Comments on: Your Questions Answered by Top Chevy Volt Executives, Part 6

By: Lynn Dorsett

Lynn Dorsett — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:44:12 +0000

I’m trying to figure out what the impact of charging a Volt will be on my residential solar system. Your site says that it will take 6.5 hours to charge from a 110v outlet. What is the electrical draw per hour during that time? Thanks.

By: AG

AG — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 02:20:47 +0000

I think solar is a great ideal too. I won’t pretend to know enough about physics and chemistry to know if 80% efficient conversion panels are even in the realm of possibilities.

So while GM of course isn’t going to let themselves be distracted by all our speculation (& this is the only blog I’ve ever even continued to read just because of the hopeful and polite dreaming); I am sure they, after they have released the basic Volt, they will want to design their cars so that they can earn as close to 100% of the cost of operating a vehicle as possible. To do that they’ll need to maximize efficiency, safety, and comfort. The creativity that has been lacking for so long in US manufacturing is on a comeback and it’s being let by GM. The days of actuaries calculating the legal costs of letting defects through to the consumer in Chinese style mass assembly lines (albeit, extremely well paid ones) are over.

By: james

james — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:18:44 +0000

doug k. 125, excellent points. and i am more for solar on the roof, than on the car.
however, this new “paint it on” solar tech stuff looks like it could hold up on a cars roof. i don’t know the watts/kilo watts etc of this stuff, just hope that sooner or later it may be effecient enough to work on a car roof.
in the mean time, an e-car with a house that has a solar roof looks good to me.

death to oil and oil companies, god bless the chevy volt, god bless nanosolar, and God Bless the USA!

By: noel park

noel park — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:49:38 +0000

rayo, #124:

Right!

Same for the V2G as far as I’m concerned.

Let’s just get the basic concept on the road, and worry about all this fancy stuff later.

By: Steven B

Steven B — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:56:02 +0000

V2G will not be done without a NET PROFIT. But it will be done. And I’m sure that the engine will not be operable if a sensor detects carbon monoxide levels outside of the norm. But in regards to your last point Tom, I just have to ask What?!? I don’t even know where to begin with that, or what you even mean. You make it sound like a car engine’s a bomb! I literally have no idea what you mean.

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:12:46 +0000

V2G may make you money (in a sense) but you’ll either be wearing out your battery or inefficiently burning expensive gas to do so. I’m sure that if you do a cost/benefit analysis you actually come out losing. Also, there are practical considerations, like the fact that running a car engine in an enclosed space may cause inadvertent death or explosions.

By: Steven B

Steven B — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:00:26 +0000

I agree completely about it being absolutely impractical to integrate PV into the Volt. But I disagree just as strongly about the rejection of V2G, and I sincerely suggest you read the research available on the subject at the University of Delaware website. You profit from using V2G. That’s net profit, and you’ll be able to get charged during the day during most of the year. V2G is not a dumb system, and you’re not going to provide grid services without getting paid for it. In fact the results of the research suggest that a person can net up to $2000-$3000 a year. That may not be reflective of the potential reality, but then again it may be. But the point is that V2G is not a dumb system or a scam by utilities. It is a way of grid optimization and if integrated into EV research and development ahead of time, it will save a lot of money for a lot of people by keeping from needing to get aftermarket upgrades. And the basic concept of bi-directional power flow from the Volt allowing it to serve as a backup generator is not an out-there idea. It is fully practical and a cost-effective solution to the rare problem (for most people anyway) of blackouts which normally happen in the worst conditions, either hot weather or cold weather. The Volt is more than just a car. It a tiny power plant on wheels. And it’s a car too. It does not take a lot of imagination to see a plug-in hybrid or range-extending electric to see that.

By: Doug Korthof

Doug Korthof — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:45:43 +0000

Solar modules on the roof make little sense.

We had one conversion with 4 panels, but they only were good for charging the 12v battery. It’s for show.

One panel, for example 170W Kyocera (that’s nominal, actual about 150W), would, if positioned in the BEST angle, produce (at the lattitude of L.A., rule of thumb is) 5 times 150W or about 750 Wh per day.

Of course, actual production would be much less, because it would not be in the best position, if mounted on a CAR. 750 Wh is the MOST it could do.

1000 Wh (1 kWh) is enough to take an EV from 3 to 6 miles, depending on aerodynamic configuration and speed. So you would produce NO MORE than enough electric to go two (2) miles. On most days, if the angle is about 45 degrees, you would be lucky to make enough electric to do one mile.

Now for the cost. On a car, you don’t get the rebate, because it’s not connected to the grid. You need a charge-controller and transformer, and the cost of the panel is about $750. So for an additional $1000 you can go at most 2 extra miles per day.

But that’s not the biggest problem; the EV and the grid compete for energy during the day.

If you look at the daily electric usage curve, there is a big peak in the daytime, when the electric is worth 4 times as much under some tariffs. So your solar panel would be better used ON YOUR ROOF to pump peak power into the grid; it can be positioned firmly in the best direction, can get the rebate, and can generate on average .75 kWh per day…but during peak, you get “paid” credits for 3 kWh!

That kind of leverage means if you charge the EV “off-peak”, slowly at night, your investment goes down to $500 (rebate) and the ONE panel produces enough to go up to 10 miles.

In addition, there’s the damage issue: panels are fragile, and don’t do well with lots of vibration … or crashes.

For the same reason, so-called “VTG” (plugging the car in during the day, when the utility sucks energy out of the car battery) make NO SENSE WHATEVER, because the car needs the energy at the same time the grid needs it (in the day) … and besides, it shortens battery life.

By: rayo

rayo — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:06:27 +0000

Why not just make the Volt with the basic options (and a few toys to make it interesting) Have it do what it is supposed to …electric power for the car with a range of 40 Miles + on a charge with the range extenders.. Let’s forget about it being a house generator, music studio, home on wheels, and drop the solar panels for now. We want a Volt right now… Let GM get on with it and get the Volt on the roads ASAP. Price with or without a battery lease (to make it realistic) is going to be in the $30k + range. When the Volt (version 2) comes out..the base unit will probably be $ 10K less but that’s when you can add all those options everyone is talking about..And we all know that if you buy the base unit… the aftermarket guys will be standing in line with all those options at a better price than would be offered by GM.

By: David

David — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:34:58 +0000

Tom, #118: Wow, are you a professional labeler? The point of blogs is to promote discussions. People have ideas and want to chare them, and it does not mean that person can be classified into a category.

I may like EVs and solar power (though not on the roof of a car) but THAT does not make me a Tree Hugger.