Grab our RSS Feed

AND

Continental CEO Thinks They Have Good Chance of Winning Volt Contract

May 10th, 2008 | Posted in: Battery, General

Continental Automotive and A123 Systems are one of the two Volt battery-making partnerships, pitted against LG Chem and Compact Power. Conti CEO Manfred Wennemer told Reuters that his company has a "good chance" of being awarded the Volt’s battery contract. He also said "it is not going to be decisive for the future of our battery unit, but it would be very, very important for us to be the one."

He also noted that if Continental wins the Volt contract, the German company would build a U.S. facility to make the packs.

Alternatively, it is possible GM could adopt both teams packs into the final production cars (see post ).

Source (Reuters )

Posted by: Lyle

80 Responses to “Continental CEO Thinks They Have Good Chance of Winning Volt Contract”

Dave B Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 9:04 am

That’s quite a statement they’re willing to build a US plant if the contract is won. Around Dayton, OH, there are plenty of vacant plants where the auto manufacturers pulled out. Sure would be nice to see some jobs come back for a change rather than see them outsourced to Mexico, China, and India.

(Quote)
Van Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 9:20 am

I think they have a 50/50 chance.

Given the tax, weather, and wage picture, I think the south is where the automotive facilities will be built in the future.

(Quote)
Amed M Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 9:25 am

Think they has good chance?

How do they got a good chance?
Well, I very much appreciate this website and I commend the effort put in to updating us, but this is not news. I would assume that they have a good chance in the get go because their battery is being tested. As far as building a U.S. facility, just business promises to hype their product in a time where we constantly see businesses leave to outsource jobs in cheaper laboring countries.

(Quote)
nasaman Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 9:27 am

Dave B….

The mass exodus of factory work from the US to China, Mexico, Malaysia, etc is largely attributable to the fact Asian & Mexican labor rates are only a small fraction of ours, coupled with the fact that too few US companies were able to automate sufficiently that labor cost content could be minimized. I read into Conti’s comments here that they plan to HIGHLY automate both cell-level & pack-level fabrication & assembly —enough, they must believe, to submit a bid lower than LG Chem (a moderate labor rate Korean firm).

….And it won’t hurt that Conti’s using A123 cell technology is widely regarded as probably the best available!

(Quote)
Jeff Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 9:33 am

If both packs can meet/exceed the requirements, it would be great if the consumer could choose their battery pack based on price and preference.

Based on my current info, I’d prefer the A123 chemistry. However, price would make a difference if both packs exceed requirements.

More competition needs to exist for the most expensive part on the vehicle. I applaud these battery pack suppliers, but more competition is required to make E-FLEX (E-REV) more viable for additional models. I think that some of the attraction to the VOLT is the uniqueness. I look forward to an E-FLEX option in every model at a competitive price.

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 9:33 am

I hope they both get an order for 10K units, and GM builds 20K vehicles in its first year.

(Quote)
Talks Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 10:27 am

I suspect GM would use LG Chem in internationl market and A123 in US.

(Quote)
omegaman66 Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 10:30 am

If GM has a brain…. then both of these companies will have been offered contracts (not all at once or right now though) to buy every battery they can produce as GM expands the volt drive train to all every auto it produces over the next few years.

(Quote)
omegaman66 Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 10:41 am

Not to change subjects… or I guess to change subjects. Is there ANYONE in the full size or midsize pickup truck market that WOULDN’T prefer to buy a truck that can pull a boat and have an all electric range of 20 miles! Pie in the sky but I would think that Chevy would be the only company that could sell a truck if they had the capacity to offer this truck now and fill all possible orders.

Not exactly possible but just wanting to point out the huge demand there is out there. I think the truck market would be even easier to conquer than the car market because trucks get such crappy gas milage.

The vast majority of truck owners only need pulling power every once in awhile but are shackled to the big engine due to the need to pull a boat or something. I want a gas sipper for normal driving. A e-flex pickup with a 20 mile range would get me to and from work and around town at a great gas milage even with a much bigger electric engine and huge ICE engine.

Would love to hear an interview with GM on what the challenges would be to implementing this tech. in a pickup with the capability to pull something like a 20′ boat.

(Quote)
Jim I Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 10:48 am

Building a factory (even a highly automated one) in the USA to manufacture battery packs is not such a far out idea. With shipping costs going through the roof, shipping hundreds of thousands of 400-500 lb packs half way around the world could get very expensive! And one of the ideas is to bring costs down….

And Youngstown, Ohio also has some good manufacturing facilities available!!! A shameless plug, but worth the effort.

(Quote)
RB Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 11:03 am

9 omegaman66 Quite right. Truck owners are a very big potential market for battery vehicles. Also, because the vehicle is bigger, the incremental size of the batteries may be more easily accomodated.

(Quote)
George K Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 11:22 am

I hope GM selects both suppliers. The Achilles heel of the Volt is the battery. If the battery is single sourced, and the supplier has a problem, it could stop vehicle production, until a second could be located.

Offsetting that, however, my wife prefers the color of the Conti batts over LG Chem’s.

(Quote)
Alexander Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 11:58 am

I think everybody will win if there’ll be two battery suppliers.

