Posted by Lyle in: Battery, GM Q and A, Original GM-Volt Interviews, Production with 61 Comments
Share:
Robert and Me
My question was “In April you were quoted as saying you were 90% confident the Volt would be produced. Considering interval developments, has that number increased?”
Mr. Lutz’ answer was a resounding “Yes”. He said GM is now “fully committed” to producing the car. He no longer considers the lithium-ion battery packs as the sticking point, the only issue now is systems integration.
Mr. Lutz pointed out that the first of four battery packs has been delivered. One more from CPI and two from A123 will arrive by year end.
He noted that initial bench tests of the first battery pack were very encouraging and that they performed exactly to the Volt specifications GM had demanded.
He also went on to say that the production Volt would not look entirely like the concept. One reason being that the concept performed very poorly when it was placed in the wind tunnel. In a memorable and humorous statement, he said “it would have done better if they put it in backwards”. Nonetheless, he said the car will be unmistakable in appearance as a Volt.
He told us that at this very moment, late model Malibus were having their bottoms removed and replaced with Volt drivetrains including a T-shaped opening for the battery packs.
He assured us the test Mules will be driveable in first quarter of 08, and in a personal aside told me I would be invited to drive one. He was certain, as well, that the cars would get the 40 miles range and even mentioned that a 45 mile range was possible.
He further went on to dismiss the idea of an NiMh-battery Volt appearing as an interim step indicating that the technology did not fit with the cars engineering design.
He concluded that he has rapidly become convinced that the Volt will truly be a game-changer.
Very uplifting indeed Mr.Lutz, we and the world thank you!
This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 14th, 2007 at 8:56 am and is filed under Battery, GM Q and A, Original GM-Volt Interviews, Production. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Nov 14th, 2007 (9:20 am)Thanks for the update Lyle…We will need a full update on your mule test of course, great job!!!
Johnnie
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (9:25 am)Thanks Lyle,
This is very good news. As you could only ask one question, that was probably the best one. Keep up the good work.
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (9:46 am)I am jealous you get to test drive the volt but I guess that is the payment for all of your hard work. I think they should give you a special deal when the volt finally comes out.
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (9:53 am)Fantastic question, Lyle. You’re a ROCK STAR!
The more I hear from Mr. Lutz, the more respect I have for him.
I sincerely believe that GM will do this car right! It’s exciting to watch the stars align…
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (9:58 am)Great job Lyle- and what a great picture!
It is very encouraging to hear Mr. Lutz say such promising things about the Volt. A possible 45 miles per charge is freaking awesome. That tells me that the 40-mile quote may be based on high-usage scenarios like when air conditioning is used.
I love the idea of them getting you in one of the Mules, but I will not be satisfied until they get a production copy of the Volt to you for a long-term test drive.
Congrats man.
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (9:59 am)This is music to my ears. Nice job!!!
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (10:00 am)Its hard to be patient when waiting to change the world! Great job Lyle, can’t wait for your test drive report.
I wonder, if the LG batteries meet the specs will the A123 set be that much better?
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (10:01 am)Great job, Lyle! I have often wondered if Mr. Lutz reads this blog. Did he ever mention it in your conversations?
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (10:04 am)P.S.
“He no longer considers the lithium-ion battery packs as the sticking point, the only issue now is systems integration.”
Statements like this have got to be atleast a little embarassing Toyota. lol.
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (10:07 am)Thanks for the update. I hope we can hear more. Here’s another interesting report from the dinner on the aerodynamics on the Volt:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/11/14/lutz-chevy-volt-aero-might-have-been-better-if-we-put-it-in-the/
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (10:24 am)It was very impressive to hear him, and very exciting.
I am told that people at GM do watch this site closely and are as interested in our ideas as we are in what they are doing. I didnt ask Mr. Lutz that question directly.
Much more info to come,..Im off to the Auto Show press day..might get to talk to Bob again there.
