GM-Volt.com Interview With Tony Posawatz
Tony Posawatz, VLD E-Flex
I just had the opportunity along with a few other bloggers to discuss the E-Flex program including the Chevy Volt and Opel Flextreme vehicles with Mr. Tony Posawatz. Tony is the Vehicle Line Director for E-Flex vehicles for GM. In this position, he is a man “in the know” when it comes to the current status of the Chevy Volt. An audio podcast of our exchange follows the post. Below are some edited highlights of our discussion, I added in what you see in parenthesis in that Tony was referring to those words but did not himself say them:
GMV: What type of electric engine will appear in the Chevy Volt, A/C Induction or D/C?
TP: D/C
—>[UPDATE: He actually said A/C] <---
GMV: If people have 220V capability in their homes, will it be possible that the Volt would be able to charge at that voltage too?
TP: We are looking at alternatives…Some people may still have concerns about the charge time… It could be an option or perhaps come in an aftermarket kit… It will be chiefly applicable to 110V, but we have not ruled-out other options… We have a good handle of the control strategy for monitoring the battery during charging… I welcome any thoughts and insights you guys have.
GMV: Any possibility for AWD in the Volt?
TP: Early versions will be simple and cost-effective, those options (AWD) could occur later.
GMV: Will the battery pack cost $7000 and will a lease be required?
TP: Since we do not have a production contract, we don’t know how much the battery will be… The theoretical price (of $7000) if amortized over the life of the car will be less than the cost of fuel…We have not made any determination on a required lease..We will take note of all our EV-1 experience and be certain that we do not retrace certain steps again.
GMV: What is the current state of the mules, and when will you get the first battery packs in hand?
TP: We will have battery packs later this year. We have mules without packs that we are beginning to work with at very early stages.
After that, the next interview is with Chuck Murray who also asks some good battery questions, you can hear it on the audio below.
My favorite part of the discussion was how genuine Tony was in describing his and GM’s interest in what enthusiasts like us are thinking about, and how open they really are to our ideas. So keep them coming!
Popularity: 1%
(No Ratings Yet) 
Loading ...
41 Responses to “GM-Volt.com Interview With Tony Posawatz”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- EPA Closer to Giving the Chevy Volt at Least a 100 mpg Rating
- GM, Natural Gas, and the Volt
- GM and Chrysler in Merger Talks
- More Details About Chrylser’s Electric Car Plans
- As GM Goes So Goes the Nation
- Lutz Provides More Volt Details: Photovoltaic Roof to be Unveiled in January, and Volt Development Ahead of Schedule
- GM’s Electric History
- Project Better Place CEO Calls the Volt a Niche Product
- The Production Chevy Volt Has One Charging Port, and Unnamed Object Identified
- Video: 60 Minutes - Race For the Electric Car
September 13th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Since Tony Posawatz asked for our insight on 220 volt charging…
I think the real issue would be making this feature goof-proof. If there is a 110/220 volt switch or some after-market modification, then you KNOW someone will mis-use it. This could give the Volt a bad name unnessarily. In the end, this might make the Volt less successful.
So there is a potential downside. Also, I don’t see any real upside.
Most people sleep 6.5 hours or more most of the time. And after all, this is what the Volt is really about - optimizing typical usage patterns, while at the same time allowing occaisional non-typical use. So if you occaisionally only sleep 4 hours, no problem - you have over 600 miles of range on gasoline. If your normal lifestyle doesn’t allow 6.5 hours of charging a night (including eating, bathing, sleeping, etc.), then God help you. Worring about the Volt’s charging time will be the least of your problems.
On the other hand, if you live 40 miles from work and only work 3 hours a day, then 220 volt charging would be helpful. But how many people are there like this? I’m sure the percentage is small.
So I would defer looking at any 220 volt charging options in the U.S. until after the introduction of the Volt is successful.
