BEVs however.
Future projections are somewhat lower for both hydrogen and electricity, although the fuels with the lowest projected CI (again per CARB) are NG from landfill gas and biodliesel ("advanced renewable diesel") from waste organic material, even taking the relatively higher efficiencies of FC and BEV into account (Table VI-4 on page VI-8).
skierpage 5:17PM (9/05/2009)
@wxman,
Thanks. So his statement is a lie, it's not "a well-to-wheel basis" at all but "well-to-stored energy basis", after which BEV has minimal energy loss turning the wheels while every other energy carrier has significant losses. Shameful.
jim 7:52AM (9/04/2009)
Saw the post over on Autoblog detailing the 'idiot' comments, what was bizarre, was that a few posts down, there was one on a proposal for an Audi EV.
Reply
David Martin 8:48AM (9/04/2009)
Toyota's position on plug-in hybrids may be influenced by it's difficulty in sourcing batteries and need to promote it's present hybrid technology.
AT current oil prices it is probably difficult to justify going to a plug-in on pure accounting criteria, but by around 2012 when they are likely to be more readily available a lot can change, specifically the cost of batteries and oil.
Reply
Kalle Andersson 9:12AM (9/04/2009)
Audi has their agenda, toyota has theirs, GM has theirs, Tesla has theirs, I have my own...
What's new? =)
Reply
Serge 11:27AM (9/08/2009)
What's new is that some people are starting to realize that a common goal can be reached. Just some are slow to catch up and cling to their own "agendas".
Richard Brown 9:22AM (9/04/2009)
Parallel or serial hybrids make sense the way Toyota is doing it. I like the Volt in concept but battery technology is still not there in a way that makes a vehicle that goes 40 miles on batteries alone an economically viable option.
Current battery technology with current costs of fossil fuels makes a hybrid a wise choice. But plug in battery powered cars are still just a good idea whose time has not yet come. And with half of all electric power in the U.S. produced with coal a battery powered car is like running your car on coal. So the emissions reductions are not sufficient to really change the equation dictated by the economics. If you live in an area where power comes from renewables or natural gas then the emissions and environmental benefits might overcome the economic disadvantages.
Hopefully battery improvements will change the realities in a few years. For now, a Prius is great, a Tesla is overpriced for the great majority of us.
Reply
Carney 9:54AM (9/04/2009)
Since diesel is made from petroleum, touting it as a way to reduce petroleum consumption is farcical.
Higher miles per gallon are IRRELEVANT. From 1976 to 1990, US average MPG went from 13 to 20, a huge increase (and nothing near what diesel can provide over gasoline). But gasoline consumption went UP, not down -- from 89 to 103 billion gallons. And half that timespan was in recession or stagflation; if it had all been growth, the growth in consumption would have been even faster.
Conservation does not and cannot work because economic growth and population growth are too fast, and swamp it easily.
Even if it DID work in the sense of reducing fuel usage it's still a strategy for failure. Burning fewer fossil fuels than before reduces the rate at which you are adding greenhouse gases and pollutants to the environment, but you are still, net, ADDING them and making the world worse off. Also, OPEC can simply cut production to match any reduction in consumption, thus spiking the per unit price and making the same money from reduced sales volume -- and the terrorists and death cult indoctrination centers roll merrily along, utterly unimpeded.
(That's also why the Right's trope of domestic drilling fails just as much as conservation; OPEC can cut the world supply to respond to any local increase, with the same effect.)
The only solution is to move completely beyond petroleum, to switch to a different fuel. Electric cars are still too small, short-ranged, expensive and weak - none can carry a large family or a respectable amount of cargo, let alone tow anything, and take far too long to re "fuel". Hydrogen is a hoax. Natural gas can work, but is inconvenient, not being a liquid at normal temperature and pressure, is prohibitively expensive to transport (so much so that much of it is simply burned off at the source).
What's left is alcohol fuel. It burns much more cleanly, and when derived from biomass its CO2 emissions are not a net addition but are already part of the carbon cycle. Being a liquid it's easy and cheap to deal with, and adding alcohol compatibility to car models is cheap for automakers ($130 per car) and easy for consumers to deal with (only one fuel tank and fuel guage, no switches to throw or worrying about how much of one or the other fuel is in there, etc).
Reply
Ray 1:05PM (9/04/2009)
I agree with you. You make good points about how demand always will overcome conservation and how the unit price of oil will always be maintained to a certain extent.
The only way to use less is to have less people. Then you go on to explain how a EV cannot accommodate a large family. There is no reason for large families anymore. Instead of giving tax breaks for offspring people should be taxed on them so we are not breeding like fruit flies and consuming, and polluting ever more. Incentivising people to breed is the American way but the last frontier is gone here on earth. So until we can get out into space and exploit other planets resources, giving tax breaks for breeding is stupid.