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (10:29 am)Thanks Lyle,
Great news, please ask Bob Lutz next time if the Opel Flextreme has the same support at GM as the Volt has.
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (10:31 am)Very encouraging!
GM, I’m saving the money for my down-payment now. Please make it in America (including the parts), and make it right. Workers in the Great Lakes states really need you to get this right, and I really want to know that my money is supporting my neighbors.
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (10:55 am)It feels great to be proud of American manufacturing again. Keep up the good work.
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (11:31 am)It sounds very positive… but it also sounds like Lutz is making big claims based on a single battery which they can’t possibly have fully tested yet. He made similar claims just days (a day?) after they received the first battery. He has also made overzealous volume claims. He might end up being right, but I’d be surprised if he reliably knows at this point. That makes me question everything he is saying.
Also, what was the name of that competitor that a number of people were blasting a while back because he was critical of the Volt’s aerodynamics? I guess he was right.
Time will tell if Toyota is also right. I have no doubt that Toyota has done much more Li-Ion testing than GM. If it was as easy as Lutz is claiming, I doubt Toyota would have taken a pass. If Toyota did lock into an in-house solution at the expense of a viable 3rd party solution then they are idiots. I don’t think they are idiots. Perhaps it is just differing product schedules, but perhaps it just isn’t ready/cost-effective.
It also concerns me that LG Chem is encouraging GM to lease the batteries. They would know the potential cost better than most.
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (11:39 am)Lyle, If GM is watching this site I hope they pay attention to this:
The E-Flex drive train and what it will do to release us from the slavery of oil will cause more hearts to race and raise more passion and loyalty for GM than anything they have previously done.
E-Flex is more than just the freedom of the “open road”. E-Flex with range extenders that can run on any liquid or gaseous fuels such as a Turbine, a Cyclone Power Technologies style Cyclone Engine or even a Stirling engine combined with rooftop PV solar and wind can lead us to personal energy independence.
GM will be considered the Moses of the modern age. The 21st century is about diversified and widely distributed energy.
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (12:13 pm)#15 GXT:
What gives you the impression that Toyota has conducted more Li-ion research than General Motors?
The United States currently leads the world in next generation Li-ion battery technology. Japanese, Asian, and other European firms have yet to catch up to the United States’ progress made in the areas of energy density, safety, and mass production.
The NiMh technology that Panasonic uses in the Toyota Prius and other current models is based primarily on advancements made in energy storage technology discovered by American research institutions.
While we lack the economic conditions to manufacture many of the latest high tech devices, the US is still far ahead of every other country in the world when it comes to R&D investment and output.
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (12:17 pm)RE GTX post #15
While the battery packs were being made, I would guess that GM had been making test equipment to put the battery packs through simulated cycles. So that they could test in more controlled lab conditions while simulating loads. They would be able use such equipment in parallel to the mules (which would test the entire drive train).
If they did this, then after a couple of weeks they would have a significant volume of data. If this data correlated to predicted data then they have every reason to state that the batteries are not a problem.
Sure they would not have put the entire pack through 3000 cycles yet, but they’ll likely have a lot of test data. They’ll also likely have data for cells going through 3000 plus cycles.
So I believe Bob.
I hope Lyle gets a free Volt.
I’m just hoping we can get more answers to the questions that were raised in an earlier post. None of us here are very patient.
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (12:27 pm)Thanks for the update !
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (1:08 pm)If you can, check out Dan Neil’s article in todays’s L.A. Times, titled “My green dream”, subtitled “Electric cars as a supreme national interest”. Further subtitled:
“At the L.A. Auto Show, it’s slow-go on the eco front. Enough with the horsepower wars. Let’s do battle with batteries.”
The joke about the aerodynamics is nothing new. The 63-67 Corvette Stingray coupes, and the iconic Grand Sport, were famous for deadly front end lift at top speed. They were famously derided for having better aerodynamics going backwards than going frontwards. You would think we would have learned something in 40+ years.