September 13th, 2007 at 9:58 am
I don’t know why people are afraid of 220 Volt electricity, nor do I understand why you might believe that a domicile does NOT have 220. 220 is simply the combination of feeds from the two (out-of-phase) 110 volt inputs from the transformer on the pole
down the street that exist as the two hot verticle rails in every service panel that I’ve ever seen. Open the door of your service panel and look at the dryer or HVACor electric stove circuit breakers - you will see that there are actually two breakers next to each other - one connects to the closest 110Volt rail, and by design the other must physically connect to the other 110 volt hot rail. The output lines of the two adjoining breakers connect down the line before reaching the recepticle and presto, at that point the juice is 220 volts.
The very first thing I’d do is to run a 220 line from my service panel on
the wall of my garage to the location of the VOLT’s plug in the parking space. I figure it would cost about $60 in materials and take around 30 minutes to install, most of which would be spent anchoring the EMT and recepticle to the garage wall.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:05 am
I might add that receptacles in a garage are required to be GFI, because of the possibility of standing water. A GFI circuit GUARANTEES that you can’t be shocked. There is no logical reason to be fearful of a 220 volt circuit that is GFI protected. It’s just a matter of educating
the consumer.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Some other comments on the podcast:
On possible new electric storage technologies - Yes. I believe that if you build it, they will come. Once a PHEV goes mainstream, there will be a lot more activity in this area. I would be surprised if there wasn’t a breakthrough.
On E-Flex variations - It’s great that the architecture supports options, but please don’t start with fuel cells or all battery vehicles. What we need now is a car that is uses 110 volts and gasoline. Both of these are readily available.
Also, any car that runs on gas should also run on E85. This will make it economically viable for gas station owners to start offereing E85. If you build it, they will come.
Last, but not least, thanks to Lyle for a great site!
September 13th, 2007 at 10:25 am
My laptop, cellphone, and digital camera charger all have the ability to detect and adjust automatically to 110-240 volts, i used them in europe for 4 months with a simple plug adaptor and no voltage adaptor, if something that small can have it i am sure it would be a fairly simple thing to add to the volt so it can auto detect the voltage and adjust accordingly, that would prevent most accidents related to feeding to much voltage to the car.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Yes, an electrician could come to most any modern house and provide a 220 recepticle, that uses a different plug to preclude “goofs” for less than $200.
But I agree, this rapid charge is certainly not needed for the initial version of the Volt.
How the rapid charge could be used is on a day trip. I go visit my mother, (50 miles away) and since I am at her house for about 4 hours, I could recharge with 220 and drop my fuel consumption for the trip way down. For examply currently I burn about 4 gallons of gas for this trip. If the Volt could go 25 miles at freeway speed on a charge, then I would only burn 2 gallons.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:40 am
I would like to see the 110-240 being detected automatically. The Volt will probably need over voltage protection anyway - you don’t want to zap your car with over voltage!
The only downsides that I see is:
1) a small added cost - so make it an option.
2) an added component to go wrong.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:40 am
kent beuchert says: “It’s just a matter of educating the consumer.”
And therein lies the problem…
You and I know that 220 volts is readily accessible in the panel, and we know how to run the wires properly and make it safe.
But how about the average consumer? If there is a way to get it wrong, I’m sure someone will. Then we’ll hear on CNN that someone got hurt trying to charge their Volt with special 220 volt wires. Then people will think you need special wires to charge the Volt, and that it could be dangerous…
By contrast, if someone gets hurt charging the Volt with regular 110 volt wires, people will just think that they were stupid, since most folks are already pretty comfortable with outdoor 110 volt cables.
So the risks are tangible and, as I said on my previous post, I don’t see any big rewards.
September 13th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Van - Yes, we agree. The rapid charge is certainly not needed for the initial version of the Volt.
As for your scenario of visiting your mother, I think this is a good example. Lets say you charge with 110 volts vs. 220 volts while you’re there. So 220 volt charging would save you maybe around 1/2 gallon of gas for this trip.
Lets go after the low hanging fruit first.
September 13th, 2007 at 11:03 am
You might find consumers that run 16 or 18 gauge wire extension cables out to their Volts as well. The type of cheapo extensions that are rated for 5A or even less.