(Quote)
randy Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 12:22 pm

just produce the damn thing!! Bring it to market before someone else does. If GM wants to avoid chapter 11 (or is it 13) they need to get this moving.

(Quote)
Bobby P Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 12:45 pm

I’m with Randy. Just build the damn thing!! This car will save GM.

(Quote)
Len Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 1:06 pm

I would not buy the car unless the batteries were A123 chemistry or better. The other companies will be trying to meet requirements by treating the inferior batterys with kid gloves. In the real world the A123 batteries have already proven to take rapid charge and discharge without damage, every other battery I have seen that has similar capacity for the weight, wind up damaged even if they are treated with kid gloves. Many of them have a potential for self feeding runaway fires. I use the batteries to power electric radio contolled airplanes and we have used every kind of battery available. The battery is going to be the weak spot and until the A123 batteries, this electric car was not practical. I can see reasons to want to approve multiple suppliers, but it will be at the expense of reliable battery life. In the next few years I expect to see batterys that are better than A123 batteries, but right now, from my perspective, they are reseachers dreams.

(Quote)
Don Harmon Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 1:35 pm

There is an Automotive battery solution right now that competes with both LG Chem & A123, and if you click on the banner ad on the front page of this website that says “GET THE POWER” you will see. It’s here now and has just passed a 7 month rigourous testing procedure @ Sandia National Laboratories. Full report should be up on their website by next week.

(Quote)
Speedy Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Who said that they won’t be useing battery suppliers? There going to have to use two of them.

(Quote)
Don Harmon Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 2:01 pm

They might be using more than two ?????

(Quote)
Speedy Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Len , Is right Gm tested with 123 chemistry and said that the batteries are/were right for the volt, for production.

(Quote)
Estero Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 2:10 pm

GM is probably too far down the road to consider alternative batteries for the Volt v1. Who know what will be available for the Volt v2 or v3?

I hope whichever battery is chosen for the Volt v1 it will be manufactured in the U.S.

(Quote)
Don Harmon Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 2:18 pm

There will be other good contenders and the Volt is not the only electric car being developed and will be available even before the Volt makes it’s debut. I think you will see at least four all electric sports sedans make it to market before the Volt does. They will all be using Lithium batteries and they won’t be A123 either.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 2:31 pm

I’m going to say there will by 12 electric sport sedans to market before the Volt is…and they all will be run on Duracells.

(Quote)
Speedy Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 3:01 pm

I Think people don’t realize is that it’s not so much as these Volt !!!, but these “E-Flex Plug In Drive System ” under these car. See other manufactures are building electric cars, with a basic platforum, a platforum build just for a electric cars. These “E Flex Plug-in-Drive System” can and will be under alot of Gm’s cars, with a different platforum. Also Gm is aleady working on Gen 2 Volt E Flex Plug in Drive System.

(Quote)
Don Harmon Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 3:05 pm

Well whatever platform GM decides to build on they won’t be running on Duracells that’s for sure LOL!

(Quote)
Bernie Torbik Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 3:33 pm

Both Continental and LG Chem are likely to build U.S. facilities if one or both win GM’s business. Whatever public relations good will they generate with such an announcement, the real reason is more likely the sharp appreciation of the Euro and Asian currencies against the U.S. dollar over the past few years. No doubt, GM is “encouraging” both vendors to do so, as it would enable them to reduce the price premium associated with the battery.

(Quote)
Jeff Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Such emotions for this vehicle…

Back to the subject, has A123 got the only viable solution at this time for the VOLT? If so, dreams of more energy sources for the auto industry may not be in the near future.

What if…the energy sources for all autos were equally divided to different industries…bio-fuel, electric, and oil. Of these sources, electricity is even more diverse…coal, hydro, solar, etc.

I do like seeing the Hymotion/A123 L5 product…GO A123. It keeps the heat on GM to produce the VOLT. And hopefully not just on GM…the entire auto industry needs to diversify their energy source.

An electric vehicle can be the best way to diversify the energy source for the auto industry. Would an electric generation plant that used gasoline as an energy source survive at today’s prices?

(Quote)
BillR Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 3:58 pm

In principle, I agree with #7 Talks.

Given the volatility of oil prices, there will be a huge market for the E-Flex vehicles. Having both battery suppliers on board helps GM to meet the global demand, yet also provides for competition between vendors to maintain good pricing levels.

Having said that, with A123 being US based, and the fact that Continental would commit to build a US facility, the North American market could be supplied by Continental, while other portions of the world would be supplied by either Continental or LG Chem/Compact Power.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 3:59 pm

I’m don’t feel attached to either battery company.

If both companies produce a battery that works the same and acts the same, (and obviously up-to-spec) then I will take either one. I just want the car to come out sooner than later.

(Quote)
Terry Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 5:23 pm

OK, the CEO of one of the two competing Volt battery manufacturers says they have a good chance of winning the Volt contract. DUH!

There is also a “good chance” of the sun rising tomorrow morning. The point is, this is hardly “news”. Every CEO thinks their corporation is doing well.

I would be more interested in parallel research on the Volt’s non-battery technology, like low voltage innovations the Volt will use. Air conditioning, wipers, stereo systems, lights, horn, and everything else that uses a lot of electricity will have to be redesigned for the Volt.

