Speaking at the IHS CERA Week energy conference last week, General Motors CEO Dan Akerson said that the United States is on the cusp of achieving long-term energy security thanks to the wide-scale availability of fuel-efficient vehicles, more energy-efficient homes and factories, as well as a revolution in domestic oil and gas production. The chief executive said that the time is now for a consumer-driven national energy policy and called upon President Obama to immediately designate a Blue ribbon Commission that would be tasked with developing a 30-year policy framework for energy security with progress reviews every five years.
Mr. Akerson said in order to have a true understanding of the changes and make them sustainable, the presidential commission would have to include a broad cross-section of energy producers and energy consumers, along with a straightforward charge to “Develop a plan to improve our standard of living by extending the duration of the natural gas and tight oil ‘dividend’ for as long as possible.”
“Everywhere you look there are opportunities to seize the energy high ground,” Akerson said. “Indeed, our leaders have been presented with an historic opportunity to create a national energy policy from a position of strength and abundance.”
According to Akerson, the pillars of such a plan must include:
- Energy diversity to avoid dependence on any one fuel or energy source. Continued development of all forms of domestic energy, including renewables, is required.
- Energy efficiency should remain a core component to allow the impact of prosperity and population growth.
- Continue to make meaningful, long-term investments in nascent technologies to drive CO2 emissions even lower.
The executive’s comments were followed by the admission that GM is taking a dual-strategy approach to electric car development, and that one of these efforts will result in a pure-electric vehicle capable of a 200-mile range.
How Is GM Helping The US’ Energy Security?
The General is doing its part in moving the U.S. towards energy security by making the industry’s most technologically-diverse range of fuel-efficient cars, trucks, and crossovers to meet new fuel economy standards. GM offers vehicles that run on clean diesel, battery power, a combination of battery power and electricity (EREV), and natural gas. Moreover, it’s increasingly incorporating fuel-saving technology like light electrification, cylinder deactivation, turbo-direct injection, and reduced mass into its vehicles.
Putting GM Vehicles On A Diet
One of the most common criticisms of General Motors vehicles has been their apparent heft when compared to the competition. GM has taken notice of the situation years ago, but it’s only now introducing vehicles with lighter curb weight, beginning with the new Cadillac ATS.
Besides platform-specific approaches to mass reduction, General Motors is also increasing the use of advanced materials such has carbon fiber and magnesium in its vehicles while investing in nano steels and resistance spot welding for aluminum structures.
Mr. Akerson provided general examples about the fuel benefits of reduced mass: “A good rule of thumb is that a 10-percent reduction in curb weight will reduce fuel consumption by about 6.5 percent,” Akerson said. “Our target is to reduce weight by up to 15 percent” by 2016.
Mr. Akerson also said that General Motors remains committed to saving 12 billion gallons of fuel over the life of the vehicles it built or will build between 2011 and 2017. That’s the equivalent as not forgoing the use of 675 million barrels of oil, nearly as much as much oil the United States imported from the Persian Gulf in 2011.
Energy-Efficient, Environmentally-Friendly Plants
Another statistic mentioned by Mr. Akerson is that The General reduced its energy intensity per vehicle produced by 28 percent from 2005 to 2010, and has set a goal of achieving a 20percent reduction per vehicle in its global C02 footprint by 2020.
In addition, 105 of The General’s plants currently have a landfill-free status, which means that over 97 percent of the waste material is recycled or reused. The remainder is sent to landfill-free plants. GM’s goal is to have 125 of its facilities be landfill-free by 2025. What’s perhaps even more eye-opening is that all GM plants, landfill-free or not, recycle or reuse 90 percent of their waste.
To the surprise of many, these processes generate about $1 billion in annual revenue for GM. In 2011 alone, 2.5 million metric tons of waste from landfills (the equivalent of 38 million garbage bags) were eliminated.
And that is one of the reasons that the Environmental Protection Agency awarded GM the 2013 ENERGY STAR Partner of the Year “Sustained Excellence” award.
Comments
” 2.5 million metric tons of waste from landfills (the equivalent of 38 garbage bags) were eliminated.”
My garbage bags are the size of hot air balloons too, we must shop at the same store.
Good catch, andrew. Fixed to “38 million”. Sorry about that.
If energy efficiency is such a priority, then why is it that all we seem to hear about are gas-guzzling sports cars, SUVs, and trucks? If its not one of them then it is something out of reach to the common American.
Dan said it for me. The new developments (like reduced weight) start at the top (with Cadillac). That doesn’t help the masses, so it really doesn’t make a dent in the problem. Will it trickle down? Maybe, but where will the competition be by then?
“That doesn’t help the masses, so it really doesn’t make a dent in the problem. Will it trickle down? Maybe, but where will the competition be by then?”
Probably miles ahead with cars that weigh much less than their current range does.
The weight issue at GM can’t be a trickle down thing; it needs to hit all cars in every segment simultaneously. If GM sees the need to only tend to their highest profit vehicles; to only give those products any attention, then they drive away mass of consumers who aren’t in the market for such vehicles.
For years and years all I’ve heard was that GM was just a truck and SUV company. I could always point to the cars they offered as evidence to the contrary. But if GM isn’t going to put its cars at the forefront of it’s busines, to not engineer them to be the very best in fuel effeicency, and only focus on it’s GMT’s and improving their profit margins, then I don’t think GM will be in a position I can defend anymore.
The masses; the masses that aren’t tradesmen or farmers (the only people with legitimate reason to own GMT’s anyway).
