Many enthusiasts here have cited an interest in continuing to have two ports, although to some folks it doesn’t really matter.
I asked in interviews with Bob Boniface, chief Volt designer, and later Tony Posawatz, Volt vehicle line director, whether the plan was to have one or two ports in the production version of the car.
In both cases, the last of which was one month ago, I was told no final decision had been made. I did deliver the message from this site that having two was important to some.
Today, in WIRED magazine’s blog Autopia, there is a report that GM has decided on two plugs for the production car; left and right. Also there is a quote from Bob Lutz that he expects the car to lose money in it’s first two years (remember GM’s CFO wouldn’t confirm that).
So, a day to rejoice for those two-porters out there.
Source (WIRED)
[UPDATE: per AutoBlogGreen, the WIRED report may be inaccurate...stay tuned for clarification]
This entry was posted on Saturday, December 15th, 2007 at 12:00 am and is filed under Charging, Design, Production. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Dec 15th, 2007 (12:07 am)Is it just me, or is there no longer any question of whether or not this car will be produced?
When we are starting to answer little questions like “one charge port or two?”, it seems silly to wonder whether GM is really serious about the Volt.
Dec 15th, 2007 (12:20 am)I have no opinion on number of charge ports, front, back or side work for me.
Since the car will be plugged in after every drive cycle, I do hope they design the plug opening, and cover to not show ware from repeated open and closes, slipping (not quite hitting the hole) the plug around until in goes into the receptacle. Nasty to have a bunch of scratches on the side of the car.
Need to start looking for a pull down cable real to hang down from the garage ceiling. Drive in, reach up and pull down the power cord and plug it in. Ready to leave, unplug and cable retracts back up to the ceiling. Huzzah! No cables laying on the floor to trip over or catch with something and yank out of the car and NO bending over to pick up the cord!!
Hmmm… will the power cord reel be an optional product to purchase with the car or do we individuals need to get creative on that one?
Dec 15th, 2007 (12:29 am)Lyle – thanks for getting us this answer! This helps.
There are still a few other questions that have to do with charging ports that are as yet unanswered.
1) What will happen if you try to use both plug-in charging ports at once?
2) Will there be a cover over the charging ports that protect the contacts from the elements?
3) Will there be some type of protection to help prevent driving off when the cord is still plugged in?
a) Assuming yes to #2, will the car move if the plug-in port is uncovered?
b) Will the car move if there is a plug attached to the charging port, but the wire is switched off from the house?
4) Will there be an indication at the charging port that the car is charging (i.e. that the wire is hot and there is electrical contact at the plug)?
Dec 15th, 2007 (2:30 am)The more ports, the better. I’m wondering why they don’t design an inductive coupler. [a coil in the Volt that picks up the electric field from the stationary coil, forming a transformer] Electric razors and toothbrushes charge this way (ever wonder why there are no metal contacts on them any more?) Obviously the alignment would have to be very precise and the contact close, but this could be worked out with a self-aligning coil. Then you could just pull into your garage or parking space and it would automatically charge. I bet people would pay at least another grand or two for that option. Hello, aftermarket?
Dec 15th, 2007 (4:58 am)Aren’t they putting a port in the front? Infrastructure already exists to plug in cars in many parking lots in Canada because of block heaters. You pull into your parking space and plug in the front. Having it on the sides might be fine for when there is infrastructure to plug in curbside but they currently only exists in London.
Dec 15th, 2007 (7:05 am)Although perhaps for many it may not matter, for those who it does matter, the issue is significant in making the car as
convenient as possible – convenience is but one of the many things that killed the all-battery electric car. Besides, extension cords are universally despised.
Dec 15th, 2007 (7:29 am)It would be interesting to be able to charge via both ports using two independent electrical circuits, theoretically halving charge time.
The charge rate is limited not by the battery but by the wall circuit, nominally 1500W. The Volt’s battery pack will be based on cells with a continuous C-rate of at least 10C (for CPI, 35C for A123). For a 16KWh battery, that means a maximum charge rate of 160KW or a charge from 30% to 80% capacity in as little as 3 minutes.
But that’s over 100 times the power that we can get from a wall circuit. If we drew as much power as we possibly could at all times from the wall circuit, it would take almost 5-1/2 hours to charge the battery. A real-world charge time of 6 hours would be phenominal from an engineering perspective in light of this fundamental limitation.
The reality is that an 16KWh nominal battery is about as big a pack that can be charged overnight from a standard wall circuit. A 24KWh nominal pack would get about 60 miles and charge in 8-9 hours. That’s as far as we can practically go without doing something about the home charging limitation.