Then they will burn their houses down!
Yes people will think that they are stupid.
Some people will run new 110v wires in their garages or out to their driveways. They will use cheapo wire, no conduit, damaged insulation, you name it. They will get hurt. People will think that they are stupid.
If GM provide an optional 220/240v charging cable with a clothe drier machine type plug, people will cut the plug off and use something else. They will get hurt. People will think that they are stupid.
Answer:
As with all things electrical if you are not qualified get someone who is. Provide the 110v as standard. Provide 220/240v charging cable as an option with one of the standard 220/240v type plugs (clothes dryer type etc, or better still a 220/240v weatherized plug), and a big label stating the optional 220v supply must be installed by qualified electrician, telling people to use the 110v cable if they are in doubt.
If you ignore the label you are stupid.
For those that worry about charge time they have a solution.
September 13th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Some might not just worry about charge time there is the loss due to double current in 110v. So 220v at half the current and same charge time.
To charge 8KWh in 6 hours at 110v requires about 12A. At 220v you would have option of 6 hour charge at 6A or 3 hour charge at 12A. The most efficient is 6 hour charge at 220v but only 6A.
However, options do lead to confusion.
Simple is good for most.
The reason I want to see 220v is there is more likely to be a 220v whole house generator after market option.
September 13th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Boy, some people have vivid imaginations,
visualizing people cutting off 110 plugs and somehow (and for some unknown reason) replacing them with 220 plugs and vice versa. I assume such people don’t have the intelligence to either drive a car or hold down a job, or have already killed themselves by now. If this person believes people are that stupid, why is he sanguine that they are driving cars!!! This simply reinforces my observation that people act as though electricity were black magic. But they don’t seem at all worried driving a car fueled by basically a gasoline bomb waiting to explode. It’s all in the head, all in the head.
September 13th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Mark Bartosik - Yes, I’m also interested in a generator after market option. But I doubt that this would use the same wiring as the charger. The current for a whole house generator would be much larger that the typical 220 volt charging wire and breakers.
In addition, battery chargers usually work one way - AC to DC. To go the other way (from DC to AC) you need a different type of circuit. This is called an inverter. Aftermarket car inverters are widely available, but these all work with 12 volt DC batteries. The E-Flex Li/Ion batteries will have a much higher voltage, so I don’t know how this would work. Even if/when 3rd party inverters for E-Flex become available, how would they connect to the high voltage battery terminals? A factory option here would be nice.
September 13th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Since I am not an electrician I have a question. The Volt has 2 charge ports, 1 on each side. If you plugged in both sides from different circuits at the same time would that charge the Volt any faster or is there a mechanism in place that would only allow you to charge from one port at a time? Just curious.
September 13th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Steven T, darn good question. Any takers?
September 13th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Steven T - Yes, this is a VERY good question. I’ll take a stab at it.
There are 3 possibilities:
1) There is 1 battery charger and both AC ports are wired in parallel to the charger.
2) There are 2 independant battery chargers, 1 per AC port.
3) The production version of the Volt will have only 1 AC chargning port.
For option #1 above, if you connect 2 wires to charge it faster, and they come from different 110 volt rails, then hopefully the breaker will trip before too many sparks fly and wires melt.
So option #1 is definately not goof-proof, and I would hope it doesn’t make it to production. This leaves options 2 & 3. Option 2 would allow faster charging with 2 wires, but would cost a little more - not sure how much. Option 3 would suck a little, but I would take that over non-safe option #1.
If there’s another option I haven’t thought of…
September 13th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Well, the two cable option… it would work if the two wall sockets being used were on separate breakers. Theoretically, you could get twice the amperage at the same voltage that way.
I doubt GM would do that, tho. Again, KISS.
September 13th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Matt986 - Yes, KISS (keep it simple, stupid). But now we’re taking about 1 AC charging port or 2 (on on each side). So it’s a convenience issue.
