GM Launches Major Collaboration with EPRI and 30 Utility Companies to Ready the Grid for the Volt
Today at the Plug-in 2008 Conference in San Jose California, GM is announcing a major new collaboration with the Electric Power Institute (EPRI) and 30 major utility companies.
The endeavor is a landmark, first of its kind effort through which GM will work directly with both those utility companies and EPRI to ensure that the codes, standards, and grid capabilities are in place so that when the Chevy Volt comes to market, the infrastructure will be there to support it.
The shift of transportative energy from oil to electricity brings forth a myriad of special needs that automakers and utilities companies have to collaborate on to be sure they are met.
I had the chance to speak with Brita Gross who is GMs’ Manager of Hydrogen and Electrical Infrastructure about the announcement.
She advised me this collaboration is a very big and extremely important initiative. It encompasses three broad areas.
First, work will take place on the technical interface. Here, the utility companies will collaborate with GM to examine how the vehicles will interact with the electric grid. All the issues related to charging will be looked at. Methods to recognize and manage the cars’ draws, impact on peak and off-peak capacity, home and away from home charging, as examples, will be developed. From this, technical standards will be created. The Volt and indeed all future plug-in cars will then have to adhere to these standards. The fact that GM is first to do this gives them a significant strategic advantage as well ensuring the Volt launches well.
The second area of focus will be education for the public. For years the public has had difficulty understanding what conventional hybrids are. Adding a plug to the equation increases the complexity consumers will have to grasp. New learning will have to take place and the utility companies are willing and able to help GM in this educational process.
The third element is the development of policy. By planning together, GM and the utility companies will be able to go before government bodies on a state, federal, and local level as a partnership seeking the same goals. These goals include the development of appropriate incentives at the consumer and corporate level to encourage mass adoption of plug-in vehicles.
Britta advises me that this collaboration involves 30 utility companies stretching into 37 states and 3 Canadian provinces. Most of the major utility companies are represented and as a whole serve a very large volume of the US population. It has a far greater and more powerful scope than simply working with EPRI as other automakers already are.
Full press release below:
General Motors and Electric Utility Industry Launch Major Collaboration to Commercialize Plug-in Vehicles
• Paves way for customers to realize the benefits of plug-in electric vehicles such as the Chevrolet Volt and Saturn Vue Plug-in Hybrid
• Further progress on road to electrification of the automobile
San Jose, CALIF – General Motors announced today that it will collaborate with the nonprofit Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) – more than 30 of the top electric utilities in the United States and Canada — to accelerate the introduction of plug-in electric vehicles.
General Motors will work with EPRI and the utility companies on everything from codes and standards to grid capability to ensure that when the Volt goes to market, the infrastructure is ready – and customers can realize the full potential of these revolutionary vehicles as soon as they leave the showroom.
Details of the alliance, which is by far the largest and most-comprehensive between an automaker and the electric utility industry, were announced today in San Jose during the Plug-In 2008 Conference.
Among the many things the coalition will address include ensuring safe and convenient vehicle charging, raising the public awareness and understanding of plug-in electric vehicles, and working with public policy leaders to enable a transition from petroleum to electricity as a fuel source.
“Together with EPRI and the utility companies, we can transform automotive transportation as we know it, and get our nation and the world past oil dependence – and heading toward a future that is electric,” said Jon Lauckner, GM VP of Global Program Management. “This group is taking significant steps toward making electric vehicles a reality and in helping our customers enjoy the tremendous benefits these vehicles will provide.”
Using electricity to power vehicles such as the Volt and the Vue Plug-in is attractive to GM because it can simultaneously reduce the industry’s dependence on petroleum and vehicle greenhouse gas emissions. Consumers will also see a tremendous benefit as the cost per equivalent mile of a vehicle powered by electricity is roughly one-fifth of the cost per mile when powered by gasoline.
The coalition of utility companies plays a critical role in developing universal technical standards that will facilitate ease of use and commercial feasibility of electric vehicles.
“EPRI is pleased to collaborate with GM and utility leaders in electric transportation to work together in advancing plug-in hybrid electric vehicle transportation,” said Arshad Mansoor, Vice President of EPRI’s Power Delivery & Utilization sector. “This collaboration is critical in the development of standards that will lead to the widespread use of electricity as a transportation fuel.”
Last month, GM, along with EPRI, received a conditional award from the U.S. Department of Energy to create a plug-in demo program using the Saturn Vue.
In June, GM’s Board of Directors committed to production of the Chevrolet Volt extended-range electric vehicle — due in showrooms in late 2010. And, at the 2008 North American International Auto Show, GM announced its intention to produce a plug-in hybrid electric version of the Saturn Vue. Given the huge potential vehicles such as the Chevrolet Volt and Saturn Vue plug-in hybrid offers for fuel economy improvement, these programs have emerged as top priorities at GM.
“This coalition shares a vision of bringing plug in vehicles to market so we can accelerate the use of electricity as a substitute for gasoline,” said Lauckner. “We are focused on creating affordable, highly desired vehicles that will take advantage of the grid – and providing accessible, reliable, convenient low cost electricity to plug-in customers. Collectively, we can realize all of the benefits of the plug-in revolution.”
