A Word About the Volt with Fritz Henderson, CFO of General Motors
It’s not every day I get to talk with someone who handles billions of dollars, so I guess I got a little nervous.
GM graciously invited me to their annual NYC holiday party for journalists, at which Fritz Henderson, the CFO of GM was a distinguished guest.
I couldn’t resist the chance to ask a couple of Volt questions of the General’s head money man.
I asked him whether he thought the Volt would be a money loser for the company.
He explained that the car was a new technology, he likened it to the first version of the iPod as an example. He expects the costs of production to be considerable at first, but that over the long run, in generations 2 and 3 and beyond, it should be profitable for the company, as costs come down.
Specifically, he declined to comment whether he thought the first version of the Volt would lose money for GM, but that “it wouldn’t surprise him”. He cautioned though that GM is in business to make money and that (building the Volt) was “not a hobby”.
I also asked what he thought about the idea of leasing the Volt’s battery. He explained that he was intrigued with the concept, considering that the battery would still have considerable monetary value even after its ability to propel the car for 40 miles had degraded.
He mentioned that GM is still trying to figure out the conditions of a lease and who the lessor and lessee might be. Also at discussion is what third party might be there to purchase older batteries. No decision has been made yet.
What was clear is that Mr. Henderson was acutely aware of the Volt and it’s issues, and what the plug-in revolution may mean for the company’s financial future.
Popularity: 1%
Related posts:
- Bob Lutz Impressed with CNBC’s “Saving General Motors”
- Saving General Motors
- Tesla Motors Chairman Elon Musk on GM, Toyota, and the Whitestar
- GM’s CFO Thinks There’s no Recession but Car Prices will Rise
- GM CEO Rick Wagoner Tells Obama About the Chevy Volt and Gives Financial Assurances
(No Ratings Yet) 
Loading ...
62 Responses to “A Word About the Volt with Fritz Henderson, CFO of General Motors”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- The 2009 Detroit Auto Show Should be Electrifying
- Chevy Volt Battery Temperature Control
- EEStor Gets a Trademark Patent on EESU and Provides Specs for a 24V EESU
- More Future Volt Competition?: Lotus E-REVs and Solar-Powered Toyotas
- Poll: Which 2010 Hybrid Would You Buy?
- Happy New Year From GM-Volt.com
- 10,000 Camaros Have Been Pre-Ordered, How Many Volts Will Be?
- How Will Air Conditioning Affect the Chevy Volt’s Electric Range?
- Volt Chief Designer on the Public Reaction to Chevy Volt Redesign
- US Battery Companies Seek Government Funds to Establish US-Based Lithium-ion Production Capacity
December 13th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Thanks Lyle, these were the good questions to ask (I’m an economist) and I also think your conclusions are to the point.
If the CFO of GM gives such answers is in effect the sign that the Volt is an important project and “not an hobby”.
December 13th, 2007 at 9:57 am
I agree ….those were well-chosen questions, Lyle!
My personal preference would be to purchase the battery as part of the car, not lease it. Although I’m an astrophysicist with a good understanding of math, I once leased a new GM car then shortly thereafter converted the lease to a GMAC loan because I never could quite feel secure that the real cost of money via the lease wasn’t more than thru outright ownership. I understand that the lease approach might make a Volt buyer feel less worried about battery life. However, I’ve worked on spacecraft batteries that last over 20 years and I’ve studied the published work on the Volt’s battery. So far, it appears very unlikely to me there will be any significant risk to an owner — these batteries should easily last 15+ yrs!
December 13th, 2007 at 10:11 am
I would never buy a vehicle with a leased battery. If GM were to terminate the lease on your batteries you would own the heaviest paperweight the Volt. They did it once, history could repeat itself. How would you sell a vehicle. Would you be able to transfer the lease. Leasing the batteries is a terrible idea and will only make consumers seek out another auto maker. Look how successful Toyota is with the Prius and they do not lease their batteries. I believe this will be a big turn off for most consumers. Will GM put a mileage requirement on the lease of the batteries. It’s obvious that GM cannot keep the price of the vehicle under the price they specified so to do that they lease the batteries and say hey the car is at the price we stated previously. By the time the Volt goes into production if it ever does, GM will have screwed everything up. I was optimistic at first but the more I hear the less I believe the vehicle will be produced.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Nice job, Lyle, as usual.
I don’t feel comfortable with a lease, but I will have to wait and see how much the lease costs and what the conditions are.
Nasaman, interesting background you have.