I just filled my tank again today, the second time this week, and another $60.00 of my money is gone forever. We deserve a little more content than a fluff piece from a CEO. Time is ticking, GM. If Toyota beats GM, and makes a Volt-type vehicle by adapting their Prius first, they get my money, so Exxon / Wall Street energy traitors (my spelling) / and the oil sheiks don’t. Am I fustrated? You bet! But before you flame me, burn $480.00 of your money each month. Then we can talk.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 5:55 pm

#28 Terry. I won’t flame you. I’ll stand right next to you. I am just as disgusted as you are. I’m not quite at $60 a tank yet. But I’m only 5 bucks away and closing in. I saw (and passed) a gas station today that was selling 87 octane at 3.999. Can’t get any closer to $4.00 without going over it.

(Quote)
Speedy Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 6:03 pm

Well tell these battery manufactures too hurry up with these batteries…….

(Quote)
Eric E Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 6:04 pm

I think they should offer both. Then for those of us who care, we choose one or the other.

(Quote)
Bernie Torbik Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 6:14 pm

#29 – Terry, why is Exxon an energy traitor? Or for that, the other oil companies that you (presumably) and so many others love to villify? Is it because they are earning an good profit for their shareholders, or because you think energy prices are too high? If the latter, you might want to blame some of the following:

- American drivers’ ridiculous affinity for SUVs, trucks (generally, without anyone else in the cab or a load in the bed) and other gas guzzling monstrosities;
- U.S. politicians who have prevented new refineries and LNG facilities from being constructed;
- rapid growth in the BRIC countries, who are consuming an ever- increasing share of the world’s petroleum output;
- the Federal Reserve’s inflationary increase of the money supply since 2002, which has driven up the price of gold and other commodities; and
- politicians of both parties who have sat on their hands for the last 30 years since the last energy squeeze and done nothing to promote development of new supplies and conservation.

Exxon and the oil sheiks are acting rationally, trying to maximize the value of what they (and you) know is a finite resource. Be thankful for their “traitorous” activities, because they’ll spur development of alternative energy sources and innovative products like the Volt, which would otherwise be about as appealing as economy cars were when oil was last at $20/barrel.

(Quote)
Don Harmon Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 6:16 pm

The batteries are ready.
The motors are ready.
The technology is ready.
The controllers are ready.
The question: IS THE MARKET READY ? and WILL THE CAR MAKERS COMMIT TO THE MARKET ?

(Quote)
Speedy Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 7:07 pm

I know gm is commit. So let’s get some pictures of volt testing on the test track, get our money ready to buy!!!!

(Quote)
WD Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 7:24 pm

All promising IF we do all we can to avoid the chaos theory of unintended bad consequences –
and permit corporate greed and disinterested government to cause environmental harm which
exceeds any intended benefit. An example –

Solar Pollution Business Week 3-24-08 print edition
Everyone knows China has huge environmental woes, but you wouldn’t think solar power is one of them. Well, think again. To feed global hunger for solar cells, more than 20 companies in China are starting production of polysilicon—the essential component in sunlight-capturing wafers. The combined capacity of these plants is estimated at 80,000 to 100,000 tons—far more than the 40,000 produced worldwide at present. The problem is that few of the facilities have installed the expensive equipment needed to recycle the polluting by-products. Instead, some are simply dumping the mess, which contains high concentrations of chlorine and hydrochloric acid, in empty fields or stockpiling it in drums. (The Washington Post)
—Edited by Harry Maurer & Cristina Linblad

(Quote)
Brad Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 8:09 pm

With the Chevy Volt, GM is finally realizing to stay ahead of the Japanese they need to innovate. Intel almost lost the chip market because they stopped innovating and AMD tweaked the production to outbeat them. Quickly they came out with newer better technology and now are far ahead of AMD. They must continue to innovate in order to dominate. If GM pushes more electric cars and innovates with their technology they will stay ahead. R&D costs are really noting for car companies because much of it is paid for by U.S. tax payers with grants. I’m sure their will be much more spending on renewable technology, especially with the changing administration. Electric cars and renewable energy is a winning combination.

(Quote)
omegaman66 Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 8:25 pm

It sure is funny and sad to see all you drug addicts complaining about the evil drug dealers.

Exxon is only making a profit of 10% profit across the board so you need to look elsewhere for gougers.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 8:38 pm

Gougers are everywhere. It is the oil companies, it is the oil producing countries, it is the oil traders and it is us. We are so addicted to this stuff, we are all to blame for this problem. But let’s be real for a minute.
We (the everyday driver) really don’t have a choice but to buy gas and drive back and forth to work. Most of us here want to get away from oil, but we really can’t. There isn’t any real alternative available right now.

I understand the hated many of you have against the oil companies.
I don’t think the criticism is misplaced. But we also have to blame everyone else at the same time. My new car gets 33 MPG. This is good compared to an SUV, but poor compared to a Prius. Since I use this car to drive 101 miles per day, I am to blame because I could have bought a less gas guzzling car.