Maybe we did. At least GM has a wind tunnel now. Back then, Zora Arkus-Duntov used to stick bits of yarn to the body, follow the Corvette around the test track in a chase car, and film it with a 16mm camera.
Awesome job Lyle. GM-volt.com blows Fastlane and FYI in the weeds.
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (2:24 pm)Lyle:
I don’t know you, but I have to say:
YOU DID GOOD, BUD!!!!!!
You can tell Mr. Lutz that I am ready to write a check for a deposit for a Volt whenever he is ready to accept it!
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (2:43 pm)Well done Lyle, great photograph.
Bob Lutz has also done very well.
Lets not forget CPI and A123.
On we go!
Now, what do we know about systems integration?
Whose silly idea was that?
I would settle for Grandma Ducks vehicle fitted with airbags.
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (2:56 pm)Good response. At 45 miles, that means if
maxed every day and only charged once per day (fat chance), that would equal 16,425 miles per year of all-electric driving. Why do the short sighted folks believe that a battery-only electric is required? I wouldn’t touch anything that even slightly resembles an EV-1 – it would be of no use to me. Own one of those and you automatically need two cars, and one better use gasoline. It looks as though a fleet of VOLTs would only need around 15 billion gallons of ethanol a year – that’s just about doable in the next 3 years. No gasoline needed at all. Happy day.
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (3:01 pm)Ed Pepper, advertised as “GM of Chevrolet” was on the radio a few minutes ago. Ed Schultz asked him, “What about the Volt,” he replied, plan to have it for sale in “2010″ and that the “battery” was the issue. You can read it as being somewhat contrary to Mr. Lutz’s statement, but given that the topic was about a range of GM products I’ll give Mr. Lutz the benefit of the doubt myself.
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (3:02 pm)The point about “T-shaped” openings in the Malibus is interesting, because it implies that the batteries will fit under the front seats as well.
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (3:09 pm)Great job Lyle,
If you ever get to Phoenix in the mule I would love to have a look at it. CW
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (3:32 pm)That’s the kind of news we like to hear. DID GM ASK FOR THAT WAITING LIST? DO THEY WANT TO KNOW THE NUMBERS?
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (3:41 pm)Thanks, great info, Lyle!
Do we know the other questions and answers that Bob gave that night?
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (3:42 pm)On a side note, did anyone notice that the Volt shot on this site is different than the one here:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/11/14/lutz-chevy-volt-aero-might-have-been-better-if-we-put-it-in-the/
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (3:57 pm)RE: RE: GXT #15
Because Toyota has been testing lithium ion cars since 2001. Do some research, google lithium ion Vitz. Everybody wants a car like the Volt, I do. But getting excited and rushing things, like Lutz making such great claims about batteries they’ve been testing for… weeks?? months?? Do you really want to drive a car (presumably for 5-10 years) that the makers make great claims about in just days? GM doesn’t have the best track record for reliability, Toyota does, Toy is taking it’s time, GM is (sounds like) rushing things. Common sense tells me that slow and safe may not be exciting or groundbreaking, but imagine the headlines “Massive Recall on Dangerous GM Volt Batteries, Stocks Take a Dive”. Think about it.
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (4:07 pm)I have always heard the water drop shape was the most aerodynamic, IE large rounded front end with a narrowing tail end for air to flow around. The bottom line is smooth transistion to allow turbulence free air motion across the frame. You can see from the concept it was backwards, large rear end narrowing in front. The key is the compromise in looks and aerodynamics that will still create an aesthetic demand. I don’t think many of you would buy a Volt that looked like a water drop even if it had a .15 drag coeficient. LG may be pushing for a lease option but most people were expecting a base model around $25,000. with batteries included and $27,000 for one “Nicely apportioned”. If batteries are $7,000.00 they better be selling the volt for $18,000. + cost of lease & said lease better have an option to buy just for peace of mind. That would make it more affordable to the masses but no one wants to buy a car to find out Chevron bought out all the rights 5 years in and your stuck with a Volt without the Volts & the batteries are being recalled like the EV1!I say Congress should pass the 35 MPG efficiency requirement by 2020, without which there is no incentive for improvement. If it were not for Congress there would not be safety belts in cars or safety glass. There are many things that should not be left to the private sector especially when National Security is at risk? Bring it to the floor & then we can vote all opposed out of office! Bush is a lame duck & I doubt too many will stick their necks out for him at $4.00 gallon for gas on the horizon. Impeach Cheney? They had the wrong man! Should be a 2 for 1.