I have a question for you. Do you see a time (in the not too distant future) when battery technology will give us nearly 500 miles between charges and last for many years? Thanks in advance.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:26 am
[quote comment="19358"]Nice job, Lyle, as usual.
I don’t feel comfortable with a lease, but I will have to wait and see how much the lease costs and what the conditions are.
Nasaman, interesting background you have.
I have a question for you. Do you see a time (in the not too distant future) when battery technology will give us nearly 500 miles between charges and last for many years? Thanks in advance.[/quote]No, I don’t see 500 mile batteries coming. It’s important to note, as we do in the space program, that batteries are NOT the source of energy –they simply store it. So even though Sodium Ion or another high energy density technology will likely emerge to reduce battery weight, I think it’s unlikely to result in batteries good for much more than about 100 miles. Think about it — after driving 500 miles you’d STILL be faced with a recharge stopover. And recharging a 500 mile battery would take 10X longer than recharging a 40-50 mile battery!
December 13th, 2007 at 10:31 am
I agree with Nasaman #2 and Rashiid #4.
If I have to pay a little more for a purchased battery, so be it. But, a leased battery is a deal breaker for me. It’s that simple!
December 13th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Nasaman #5
Thanks for the information! It would be great having a 100 mile battery, but A 40-50 mile battery with a 600 mile range extender serves my needs quite well.
Lyle, another nice job! Thanks from all of us!
December 13th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Sounds like we’re all ready to BUY the entire Volt, including its battery, and help start an “E-REV-OLUTION”!
December 13th, 2007 at 10:56 am
I think a 500 mile battery would be great. Somebody is working on a 1000wh/kg, 1000wh/kg one. This chemistry’s theoretical specific energy is 11,600 Wh/kg. I don’t know how fast this could accept a charge but if it’s as fast as the Nanosafe battery that would be plenty fast. One “trick” to accomplishing quick charging would be to charge directly from another battery which has been charged more slowly at 110 or 220.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:58 am
I could see leasing the entire vehicle but, not a part of it.
E-Revolution…
December 13th, 2007 at 10:59 am
I agree with the above — No Leased Battery.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:11 am
I read an article somewhere not too long ago pertaining to possible reuse of hybrid car batteries, and I believe that I noted it here.
Pacific Gas And Electric in northern California is supposedly experimenting with using Prius batteries which have lost enough capacity over time to be impractical for continued use in the car. Supposedly they still have enough storage capacity left that they are going to try putting them in buildings to store off peak power for peak use.
From what I se of the Volt batteries, maybe they would be even better for this. They are sure bigger in terms of capacity anyway.
Has anyone else heard of this?
December 13th, 2007 at 11:19 am
I hope that GM realizes that if they lease the batteries they will lose a lot of sales, and that the car price then should be, ‘comfortably under $20,000′.
I really want to see this car soon, I want to buy one a few months after it comes out to see if there are a lot of bugs, but I do want to buy it in the worst way to keep my energy costs from going to the worst thugs in the world like they do now…
And it would help if it looks nearly as cool as the concept and can do 0-60 under 8 seconds…
But I can’t shake the feeling that GM and Lutz are going to drop the ball somehow.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Nasaman, #5, Thank you very much for your reply. I appreciate it.
Long live the Volt!
December 13th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Personally, I believe that the range-extending electric car is the best light vehicle design possible. I’m sincerely planning on buying a Volt for my next car. With that being said, I really dislike the idea of leasing the battery. To be honest, it is not a deal-breaker unless another E-REV is on the market. I’d like to purchase the battery, and when end-of-life comes, I’d like to integrate it into my home for on-site power storage. I’m really big into V2G, but with the development of the Smart Grid and increasing usage of intermittent renewable power sources, especially wind here in Texas, I think that the best way to effectively use that energy is going to be distributed storage in homes. I want to be able to use the cashed Volt battery for that purpose.
And question for the rest of you about the batteries: (For the technicals who know) Wouldn’t adding more and more batteries result in massively increased torque output, unless the power is sent to multiple motors, I guess, but which could be a problem for the vehicle components? I’ve heard of a University of California professor converting a Ford Explorer into an EV and tearing the axle.
And for the rest of you as consumers: What reason do you have for wanting it to be battery-powered only without a range-extender? Batteries are capital-intensive, low-operating cost, investments. While an ICE is a low-capital investment, high-operating cost investment. An EREV combines the two factors into the most cost-efficient way. So why make it all capital-intensive? A 500 mile battery-electric stills puts you in a spot if you have a 510 mile trip. A 40 mile battery electric with a range-extender never does, unless you just run out of gas.
