Unfortunately Bolt is still a compliance car from GM

[GetOffYourGas]

Do you believe it's environmentally sound to churning out as many new cars as possible? If so, You're missing the point. Remember the environmental three "R's"? Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. While I'd agree that person that returns their leased car is "recycling" the car, they are shifting the responsibility to Reduce & Reuse to someone else. As individuals, wouldn't it be better to commit to the three R's on our own, instead of relying on someone else to bail us out on the other two?

I agree that it would be better not to "rely on someone else to bail us out", but in reality a leasor can almost count on just that with his/her lease return. These cars are not junked. They are not crushed. They are sold to another owner, even if the sale is at a loss to the leasing company.

FYI, what you are describing here is Reuse, not Recycling. Reuse is taking a perfectly good, functioning car, and continuing to use it as a car under someone else's ownership. Recycling is breaking down that car into its raw materials and building something new with those materials instead of virgin materials.

For example, you can extract pretty much all of the Lithium from a spent EV battery and use it to build a new battery. That is recycling. Or you can take a degraded battery and put it to use in a stationary application - like backup for intermittent renewables. That is reuse.

 

[ngasfme]

Since others are giving their opinion, here's mine.
1. More and more of the world's population are relocating from rural areas to cities.
2. Income inequality continues to increase in the US . I.E. the wealthy are getting wealthier, the middle class continues to shrink and the poor are getting poorer.
3. Auto insurance is getting more and more unaffordable for the younger generation thanks to smart phones, an increase in ambulance chasers and a myriad of other reasons.
4. Battery technology is finally increasing at a rapid rate thanks to Elon Musk, China and our weapons crazy military (try to power a 60KW laser with lead acid batteries).
Hence, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where this is all headed.
Self-driving electric cars will take over and most will not be owned by individuals.

I know it seems hard to believe right now but I vividly remember attending a futurist presentation approx. 25 years ago. The speaker stated that everyone would be carrying around a small pocket phone that will allow you to call anyone in the world and actually see the person on the screen within 20 years. Most of the attendees seemed very doubtful they would see this in their lifetime.

In fact, this recent article pretty much confirms my thoughts.
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/0...onomies-lives-and-cities-will-be-changed.html

 

[oilerlord]

FYI, what you are describing here is Reuse, not Recycling. Reuse is taking a perfectly good, functioning car, and continuing to use it as a car under someone else's ownership. Recycling is breaking down that car into its raw materials and building something new with those materials instead of virgin materials.

You're right, my bad. New owner reuses the car, car gets recycled when parted out / crushed. I'll also stipulate that by attrition, less fuel efficient cars are being replaced by more fuel efficient cars - which is a good thing.

Still, we need to be aware of the initial CO2 created from the manufacturing of cars. I think a lot of people return their leased EV's well before the car has a chance at offsetting it's initial CO2 footprint, then turn around and order a new car and do it again, and again. The point I was making is to remind people concerned about global warming that Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle are important aspects of environmental stewardship that, as individuals, they need to be personally responsible for, and not push onto someone else. It's a little hypocritical for some to give themselves gold stars for taking action against global warming - when their own individual carbon footprint spikes on every new 3 year lease.

 

[boltage]

Similarly, building cars that simply last longer is also good - they wouldn't have to be scrapped so quickly and replaced (in overall terms, not necessarily by the same owner) by a new car.

Probably the biggest variable in car lifetime these days is how well the owner takes care of it (and whether s/he crashes it).

 

[WetEV]

Similarly, building cars that simply last longer is also good - they wouldn't have to be scrapped so quickly and replaced (in overall terms, not necessarily by the same owner) by a new car.

Probably the biggest variable in car lifetime these days is how well the owner takes care of it (and whether s/he crashes it).

Had the experience of watching a car that wasn't going to to stop in time in the rear view mirror while stopped on the freeway. Ended the car's lifetime, but not by my actions.

 

[boltage]

Had the experience of watching a car that wasn't going to to stop in time in the rear view mirror while stopped on the freeway. Ended the car's lifetime, but not by my actions.

Did the driver who failed to stop end up destroying two cars in this case?

 

[SeanNelson]

Similarly, building cars that simply last longer is also good - they wouldn't have to be scrapped so quickly and replaced (in overall terms, not necessarily by the same owner) by a new car.