The transition to EVs is ultimately a set of challenges that could be addressed in parallel but might actually happen in series. Electric drive was held back by battery technology. Now the batteries are forthcoming, but they’re being held back by the power limitations of residential wiring. If and when this is addressed, it exposes the capability of the grid to support the (predominantly off-peak) demand from EVs. Then comes the issues with the energy sources in the electric mix.
The even broader issue for EVs is whether the challenge of upgrading the electric grid to support our transportation energy needs is so huge that we’re better off paying the 89% energy tax of the hydrogen process and building a distribution infrastructure for a pressurized gas rather than AC electricity.
I don’t think it is, but the free market is working against itself in this case. The electric companies stand to make a fortune by investing in their infrastructure and encouraging the auto industry to wean itself off oil and power their vehicles off the grid. But they stand to sell ten times that amount of electricity to vastly more concentrated consumers by supporting the inefficiency and centralization of the hydrogen economy.
So, to wrap things up, the home and distributed commercial charge infrastructure really matters a lot to the future success of the EV. A 1500W circuit is barely good enough for first-generation EV technology, and this should be a major focal point for short-term R&D.
Dec 15th, 2007 (7:43 am)If the recharging infrastructure is to evolve, won’t GM and all the other car companies will have to standardize on the plug recepticals?
Dec 15th, 2007 (7:50 am)A question to the electric experts. If GM would allow both sides to be plugged in at the same time, would this be equivalent to having a 220V plug in?
Dec 15th, 2007 (8:30 am)butters Says:
“The charge rate is limited not by the battery but by the wall circuit, nominally 1500W.”
Actually, a wall circuit is 15 amps, which would be 1800 watts at 120 volts. But the Volt is limited to less than this. We know that it takes the Volt 6.5 hours to charge 8Kwh of usable battery. That works out to around 1200 watts, or 10 amps at 120 volts. So the Volt only uses 2/3 of a wall circuit.
Note that 16 gauge 100 foot outdoor extension cords are typically rated 10 amps, so this is probably the limiting factor. GM doesn’t want people sueing them because they started a fire using a cheap extension cable.
Large E-Flex cars would probably require a different sort of plug. For example, 20 amp 120 volt connections use a T-blade plug. This would be double the charge rate of the Volt.
Dec 15th, 2007 (8:46 am)In Europe, I believe, 240v is more commonly used. GM will have use 240v charging there. It should be an option in the USA too. But I can deal with it either way.
Dec 15th, 2007 (9:01 am)I would not mind running a 240V circuit out to the garage, but I would put some kind of a switch assembly on the wall. I would not want to come home during a rain storm, pull into the garage and plug in a live 240V plug while standing in a puddle of water!
Another way to keep it safe would be to put a GFI breaker in the breaker box.
Either way, 120V or 240V, I will run a new dedicated circuit from the breaker box.
Dec 15th, 2007 (9:31 am)I think if you are going to have two power ports, then it should be Front and Back and should include a retraction device for the cable a la vacuum cleaner style. This would provide choice for when you may do a public provided charging station, which will begin to pop up at hotels and other places. One could back into the parking place or go front wise. There should also be a lockout so that one can not pull away from the charging station with out unplugging and storing the charging cable.
Dec 15th, 2007 (9:41 am)Excellent news, the masses will be thrilled. Now make sure the cupholders are big enough to fit something bigger than a coke can.
Dec 15th, 2007 (9:45 am)Two is good news, four would be better to reduce the extension cord “trip” factor in public places. Like someone mentioned once before about the amount of $$$ that has been awarded from people spillin hot coffee in their own laps. I can just imagine some one trippig over my cord and bumping their head and trying to sue me or GM.
IDEA #1: Have any of you seen the power cords on the new MAC books??? (no I don’t own a MAC). But it’s held to the laptop shell with a magnet instead of a male/female type connector. I think it could work for the Volts charge ports as well. That way if you were to accidently drive away or it gets tripped over (or driven over) it would disconnect from the car cleanly without damageing the charge ports on the Volt.
Dec 15th, 2007 (10:42 am)I’d like a plug on the front somewhere. Currently I live in an apartment, and I have a one car garage, but in it resides my project car. So I’d have to park in front of the garage and run a cable out from there. In the front of the car would be the most convenient.
But if the Volt only has ports on the side, I’m not going to complain, the car will be more than good enough for me!
Dec 15th, 2007 (11:29 am)Butters:
Li-ion batteries have a different C rating for charge and discharge. The charge rating for most li-ion batteries is 1C (not 10C). This is always the limiting factor when charging, now how much power your circuit can handel.
