CJ, > I am not saying that, GM is.
But obviously you accept their bogus plans. Like I said, they're nothing more than PowerPoint slides.
> Now that figure likely includes things like the car would be lighter thus reducing the stress on other components, the charging circuit could be smaller, the car itself could be smaller due to the smaller battery volume, the safety features could be lighter because of the smaller mass, etc. Not to mention a lower price point would mean a larger sales volume and the attending economies of scale. So it isn't immediately obvious that it is just spin.
I can't tell you how many times I've read articles about new technologies, especially so-called "green energy," that are not economically viable at the moment. In response, the advocates always claim that costs can be reduced by "economies of scale." But they almost never understand what it takes to achieve it. (The few that do are the truly successful ones. Which wouldn't include GM, or else they wouldn't need a bailout, LOL ...)
As for the other stuff, such as lighter components, smaller charging circuits, etc., I really doubt even you would believe that all this can result in a 38% reduction in costs. Maybe you can save a few percent here, a few percent there.
But given GM's penchant to overpromise and underdeliver, I have serious doubts that they can pull through. Remember their 230 MPG claim? That turned out to be completely bogus. Why should I take any of their other claims at face value?
Tenchusatsu |