December 13th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Comparing the Volt to the first generation iPod is both exciting and scary. Maybe I’ll wait for the iPhone. I mean, 2nd gen iPhone.
December 13th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Good questions Lyle.
nasaman #5 - Thanks for your input, and it is great to hear from someone working in the space program, but I don’t agree that 500-mile batteries will not be here soon, or atleast available within the next decade or so. Whether they be chemical batteries, or capacitors of some kind, I see a day soon when pure EVs will be the standard (and therefore utilize 500-mile batteries).
With all of the money pouring into battery tech these days, and the demand for batteries to become smaller and hold more power (e.g. demand from manufacturers of personal electronics, military equipment, cell phones, cars, etc.), I see the industry climbing over any walls that they come to, technologically. There is just too much demand in the market now, and for the foreseeable future, for this technology to stagnate.
December 13th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
With a 500 mile battery, you’re still limited by the laws of physics in getting that energy into the battery. Even if you had a supercapacitor, the electrical current available in your garage simply doesn’t flow fast enough.
Say you have a 100 kW∙hr battery and you want to charge it in 10 minutes. That would require current of almost 3000 amps, compared to say a 220V 50amp connection in your garage. You could get 1000 amps from a special connection hooked up the main grid, but it would be difficult to supply that kind of power the way gasoline is provided. You could also provide that kind of current if you had a bank of supercapacitors that were charged slowly over time from a more modest connection, but we’re getting into George Jetson territory now.
So the model as I see it electric range to cover commutes, and a range extender with gasoline, ethanol/methanol, or hydrogen.
December 13th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
First off, AWESOME job Lyle!!! I’ve lurked on this site for some time now and am more than impressed!!!
I haven’t been this excited about a car in a long time. I can’t wait to get my hands on a Volt and stop paying my hard earned cash for gas.
If I couldn’t buy the battery with the car I wouldn’t buy one at all. GM needs the Volt to be under $30K including the battery.
I would however consider leasing the whole car, even though I NEVER lease my cars. My commute is short and I don’t drive much more than 9000 miles a year. A couple hundred a month for a 2 or 3 year lease would make my a lot of sense, seeing I will only need the ICE once or twice a week (if that). The Volt would be very cheap to own for me. Then I would dump it at the end of the lease and pickup a gen2 or gen3 if it was working out well.
If I could BUY a Volt and the battery, I could see buying a new battery when the origional dies. But only if the rest of the car holds up well. GM needs to make the gen2 and gen3 batteries backwards compatable with the gen1 cars. I tend to buy cars for the long haul. I wouldn’t have a problem paying for a new and improved battery if I was happy with the car to begin with.
I agree it needs to look cool too, but I know it needs good aero to get the range needed. PLEASE don’t make it look anything like a Prius!!! The fit and finish needs to be there too. One of my biggest complaints with the US car makers in general is the lack of attention to detail the Japaneese cars seem to have.
My biggest concern is that I live in the north east, Saratoga Springs (upstate NY). We get HOT humid summers and some brutal winters (getting 6″+ of snow today) I worry about the battery sitting out in my work parking lot all day in Jan or Feb when the daytime high is only about 12 degrees F. At night we see -10 or -20 F at times (but I do have a garage).
I also worry about how an electric motor, with so much instant torque on demand, will keep the wheels from spinning on snow and ice covered roads.
December 13th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Ziv, I don’t believe there’s any chance the Volt will be under $20,000…they’ve already said it will be around $30,000. Unrealistic demands don’t help much.
December 13th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Dave, my point was that if the battery was leased, the price should be adjusted accordingly. I don’t think that that is unreasonable. This car isn’t built on a Lotus chassis, it is an inexpensive Chevy with a very advanced, and expensive, battery pack. If you subtract the expense of the battery pack by leasing it, the sales price should reflect it.
GM watches this site, and I hope they realize that the lease is problematic with many of us.
December 13th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Steven
“Wouldn’t adding more and more batteries result in massively increased torque output”
Your post makes me think that you view torque as a problem, or potential problem.
“Wouldn’t adding more and more batteries result in massively increased torque output, unless the power is sent to multiple motors, I guess, but which could be a problem for the vehicle components?”