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (4:13 pm)We probably have some time to fill until our e-flex arrive.
This link is is interesting as it describes the design process for one of the quattros. Similar design team to the Volt in a similar open plan enviroment, I think
http://www.carbodydesign.com/archive/2005/11/18-audi-le-mans-quattro-making-of-prototype/audi-le-mans-quattro-making-of-prototype.php
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (4:17 pm)If you wonder what a design team does here is an article on a similar team that did a quattro.
http://www.carbodydesign.com/archive/2005/11/18-audi-le-mans-quattro-making-of-prototype/audi-le-mans-quattro-making-of-prototype.php
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (4:19 pm)The new 2008 Malibu would be fantastic with E-Flex!
Bob Lutz and the New Malibu:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJI71XNi0-Q
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (4:44 pm)xx
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (4:46 pm)As an aside there is an article on the design of a quattro in 2005. They semed to use a team and organiational structure similar to the Volt.
http://www.carbodydesign.com/archive/2005/11/18-audi-le-mans-quattro-making-of-prototype/audi-le-mans-quattro-making-of-prototype.php
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (4:53 pm)There is an article on the design of a Quattro using a similar team to the Volt.
I cant include the link but Google
Audi Le Mans Quattro – The making of the prototype
That takes you straight to it.
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (4:58 pm)Lyle, you are so lucky. Glad you had a nice meeting and thanks for keeping us up-to-date.
Tim, #32. I know there is no accounting for taste, but I don’t like the 2008 Malibu. No, that’s not right. “Don’t like” is too harsh. The problem I have with it is it looks like a lot of other cars on the road today. It blends in. The Prius stands out (for good or bad), a lot of the Chrysler cars do as well. The concept Volt does also. But the Malibu doesn’t. It would be nice to drive around in a car that is different looking and when people look at it, they will know it is a Chevy and know it is green.
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (4:58 pm)There is an article on the Audi Quattro designed using a team similar to the volt.
Google
Audi Le Mans Quatro – The making of the prototype
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (5:06 pm)[quote comment="14686"]RE: RE: GXT #15
Because Toyota has been testing lithium ion cars since 2001. Do some research, google lithium ion Vitz.
Imagine the headlines “Massive Recall on Dangerous GM Volt Batteries, Stocks Take a Dive”. Think about it.[/quote]
Kel,
You should do way more research yourself. Toyota tested older generation lithium ion batteries from one vendor, Panasonic, which still used chemistry that suffered from thermal runaway. The Volt batteries from A123 Systems do NOT suffer from this issue. There is no “explosion” scenario. There are tons of specs on A123 System’s cells all over the web.
The difference is Toyota spent years testing an inferior battery hoping it would get better some day. All Lithium Ion’s are not alike!
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (5:08 pm)Lyle, your contribution to the jihad against oil will be noticed and rewarded by Allah.
Salem Aleikum!
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (5:22 pm)Bruce g #35, Now that’s a cool looking car!
Audi Le Mans Quattro.
http://www.carbodydesign.com/archive/2005/11/18-audi-le-mans-quattro-making-of-prototype/audi-le-mans-quattro-making-of-prototype.php
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (5:25 pm)After this fantastic news, I have a question for the members of this site.
Do you think now would be a great time to buy GM stock?