Probably the biggest variable in car lifetime these days is how well the owner takes care of it (and whether s/he crashes it).

Insurance is a problem, too. Where I live it's not possible to buy replacement cost insurance. I have a 25 year old van, and it's old enough so that if it gets almost any kind of ding in it at all it'll be considered a write-off by the insurance company. What that means is that it's questionable to sink any kind of significant money into it on maintenance, because if it gets hit by someone that investment will evaporate.

Now it just so happens that the van is camperized similar to a VW Westphalia, so I have a higher declared value on it. For that reason, I've been spending the bucks on keeping it in top shape. But for a regular, unmodified van the economics are against keeping it on the road by the time it gets to that age.

 

[WetEV]

Had the experience of watching a car that wasn't going to to stop in time in the rear view mirror while stopped on the freeway. Ended the car's lifetime, but not by my actions.

Did the driver who failed to stop end up destroying two cars in this case?

Don't know, but suspect so. Some damage to the car in front of me, as well.

 

[sparkyps]

FYI, what you are describing here is Reuse, not Recycling. Reuse is taking a perfectly good, functioning car, and continuing to use it as a car under someone else's ownership. Recycling is breaking down that car into its raw materials and building something new with those materials instead of virgin materials.

You're right, my bad. New owner reuses the car, car gets recycled when parted out / crushed. I'll also stipulate that by attrition, less fuel efficient cars are being replaced by more fuel efficient cars - which is a good thing.

Still, we need to be aware of the initial CO2 created from the manufacturing of cars. I think a lot of people return their leased EV's well before the car has a chance at offsetting it's initial CO2 footprint, then turn around and order a new car and do it again, and again. The point I was making is to remind people concerned about global warming that Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle are important aspects of environmental stewardship that, as individuals, they need to be personally responsible for, and not push onto someone else. It's a little hypocritical for some to give themselves gold stars for taking action against global warming - when their own individual carbon footprint spikes on every new 3 year lease.

Imagine how big the spike if you just rent an EV for a day. Or worst of all, getting an Uber EV to drive you 5 miles.

It makes zero difference whether 3650 people rent an EV for one day each, 10 owners serially own an EV for 1 year each, 3 EV owners serially own an EV for a total of 10 years or one person owns the EV for 10 years. If perfectly good EVs were being crushed because nobody wanted to buy a 3 year old EV that would be different, but that isn't the case.

 

[sparkyps]

You sell your used car, someone buys your used car. The benefits from the leased vehicle get passed on to the next owner and then the next owner until the car is used up. Irrelevant if you keep it 10 years or 3 people keep it a total of 10 years.

In terms of global warming / global rise in CO2, it's faulty logic not to consider the initial CO2 footprint that each new car begins with.

"A 2004 analysis by Toyota found that as much as 28 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions generated during the lifecycle of a typical gasoline-powered car can occur during its manufacture and its transportation to the dealer; the remaining emissions occur during driving once its new owner takes possession. "

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-used-cars-are-more-ecofriendly/

Do you believe it's environmentally sound to churning out as many new cars as possible? If so, You're missing the point. Remember the environmental three "R's"? Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. While I'd agree that person that returns their leased car is "recycling" the car, they are shifting the responsibility to Reduce & Reuse to someone else. As individuals, wouldn't it be better to commit to the three R's on our own, instead of relying on someone else to bail us out on the other two?

Consider that the person that buys a new car, and keeps it for 10 years has caused the manufacturing of one car. At year 9, the person that leases every three years has necessitated the manufacturing of four cars. I think Mother nature cares more about the number of cars being manufactured, and less about who owns them. Fewer is better, not more.

The carbon footprint from manufacturing a car is spread over the LIFETIME of the car, not the first 10 seconds or 10 minutes or 10 days or 3 years of the car's life.

Trying to attribute it to the first retail purchasers is as faulty as trying to attribute it to the dealer who first purchases it from the manufacturer.

If an EV has a lifespan of 100,000 miles then it doesn't matter whether one person drives it the entire 100,000 miles or 10 people do or 100 people do. It's all the same, a vehicle driven 100,000 miles.