Torque is not a problem unless the drive train was not sized to handle the ouput of the motor. The battery should have a power rating high enough to handle the power of the motor; beyond that, adding more battery does not increase torque. The power delivered to the motor will be regulated by the controller, so unless the controller malfunctions a larger battery will not affect torque.
December 13th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Steven B asks why any of us would possibly want battery only …
I’ll answer for me. I don’t need to drive across the country. A hundred miles will cover all my needs and then some, especially since my wife will always a car too that can be an EREV or whatever. I like the idea of no maintenance. Have the ICE and you have oil changes and filters and all that to go wrong. A pure EV is simpler. Plug in at night and no stops needed ever even at Jiffy Lube. Okay, keep the tire pressure. I can handle that much.
But I know that I am part of a fairly small niche. For a mass appeal car EREV is the way to go.
December 13th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Do we know for sure that GM will be leasing the battery separately from the car, like so many here seem to fear? And if so, could it possibly be a preferred option for some people? I can see your average consumer liking the idea of GM taking the battery back at the end of its useful life. Personally I might want to run the original pack until it is “dead,” then keep it and buy a new one (assuming there is still some life left in the car itself). But I’m still not sure this would be possible. You’d need to bring your car to a shop or dealership to get the battery removed, and I bet they would want to keep it themselves.
I’m no engineer (yet), but I don’t imagine many drivetrain problems due to excess torque.
December 13th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Like varible ratio steering, I expect the accellerator will start turning the drive motor at about 1 RPM, 10 or so feet per minute, that should allow a controlled start on an icy road. But as you depress the pedal (a drive by wire pedal mind you) the next increment will accellerate more and more quickly. With digital control, there is no reason the throttle (so to speak) should not be a smooth as silk.
December 13th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Noel #12,
This is not about the used hybrid car batteries reuse by PGE but I kept in my bookmarks this news about V2G experimented by PGE :
http://www.pge.com/news/news_releases/q2_2007/070409.html
Could be of interest for some of us.
December 13th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Steven and Sentinel-
As far as I know, the torque and power of electric motors can be independently regulated by independently changing the voltage and amps. As Bill Dube of KillaCycle fame once told me, more voltage = more horsepower, and more amps=more torque.
December 13th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Once you have the volt designed, the extra effort needed to have a variety of versions with different configurations from pure EV to a different generator (e.g. the fuel cell) is relatively easy (for example, http://www.flytheroad.com/). In my opinion, this flexibility is the crown jewel of the series hybrid design. GM will really be missing a big opportunity if they don’t take advantage of this. For example, my daily round-trip commute is only 12 miles. I’d really value the option of buying a 20-mile EV range to save the money and the 250lbs of batteries. I’d also go for an even smaller engine and have the composite fuel economy be even better. I’d have slightly better acceleration due to the lower weight, but a lower top sustained speed and lower speed up big, long hills due to the lower power ICE. I would be very satisfied with that.
With respect to recharging huge battery packs quickly, another way to look at the issue:
100kWh in 10 minutes means 600kW of electric power. That’s just not something that is designed into the grid right now. Think of 600 1000W hair driers running in a house at the same time. I don’t even have that many outlets in my house.
December 13th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Jean-Charles, #26:
Thank you.
They put forward one idea which had not crossed my mind. Tha is, using your hybrid car batteries to feed back into your own home or business during peak hours to avoid peak hour prices.
Somehow, that seems a lot simpler and safer that hooking up to the massive and anonymous “grid”.
December 13th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Lyle,
The next time you are talking to someone of GM, can you ask about the Volt in Europe?
I don’t want the Opel Flex.
December 13th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Jean-Charles, #26:
Also, let me say that it is really fun and exciting to see folks in Europe participating in these discussions.
We learn all sorts of things about what is going on in the automotive world there that we seldom see in any source here.
There is a gentleman named Gereon Langlitz from Germany who has posted many interesting and informative comments on the GM “Fastlane” blog. For example he has informed us about the Opel diesels you mentioned yesterday. 49 mpg? I had no idea. His family runs 2 current GM cars delivered by the dealers to run on Liquified Petroleum Gas. One of them is an Aveo, which is available here, but not set up for LPG. I said a long time ago on the Fastlane blog that I would instantly buy an LPG Aveo, but no response from GM. The gasoline Aveo’s mileage is so mediocre that I just cannot get interested.
Anyway, many thanks for participating, and alos for your charming idea of sending Holiday greetings.