I am convinced it is, and have been buying up GM stock in the last few weeks (avg price $34). GM’s market cap is 1/10th of Toyota’s. The combination of cost-savings due to the union deal, increased sales due to a quality Malibu and a leapfrog of competitors in technology with the Volt can cause GM to equal or better Toyota in market cap in short order. That would be a ten-fold increase in share price, not including the dividends (3.25% yield currently).
Currently new developments with the Volt seem to have no effect on the GM stock. With our knowledge of the Volt and our belief that it will be very popular, we may know something the market doesn’t.
I would compare this scenario to Nintendo with the Wii in 2006. It had won rave reviews before it was released, but the market didn’t take it into account until it was released. The stock has gone from about $13.50 to 69.00 currently. I am convinced GM will have a similar run up.
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (5:45 pm)RE Dan D post #38
I’m not into stocks much, but I do believe in putting money where mouth is. On this level it appeals to me. As investments go this would be in the long term category.
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (5:46 pm)What appears to be a new picture:
Although no new news in the news article.
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN1422012720071114?pageNumber=1&sp=true
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (5:50 pm)What looks like a new picture, shows how short the wind screen is (hopefully that will change as aerodynamics are improved).
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN1422012720071114?pageNumber=1&sp=true
I know there’s no new news in the news item though
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (6:04 pm)Some article updates:
“There’s a showdown at the O.K. Corral coming” over the battery technology, Lutz said, citing Toyota’s decision to postpone using lithium ion batteries because of problems it had developing them…..
“About Easter” 2008 “we’ll find out who’s right and whose credibility takes a hit” over battery claims, Lutz said. GM will test the system on the road extensively in the first half of 2008.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/BUSINESS/71114052/0/BUSINESS
GM could lease batteries:
http://www.just-auto.com/article.aspx?id=93084
Lutz Says, “Chevy Volt Won’t Look Like the Concept”…
“Test vehicles will be running in the first quarter of 2008 with 40-45 miles of electric drive,” he said.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=123433
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (9:23 pm)On the Stock Issue.
I believe the volt will be a success. I even more strongly believe that the “Serial Hybrid” will be a success. Other car makers are free to pursue serial hybrids. None of this guarantees GM stock will ever benefit from this. The first to hit new markets are always the one to prosper in them.
It is common for new emerging markets to have companies jump in feet first before the technology is developed enough and then collapse before the segment really takes off with newer technology and new ways of implementing it.
Not trying to be doom and gloom just saying it is a possibility. GM is huge and established that should go a long long way to preventing the above senario.
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (9:34 pm)Lyle, This is great news! Great JOB!!
One comment on a previous discussion regarding the interior space for the Volt. Someone said the Volt headroom was 37.3 and leg room of 31.3. I assume this was a typo or something. I cheched the specs for the Malibu – headroom was 39.9 and legroom of 41.9. I assume the Volt will be similar. If not, can I get your Malibu Mule after you get you Volt
Vernon
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (10:01 pm)Anybody know any rational reason Toyota would stick with inferior Li-Ion tech from their Joint Venture with Matsushita (Panasonic EV Energy) besides the following:
1.) HIGH OPPORTUNITY COST – Just built a new plant next to their existing facility Shizuoka Prefecture.
http://podcasts.autobloggreen.com/2007/07/15/panasonic-ev-energy-expanding-nimh-capacity-by-50/
2.) TIME TO SCALE – Toyota originally established the JV with Matsushita for the Rav4 EV due to schedule limitations. They probably thought the technology would evolve and they could scale quickly subsequently, when in fact they were stuck with dead-end chemistries
. See URL at end of comment.
3.) PRICING LEVER FOR ELECTRONICS COMPONENTS – Although Toyota has reduced their dependence on Denso over the years from ~70% to ~50% of electrical components, Denso has moved beyond Toyota to a wider supply base. They may be holding out from Denso with this strategic business opportunity knowing as a negotatiating tool.