(Quote)
MarkinWI Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 8:38 pm

Omegaman66 @#39

I’m not convinced that there is price gouging. I think that removing contraband Iraqi oil from the market, and increased demand from China is probably enought to explain the rise in oil prices. That said, it is very easy to play games with the books. Think about how Enron cooked the books in the other direction before you simply echo the oil industry claim that they are only making 10%.

(Quote)
Terry Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 10:04 pm

Bernie, in reference to #30 above, by Wall Street Traitors, I meant Wall Street energy future traders (traders, traitors, get it?) They not only profit from our misery, they make it worse by biding up the prices of oil on the market. Yes they are entitled to a profit if they guess right, and the price of oil goes up. I am entitled to buy a Volt, and hopefully bankrupt them.

The best thing we can do is open up ANWAR now – today. So it will take 7 years, all the more reason to start now. The best defense against high oil prices is supply – we have it in ANWAR, and off the coasts of Florida and California.

The price of everything goes up when energy goes up. It takes energy to gather raw materials, transport them to manufacturers, turn raw materials into consumer goods, and transport them to retailers. It’s the people with lower incomes who are hit the hardest by energy prices. Food, or gas to get to work? Tough choice. Help the poor, open ANWAR now.

Enviromental impact? You will never satisfy the enviromentalists – burn anything (gas diesel, biodiesel, NLG, LP gas, hydrogen), release Co2. No nuclear, too dangerous. No hydroelectric, causes harn to migrating fish. No wind turbines – migratory birds are killed by the blades. No tidal power, could harm costal fish populations. No large scale solar – shades valuable land which could be used to grow trees to reduce Co2, or grow crops to feed the world’s poor. So go ahead and open up the US oil reserves, the enviromentalists are going to complain anyway.

Until this country treats energy supply as a serious national security issue, not just another consumer product, I have to do what I can. And I will, when Volt in available in 2010.

(Quote)
NZDavid Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 10:10 pm

Current Oil prices are simply the free market at work. As supply is constricted the price will continue to rise until demand matches again.

With oil heading towards 150 – 200 dollars / barrel this year, demand will slow down and match supply again.

Of course, once we hit peak oil (see link), all bets are off. Fun times. GM will sell every Volt they can make. And Toyota will sell every PHEV Prius they can make.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3726

(Quote)
JBFALASKA Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 10:49 pm

At $4.00 per gallon for Middle-East, Anti-American anarchy oil, both packs will prove cheap.

Americans secure the oil fields at no cost for the Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, and a variety of other Asian nations. What is the real cost of oil, factoring our REAL costs, $10/gallon. Come on GM and build this car.

Chevy Volt: American-made, American FUELED.

Retired US Air Force.

(Quote)
JBFALASKA Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 10:57 pm

As a retired US Air Force veteran, I’d like to believe our countrymen consider the country when purchasing. We like our roads, the safety inherent in social security, local government street lights, roads, the security in our right to vote for whomever we choose, and pray or not to the religion of our choicer. This dialogue can go much farther. So when a neighbor purchases from countries who hate our way of life, despise our religious freedom, democracy, and more, what is truly bought for the meager savings of a foreign item?

CHEVY VOLT: American-made, American FUELED. This car can change the world for us.

(Quote)
Mark H. Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 12:00 am

My guess is they will award both. It makes sence, since GM has just been burned by COBASYS. They srewed up their batteries and have delayed GM deplying their Hybrids since last fall. Having a single sorce of batteries is a bad idea. Which ever one is better sell it at a premium and use both. That way if you have supply problems your production line does not stop. If both batteries make the grade charge more for the better one, make more profit and sell more cars.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 12:02 am

#45 JBFALASKA

“CHEVY VOLT: American-made…”

“Chevrolet,” isn’t that French? It sounds French.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 12:52 am

Here comes some competition…

“VW, Sanyo to develop lithium-ion battery: paper ”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080511/tc_nm/volkswagen_sanyo_dc_1

“German carmaker Volkswagen and Japan’s Sanyo Electric Co will jointly develop a lithium-ion battery to be used in hybrid and electric cars, the Nikkei financial daily reported on Sunday.

Volkswagen will aim to start importing and using the battery in its hybrid and electric cars by 2012, the Nikkei said”

(Quote)
omegaman66 Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 1:05 am

Oh so now Exxon is cooking the books!!!

And the old sad excuse “we don’t have a choice” lie. Um people in china use bikes… nothing preventing you from getting one too. Ummm…. why don’t more people car pool! The fact that gas consumption has gone down 1% a month this year proves that WE haven’t been doing everything we can to conserve on gas use when using the cars we already have.

And get this.. I am sure it will piss off a bunch of people here… the only reason I want a volt style vehicle is for lower cost!!! I don’t give a rats behind about ghg emissions. Because that argument is bs. The co2 level in the atmosphere at one time approach 5000 ppm and we haven’t even hit 400 yet. Does co2 raise temp. YES but it is exponetially less and less of a factor as the ppm goes up. If it went up like the stupid inadequate computer models predict then at 5000 ppm the temp would have put the temp through the roof!!! It was warm then sure but nothing like you are being led to believe by the money grubbing scientist.