December 13th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
It seems like most peoples’ understanding of technological advancement comes from computer chips, where improvements are frequent and exponential. Now this car board is full of people who assume battery technology will also improve exponentially without any justification or indeed understanding of the chemistry or physics involved. They just figure it’s “technology” so of course we’ll have 500 mile miracle batteries in a few years. Care to make these predictions interesting…??
December 13th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Well Tom,
One thing is for sure. If batteries that were used in cell-phones etc, suddenly are used in cars, then you have at least a 25 multiplication of the market.
This means 25 times more research in this field.
I am working in a tech company and I can say, that makes a difference.
December 13th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Also,
When I was on the university, a story was told that there was a theoretically limit of 100Mhz on the speed of processors.
Since then, I only believe in the limit of the speed of light.
Lucas
December 13th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Nasaman:
“And recharging a 500 mile battery would take 10X longer than recharging a 40-50 mile battery!”
This is not true. The limit is in the battery, not in the power cable. You can charge the cells in parallel.
December 13th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
AES
You can’t idependently change voltage and amps or torque and power. You could have a power management scheme or a current management scheme but you can’t regulate power indendently of torque.
December 13th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
I’m glad to get some answers to my questions from you guys. Thank you. So with more batteries, there is more voltage which can translate to more torque, but the motor has to be designed for the power throughput. Cool. Voltage, I know, translates to more torque, and amps equal horsepower. I just totally forgot that you can include a voltage converter. So it does make sense to have more batteries.
And with the reason for wanting an EV without a range-extender is something I already knew, but just forgot. Minimum maintenance. But then there is no point to having a 500-mile range BEV. I’m single, so I don’t have a wife, and therefore a second car. So that setup wouldn’t work for me. But I get why y’all would be interested. And having that in mind, I don’t think that the crowd interested in BEVs is that small. Although not everybody, you guys probably are a market the size of the sport coupe market. But you don’t need a fast-charging 500-mile range car if you’re in that segment. Primary cars need a range-extender.
December 13th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
[quote comment="19433"]AES
You can’t idependently change voltage and amps or torque and power. You could have a power management scheme or a current management scheme but you can’t regulate power indendently of torque.[/quote]
The KillaCycle is able to this, albeit indirectly, by using two electric motors and switching between series and parallel.
I don’t think a Volt could do this given that it’s a single AC motor. But it’s a novel concept regardless.
December 13th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
[quote comment="19431"]Nasaman:
“And recharging a 500 mile battery would take 10X longer than recharging a 40-50 mile battery!”
This is not true. The limit is in the battery, not in the power cable. You can charge the cells in parallel.[/quote]Sorry, you’re mistaken. Whether the battery employs 20-year Ni-H2 chemistry used in modern spacecraft or the LiIon chemistry for an EV, high battery recharge rates (charging cells either in series or parallel) will SIGNIFICANTLY SHORTEN battery life. (There’s also the very real practical problem of providing 10X as much current from a normal household source when charging a 10X larger battery).
So what you say is THEORETICALLY possible, but has serious practical constraints in real life. Believe me, GM has done their homework in sizing the Volt’s battery at 16KWh to achieve a 40 mile non-extended range plus a 10-15yr lifetime. This is a state-of-the-art design for now!
December 13th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
When I used to work with AC variable speed drives, it was the frequency that changed. (e.g. 15 Hz instead of 60 Hz ran a motor at 25% nominal RPM) This motor is supposed to be AC, so I would think that it would be the frequency, not the voltage. Varying the voltage was usually for DC motors (e.g. 45V instead of 180 V for 25% speed)
Have I been out of it too long?
December 13th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
On the battery’s lease versus purchase, I am not as sure of my thinking as most of the people posting above. It depends on the dollar amounts involved, and the conditions. Usually I favor outright purchase, but I know that battery life for a particular battery is notoriously hard to predict, even though the average lifetime may be predictable. Also, I know that there is a good chance that I will keep the car longer than the lifetime of a single battery.
So I am willing to consider all the possibilities — purchase, extended warranty, buyback, lease. I definitely do not want to spend another $10K only four or five years after purchasing the car, just because I got the short straw, so maybe I’d rather be part of a larger pool. It all depends on what the price levels are.
I don’t see this as the same issue as the end of the EV-1. There are lots of ways to kill the program apart from battery leases, should GM decide it all was a bad idea. On the other hand, that outcome doesn’t seem at all likely right now.
December 13th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Ziv @ 21, thanks for the clarification. I’ll reserve judgment about the lease possiblity–it could prove to be a good deal in the long run. But after the EV1, no doubt most consumers are skeptical.