***What makes me worried is if Denso has some stealth development chemistry that Toyota keiretsu is funding patiently. Does anyone have access to the paper below for the Vitz product development that may provide some insight?
http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2004-01-0066
(Quote)
Nov 14th, 2007 (10:22 pm)Here it is! Toyota’s stuck with a majority stake in the JV (60%), not just 40%. They own 60% of that new plant and need a return. I don’t care if you say that investment is sunk, that’s a pretty serious chunk of change. Magnitude matters, at least psychologically. It’s also difficult to change strategies quietly under the radar because of non-compete clauses that would threaten to break up the joint venture. Last time I checked, Toyota hasn’t claimed being fallible in a long time
Personally, though, I think a portion of the problem is lingering extreme Japanese nationalism and xenophobia. Japan never really went through an open and honest reconciliation with its crimes during WW2, and I think there are still significant remnants of this thinking there. Why would they work with a Korean company that has a superior solution for their need (e.g. LG) when they can suffer through with a Japanese counterpart in the prayer that their chemistry evolves (Matsushita/Panasonic)? It’s just like the Xbox 360 vs the Sony Playstation!#$!#! If it’s not from Japan Inc., it doesn’t matter about time to market, elegance of the offering, or technical merit of the solution.
I can’t wait for the Volt to come to market. I can support getting off oil, North American system design & development, world-class technical solutions, union assembly, minimal environmental impact, and an incentive for alternative sources of energy. What else could you want?
Keep the pressure up, Lyle! You are doing an awesome job.
“Progress from Within
Toyota, with big hybrid dreams, is not waiting for the small players to deliver. The Japanese maker of the Prius and Highlander Hybrid recently spent $740 million to establish a nine percent ownership stake in Fuji Heavy Industries, which makes advanced hybrid batteries (and Subaru vehicles). In October, Toyota also increased their equity in Panasonic EV Energy from 40 to 60 percent. PEVE, the world’s leading supplier of nickel metal hydride, will act as they key player in Toyota’s recently announced venture to develop a lithium ion battery for hybrid cars.”
http://www.hybridcars.com/technology-stories/lithium-ion-batteries.html
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2007 (11:50 am)“Because Toyota has been testing lithium ion cars since 2001. Do some research, google lithium ion Vitz.”
Follow your own advice. That was a mild hybrid with a tiny battery pack that juiced a belt-alternator-starter hybrid. It wasn’t plug-in and it certainly wasn’t a fully hybrid system. So who is it that needs to do some damn research, again?
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2007 (11:58 am)Also, ethanol is a dead end. Even if you just consider the amount of energy per hectare that you can get from ethanol – whether from switchgrass or from corn – it doesn’t work. You’d need more arable land than exists in the entire US to replace 50% of our gasoline demand with corn ethanol…and that packs four times the energy return as cellulosic ethanol.
And if you think it’s a greenhouse gas fighter, welcome to reality. The production of a gallon of ethanol packs a worse greenhouse punch than what you get from burning gasoline. Sure, it’s carbon neutral, in theory – but growing a field of fertilized crops releases nitrous oxides that pack 238 times the greenhouse punch of CO2. The microbes living in soil eat most of the fertilizer that gets dumped onto the field, and hey presto, they fart out nitrous oxides.
And never mind that intensive agriculture pollutes the air and water, destroys good agricultural soil, contributes to “dead zones” at the mouths of major rivers, and causes increased topsoil erosion. Are we really prepared to mine our farmland for fuel when, when it comes down to it, we need food more than we need mobility?
I’m not even getting into the economic fallout of devoting most or all of our farmland to biofuel production, either.
Ethanol can NEVER be anything but a small niche player, a few percent of our gasoline use. The energetics, ecological impacts, and greenhouse-positive nature of their production prevent it from being taken seriously by any informed commentator. As an ecologist and environmentalist, I’d almost rather we burn gas in smaller amounts than bother with biofuel production. Energy efficiency and ecological remediation will save us far more than “switching” to biofuel ever will.