Enviromental wackos are called that for a reason. Technological advance is the best course to solve all of our problems with pollution and energy supply. Nuts happy that the price of oil is high are sad. High energy prices will put the WORLD at a lower economic level than we enjoy today and low economic levels (high poverty) leads to more pollution not less.

The agenda’s pressed by enviromental wackos hurt as much or more than they help. Anybody ever heard of corn based ethanol. Or the destruction of forest in third world countries so they can make the cars you drive “greener”.

EVERY form of energy has its enviromental consequences. Fact is oil is one of the least enviromentally damaging of them all. One of the biggest challenges wildlife faces is lack of habitat. Oil production uses a lot less land than the vast majority of so called “green” energy sources.

If you want to stop having what an enviromental wacko would call a negative influence on the enviroment you have but one choice and that would be to kill yourself.

(Quote)
NZDavid Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 4:42 am

Just looking at that battery makes me wonder why don’t they make a ‘H’ shape now the two fuel tanks under the rear seats have gone.

Or make at available as a option for those of us who want maximum range on EV.

JMHO

(Quote)
Statik Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 7:57 am

#12 George

May 2nd –$24.00 (10-20-50 day averages?)
May 9th — $20.29 ( -15.5%)

/maybe we won’t look back and see this as a buying opportunity

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 8:26 am

omegaman66 #48. Did someone touch a nerve, my friend?

One of my reasons for buying the Volt is the current price of fuel.
I’m buying it mostly because of what JBFALASKA says in #44 and #45.

I’m Arab, but I hate those regimes. I am 100% American and support this country. But every time I buy fuel, I support the middle east.
When I have a choice not to, well, that is when the Volt will be available.

Price gouging: The oil and gas price is set by the market. I work for the traders. It is all speculative. When the Volt his the market, I think that is when you will see true price gouging (others may call it “market forces”)

(Quote)
MarkinWI Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 8:58 am

JBFALASKA: Thank you for 20+ years of service to our country. I agree with your sentiments completely.

#48: Corporations engage in tax planning all of the time. Example: eariler this year we discussed GM’s “huge loss” this year, which consisted in large part of (a) one-time payments; and (b) losses accumulated over the last ten years, but only recognized this year, resulting in a “record loss.” Another example: Wal-Mart paid $0 in Wisconsin income taxes this year. Instead, they paid “rent” for their stores to their own subsidiary companies at far above market rates. These companies in turn showed very little proft by very aggressive use of depreciation schedules. My point: if you think that companies don’t “cook the books” every day and for various reasons, then you need to spend a day talking to a corporate tax attorney.

(Quote)
MarkinWI Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 9:28 am

P.S. Please note that I started my first post saying that I was not convinced that there is any price gouging (trader speculation being something else). Please do not mix price levels with my comments regarding the curren oil industry campaign that they are only making a 10% profit.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 9:46 am

I don’t begrudge ‘big oil’ from making every nickel they can.

I live in a free market economy. I live in a democracy. If people will pay $125 a barrel, then thats what they should get.

If you are the kind of person who likes money…and you want more, then you really can’t say anything against ‘big oil’ without being a hypocrite.

Now if your a socialist and you don’t mind spreading the wealth around, and you would rather make less for the benefit of your neighbour…things like health care, mass standard of living, then kudos to you. You can hate on ‘big oil’ and me/us/99.9999% of the population as much as you want.

/you probably also should be living in the future on the Starship Enterprise.

(Quote)
omegaman66 Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 10:23 am

51 Rashiid Amul hehe yeah well sorry about the rant. Just an accumilation of little post here and there finally couldn’t hold my tongue… err I mean fingers anymore. Too long for most people to read anyway especially this late in the thread.

I agree with your post that along with the cost has me wanting to buy a volt type car. Plus another reason.

I hate rent.

In otherwords I like the idea of getting the cost out of the way and then just owning something without any more cost. It would be soooo great to be able to put up some solar panels and own a E-Flex vehicle and be able to supply almost all of my energy needs myself. We are headed that direction, can’t wait. To expensive right now but solar will be getting cheaper and cheaper in the future. My dream is getting closer every day.

(Quote)
nasaman Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 10:29 am

I want to bring us back to this thread’s topic, the optimism Continental’s CEO expressed that they’ll win the Volt production contract.

A few days ago the United States Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC), an organization with DOE oversight whose members are Chrysler, Ford and GM, finalized a $12.5 million plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) battery technology development contract with A123Systems for 10- and 40-mile electric range PHEVs. [USABC awarded the 36-month contract in collaboration with the US Department of Energy (DOE), which previously announced the award in 2006, pending agreement on all terms and conditions.]