Carefully with those “only”s, Graw… 🙂
I don’t think GM is only tending to its higher profit vehicles. It may be tending to them first by offering the lighter weight (more expensive) materials on them first. In order for them to offer it on all vehicles early on requires significantly more engineering and R&D to address quality and manufacturing issues, and also to ensure that the suppliers are able to ramp up production sustainably without running into their own quality issues that GM would have to double their efforts to mitigate. (run on sentence, I know) This could also result in reduced affordablility for the public at large and/or reduced profit. The reduced profit would limit them making future investments and lead to a repeated bankruptcy.
It’s pretty obvious with their plan to release new vehicles throughout the coming year and beyond that they aren’t focusing ONLY on GMT and high profit vehicles. What did they release prior to cars like the Corvette, ATS and GMT’s? Malibu, Cruze, Sonic ring a bell? All competitive vehicles in their segment. Any reason to believe that GM’s going to forget about them? I haven’t seen a credible reason to think so.
I don’t consider myself a tradesman or farmer, but I have a full-size Chevy crewcab. My wife drives it daily to work as her commute is only 1 mile while mine is about 45mi. However, we’ve used it quite a bit for helping people move, church garage sales, towing friends’ boats to the lake, hauling cars when needed, etc. So again, I wouldn’t say that business and farming are the ONLY legitimate reasons to own trucks.
We need a consumer-driven industry policy put together by executives from multi-national oil companies, and an auto industry that has sold its own people and country out in nearly every way imaginable : BS. Energy security: complete BS. So-called clean energy–like natural gas and fracking: complete and total BS. Washington DC, London, Beijing, Ottawa, Moscow–all BS. You’re part of the problem, Dan. Quit being so transparent, grow a pair, and call a spade a spade. What you’re talking about isn’t leadership, it’s a prescription for problems.
The secret to good business is supply what people want, & if that happens to be trucks, sporty stuff & luxury then that’s what it is. Nobody will be forced to buy what they don’t want (they will just avoid the dealer showroom). Also I hope GM or Chevy don’t become an American Toyota (for them that want a Toyota they will just buy one anyway regardless what GM do).
“…. The secret to good business is to supply what people want ….. ” So true V8 Jon. And this is why GM’s market share has been declining, and why it went bankrupt. It’s why we have a huge trade imbalance in this country.
No doubt GM is now making vehicles that it can make profitably. But that is very different from making what (most) of the market needs or wants, especially if fuel becomes scarce.
I think a lot of people on this site are fixated with what they might be seeing in the American Midwest. The major metro areas in the rest of the country are loaded with foreign vehicles. I reluctantly just bought one for lack of finding the right offering from GM or Ford, again.
I’ve got to admit, when I first read the caption beneath the photo, I thought it said Akerson was looking for ways to reduce energy consumption in his “pants.” Sorry, couldn’t resist. 🙂
And he wants to reduce weight there by 15%… LMAO
Hahha! Thanks Ray, fixed!
Trucks & high profit cars make profit, hybrids are currently running at a loss for GM and as I’ve pointed out before regardless of what GM do people will continue to buy imports, so stick at what your good at to succeed.
“I’ve pointed out before regardless of what GM do people will continue to buy imports, so stick at what your good at to succeed.”
What a defeatist attitude!
‘Why bother trying to make a great economical small car, lets just do trucks from now on because that’s the basket where we’ve put all our eggs into’.
Thankfully, there is an ocean keeping you from the RenCentre.
Jon — there are many ways to make a profit on the OEM side of the automotive industry. While you mention some of them, you forget the most important one: high volume, mainstream vehicles. Think the entire Chevy lineup (excluding Corvette and perhaps Camaro).
As for imports, yes, consumer will continue to buy them. But that doesn’t mean that GM can not attempt to create or actually create a better product.
In addition, who is to say that an organization shouldn’t strive to improve in any and all areas of weakness?
Not want to put all eggs in same basket that’s why hybrids have had their day many firms now (Toyota, Mazda) to name two are/maybe making a new coupes not mee too 5dr 4 seater hybrids.
If you’re going to keep lumping hybrids in with EV’s and related cars, then I suggest you read this:
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2013/03/chevrolet-volt-was-the-most-popular-ev-globally-in-2012/
Coupes my ass; why don’t you put some proof on the table. Toyota’s 86 isn’t going to displace the Corolla, and I certainly hope you aren’t implying so. GM as well as Toyota know that non-ICE’s are a growth market. It’s not an overnight change, but it’s a change nonetheless.
I sinceraly hope you are trolling everyone here. Nobody can be that out of step with the consumers trends in the auto industry.
The markets changing & GM realises it, but now is too far across the ocean to back track (its as far to swim back as it is to carry on).
Far from knocking the bread & butter models so to speak of, the opposite GM has some excellent bread & butter models (some with a performance model/models too) these high selling, successful, desirable models that bring in probaly 80% of GM’s income. Also GM has made small economical hatchbacks since the 70’s so they are hardly a new concept. As for hybrids billed as the best cars everyone has built & rendering the rest of the range old hat (80% of income most probably) well if I’d want a economical car I’d choose a diesel car it betters a hybrid in every department. On a final note how is a expensive to buy, four seater, limited range with low mpg when running on gas, govenment subsidised car by any manufature progress?
I have had the oppotunity to drive many cars over the years including a EV which I drove from Clifton, Manchester to Swinton Manchester. It was from a well known Japanise brand and I can honestly say its the worst car I have ever driven.