December 13th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
40. Jim G.
Look here at some comments by “Master Tech”. Good info!
http://www.gm-volt.com/volt-discussion?forum=1&topic=175&page=1
December 13th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
If the battery is the only component which may not hold up, then I’d rather lease it if the cost is reasonable.
But on the other hand, perhaps I can assume GM doesn’t want the first Volt to be remembered as a failure, so they’d probably recall the battery if it didn’t meet their expectations.
Hmmmm…. I’ll have to request Allah’s divine guidance on this issue.
death to oil
http://www.oiljihad.org
PS. Thanks for the reply on the previous thread Scott.
December 13th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
GM and other companies are in the business to make money so if there is high risk in the batteries not lasting, that risk will be reflected in a high lease cost.
I prefer not to lease. Looking forward to an out right purchase of the car. Present policy is to keep cars until they fall apart, but with the Volt a new policy of early replacement will be adopted. I expect to keep the car two to three years and trade it in for a new model. This does two things: It rewards GM for building the car by buying immediately and often. Second, it minimizes the chance of being locked into a car with some annoying design issues that are cleared up in later models.
I trust that GM will wish to have a good name and will warranty the car and battery well.
Again, purchase entire car yes, lease batteries no.
P.S. If congress is going to take away those billons of dollars “tax benefits” from the Oil Companies, then Congress should give those tax savings to consumers to apply toward the purchase of hybrid plugin or BEV vehicles.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
AES
By saying that power can be regulated independently of torque, I assume you mean you can hold one constant while changing the other to any given value; is that correct? I don’t think this is the case.
Consider, for example, the KillaCycle going 50 mph. It will be generating a certain torque and drawing a certain amount of power. Now, if you want to go 60 mph, you have to raise torque; this will result in acceleration, increased speed and higher power draw. Likewise, raising power raises torque. It doesn’t matter if is split between two motors; the power/torque control is for the whole bike.
Here is the KillACycle website:
http://www.killacycle.com/category/press-releases/
They are just switching the motors from series connected to parallel. This makes sense because when the cycle/motors are stationary, the is no “counter electromotive force” so even though the voltage is split between the motors, there is still a lot of current, which produces high torque. As the cycle comes up to speed, counter EMF is produced in the motors which reduces the effective voltage, so the motors are switched to parallel configuration allowing full voltage to be placed across them. If full voltage was placed across the motors to start with, the current would be quadrupled! Say, for example, the motors are two ohms apiece; adding in seris would make them 4 ohms, adding in parallel would make them 1 ohm. Their resistance is obviously much less as 374 volts produces 2000 amps; the point is the same though. If they were wired in parallel to start, the current draw on the battery would be 8000 amps! This would produce insane torque, but it doesn’t look like the battery could handle it. Of course you could wire in starting resistors to limit the current, but the series arrangement to start is better.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:46 am
Here are my thoughts on the leased battery pack:
I have always puchased my vehicles, as I tend to keep them a long time, if I really like them. My initial reaction would be that I want to purchase the Volt and batteries.
However, at some point in time the battery pack will have to be replaced, and it will be expensive. Putting that much money into a 8-10 year old car would not make much sense. And using the old batteries for another purpose may not be an option, as there may be a requirement that the original pack has to be traded in when purchasing a new set of batteries. I am wondering if there would possibly be some proprietary components in the pack that GM would not want outside their control. Or could there be liability issues if someone takes a used pack home and tries to hook it up for some other purpose and blows up their house? I know that sounds crazy, but so are multi million dollar awards for spilling hot coffee on your lap….
A lease for this application would have to be very specialized. What happens if I decide to trade in early and buy a new car? Do I have to buy out the lease on the batteries? What about if the car is destroyed in an accident? How about if the pack fails? would the lease include free replacement or do I also have to buy some warranty package? And as someone else mentioned, would there be a mileage limit and a penalty for over mileage? These are all legitimate concerns.
If the battery lease addressed all these issues, was of a reasonable price and length of time, it may be acceptable. If so, at the end of the lease, your options would be to:
1. Have the pack tested, and if it is OK, extend the existing lease.
2. Sign a new lease for an upgrade to the latest model battery pack, which may have a better all electric range.
3. Turn in the battery pack, and trade in the car for a new vehicle. The person that buys the used car, would have to sign a lease for their battery pack.