Because USABC, DOE & A123 have been discussing/negotiating this development contract since 2006, it’s clearly not one A123 would have just now entered into without the advantage of their own internal R&D since 2006. I therefore believe there is much to be learned from a close look at the roughly 20 parameters in the contract. I’ve singled out the 7 most important of these for the 40-mile battery at EOL (defined as 15yrs/5,000 cycles):

1) Capacity in charge depletion (CD) mode – 11.6kWh (vs the 8kWh Volt spec)
2) Cycle Life, CD mode – 5,000/58MWh (11.6kWh x 5,000 cycles)
3) Calendar Life – 15 years (1 Full CD cycle/day, 365 x 15yrs = 5,475 cycles)
4) Max System Weight (Battery) – 120kg = 265LBS
5) Operating/Charging Temp Range (Unassisted) – -30 to +52 C = -22 to +126 F
6) Survival Temp Range – -46 to +66 C = -51 to +151 F
7) Max System (Battery) Manufacturing Price @100,000 units/yr = $3,400

I find it very encouraging that the CD of 11.6kWh, the weight of 265LBS, the temp ranges (oper/non-operating) and the price in 100,000/yr quantities appear to be well within GM’s requirements.

I’m also convinced these parameters are those A123/Continental believe are achievable. And I believe GM should negotiate a volume purchase agreement with A123/Conti for at least 100,000 units/yr @ $3,400 each (or less) — i.e., a $340 million (or less) agreement to purchase 100,000 batteries, with the obvious proviso that each battery must meet the final performance parameters —which should be fairly close to those listed above.

AND SINCE THESE PARAMETERS HAVE NOW BEEN PUBLISHED, LG CHEM ALSO KNOWS WHAT THE COST & PERFORMANCE TARGETS ARE TO WIN A VOLT BATTERY CONTRACT WITH GM!!!

Source: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/05/usabc-finalizes.html

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Well done, Nasaman #56. With a $3400 battery, I don’t see any reason why the Volt can’t cost “nicely under $30K”.

(Quote)
Don Harmon Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Very interesting statistics. Thanks for that, but I doubt the price will be $3,400.00 per complete battery system ? I would love to see real confirmation of that number, not just rumor or hype.

(Quote)
nasaman Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 1:33 pm

58 Don Harmon

I never post “rumor or hype! If you’ll re-read my post #56 and the source link, you’ll have to agree this is HARD DATA from a contract placed with A123 for FULL BATTERIES (NOT CELLS!) by the US Advanced Battery Consortium and the US Dept of Energy.

57 Rashiid Amul

As you say, “With a $3400 battery, I don’t see any reason why the Volt can’t cost ‘nicely under $30K’ ” based on this official contract data!!! This is genuinely breakthrough information!

(Quote)
Don Harmon Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 1:43 pm

I appreciate it. Looks like the scale of the order could actually make the price come in @ $ 3,400 – the key being 100,000 systems per year for ? years. It’s the only way you could reach this kind of price on the new battery chemistry.

Thanks again for this data.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 2:13 pm

#56 nasaman
You really do your homework and provide rational, reliable information and analysis in a respectful tone. Your presentations advance us in knowledge and understanding. Well done!

#48 omegaman66
You could learn from nasaman. Your words show you to be a highly opinionated yelling head that is representative of this rancorous, polarized era. I am not mad at you for your tantrum. But, I wish you showed more maturity. I’m sure you have a lot to offer during a respectful exchange of ideas. You would be more persuasive if you weren’t so dismissive of others. Please, next time, count to ten before clicking on “Submit Comment.”

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10…

(Quote)
Koz Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Forgive me, for I am abut to sin:

wrrrr…wrrrr…There is a question for the gallery.

Umm..I just want to make sure I have this straight. Omegaman’s last argument stipulated that scientists and environmentalists are all wacko, conspiring, money grubbing, liars (or hugely inaccurate story tellers) while all the oil industry and ghg denyers is forthright, scientifically accurate, environmentally neutral, and incapable of deception. Is this accurate?

For the record, I want a plug-in because I believe it will:
-Tie most my vehicular energy costs to my electricity costs
-Reduce pollution, not only CO2 but more importantly smog related particulates
-Reduce noise
-Path to better performing, better controlled, and ultimately lest expensive transportation
-Break the depending on foreign oil for transportation and all of the associated security and economic side benefits with the most important being more of my dollars staying in MY COUNTRY

Also for the record, Oil companies as well as an unregulated for profit undustry is perfectly within their rights to make as much money as they can within the law and certain ethical boundaries. There is no inherent wrongdoing in a company or an industry netting $40B or $400B.

(Quote)
bruce g Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Nasaman,
I agree that these outcomes have probably been negotiated so there is a high probability they are achievable at the 100,000 units level.
$12.5 million doesnt sound like much money, perhaps the only challenge is to increase the capacity from 8KwHr to 11.6KwHr, all the other goals have already been achieved?

Interesting.

(Quote)
Don Harmon Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 3:48 pm

All goals have already been acheived. Not only with A123 but with other battery mfg. When you spec. KWhr. you are only talking about additional modules.

(Quote)
bruce g Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 3:58 pm

Don,
OK,
If all the goals have already been achieved why is it called a development contract?
Is is really a sort of prize giving?
Seems to me they think they may be able to increase the energy density. assuming the existing battery is 120kg,

(Quote)
Don Harmon Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 4:05 pm

It’s already known that they can increase the energy density. We are doing it also and it will by by 30% but this takes another step and this contract is based on firm specs.

(Quote)
bruce g Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Cool,
Ill hang around a bit longer and wait for mu e-malibu.

(Quote)
nasaman Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 4:26 pm

63 bruce g

You commented, “$12.5 million doesn’t sound like much money, perhaps the only challenge is to increase the capacity from 8KwHr to 11.6KwHr, all the other goals have already been achieved?”