Dec 15th, 2007 (11:33 am)Sentinel #15:
interesting point. Being that it’s an enectirc car, it would be very easy to have the car simply not start if it’s still pluged in. I wonder if GM’s thought if this.
Dec 15th, 2007 (12:52 pm)Works for me. How many times have I charged into the last open pump at the cheapo gas station, only to realize that the filler is on the other side, yell “drat” (or some such), and have to jack the car around 180 degrees? We have had different Chevy trucks at one time or another with the filler on opposite sides, and my wife’s Impala fills from the rear.
Dave G, #3:
We must be distantly related. I am one of those brillinat people who pulled away from a gas pump once with the nozzle still in the car! Luckily, no damage. You should see me crane my neck in the mirror to double check now. At least give us a bright red idiot light. Although I guess that, if they can give us an idiot light, they can just about as easily keep the car from moving.
I think that extension cord reels that drop the cord down from the ceiling are an article of commerce for car repair shops. Let me check it out. It’s a really good idea, whoever suggested it.
Dec 15th, 2007 (1:28 pm)Geez, some people are never satisfied. Front, back, sides. Hey, how about the top or the bottom?
The car will have a port on each side, that’s good enough. Now quit your whinin’ like a bunch of four year olds.
Dec 15th, 2007 (1:31 pm)TO Jeff #11,
In Western Europe, we use 220V (officially it is 230 volts plus or minus 10%) and a frequency of 50Hz from Finland to Spain and from UK to Poland.
The plugs differ between UK and continental Europe.
And this site is more precise :
http://www.powerstream.com/cv.htm
Hope that helps.
Dec 15th, 2007 (2:25 pm)“Also there is a quote from Bob Lutz that he expects the car to lose money in it’s first two years (remember GM’s CFO wouldn’t confirm that).”
This car WILL NOT lose money.
If GM really wants to lose money, they should keep pushing the Hummer like they have been.
Dec 15th, 2007 (2:33 pm)scott #17 – Good point on Li-Ion charge rates, but I think the cells we are dealing with here may have different charge parameters. I don’t know about the LG cells, but the A123 cells that I am familiar with (power tool/RC vehicle applications) can be charged at 5C or more with no noticeable ill effects. A123 sells its RC packs with a charger that puts out 10 amps, or roughly 4.35C for 2300 mAh cells. This charges the pack in around 15 minutes. Obviously with a huge battery pack like the Volt’s, there would be a bunch of cells in parallel so charging would take longer. But if the household circuitry could handle it, maybe charge times could eventually be reduced somewhat. This is assuming LG or A123′s automotive cells have similar characteristics as described above.
Dec 15th, 2007 (2:45 pm)I expect both ports will simply connect to one internal battery charger, so plugging into both would not increase the power flow to the battery. Now if the car had two internal battery chargers, then plugging in both would provide twice to the power flow to the battery, something like 20 amps vice 10 amps. This would provide some redundancy is the charger proves unreliable.
Alternately, a 220 charging circuit might be offered as an option after motels and garages are wired for it. Otherwise, the 120 V port seems like a better idea.
Also in the future a docking port might have a market.
But for now, the Volt will have two ports, but one charger, and will take a little less than 7 hours to put 8 KWH of energy into the battery.
The guys at GM have a really well thought out design, where the car could be completly recharged during a work day.
I for one, think they have hit the sweet spot. Go Volt
Dec 15th, 2007 (2:53 pm)Could it be like dual exhaust, and those little holes on the front fenders of the Buick, that the “dual port” is simply a syling feature? I expect so and I like it alot. Go Volt!
Dec 15th, 2007 (3:03 pm)Here’s a common sight during a Canadian winter.
http://www.thefordsource.com/store/car_accessories/images/cv/large/6D008_block_heater_LG.jpg
It’s simple and works but many would say it hurts the Volt’s looks. Instead how about a simple opening door with a receptacle in the grill. I really think the best place is at the front of the car, it has worked for everyone with a block heater for many years.
Now, when you park your car at work or a friend’s house to charge there isn’t going to be a cord lying around like you’d have in your own garage or driveway. For this reason there should be a cord accessible from under the hood. Pat #13 mentioned this could be like a vacuum cord, or just rolled up in a loop would work for me. This sure beats going into the trunk every time.