If you want to reduce YOUR carbon footprint you could drive less or you could drive a vehicle that has a lower carbon footprint per mile driven. But it matters not in the slightest whether you drive it for the first 10,000 miles or the last 10,000 miles.

 

[oilerlord]

If you want to reduce YOUR carbon footprint you could drive less or you could drive a vehicle that has a lower carbon footprint per mile driven. But it matters not in the slightest whether you drive it for the first 10,000 miles or the last 10,000 miles.

Except that it does matter.

You choose to ignore the initial CO2 caused from the manufacture of each car, and how long it takes to recover that CO2 from reduced emissions. You incorrectly assume there is a buyer waiting for every car that's made. Used car inventories are rising, spurred by lease returned vehicles.

Imagine how big the spike if you just rent an EV for a day. Or worst of all, getting an Uber EV to drive you 5 miles.

It makes zero difference whether 3650 people rent an EV for one day each, 10 owners serially own an EV for 1 year each, 3 EV owners serially own an EV for a total of 10 years or one person owns the EV for 10 years.

Huh? You're making no sense. Many people making use of a single vehicle is environmentally sound. There is a new generation that have no interest in ever buying a car - they instead use ridesharing services such as Lyft and Uber. Fewer cars = less CO2.

The person that drives ONE fuel efficient car over 100,000 miles is more responsible (from an environmental / CO2 footprint point of view) than the person that causes the manufacture of 4 new EV's over 100,000 miles (i.e. "leasing"). If each person drove their cars longer into the car's life-cycle, fewer would need to be built. It really is as simple as that.

 

[SeanNelson]

You incorrectly assume there is a buyer waiting for every car that's made. Used car inventories are rising, spurred by lease returned vehicles.

That seems irrelevant, unless you can point to some evidence that cars are getting scrapped earlier because of a glut of used vehicles.

What seems more likely is that it will depress used car prices, which will spur used car sales. Cars aren't the same kind of throw-away product as an iPhone.

Having said that, I can well imagine that EVs will have a shorter lifespan than ICE vehicles because of battery degradation. Sure, some people may replace their batteries, but probably not everyone. It remains to be seen, but it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[SparkE]

I will be doing my part to save the planet, by buying a used 2013 LEAF for $6000 or so.

 

[ScooterCT]

I was just browsing a 2014 BMW I3 with 9,000 miles on the odo for $15,000. Even at only 80 miles range, the deal so tempting. But not until I test drive a Bolt...

 

[boltage]

Having said that, I can well imagine that EVs will have a shorter lifespan than ICE vehicles because of battery degradation.

ICE vehicles can degrade also, particularly with the poor maintenance habits of many owners. However, short range EVs, already marginal for many driving patterns, may become unusable for a larger percentage of drivers as batteries degrade.

 

[oilerlord]

I was just browsing a 2014 BMW I3 with 9,000 miles on the odo for $15,000. Even at only 80 miles range, the deal so tempting. But not until I test drive a Bolt...

I know, there are so many great deals on used EV's right now. If you can live with it's quirks, the i3 is one of them. Personally, I'd get the one with the REX option.

 

[hodad66]

I was just browsing a 2014 BMW I3 with 9,000 miles on the odo for $15,000. Even at only 80 miles range, the deal so tempting. But not until I test drive a Bolt...

I know, there are so many great deals on used EV's right now. If you can live with it's quirks, the i3 is one of them. Personally, I'd get the one with the REX option.

I was just talking to a REX owner the other day & twice (when the genny took over) her speed
was limited to 39 mph........ once on the highway. I'm very glad that none of my Volts ever
did that. :mrgreen:

 

[oilerlord]

To be fair, glitches / malfunctions can happen with any EV. They aren't only limited to the i3:

http://www.mychevybolt.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6053

 

[GetOffYourGas]

Is "Genny" a common term for the generator? Just curious. I did a double-take because to this sailor, a "Genny" is a large overlapping head sail (also known as a Genoa).

 

[michael]

To be fair, glitches / malfunctions can happen with any EV. They aren't only limited to the i3:

http://www.mychevybolt.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6053

In the case of an I3, this was probably not a malfunction but a design characteristic. The I3 depletes the battery to a very low level before starting the generator, and the engine is too small to maintain highway speed over even a moderate grade