If you have 2 AC charging ports, then they should work with wires plugged into both ports in order to be goof-proof (safety issue). I guess it doesn’t have to charge faster, but it can’t spark & burn if the breakers malfunction.
How much would it cost to make it work with 2 wires?
September 13th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Dave G - to have an after market backup generator would probably require an inverter similar to a solar inverter grid tie and or battery inverter (typically 48v for solar). They cost $2000 to $4000.
Thinking about it more, the 220v issue would not have an impact because the inverter would most likely need to tap off the Volt’s DC bus.
The other way would be to have the generator generate close to 60Hz, which it probably is not designed to, and could not be grid tie.
——-
I do like the idea of dual 110v sockets. One on each side of the vehicle. Primarily for convenience. A lot of Jaguars (UK made car) used to have dual gas filler caps for just the same reason.
Then the volt could always allow charging from both sides. It would probably have to allow for each side being out of phase though, which still means 220v charging in effect (or two x 110v).
I much prefer the idea of a 110v socket on each side for convenience when parking. Then it is probably easier to allow charing from both sockets rather than actively disallow from one.
——
Kent:
Something my boss used to say:
“You can always find a better idiot.”
So I do think that some people will get hurt no matter how the Volt is charged, and yes there are people driving that definitely should not be!
September 13th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
It would be totally bizarre for GM to allow the two ports to charge from two different outlets at the same time. This would require two separate chargers or a 220 volt charger to handle the possibility of phase mixing. They then would be far ahead to just add a 220 volt charge port. I would imagine that the 2 ports would be handled by a very simple interlock, first port plugged in disconnects the 2nd port.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Don: I think that you are probably right here. It is just easier and cheaper to charge from one of two sockets.
Providing an after market option for dual 110v chargers may be easier than a 220v after market option. But that depends on how the charger is designed.
September 13th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Don A - Yeah, I guess a simple interlock would work. I didn’t think of that.
They might also be able to detect different phases on the 2 AC ports to enable 220 volt charging with a single charger. Bottom line: If it’s cheap and relatively goof-proof, I’m all for it!
Anyway, this is a good discussion.
September 13th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Mark Bartosik says: “the 220v issue would not have an impact because the inverter would most likely need to tap off the Volt’s DC bus.”
Yes, but how do you physically tap off that bus? I heard the voltage was around like 300 volts DC.
Personally, I would like to see factory installed 110 volt AC convenience outlets with 15 amp service. If you have a prolonged power outage, this would run the TV, computer, etc. - enough to know what’s going on. Also, if you need to run some power tools in a remote location, or you have a friend in a band that wants to do a conecert in a state forest…
There’s a lot of sceanrios where a single 15A 110VAC circuit will suffice.
September 13th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
I want to use the Volt as the emergency back-up power supply for the house, or the campsite, or the jobsite…
September 13th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Physically to access the 300 v DC bus would likely need to be an after market option. Solar inverters typically have an input voltage of 180v DC to 400v DC.
GM could provide an after market socket under the hood. It would likely have to be UL rated. Then a solar type inverter would be able to provide house scale 240v backup. The difference is that solar inverters use a system called maximum power point tracking (mpp) and that might not be good for the batteries. In any case the same principle applies.
My heating is by ground source heat pumps. In winter an ice storm could cut my utility power and thus heating. So 240v house backup is very appealing. Trouble is I need a few KW to run the heat pump (about 3KW I think).
—-
separately about 220v charging
As Dave says, what ever is done, it needs to be goof proof and cheap.
September 13th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Many people, us included, have 220v service in our garages for dryers, etc. I can see where it could be handy to be able to charge in less than 6 hours. On the other hand, I agree with those who say keep it simple stupid, and get the damned things into the showrooms. If it is only 110 capable, I will deal with it.
Since I have so many electrical experts available here, I have another question. Will these batteries tend to develop a “memory” like the old NiCads if they are “topped up” when not fully discharged? I sure hope not. That would be a bigger issue for me than the 220v capability.
It would be a huge advantage to me to be able to drive 24 miles to work, charge back up in 2 or 3 hours, and have a full charge to go about my errands.
September 13th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Noel
One of the many great things about lithium-ion technology is the fact that the batteries do NOT have memory.
You can hear more on these podcasts/posts:
http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/06/21/gm-volt-exclusive-interview-and-podcast-with-a123-co-founder-cto-and-vp-of-rd-bart-riley-on-building-the-volts-battery-pack/
http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/06/27/gm-volt-exclusive-interviewpodcast-compact-power-inc-executives-discuss-volt-battery-pack-development/
September 13th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Noel: The batteries should not have any memory effect.
There are stresses on the battery if charged to 100%, but Volt will only charge it to 80%. The Volt will treat the batteries with care only letting them discharge to 30% and charge to 80%, this should make for a very long life. The 40 miles is on that 50% (80% discharging to 30%).
September 13th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Now I remember why I liked the idea of 220v connection. If there was an after market option for a built in whole house inverter upgrade. Then a 220v link to the house could draw or supply current (up to limit of wire) if the inverter was grid tied (synchronized with grid waveform).
However, that would only have been economical if the motor was AC, and thus already required a built in inverter. We now know that it is a DC motor, and so the Volt will not have a built in inverter.
So any use of the Volt for backup will likely be only with a small 110v inverter (maybe better integrated that a cigarette light socket), or via an external inverter.
An external inverter would likely use a different socket, and probably tap off the DC bus.
September 13th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
I’m disappointed that they seem to have chosen a brushless DC motor, given their past success with AC induction. The cost of permanent magnets for the rotor assembly are going to be heavy and expensive. Then again, maybe the inverters needed for AC motors are heavier and more complex than the controllers for brushless DC.
Any thoughts, anyone?
September 13th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
There has been a lot of debate elsewhere about DC vs AC motors. The Tesla web site I think has some talk about it, they use AC induction, and appear quiet proud of their motor.
The reason that I would have preferred an AC motor was the possibility of using a smarter inverter that could double as a whole house backup (as an added option), and/or vehicle to grid booster.
If you go to http://www.SMAamerica.com you can find specs for their inverters. I have three SMA 3800U inverters (3800W max AC output), and I can tell you they are dam heavy, my guess is 50lb a piece (more than I can happily lift to mount on the wall). So for an inverter of say 80KW peak power, sure there would be an economy of size, but I’m sure it would be real heavy. Also quality power inverters are not cheap and are complex.
I have another well pump motor inverter (good for 1HP motor and face plate says rated at 11A max draw on 240v supply). This is only about 0.25 the capacity of the SMA inverters, and about 0.33 the cost, and about 0.25 the weight.
The SMA inverters probably have more to deal with than a motor inverter
In summary, inverters cost money and weight and complexity.
How this compares with a DC motor control I don’t know.
September 13th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
I am 100% positive that he is wrong about a DC motor being used. I don’t know how he got it wrong, but I repeat: the Volt will be using an AC motor, not DC.
September 13th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Whether the Volt motor is AC or DC, it seems almost certain that the Volt will have a standard 12V DC (aka cigarette lighter) port. Otherwise, how are people going to charge their iPods, cell phones, laptops, etc.
If that 12V circuit can take power from the Volt’s primary lithium battery system, then you should be able to plug in a regular cheap 12V AC inverter and run it (depending on draw) for many hours. For example, ignoring heat losses, seems like 8KWh of capacity should be able to drive a 500W inverter at full load for 16 hours.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
220…110…who cares! When are the auto manufacturers/dealers going to make the quantum leap and offer home power generation modules(battery storage with wind/solar/flatulence-whatever)matched to the vehicle and included in the total financing package. Recharge when you are at home, sell electricity to the grid when you are away. Everybody wins. The grid could go down, you’re still up and running.
September 13th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Paul - If you have 110 volt convenience outlets in the car, why would you need 12V DC (aka cigarette lighter) ports? Most iPods, cell phones, laptops, etc all charge from 110V AC out of the box. For 12V DC, you often need to buy an optional charging adapter, usually at a ridiculously high price.
Also, since the Li/Ion battery pack is much higher than 12 volts, creating 12V DC with any kind of power behind it might be more expensive than 110V AC outlets. My understanding is that converting DC to DC at high power is more expensive than converting DC to AC.
But regardless of technical issues, if 110 volt AC convenience outlets came standard, that would be another reason to call it the Volt! It works with 110 volt electricity both ways - could be a great marketing gimmick.
September 14th, 2007 at 6:09 am
This is what might happen. You get a Volt and it has 220 and 110 capability. You plug in with the 110 and plan to run another 220 circuit to the volt. After 6 months you just never seemed to get around to the 220 because you usually don’t have a charge time issue after all and with the cost to install (but mostly the headache) the 220 circuit just isn’t worth.
What I find fasinating is all the talk about 220 versus 110 and virtually no talk about the fact that he said it was going to be a DC MOTOR!!!!
September 14th, 2007 at 8:15 am
I don’t know much about the guts of the electric motor, and many folks on this site seem upset that the Volt is using DC.
Can someone explain the issues with a DC motor?
I’m looking on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brushless_DC_electric_motor
and they don’t seem to point out any huge downsides. In fact, they say:
“Although burshless DC motors are practically identical to permanent magnet AC motors, the controller implementation is what makes them DC. While AC motors feed sinusoidal current simultaneously to each of the legs (with an equal phase distribution), DC controllers only approximate this by feeding full positive and negative current to two of the legs at a time. The major advantage of this is that both the logic controllers and battery power sources operate on DC, such as in computers and electric cars.”
I suspact that if you had a true AC motor, that would require a more complex circuit to convert the DC battery voltage to variable rate AC to run the motor. This would seem to add cost and weight, but again I’m no expert.
Can someone explain the difference from a driver’s perspective?
September 14th, 2007 at 9:25 am
OK, I found a blog by Wally Rippel, Principal Power Electronics Engineer at Tesla Motors:
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/?p=45
Wally Rippel says:
“My conclusion is that DC brushless drives will likely continue to dominate in the hybrid and coming plug-in hybrid markets, and that induction drives will likely maintain dominance for the high-performance pure electrics.”
So it may be that Tesla will use a DC brushless drive for their BlueStar.
Wally also says:
“Induction machines are more difficult to control. The control laws are more complex and difficult to understand. Achieving stability over the entire torque-speed range and over temperature is more difficult with induction than with DC brushless. This means added development costs, but likely little or no recurring costs.”
This tells me that GM would get the Volt out sooner with a DC brushless motor.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Here’s a few suggestions:
1. Suggest to GM to suggest to congress the concept of a minimum gas and diesel price, this would only protect and help GM with their electrical and hydrogen efforts.
2. Wire the volt to handle 220v, but make the separate transformer an add-on product. So if somebody wants the feature, they pay a few hundred dollars for something a mechanic can install in 20 minutes. That way the cost of the car is reduced, but the 220v feature can be obtained.
3. Program the car’s computer to delay the charging of the vehicle with the press of a button. When the car is switched to off, this option should pop up on the screen. This will allow the driver to take advantage of nighttime electricity rates.
4. Any built in GPS should be utilized to figure out where the car is, so patterns can be detected. Going to work assumes you will be there a while. Going home after work assumes you will be there for a while too. Going home at lunchtime assumes you’re not staying. Charging of the electricity and thee decision to turn on the generator can be influenced by the location. Privacy issues will exist, so set the “learning” feature to off by default.
Join the Jihad against oil http://www.oiljihad.org
February 1st, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Thanks for sharing
September 18th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
I would suggest to add a Solar recharger on the roof top of the car. This is very suitable for those live in the sunny state and those who park their car outside on the sunny day during the work, ( say 6-8 hours). the battery would be fully charged after their work. In this way you can save more, a lot more. The roof top solar charger could be a sun roof type but the size should be larger. Please forward this idea to Mr. Tony Posawatz. Thanks