Dec 15th, 2007 (3:30 pm)They should make the plug a common type for 110V and 220V, with the transformer in the volt handling both (and 50-60Hz). They should also get a USB connection wired into the plug, even if the first generation volt doesn’t use it. Later generation models can use the same plugs, with USB. This would be for vehicle-to-grid situations, and for payment processing when you plug in at a restaurant or common parking area of a condo / apartment building. Your credit card info could be stored (securely) in the Volt’s computer, and payment negotiation & processing could be handled automatically. Just plug it in and the rest is taken care of. No ATM machine card swiping and pin numbers, etc.
Furthermore, GM should make the plug and the computer code an open standard for all automakers to utilize. The last thing we need is a dozen plug types like Europe has for their wall outlets. GM should borrow a page from the computer industry’s play book.
death to oil http://www.oiljihad.org
Dec 15th, 2007 (3:32 pm)You know what would be cooler than 2 ports? Wireless power. Imagine pulling your car into the grocery store and automatically detects a power signal and starts charging. Same thing happening at home. Perhaps for those who live in a apartment complex.
Here’s a link for the technology:
http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/15/mit-makes-case-for-wireless-power/
Dec 15th, 2007 (3:37 pm)This is big news- good to hear it.
I can see GM putting an auxiliary outlet inside of the engine compartment that could be used to add an additional wiring point to another area of the vehicle, such as the grill for those who live in cold climates who are already accustomed to plugging in their vehicles in this area. If they don’t I am sure that people will come up with ways to do it. Part of the fun of owning a Volt will be to see the different hardware (and possibly software) hacks/tweaks that people come up with.
It’s the holidays and the present that I want the most I can’t have…*sigh*
Dec 15th, 2007 (3:41 pm)NOOOOO…
AutoblogGreen is now reporting the second port is a no go, “According to Rob, the port on the passenger side is strictly ornamental and the intent for the production car is to only have a driver side port.”
Two ports are needed! At this point I would be willing to pay for an extra port for the convenience factor alone.
Dec 15th, 2007 (3:46 pm)If it has 2 ports, I’d like to see one up front. I don’t see a situation where you can’t back in negating the need for ports on both sides.
Dec 15th, 2007 (4:09 pm)ROMI, #30:
I never take AutoBlogGreen very seriously. Their posts are often filled with misinformation, whether because of bad reporting or technical naivete on the part of the posters.
If you look at GM’s website, they state specifically that the E-Flex system includes dual charge ports:
http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/
(click on “What It Is”)
The context of the information On GM’s site leads me to believe that the passenger side port is not ornamental, and the picture clearly shows two ports, both with wires going down into the guts of the vehicle.
Dec 15th, 2007 (4:29 pm)I read Sams’ post on autobloggreen and it is possible the WIRED reporter got it wrong. Sam is very reliable and knowledgeable.
Remenber the source of this post didn’t come originally from me, I was simply commenting on another author’s report.
Ive got a call in to Rob Peterson, so we’ll wait to see what he has to say.
Dec 15th, 2007 (5:40 pm)I’d like to know, how GM is going to prevent the cord from being stolen. Are they going to have the cords retractable? And what about replacement cords?
Dec 15th, 2007 (6:57 pm)If Peterson did say what was reported, he may have been referring to the fact that the Volt model on display right now is obviously not fully functional. It is true that some of the car’s parts are ornamental for now, but that does not mean the production version won’t have two charge ports.
Dec 15th, 2007 (7:51 pm)The solution to the energy distribution problem is to have another set of batteries at home, work or any other charging station. These batteries can be charged 24/7 (or when cheapest etc) and then transfer the energy to the car as fast as the car can receive it.
BTW typical home electrical service is 100-150 amps. Your typical home circuit is 15 amps but adding a larger breaker and appropriate wiring would be no problem. Of course, you are limited to the total power available to the house. Pull too much power and the main breakers to the house will pop.
If you own 2-3 EV’s you might need to upgrade the power to the house. Adding 200 amp service to a house is done all the time to accommodate people with home shops etc at home.
Dec 15th, 2007 (8:18 pm)[quote comment="19810"]I’d like to know, how GM is going to prevent the cord from being stolen. Are they going to have the cords retractable? And what about replacement cords?[/quote]
You could have a standard cord in your car kit, but charging stations might have their own cords built in, a la Magne Charge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magne_Charge
Dec 15th, 2007 (9:10 pm)@Scott 17: It is true that lithium-ion cells with cobalt cathodes are generally limited to 1C. However, the nickle-cobalt-manganese system is rated for 5C, manganese (spinel) at 10C, and iron phosphate at 25C. These chemistries are designed for high power applications it the expense of energy density (about 25% less than cobalt).