For those concerned that this may be a ploy by GM to repeat the EV1 disaster, here is something to think about. Closing out the leases on 1,100 EV1’s and ending the program is a whole lot easier that trying to disable the vehicles of 60,000 owners in the first release year alone. So I do not really see this as a problem.
But I also agree that if the battery pack has to be leased, the initial purchase price of the vehicle MUST be significantly reduced.
S what do the rest of you think?
December 14th, 2007 at 1:21 am
You have some very good points Jim. I’d have to wait and see the details of any lease requirements before deciding. Like LyleL, I hold onto my camels forever. But with a Volt I might only hold onto it for a few years then trade up. I’m hoping for a minivan / Saturn VUE for one of my wives.
death to oil
December 14th, 2007 at 1:27 am
Is there a problem with giving the Volt buyer the ability to either buy or lease the battery? Folks concerned about battery life could lease if lease terms were acceptable, and others could buy the battery.
The issue of other uses of the battery - if you buy a Volt, including the battery, wreck the car but not the battery - the battery is yours to do with as you want. Hmmm …
December 14th, 2007 at 2:25 am
[quote comment="19478"]AES
By saying that power can be regulated independently of torque, I assume you mean you can hold one constant while changing the other to any given value; is that correct? I don’t think this is the case.[/quote]
No that’s not what I meant at all, since it would obviously violate Ohm’s law ( unless you increase R to lower I while keeping V the same?). Anyways, I just meant that maybe torque could be regulated using power electronics to avoid the car wheels slipping on ice.
In the grand scheme of things, I guess you could just use low throttle on ice and pray for the best.
Side note, if you look at information on the Equinox fuel cell’s AC induction motor, it looks like it doesn’t have a gear reduction at all, which makes it very unique from other AC EV motors, eg. the tesla or ac propulsion, or even the original EV1 motor:
http://alternativefuels.about.com/od/vehiclereviews/ig/Chevy-Equinox-Fuel-Cell-SUV/Equinox-FCEV-drivetrain.htm
“Power output of the electric motor is a continuous 73 kW (98 horsepower) and 94kW peak (126 horsepower). This arrangement has no gearbox for multiplying motor torque. As the fuel cell pours on the amps, the motor lays on the torque…The axle half-shafts connect directly to the motor output shaft and wheels through constant velocity joints. This arrangement affords minimal frictional power losses.”
December 14th, 2007 at 2:27 am
i love the fact that battery tech has been and will continue to grow exponentially (i.e. like a snowball, either fast like a downhill snowball, or slowly, like a little kid with not much strength building a snowman).
take a look at the first cell phone batteries, had to have a brief case to carry them around in. now we have tiny batteries with more power, shorter charging time and less cost, in 15 years.
the same has been, and will continue to happen with lithium batteries. but, even if it did not, it will happen with all of the other new batteries being explored.
and as has been said many times on this “car board”, capacitors will eventually be taking over.
moore’s law works for batteries as well as for other electronic devices.
December 14th, 2007 at 3:06 am
james (#51), you are ill informed about battery technology. Yes, there have been big improvements (NiCad -> NiMH -> Li-ion) but they have taken place gradually over the last 100 years. Notice that the Li-ion batteries that have been powering our laptops and cell phones for the last 15 years have not fundamentally improved in charge capacity, charge speed, safety, etc. 15 years!! That is hardly exponential improvement.
If you disagree, maybe you can list more than one flawed datapoint. (What you described with cell phones was a combination of many things, i.e., the switch from NiCad to Li-ion, the switch from analog networks to digital, and the dramatic reduction in power consumption from the handset electronics due to Moore’s law for _electronics_, not batteries. And even so, cell phone batteries were never the size of briefcases. Check out the first cell phone made by Motorola–bulky, yes, but certainly not briefcase-size. You must be thinking of some kind of portable “car phone.”)
December 14th, 2007 at 11:42 am
domenick,
Who is trying to make the amazing battery you spec’d above?
December 14th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
If I can’t BUY the car + battery outright, then they obviously won’t want my money.
Leasing should be an *option*, but it shouldn’t be the *only* option.
I’m waiting to *buy* the Volt. If I can’t buy the car and battery in its entirety, I’ll go somewhere else. It is that simple. All or nothing GM, All or nothing.
December 14th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
In ten years time if the battery is degraded to the point where it is no longer giving you 40 miles on the fifty % charge could they not just ajust the programing to let it deplete farther in order to keep the all electric miles up . Most people would consider the battery doesn’t really owe you anything now anyway and be willing to take the chance of it being pushed a little harder, I now I would.