Re: $12.5 million — Remember 1) that A123 has substantial additional funding from both external & internal sources, 2) that battery-level performance rests primarily on cell-level performance and 3) that A123 has been working on developing automotive cells like these since at least 2006.

Re: 11.6kWh —this is the capacity figure to which the battery has ALREADY been derated; i.e., it’s directly comparable to the Volt’s 8kWh charge depleting (CD) specified capacity. (The total battery capacity before derating is immaterial.)

Re: Have all other goals already been achieved? —I would expect that A123 & Continental have every other goal, including weight & max battery system prices at 100,000/yr quantities, clearly within sight.*

*As I’ve implied in another thread, a price of $3,400/pack is likely achieved by A123/Conti by highly-automated cell AND battery fabrication/assembly. Because of LG Chem’s lower Korean labor rates, minimizing the labor content for German and/or US assemby is A123/Conti’s best chance of competing.

PS: Don Harmon’s seemingly got another (understandable) agenda —to promote a perhaps excellent battery maker named LifeBatt.com —who knows, LifeBatt might win other battery contracts for Volt gen 2, or other cars? No offense, Don! It’s GREAT to see so many worthy Li-Ion battery suppliers in the game!

(Quote)
BillR Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 6:20 pm

#56 nasaman

Excellent work!

This spells out where Li-Ion battery technology is headed.

Another interesting stat is the volume of 80 liters, which only about 3 cubic feet.

So, if successful, this new battery pack would have 11.6 kWh, weigh 265 lbs, and occupy 3 cubic feet. Its cost would be $3400.

The Volt’s proposed specs are 8 kWh, 400 lbs, with an estimated volume of 10+ cubic feet (based on pictures). Cost is still an unknown, but has been speculated at $10,000.

(Quote)
TED in Fort MYers Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 6:44 pm

This is good news. Now they can build my volt BEV. I’ll take two of those battery packs. TED

(Quote)
Don Harmon Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 6:45 pm

That is the number I have also heard $10,000.00.

(Quote)
Evnut Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 7:04 pm

What Ted said! At these specs, I’ll take three packs in my full-BEV Volt, thanks! GM keeps wanting to call it an EV, so let’s go ahead and make it one, instead of this gasoline-carrying BEV being proposed. I figure that the ICE/trans/fuel/exhaust system would cost and weigh about as much as two of these packs, so I’ll take three for a sligh up-charge. Where do I sign up?

(Quote)
omegaman66 Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 8:37 pm

Right the figures are goals that they hope to reach not something a123 has already done.

Koz 62 I concur with the reasons you listed.

(Quote)
Don Harmon Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 9:08 pm

#69 Yes what I am trying to point out is there are other companies like LiFeBATT who are not in the running for the Volt contract, but have a product now available for any EV conversion or ground roots supplier.

They may not have the high profile of A123 or LG Chem or Continental, but their cells are on par and have been tested by Sandia National Laboratory, which some of these “contenders” have not been.

Agenda – of course! How does a small start-up compete with the giants unless you have an agenda ? As I have said we have a ” Banner Ad” on the front of this blog for a reason. We don’t have the million dollar grants and the financing that these other companies have yet.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
May 12th, 2008 at 2:58 pm

I consider myself to be an environmentalist. I have been called an “environmental whacko”, and a lot worse. I think that anyone’s first impulse would be to flare back but, for once, I took ThombDbhomb’s advice at #62 and counted “1,2,3,4,5,6……”.

It is by no means a new idea here, but just let me say it again. It is remarkable that we have people here from all across the political and environmental spectrum with a common purpose, to get the !@#$%^ Volt built. So why can’t we stop with the fratricidal “flaming” and keep our eyes on the prize. Which is, in my view, to cheerlead, cajole, encourage and pressure GM into getting with the program.

To that end, I completely agree with:

#14 randy

#15 Bobby P

#31 Rashiid Amul (for about the 500th time)

and so many others.

“Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock.”

(Quote)
Bryan Says:
May 12th, 2008 at 8:12 pm

Sounds like someone wants to inflate an IPO.

(Quote)
stas peterson Says:
May 16th, 2008 at 1:36 am

Nasaman,

Great Job in reading the tea leavesand practical intelligence gathering.

Most development contracts such as the US ABC one is wuith A123, sets goals and deliverables to be met by contract ending. A123, is expecting to earn its $12.5 million dollar contract by producing a battery at the end of of its contract no more than 36 months out, that will meet those specifications.

GM will need the batteries for installation on Volt Job 1 by September 2010, or 28 months from May 2008. Even if A123 had not yet met the final specifications, internally, their product would be getting pretty close. Even at triple the cost, (however unlikely), the batteries make the Volt price point of $10k per Chevy Volt.

I have another comment. to add.

I recall seeing an inteview with Mr. Lutz in which he discussed automation of the Li-Ion battery. He “expects” ( i.e. requires) the battery makers to create factories near the automaker assembly plants, for “just-in-time” manufacture of such critical high value components.