But even if we were talking about a 16KWh battery with a 1C charge rate, or 16KW, that’s still ten times the power capabilities of a standard electrical circuit. The biggest battery that can be charged from such a circuit at 1C is less than 2KWh.
So, yes, with these large EV batteries, the standard 110V (or 220V) electrical circuit is always the limiting factor. The batteries could charge faster if we could feed them more power.
Dec 15th, 2007 (9:12 pm)Whoops, that’s 35C for iron phosphate. Still not quite used to this EeePC keyboard…
Dec 15th, 2007 (9:16 pm)Why are so many people asking for 220 volt charging? What is the perceived advantage? If the Volt and other E-flex cars take off, 220 volt charging will overtax the grid. Many plug-in experts say we shouldn’t even think about plugging in during the day. What is the advantage of faster charging when you’re plugging overnight anyway. I don’t get it!
Dec 15th, 2007 (9:40 pm)Dave, 220V charging will not overtax the grid, in fact it will reduce the load if done correctly. The grid is basically limited by how many amps it can provide, and the higher the voltage the less the amperage required to give the same watts. So at a higher voltage the same amps results in much more watts, or lower amps results in the same watts. The first scenario can provide the ability to quick charge a vehicle. America would of gone 220V like europe, but didn’t for safety reasons. In europe people die of electrocution far more often than in america, but in america every house has 220V because it’s 2 different 110v circuits at opposite phases (+110v and -110v = 220v).
death
to
oil
Dec 15th, 2007 (11:27 pm)Anti-Oil Jihadi,
If you ran 220v at 5 amps versus 110v at 10 amps, the load on the grid would be identical. In addition, the efficiency gained by 220v charging is insignificant, as discussed at length in the forum.
The real reason people want 220v is for faster charging. I see this as a selfish benefit, since faster charging will overload the grid.
I want the Volt to have mass appeal. I want millions of E-REVs on the road. So I don’t want people giving the Volt a bad reputation by screwing up the grid with fast charging.
Dec 15th, 2007 (11:31 pm)120 or 240 volt charging is a question of power (watts). 120 volt provides slow trickle charging and 240 volt could provide a fast charge BUT at a higher POWER rate in watts. This by the way is what the utilities use to charge us. For example: 120-volt at a low amperage charge, such as 5 amperes would equal 120 X 5 = 600 watt charging. 600 divided by 1000 equals .6 then .6 X utility rate (.08 in L.A.) equals .048 cents for every hour of charge time. This is not a problem for the utility company. Let’s examine the 240-volt plug-in. For a faster charge you would need a 240 volt 20 amp plug-in minimum. The 240-volt plug-in would probably utilize 12 amps or so. 240 X 12 = 2880 watt charging. 2880 divided by 1000 equals 2.88 kWhr. 2.88 kWhr X .08 = .2304 cents per hour. You can do the math yourself. 240 charging IS a demand on-the-grid that every local municipality and power delivery company would be looking at, however the slower 120-volt trickle charge would not be as noticeable to the “GRID”.
Dec 15th, 2007 (11:53 pm)GM has done their homework on this one. The standard U.S. 120-volt 15amp duplex (U-ground) type receptacle IS the receptacle that is used across the country for convenience. It is recognized in the codes and is installed everywhere. ALL other receptacles are specialty receptacles designed for a specific purpose and NOT widely used (at least outside) where we would be plugging-in with GM’s Volt. If you look around you will start to see these receptacles almost everywhere. Imagine driving around and plugging-in while you’re waiting or working or whatever. If the “Volt” reaches its “Full” charge you could do this all over the place and drive around for FREE!!
Dec 16th, 2007 (12:01 am)As Mel Gibson said in “Braveheart” FREEDOM, there’s nothing like it. We need to be “FREE” from oil. GM is going to make it happen, U.S.A. style. We all should be very proud!
Dec 16th, 2007 (12:29 am)screw the grid, i’m tellin’ ya in 5 years (probably less) we’ll all be making our own electric “fuel” from nano solar cells (and others like ‘em) on our own roofs.
Dec 16th, 2007 (12:32 am)wirenut 45. excellent movie! and i agree.
death to oil! god bless the e-rev electric chevy volt, god bless nanosolar, god bless a123 and l.g., god bless g.e., bell labs innovations, and a little company called google and God Bless the United States of America!
american made, american fueled, american driven…
Dec 16th, 2007 (12:33 am)The solar companies are in bed with the utility companies and when the utility power is “off” so is the solar array.
Dec 16th, 2007 (12:38 am)We need a “bootleg” software company that can re-program the electronics of the solar photovoltaic systems so that they can be independent of the utility company, just like the fuel and exhaust chips on cars and trucks.
Dec 16th, 2007 (1:46 am)@Dave 40: As long as a standard outlet can charge the battery overnight, that’s fine. The Volt’s 8KWh effective capacity can be charged in 6 hours, so we’re ok.
But as battery technology advances, and we want to have 60-mile range, that would take 9 hours to charge, butting up against what would be considered “overnight”. An 80-mile battery would take 12 hours. That’s no longer overnight in my opinion. So the standard outlet is not really a problem for Volt 1.0, but it’s a problem if we ever want more battery range.
The battery technology for 80-mile range might reach cost-parity with the original 40-mile pack within 3-5 years of the initial launch. Developing a way to charge such a battery at home in 6 hours without a significant capital expense might take much longer than 3-5 years.
My point is that battery technology, although it doesn’t progress extremely rapidly, is going to outpace our ability to supply enough power to charge them overnight at home. GM and other EV players need to take this into consideration and start coming up with mitigating technology today.
Dec 16th, 2007 (2:30 am)#27 : Instead of a USB connector, just use powerline communication instead. The technology has been commercial now for some time and would be a mature way to allow bi-directional communication. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_line_communication
#40 : You create your own paradox in which there is only one outcome, the grid would not be over-taxed. You correctly state that most charging would happen over night, which happens to be when the grid is most under-utilized. There are also other reason for 220V, but read on.
#41 : You are correct about this placing less demand on the system but for another reason, efficiency. And that brings me to…
#42 : In your first paragraph you state correctly that in theory the same level of energy would be used from the grid. The reality though comes down to how eletrical service is provided to the home, that being two 220V split into two poles.
If the Volt only ran at 110V, it would place a large demand on one pole only which could easily create an unbalance eletrical draw from the grid. Having our 110V system creates unbalanced electrical loads every day, which is where the inefficiency comes from. A simple scenario – 45A on pole 1, 35A on pole 2 – this leaves 10A worth of energy wasted. Using 220V would create a balanced load on both poles helping to alleviate potential loss.
In your second paragraph you give the “real reason” why people want it. Though I agree that there are plenty of people who would want it for fast charge capability, I do not think everyone wants it for that reason. For instance, a lot of people are interested in this vehicle becoming a backup generator for their home in the event of an eletrical outtage. Having 220V capability would give the person the ability to power their whole home without having to choose which circuits they want on in their home, or more importantly if they can use their appliances in some situations. I was in the blackout of 2003, and there are a couple of times I would have liked to eat cooked food but couldn’t because I have an electric stove. I would have liked clean clothes too, but my electric dryer wouldn’t work and it was raining out. Also, for some people, AC may be needed. All of these 3 appliances use 220V.
Furthermore, if people did want to quick charge their car, don’t you think that (here of all places) that should be encouraged? The main point of the Volt is to kick the oil addiction as much as possible.
#43 : Your math is strange to me. I’m not sure if you are trying to point out a cost-only issue or are trying to talk about average load. If cost is your concern, then it doesn’t matter how fast or slow you charge the car as you are going to pay for 8KWh worth of energy either way.
If maintaining a more constant average load is what you want, then that is understandable.
None of this is meant as an insult, I am just providing some debate to some of the earlier points. That is what I love about this forum, everyone provides thought-provoking debate.
Oh and …
#47 : I’m in full agreement with you brother! I fully respect other nations, but I love my country and the hard work and innovation of our younger generations. Our future will be built by them, and I love what they are bringing us. Indeed, God bless the USA!
Dec 16th, 2007 (1:41 pm)Number 4.
Blacksun, that is a great idea. A Volt Dock Station! (VDS) Sweet!
Dec 16th, 2007 (2:29 pm)Joseph Martin Says:
“If the Volt only ran at 110V, it would place a large demand on one pole only which could easily create an unbalance eletrical draw from the grid.”
The 10 amps for charging the Volt could just as easily help balance out the load between the 2 poles. Since transformers usually cover several blocks, it will tend to balance out statisticly. In addition, if the transformer sees an imbalance, I don’t think it will waste the difference. I’m pretty sure there are separate windings for each pole. So I don’t see this as an issue.
Joseph Martin Says:
“a lot of people are interested in this vehicle becoming a backup generator for their home in the event of an eletrical outtage. Having 220V capability would give…”
GM has already stated that the Volt won’t do this. The charger works in 1 direction only – from the house to the battery. If you want to use the Volt as a backup generator, you’ll need to buy a separate grid-tie inverter with a separate cable for backup.
Joseph Martin Says:
“Furthermore, if people did want to quick charge their car, don’t you think that (here of all places) that should be encouraged? The main point of the Volt is to kick the oil addiction as much as possible.”
In order to kick the oil addiction as much as possible, the Volt needs mass appeal. There need to be millions of E-REVs on the road. So if people give the Volt a bad reputation by screwing up the grid with fast charging, that could be very harmful to our cause.
Dec 16th, 2007 (4:00 pm)The location of the plug-in port should not be on the front fender, as it is now, for a number of reasons. First, in a garage space can be tight and if the door is opened and you want to plug-in coming from the drivers seat, which will happen many times over for whatever reason, a person would have to go around the opened door in order to get in to the drivers seat. I think the port should be located where the the gas cap is located on regular cars so one would not have an opened door in the way. I know the Volt will still need a gas cap so maybe my suggestion is not a good one due to safety. Fumes don’t like sparks. But,I think my idea should still be considered.
Dec 16th, 2007 (5:31 pm)Dave G #42:
“If you ran 220v at 5 amps versus 110v at 10 amps, the load on the grid would be identical.”
The same number of watts would be drawn, but the power lines are limited by their amperage. Thus if we use less amperage more people can own volts before having to upgrade the grid.
And as another person said, we need to plan for future versions of the Volt with much better batteries, thus we need 220V charging as an option.
Somebody else said that there are no widely used 220V sockets, that’s not true. There is a low amperage standard (good enough for the volt probably) and a high amperage standard. Electric clothes dryers are a good example of a 220V appliance that utilizes those types of standard sockets.
It wouldn’t take too much to make the volt capable of handling either voltage. It should be an extra option that GM profits from.
In my condo, err tent, Allah has commanded me to supervise the electrical upgrade in the parking structure, and I’ll be specifying 2 phase with high amperage wiring to 2 plugs, one 110V and the other 220V. Thus we won’t ever need to upgrade our wiring, and if/when 220V is standard, we’ll be ready for it, and we’ll be ready for higher amperage. We may need to upgrade our main feeds from the transformer someday, but not my new wiring.
Dec 16th, 2007 (7:22 pm)Anti-Oil Jihadi,
Yes, the amps on the local wire to your house might be more with 110v, but the grid includes a transformers for every 2-3 blocks, so what really matters is the power (watts), not the current (amps).
As for future E-Flex cars, 110v 20-amp T-blade cables offer twice the charging capacity of the Volt, so there is still plenty of headroom with 110v.
What really concerns me is that people will use 220v for fast charging. If a significant number of people start doing this, it will overload the grid and start causing rolling black-outs. If the Volt gets blamed for this, it could really hurt sales of E-REV vehicles.
We all want to get off of oil. Anything that threatens that (including bad press from fast charging) is bad.
Dec 16th, 2007 (7:55 pm)Guys, forgive me but I think many of you are over-estimating the Volt’s ability to cause a significant drain on the grid. Even if GM exceeds its sales goal by a wide margin, there will still be barely a handful of Volts on the road, relatively speaking. We all want the Volt to do well, but aren’t we getting a bit ahead of ourselves to assume that the car might actually overload the grid? Maybe in multiple years, when there are a lot more Volts with fast-charging capability, we will have a problem. But in my opinion one generation of a range-extended electric car is not going to really force this issue. Differing opinions are welcome.
I do think that fast charging is an important idea that should be pursued aggressively by GM. Americans like to get in their cars and go. They DO NOT like to wait for anything. I think electric cars carry a dangerous stigma – that you have to sit around and wait forever for them to charge. In my opinion, the closer we can get a battery charge cycle to mimic a quick fill-up at the gas station, the better off EV’s will be.
Dec 16th, 2007 (8:29 pm)jake 57. good points. but as far as getting in the car and going (which as you say most americans are used to), if the battery is that low, the generator will kick in.
hence, you can just get in and go any time you like.
death to oil! god bless the e-rev electric chevy volt, god bless nanosolar, god bless a123 and l.g., god bless g.e., bell labs innovations, and a little company called google and God Bless the United States of America!
Volt! american made, american fueled, american driven…
Dec 16th, 2007 (8:45 pm)Found about your site through John Chow’s review, nice site, I was not even aware of this car!
Dec 16th, 2007 (8:48 pm)Jake Says:
“Guys, forgive me but I think many of you are over-estimating the Volt’s ability to cause a significant drain on the grid.
…
I do think that fast charging is an important idea that should be pursued aggressively by GM.”
So as long as E-REVs don’t sell that much we’re OK! Doesn’t sound like much of a plan to get off of oil…
My point is that the first Volt users will set a precedent. If that precedent leads to rolling blackouts, the Volt and E-REVs in general will get a bad name.
Dec 16th, 2007 (9:01 pm)I am all for E-REV’s and getting off oil. My point is that (again, in my opinion) there will not be enough “first Volt users” to cause any grid problems whatsoever, even if some of them do want to try fast charging. I imagine that, for Volt 1.0, the fast charging would be more of an issue on the household level, not a grid level. And if the Volt really does start appealing to a broad array of Americans, I think many of these people will be “average” enough that they won’t bother with “custom” fast charging, as much as it might be convenient to them.
I agree very much that the Volt will set a precedent. It is extremely important that GM gets this one right. I just think that rolling blackouts are the least of our concerns right now. But we might as well get the ball rolling in this direction…
Dec 16th, 2007 (9:45 pm)Dave, when higher amps are drawn from a 110V circuit than a 220V circuit, higher amps are drawn on the main power grid transmission lines. The transformers you speak of are simply step down transformers. So if a certain amount of watts are needed per hour to charge a Volt, doing so with higher voltage will draw less amps from the grid. Use of more amps will overload the grid, not use of more voltage. More voltage is more efficient anyhow.
I’m not worried about fast charging issues, and if it does eventually overload the grid because of 220V issues, then the grid will be upgraded.
Also, I don’t believe 20 amp circuits are all that common, as far as I’m aware 15 amps is the average maximum. Upgrading circuit breakers is a non issue if the wiring can’t handle the amps.
I think 110V will do just fine for now, but we will outgrow it with future electric vehicles. Thus it would be prudent to make 220V available now, and encourage 220V wiring, even if quick charging is not an option. This way we’d grow into the system, not grow out of it.
Dec 16th, 2007 (10:54 pm)Well the initial sales of Volt will probably not be big enough to cause a sudden surge of consumption during night (or day). As already pointed out there is supposed to be a lot of space capacity at night.
However, the next Toyota Prius is supposed to add charging capability (from current HEV to PHEV). Toyota already has a significant production capacity for Prius, so between Volt and Prius we have a decent sales volume. Not to mention the specialty smaller manufacturers of smaller/slower/limited range electric vehicles.
Thus in a not too distant future there may be enough PHEVs and EVs to start causing issues on the grid.
Still I don’t think this is either GM’s or Toyota’s problem, just as shortage of oil is not their problem to solve (at least not directly). It will be first and foremost our own problem, the drivers’.
The most practical solution will be installation of a combination of solar panels and/or wind turbines that will provide most of the power to charge our cars. The tricky bit is that solar panels generate the most power when car is not in the garage – day time. So there are problems to solve …
In any case, some power will have to come from local sources, close the the house/garage where our cars will consumer it. The grid just cannot handle millions of cars on top of all the existing power users.
This will be our own task, hopefully with some government aid (incentives, tax credits, etc.)
Dec 17th, 2007 (8:01 am)#20,Scott… I agree. Personally I’d like to see the plug in port located inside the glove box.
Dec 17th, 2007 (1:09 pm)wirenutjd@48,
Not all solar systems work this way. A grid-tie system is cheaper since you don’t need batteries and can provide the homeowner with a carbon-neutral house (or other environmental benefits) — so they’re quite popular.
However, if you you want to shell out the cash for a few dozen lead-acid batteries, then an off-grid solar system may what you’re looking for.
Google for “off-grid solar” for more information. As with all of this kind of thing, one must engineer a solution that matches your needs — and your needs (including your need for independence) may be different than those of the average homeowner.
Happy reading!
–
P.S. I know not to feed the trolls, but it seems like this guy has probably only seen a couple of solar installations — and didn’t ask any questions.
Apr 5th, 2008 (1:21 pm)Why should people get angry at GM for not divulging every little details of the Volt. If it were Toyota doing the same project, nobody would dare to complain and nobody would know anything. As a matter of fact, Toyota is working on such a project. For the complainers, why don’t you all go on the Toyota WEB site and do your complaining there. GM, thanks for being so opened and telling us about the Volt years in advance.
Apr 5th, 2008 (1:47 pm)They are certain choices that GM has to make, which are not really choices. It is certain that the volt will be duel voltage. To start with,the regular 120v will be the one of choice. Two hundred forty volts is a better choice for many reasons. At the beginning though, 240v will not be the one of choice because of availability Also, thee cord you see used in the picture will have to be physically twice that size. What I saying are not hunches, physics and common sense dictates these these statements.