Talk:Chevrolet Volt

Emissions & language

I changed a sentence saying that charging the batteries "results" in greenhouse gas emissions at the power plant, to "accounts for". Before reverting that again, please explain here. Secondly please explain the value of sentences starting with "However, ..." or information that something is "nearly zero". Thanks --Edoe (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

"Results in..." is more clear and accurate than "accounts for..." Also, I restored the language stating that under certain conditions, eg when charged by photovoltaic panels or wind turbines, charging results in almost no ghg emissions. The emissions are "nearly" zero because there are some ghgs created during manufacture of the photovoltaic panels or wind turbines.

"Results in..." implies that the action of taking electricity causes the generator to work more. "accounts for..." implies that the generator has already done the work (or is doing a fixed amount of continuous work) and that the electricity is coming from a fixed reservoir. However, for the purpose of this article, I don't believe it makes a lot of difference either way.

"However" is useful for presenting both sides a story - ie NPOV. See the above paragraph. Another usage could be "electric vehicles do not produce any greenhouse gases, however, the manufacture of their batteries produces large amounts of greenhouse gases" - not necessarily true or false, just making an example sentence. To my mind the production of greenhouses should be separated in those made during normal usage by the consumer and those gases made during manufacturer. Both are important but it is misleading to imply that using an already made battery adds greenhouse gases and also misleading to gloss over whether the mass production of battery adds greenhouse gases.

"Near zero" is correct usage (assuming the facts are also true). It would be misleading to say that it is exactly zero but if the amount is truly minor then "nearly zero" is accurate enough for our purposes. However, it should be clearly pointed out which emissions are from the vehicle itself and which are shifted to the generating plant on behalf of the vehicle. It is meaningless to talk of the "CO₂ output of a plug-in electric car" but it is quite meaningful to talk of CO2 generated on its behalf at the power generating plant and to compare that to CO2 generated directly by internal combustion vehicles. If the electricity was produced by solar, hydro, nuclear then it could be said that the total CO2 emissions are zero, but since some power plants still burn coal or fossil fuels, a number averaged across all power plants (in this case for the USA) is used.  Stepho  talk  23:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The point is what is the marginal source of electricity? Solar and wind and nukes are base load, so additional electricity is supplied by working coal or gas fuelled stations harder- you can't turn a solar plant up! Therefore, unless the charger is totally isolated from the grid, the vast majority of electricity used to charge an EV is derived from fossil fuel, compared with the case where that EV is not being charged. Special pleading about the bloke you know who charges his EV from a bicycle powered generator or whatever doesn't affect the large majority who just plug in and bask in a shower of taxpayer funded subsidies. I would fully support a very hard eye being turned on this section, it is very easy to turn it into a greeny fantasy.Greglocock (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Did anyone mention a bicycle? Not sure if you're arguing against me or one of the others. The point is that power generation (ie at the power plant) has been decoupled from power application (ie at the car). For those that live near clean power plants the total CO2 produced on behalf of running the car is small. For the bulk of the USA the production of CO2 on behalf of running the car is larger than those lucky states (see, not ducking the issue). And over the years it may shift up or down. My comment above about 'a number averaged across all power plants (in this case for the USA) is used' seems to answer your question for those that want an actual number for the average case. I'm happy to mention CO2 emissions at the car (negligible) and C02 on behalf of the car (at the power plant). But since one is constant (the car) and the other depends on location and many other factors, I prefer the two contributing factors to be listed individually. That way nothing is hidden and any dependencies are made obvious.  Stepho  talk  02:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

This subject is complex and already explained at Wikipedia in the following articles: Plug-in electric vehicle#Air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, Plug-in hybrid#Greenhouse gas emissions, and Electric car#Air pollution and carbon emissions. Are we going to open this discussion for the pages of each individual PEV? I believe the official CO2 in EV mode, a mention that there are additional emissions at the power plant and depending on the fuel, and the link to any of these sections should be enough. And please, provide reliable sources for the specifics. Edoe changed the content based on his opinion given that he did not provide any RS to support his edit and neither removed the existing citation.--Mariordo (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: Also I believe the discussion is muddled by the mixing of the carbon footprint with tailpipe emissions. The latter is what is relevant for motor vehicles, and in the particular case of EVs and PHEVs running on EV mode, the transfer of emissions upstream (which often include more than CO2) depending on the fuel. Besides the articles mentioned above, see also Zero-emissions vehicle, and a similar discussion to this one here and here.--Mariordo (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The subject is explained at several places, correct, and there are many sides to it, correct. Then even more we should restrain from any public-relation (-style) language, and the text that was restored here: "Charging the Volt's batteries still results in some greenhouse gas emissions ... However, under most conditions CO2 output is less than other low emission vehicles and in the best case emissions are nearly zero" sounds very much like that. It doesn't help the Volt product, nor electromobility, and it spoils Wikipedias reputation. --Edoe (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

In order to move forward and close this discussion in a productive way, I propose we merge the content of the sections "4.3 Tailpipe emissions" with "7.4 Battery charging emissions." The latter is located under the "Controversies and criticism" main section, and 7.4 ended up located there when I reorganized the article for the GA review. However, if you check carefully the provided citations, all pieces are dated, written before the Volt was launched to the market: Edmunds 2007, Auto Express, 2008; IEEE, 2009. The 2007 piece refers to the concept car, the 2008 piece was made when not even the fuel economy of the Volt was known, and the 2009 piece estimations are not specific for the Volt. Therefore, there is no controversy here. Once the content supported from these sources is removed, the content left between 4.3 and 7.4 overlaps a bit, so I proposed to keep all the content in 4.3 to read as follows (the intro in supported by the articles in Main & see also, I can bring the RS if there is consensus in this text):

---

Tailpipe emissions

Main article: Greenhouse gas emissions in plug-in hybrids

See also: Air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions in plug-in electric vehicles

While operating in all-electric mode the Volt produces no tailpipe emissions. However, the clean air benefit is usually (often?) local because, depending on the source of the electricity used to recharge the batteries, air pollutant emissions are shifted to the location of the generation plants. The amount of carbon dioxide emitted depends on the emission intensity of the power source used to charge the vehicle. When the Volt's battery is depleted and the gasoline-powered engine kicks in, the plug-in emissions are similar to other internal combustion engine vehicles. The amount of total local emissions depends on how much the Volt is driven in all-electric mode and how much in charge-sustaining mode.

United States

EPA rating for the Volt's tailpipe emissions is 84 grams of carbon dioxide per mile, (52.5 CO_{2 g/km), which puts the Volt ahead of the Toyota Prius in terms of low greenhouse emissions as measured at the tailpipe. CO2 emissions are produced by the internal combustion engine in extended-range mode, and only after the Volt's primary battery charge has been depleted. In the other air pollutants category, the Volt rates six out of ten, with ten being best.}

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) classified the Volt as Ultra Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV), as CARB tests do not account for the Volt electric range. With all tests conducted under conditions where the engine is running the CARB rated the Volt's carbon monoxide (CO) emissions at 1.3 g/mile (0.81 g/km), missing the limit for SULEV classification by 0.3 g/mile (0.19 g/km).

Europe

The Ampera's official EU-approved UN ECE R101 carbon dioxide emission rating is 27g/km.

---

Please comment below and feel free to copyedit and modify the proposal above.--Mariordo (talk) 07:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Support: Apart from minor grammar tweaks and wiki syntax tweaks, I support Mariordo's changes. It fulfils everything I'm interested in and points to other articles which explain the carbon footprint.  Stepho  talk  10:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok with me, the new text has a more factual tonality, and I trust you that the information is correct. --Edoe (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

NYT resource

to Reinforce Battery in Its Hybrid Car, the Volt by NICK BUNKLEY January 5, 2012 99.190.80.182 (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This source and others dealing with this subject were used to update the section "Battery pack fire risk" (check out under "Battery enhancements" heading).--Mariordo (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

article structure

why are battery fires hidden away in 'reception' rather than controversies, or safety? Greglocock (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Moved Greglocock (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Split proposal

As of today the article is 183,758 bytes long. In addition, I think it will continue to grow once it is launched in Europe, plus new issues that might arise in the future, such as the NHTSA fire incident. Therefore, I would like to propose branching out the article. IMHO some of the sections that might become stand alone articles considering its existing content and notability are:

• History of the Chevrolet Volt, moving there all the details of the development of the car
• Chevrolet Volt powertrain. This is plenty of room to improve the content currently in the article.
• A separate article for the Opel Ampera
• 2011 NHTSA investigation of the Volt battery risk of fire
• Controversies surrounding the Chevrolet Volt

This list is just an initial brainstorm, please pick one, or even better, propose a new one, and open a discussion below using the proposed title.--Mariordo (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposals

• History of the Chevrolet Volt

Opel Ampera

The Chevrolet Volt article is too long, so i´ve just took the Opel and Vauxhall parts out of to the Opel Ampera article.

It broke references.... -->Typ932 ^T·C 16:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the bold split. The previous section opened the discussion for that option, so please seek consensus before splitting the article. Please state your opinion to support or oppose the split to a stand alone Opel Ampera (now a redirect) below.--Mariordo (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support, due to article length and the Ampera notability, but since both cars share the same powertrain I am concerned about content duplication among the two articles. So I believe this discussion should provide guidelines as how to properly split both articles. I would like to hear suggestions from editors with experience with similar auto related splits.--Mariordo (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support due to the article lenght -->Typ932 ^T·C 08:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

'Oppose: since the Opel and Chevy versions are not any different with exception to bumpers, and a few minor trimmings, I see this as a poor basis to split. Maybe split based on some other characteristic, such as controversies and criticism of the Chevrolet Volt or even Chevrolet Volt by market, as this information currently occupies very large sections.

• Support, due to article length and i remember that I have read in a magazine that only the first generation of Chevrolet Volt and Opel Ampera are identical in order to save costs, but from the second generation they will be different similar to the Chevy Cruze and Opel Astra.