In light of Ford’s painful expereince with Sanyo Electric not meeting production from Japan of hybrid components for the Escape hybrid, crippling production, many a Manufacturer will be requiring suppliers to locate facilities near the assembly site.

The dollar exchange rate has made manufacture in the US somewhat more competitive then heretofor as well.

Intrinsically mass manufacture of Li-Ion batteries should be an easy to automate process. It should be relatively easy for adaptation of existing kinds of facilities.

Making a Li-Ion battery is actually a process of joining sheets of different films, together; rolling into a cyclinder; and encapsulating in a container.

This lends itself to extruding rolls of different films, combining rolls in a set of Rolls, bonding them together before slicing to individual size from the rolls, and then rolling each into shape; and then wrapping a protective container around the created film roll, to create a battery.

Such automation equpment exists from automation companies, for use in products as diverse as filmaking, coated wallpapers, packaging materials, to publishing of laminated documents. Many manufacturers could adapt their automation machinery to fit the job.

Knowing that the automation equipment is available, speeds up the creation of highly automated factories. Indeed I would not be surprised if the US ABC contract did not involve involve research, and working with automation machnery firms, to adapt their equipment to automating Li-Ion manufacture.

Here is an example of the superiority of the govermental sponsored R&D organization driven by the benefitting companies as opposed ot the assininity of say the PNGV excercise of the Clinton adminsitration.

There bureaucrats dreamed up stupid ideas, paid outrageous sums to politically well connected phonies like Amory Lovins, to create impossible products with out a prayer of practical manufacture.

For example well-connected Mr. Lovins convinced the bureaucrats that they could save several hundred pounds of weight in a car using carbon films like the B2 bomber, instead of steel auto bodies. PNGV autos had these carbon composite components, instead of steel. The carbon film car was 1000 pounds lighter than a steel car. almost wonderful, But…

Instead of a steel car that is 97+% recyclable, and costs about $4.00 a pound, Lovins specified an auto body that is unrecyclable; and creates, auto bodies from the material for billion dollar B2 bombers. Further the auto bodies are no longer recyclable. When burned, toxic, cancer causing dioxin pollution is emitted. Did I mention that the carbon films cost $400-1600 dollars per pound. Did I mention that the carbon autobodies are made from lots of barrels of Oil too?

Such a car bodiy only costs $250,000 per car merely for the auto frame, nothing else, instead of $5-8000 dollars.

When every customer has plenty of money and the automakers can offer such commuter vehicles at a price of only $750,000 to a cool one $ million a copy, and have googles of buyers lined up to purchase. The weight savings does help mileage though. It might add as much as 4-5 miles per gallon, too.

Is there any wonder that the PNGV led nowhere except to pure government boondoggle? As soon as the government money ended, the PNGV’s ended up in crushers or museums. No car company was the slightest bit interested in these pink elephants, designed by government committee.

USABC is different. Created to enable the actual car companies to co-operate with each other without fear of monopoly laws, the USABC can actually address real honest problems, important toall the member automakers.

The output of its contracts result in useful products, not pie in the sky, hare brained schemes.

Mr. Bush created the USABC, on a different and rational template, and brought the Li-Ion from lab curiosity, to the verge of powering autos like the Volt. Lawyer-politicians and Bureaucrats poured taxpayer money down a forgotten rathole, for the PNGV program, telling the automakers what to do.

(Quote)
b456 Says:
May 19th, 2008 at 6:18 am

interesting.
However, don’t see how GM could import LiFePO4 containing cells to the US without being sued by HydroQuebec for infringement?

(Quote)
pdt Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 1:56 pm

RE: nasaman’s referenes:

If you look at past USABC contracts, you’ll see similar targets that were not met at the end of the contract period. The targets for the USABC are just targets, it’s not like A123 doesn’t get the money if they don’t meet them, it means they get the money for trying to meet them.

Also since the presentation by CPI does not say what capacity the battery is for $500, it doesn’t really say too much about the costs/kWh.

(Quote)

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009
November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]
srschrier
New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009
From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]
srschrier
Th!nk picks Indiana for U.S. factory November 18, 2009
Th!nk picks Indiana for U.S. factory: _Link_ (http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1038564_thnk-picks-indiana-for-u-s-factory) […]
Jason M. Hendler
FIRST ALL-ELECTRIC APTERA 2e PUSHED BACK TO 2010 November 18, 2009
FIRST ALL-ELECTRIC APTERA 2e PUSHED BACK TO 2010: _Link_... […]
Jason M. Hendler
Any news about the NiMH battery? November 18, 2009
Now that there are new owners of the patent, is there any indication that they will allow its use for electric cars? Like many others, I believe that... […]
Desertstraw
energy requirments of modern electric vehicles November 18, 2009
does anyone know any credible sources of information concerning the electricity requirements of modern electric vehicles per mile of travel and the... […]
crubkings
30% reduction November 18, 2009
The Belgian governement decided that if you buy a car with less then 60g/km emmision you get a 15% tax reduction and you can write it off for 100% if... […]
filiep

Continental CEO Thinks They Have Good Chance of Winning Volt Contract

80 Responses to “Continental CEO Thinks They Have Good Chance of Winning Volt Contract”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts