1kWh is $0.20 in NYC. So this means I can save more or save a lot more buying a gas or diesel car.

I think calling it emission free is a bit misleading. If it has to be electricly charged, it is likely that electricity came from a caol burning plant, which are the largest source of greenhouse gasses in the US.

If 1KWh is 20 cents in NYC then charging the car would cost 160 cent, (20 cents/hour over 8 hours). If you can get 40 miles for 160 cents then you are paying 4 cents per mile. That is way better then any gas or diesel car...

If a car has an insanely awesome mile per gallon ratio lets say 50 MPG and one gallon cost 350 cents then you would be paying 7 cents per mile. Your car would have to get over 80 miles per gallon to match this car. If you know of such a car let me know. (I realize the Toyota Prius Hybrid can if you trick it out however Pei-chen claims there is a gas car that can do that).

If this car is priced reasonably then there isn't anything that can match it.

why not just call it chevy TL

Riiiiiight. Coal accounts for 22.6% of US energy.

petrol 39.8
nat gas 22.4
renewable energy 6.8
nuclear 8.2

They weren't saying that coal is the largest source of energy in the US, they were saying that it accounts for the largest amount of greenhouse gases, which is true even though it's not our most widely used form of energy production.

No it is an emission free vehicle while on electric power as it is not emitting any substance into the environment when operating. Putting the burden on the factory production emissions on the vehicle itself is moronic. The vehicle has to be "produced" whether its hybrid, electric or internal combustion. All production factories produce emissions. The vehicle will not simply pop in out of thin air. This vehicle, as all no emission vehicles simply break the chain once they are produced. And yes, eventually it will end up in a landfill, unless recycled, just like every other vehicle you drive as it will not simply dissappear into thin air.

Say hello to reality.

Yes, it's not emission free, but even with today's mix of fuels for electricity, and the energy required to make the batteries, electric cars produce 40% less emissions than a regular car, and that will only improve as wind and solar power ramp up.

Remember that gas engines are very inefficient, like around 20%. Huge stationary electric power plants have inherent advantages in efficiency. That's why emissions are so much less with electric cars.

Most cars are recycled for scrap metal and spare parts. Lithium Ion batteries are expensive, so there would be a strong motivation to recycle them. Also note that Lithium is not a dangerous substance. People eat the stuff.

When was this written gas is 4.20

That car looked so cool until they re-did it with that stupid look every hybrid has to have theses days. The concept looked like a flashy sports car...this looks like a nerd wagon.

Gas is 3.46 here btw.

Get electricity from a company that generates it from 100% wind. That'd be about as low a carbon foot print as you could find.

"If you can get 40 miles for 160 cents then you are paying 4 cents per mile. That is way better then any gas or diesel car..."

If gas is at $3.50 which it currently is, a car would need to do about 85mpg to equal the volt. For me I probably would only fill up every few months as my daily commute is around 25 miles round trip. If they bring this car to the Cadillac name such as a new CTS then I'm sold.

Paul, you might want a dose of reality yourself, once this car is produced it doesn't immediately fall off the energy map. It will need to be powered which is the point Scooter is originally making. It is very misleading to call this 'zero emissions' for just that reason and that is the point he was trying to make. You seemingly have failed to realize that energy, such as cars in your example, doesn't pop out of thin air. There may be power plants already in place but that doesn't mean energy is infinite. Most likely they will have to step up production to meet the extra need produced by these cars. Therefore these cars don't break the emissions chain, they simply pass it down the line, though the producers won't make that link simply so they can claim '0 emissions' as 'reduced emissions' isn't quite so rosy a picture. Not saying that these aren't a step in the right direction, as lowered emissions are good, but honestly humanity won't get anywhere with blinded, stubborn viewpoints that fail to look past 10 feet.

While there is a fair bit of "marketing" going on around zero-emissions, often times those who criticize the use of zero-emissions terminology do so with a tone inferring, "Well if it isn't truly zero-emissions why bother?" Criticizing every little step as not "good enough" only retards the overall process. It takes time to develop and roll out these technologies and none of them, when examined in their totality, will ever be truly zero-emission. The criticisms aimed at coal power are not criticism of the Volt. They are criticisms of coal power. The Volt does not discriminate where its electricity comes from and this is a good thing because it allows changes in electricity production to not impact the Volt's power supply. This is quite different than our current reliance on gasoline which produces heavy transaction costs that are associated with trying to find alternative power sources (e.g. gas stations, engines limited in their ability to utilize different kinds of fuel).

Don't get me wrong T. Sylvan, I agree with you on that its a criticism of coal power, but in truth I'm not attacking the Volt. I'm attacking the people that simply follow the advertized word and see it as the perfect patch. All that leads to is companies selling us snake oil. Further, I'm attacking the same companies that lead the masses by simply spouting the 'in thing' on their products. I never once said 'why bother' (nor did I mean to infer it) but I think people need to learn to look past the surface (on both sides of the dividing line, not just one group of people). As for the change in production mentioned towards the end of your comment, it'd be great if the energy companies did continue to change their methods in tandem with technologies such as the electric car, however most likely they'd switch more to fossil fuel alternatives because of a lessened demand on them. After all everyone would be switching to electric cars, thus lowering the cost of purchasing the fossil fuels for their energy production. I see that as most likely for most energy producers because its 'better business sense'. I do have to apologize in advance, alot of my views are pessimistic.

The point is that running a car on electricity made from coal produces less greenhouse gases than running a car on gasoline.

Right now, U.S. electricity is roughly 50% coal, 20% Natural Gas, 20% Nuclear, and 10% Renewable. With that mix, electric cars produce 40% less greenhouse gases than a regular gas engine car, and that includes the emissions for building the car. As the mix changes more towards renewables, electric car emissions become even better.

And by the way, using coal to power cars near term not only lowers greenhouse gases, it also keeps the money from going to terrorists.

The article was edited after I posted my comment. Before, it reads

"GM estimates that a full charge for 40 miles will cost about 80 cents (at 10 cents per kWh), which equates to ten cents per mile, comparing favorably against 12 cents per mile using gasoline (at $3.60 per gallon)."

That's why I said electricity in NYC is 20 cents per kWh and therefore more expensive as per mile cost will be 20 cents vs. 12 cents for gas.