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2007 (1:12 pm)In regards to the previous post, you are correct about ethanol CURRENTLY.
Ethanol from cellulose may dramatically change things. Think of the current technology as a loss leader. Both biologists and chemists are working on the real ethanol research (cellulose based). So don’t write ethanol off yet.
There was a good article in the NY times a few days ago about this. Basically, chemists opened a full size ethanol plant, it takes in plant matter and puts out ethanol. It just might be the beginning of something great.
death to oil – http://www.oiljihad.org
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2007 (3:00 pm)“Ethanol from cellulose may dramatically change things.”
Unfortunately, it will not. Cellulose can only yield 18 gigajoules per hectare at best. At current gasoline demand, it would require 15% more land area than is within the borders of the continental united states to replace gas. Clearly this is preposterous – but even placing the entire great plains under cultivation would replace only 19% of our demand. Even that is laughably unlikely.
It all comes down to the quantity of energy in your feedstock – and there is not sufficient energy in cellulosic feedstock to make it a practical gasoline replacement, even fractionally. 18 gJ/ha is the upper limit. Agricultural waste is lower. We might, by rigorously tapping every cellulosic waste stream and growing switchgrass where possible we can get our hands on, replace 15% of our gasoline needs. It’s a niche player, nothing more.
I’m offering these comments not as a doomsayer or because I’m anti-green. I’m an ecologist who’s interested in policy and energy, nothing more. And I don’t want to see the empty promises of greenwashing industry shills lead us down a path of different, but equal, thrashing of the environment to serve our energy needs.
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2007 (3:34 pm)Test Mule Needed??
My wife calls me a mule from time to time… or some other name people use for mules.
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2007 (4:29 pm)Ill bet its not..donkey
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2007 (7:55 pm)The 2009 Siverado hybrid will include a 300-volt nickel metal hydride (NiMH) battery. Exactly what Mr. Lutz has said wouldn’t work for the Volt-.
The EV1, a great car (I drove one) and the most efficient production vehicle in automotive history (GM’s words) used a 330-volt battery pack. Even the lead-acid original went over 75 miles per charge; the 1999 Gen II NiMH model went over 140 miles on a full charge.
Mr. Lutz, I’ll buy a 2009 Silverado (hold the truck) and one of your surviving EV1s (hold the lead-acids.) GM can make EVs now!
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2007 (11:54 pm)Snark #55:
Please teach me more about why ethanol is a dead end. I’d like to be informed of this data. Do you have any good links to direct me to? I intend to modify my website if what you say is true.
I thought cellulosic ethanol could yield far more than 4x the amount from corn, per ton of plant matter.
How do you think the government and private industry was tricked into investing in cellulosic ethanol if it can never meet enough of our demand? Was private industry doing this because of the tax credits?
Any info would be appreciated. Thanks.
(Quote)
Nov 16th, 2007 (12:32 am)Ethanol is a political boondoggle for the mid-west, from which powerful politicions come from. And regadless of the source of the plant sugar, it still takes energy to 1st ferment it, and then more energy to distill it. On top of that, ethanol from my understanding can’t be piped (at least not in existing pipelines) because it absorbs moisture, etc, so it takes more energy to transport it (and up here in the Northeast we aren’t close to where ethanol can be produced.
On another note… I still wonder how different things would be today if GM had NOT sold the Cobasys patent on those advanced NiMH batteries. See http://ev1.org/msg/10.htm
(Quote)
Nov 16th, 2007 (11:32 am)David, #56:
Don’t feel like the Lone Ranger.
Especially when I bring up these weird automotive issues. She likes her 95 Impala SS, and doesn’t want to hear about changing to an Aveo or something to gain 10 mpg.
You should have heard what she had to say about my Insight idea!
It is going to take something really game changing like the Volt, with spectacular mileage and 4 door convenience, to move most people to change.
(Quote)