Or perhaps when the lease is up and I own the battery I might like to ajust the all electric miles to cover my comute and or avoid the generator if it is giving me trouble.
For these reasons I think I would like to own my battery.
December 14th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Jihadi #48:
Wives??? You may want to keep that quiet, and for sure not put it in writing………
December 15th, 2007 at 1:59 am
Tom Says:
December 14th, 2007 at 3:06 am Quote
james (#51), you are ill informed about battery technology. Yes, there have been big improvements (NiCad -> NiMH -> Li-ion) but they have taken place gradually over the last 100 years. Notice that the Li-ion batteries that have been powering our laptops and cell phones for the last 15 years have not fundamentally improved in charge capacity, charge speed, safety, etc. 15 years!!
*** **** ****
First of all 15 years ago was 1992. I didn’t know too many people back then that had cell phones and specifically in 1995 most of the people I knew who had them had Ni-cad. I remember this because they had to run them all the way down due to memory effect. Ditto with laptops for the time as they used to come with battery conditioning software that actually trickle discharged the batt. to zero to alleviate the memory effect.
So it’s incorrect to make the statement that Li-ion has been ubiquitous for 15 or so years. Simply not true.
Additionally, 2-3 hour talk time for tiny phones and days of continuous standby is pretty good, and there really hasn’t been quite the push for more as much as there has been for features and performance.
EV’s are a different story, and I believe that batt. technology will take off as the competition between EV’s heats up, and range will certainly play a role.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:04 am
@wow#53
I was wondering if someone would ask.
http://www.polyplus.com/technology/laircell.htm
December 15th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
I have never leased a car. John Retsek on the Car Show in LA famously said that the car salesmen in the plaid sportcoats and the red polyester pants didn’t actually leave the dealerships, they just moved to the leasing office.
Even so, I don’t really care. Let GM put its pricing structure out there when the time comes. Buy, lease, combination of both, whatever. I am sure that everyone I have encountered on this blog is smart enough to figure out the bottom line and proceed accordingly.
Just make something happen before Toyota, et al, take over the world!
December 16th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
“And recharging a 500 mile battery would take 10X longer than recharging a 40-50 mile battery!”
I think a 40-50 mile battery does not exist nor does a 500 mile one.
If you took the 16KWh battery pack from the Volt and put it in an aptera it would do 150-160 miles on a charge! 27KWh takes a RAV4EV(er) 100-120 miles. It’s all about the vehicles power consumption!
December 18th, 2007 at 12:14 am
grizz 57. thanks for setting that straight.
tom 52. fine, the batteries in cell phones weren’t lithium to begin with, and the first phones that we were hauling around in ‘92 (or somewhere around that time) maybe were not called cell phones. so let’s call them portable phones, lol.
the portable phones were in a “box” about half the size of a brief case, but that was still pretty big. and as tech grew, the batteries and the size of the phones got smaller and smaller.
when i talk about exponentiality, i am talking about total overall development of a product line, that is similar to the line that it is replacing. nothing flawed in my points or my logic.
as for your point that these batteries have improved over 100 years, i must say, lmao @ that one. most of the battery improvements have taken place over the last 15 years. i don’t remember exactly when i bought my first nicad rechargeables, but it wasn’t all that long ago.
as for exponential, lol, let’s say that batteries have improved an added .00000001% (a purely hypothetical munber) per year over the last 100 years, it’s still exponential, as it grows, and then improves and grows again. it took a long time, but it’s still exponential, just not the kind of exponential speed that i would like to see.
back to batteries. so when i say that the batteries for the volt will grow exponentially, i am saying that maybe it’s lithium batteries this year, and then it’s sodium batteries next year, and then it moves to capacitors or whatever tech pops up.
again thank grizz, it appears that our friend tom (and i use the term extremely loosely)is quite Ill informed about all of this.
moore’s law will be working in electric cars as well…
December 18th, 2007 at 12:33 am
my apologies, when i say moore’s law will be working, i do not mean at the rate of doubling every couple of years for car batteries. however car batteries will be growing exponentially. there is another law (or rule) that states that tech will get smaller and smaller, and when it can’t (at the moment) get any smaller, it will get cheaper, and when it can’t get any cheaper, it will get smaller and smaller again.
it seems to have worked well in every thing from tvs, to vcrs (now called digital recorders, lol), to computers, cameras, well you get the picture, and if you don’t, well then i feel sorry for you, lmao.