###
Popularity: 7%
Related posts:
- Electric Cars and Utility Companies
- New York Times Article on Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G)
- V2Green: A Start-up Company Making Electric Car and Grid Software
- Chevy Volt and the Electric Grid: Drive 15,000 Miles for $73
- Interview: V2Green CEO David Kaplan, Leading Vehicle-to-Grid Startup
(9 votes, average: 5 out of 5) 
Loading ...
July 21st, 2008 at 11:08 pm
GM is taking the lead with the Volt - all others will follow their standards.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:22 pm
This is excellent news, very encouraging. The leader dictates the pace…lets hope that GM continues on this path.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Martin Eberhard got his Tesla a couple of days ago. He has shown GM and the rest of the auto world the way ahead.
http://teslafounders.wordpress.com/
July 21st, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Sounds like good news. I just hope GM doesn’t bias any standards to favor “range extended” plug-in EV’s over pure battery EV’s.
I think there is also some implied good news in here too… that GM plans to be building lots more than just a couple hundred thousand plug-ins… ie. they plan to be building enough to actually mean power companies need to be involved.
Sadly one thing still bothers me is “Brita Gross who is GMs’ Manager of Hydrogen and Electrical Infrastructure”…. the emphasis still seems to be Hydrogen
July 21st, 2008 at 11:53 pm
well they just might be planning on mass producing the electric vehicles after all .. this does show some effort making sure the infrastructure is there
July 21st, 2008 at 11:54 pm
So, where’s my Volt?
July 21st, 2008 at 11:57 pm
#3 Demetius
Yes, at Tesla’s breakneck speed they might have their entire directory of employees supplied with Roadsters by the end of the next decade.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:00 am
Looks like GM is serious this time about electric vehicles if they have gone as far as they have, with discussing with 30 utility companies.
But, will they continue to be serious?
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:09 am
It’s my true hope that as a nation, we can all support each of these companies that now have finally taken a different direction that will benefit this country beyond profit. Competition is good, but I think it has come at the expense of too many. General Motors, Tesla, Fisker, and all the other companies investing in this new direction will truly change our Nation. I applaud GM’s bold roll in partnering with EPRI to set up better standards.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:19 am
Wow!
Hey GM…after this how about world domination?
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:24 am
Build a decent grid & they will come.
Did I mention it is way cheaper than H2.
http://www.aep.com/about/transmission/docs/Whatis20percent.pdf
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:35 am
maybe gm does realize a utility company is better partner then a oil company the power will be there for centurys to come its not prone to wars or over pricing due to buying electricity up lol/ ( oil speculators) u dont have to send peope to war for it dont even need special interest groups for this … its a very simple relaible way to power ur vehincles start partnerships that will last and be benificial in every way possible.. lol
brsides oil will dry up in a few decades.. maybe they are wise enough to see to switch early
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:32 am
This is good news, IMO.
Automakers have huge impact on policy and if GM is leading the bull by the horns!
The rest of the dominoes will soon start to fall.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:34 am
Yes the Utilities need to invest in infrastructure and the barriers to building the infrastructure (the NIMBY’s) need to be overcome. Can we build wind farms where the rich and powerful can see them? Nope. Why no nuclear plants in 30 years? NIMBY’s rule by lawsuit.
Can we invest in Lithium Ion Car battery production facilities in the USA? Or would that effort grind to a halt under the twin barriers of regulatory burden and NIMBY lawsuits?
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:45 am
On a side note, I think much of the “infrastructure” would include another meter to monitor how much electricity is used for the cars and then tax that meter for the same $0.38 +/- per gallon ($0.064 per kwh) for highway maintenance.
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:17 am
RE #15 Jes
“On a side note, I think much of the “infrastructure” would include another meter to monitor how much electricity is used for the cars and then tax that meter for the same $0.38 +/- per gallon ($0.064 per kwh) for highway maintenance.”
yes, quite probably. However, it is not necessarily in GM’s or utilities’ interests to become unpaid tax collectors, so they may not build that in unless Uncle Sam mandates it. Uncle Sam usually has his eye off the ball enough that I would be surprised to see this in v1.0. But by the time v2.0 or v3.0 comes along it may be a different matter. Also if the tax meter is on the utility side, then off-grid capable solar installations or other co-generation systems may have an advantage.
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:48 am
This is excellent news! I was hoping GM would see that they have the opportunity to grab new markets in the electrification of the automobile. From the actual cars, IP, to smart grid infrastructure. This is going to be a lot bigger than the Internet market. They say energy is a $4 Trillion market. I have hope that GM sees this light and follows it. This could be a company turnaround that will be used in business school case studies for centuries to come. Keep the foot on the pedal GM! It is me or is GM acting like Google all of a sudden? This is exciting.
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:35 am
jes I don’t think they are going to bother with a special meter. Probably will either A: tax ALL electricity at a lower rate than for vehicle specific charging (which would be prone to cheating) or B: incorporate the current gasoline tax into income tax because long term people might be generating a significant portion of their electricity at the house. Lots of companies promise cheap solor in 2009 or 2010.
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:40 am
#15 jes - Agreed, but how would gov’t know the difference between electric used for your dryer and for your Volt? Would Volt owners pay the same tax surcharge as pure BEV owners?
“If it doesn’t move, subsidize it. If it moves, tax it. If it stops moving, appoint a blue ribbon panel to study it until it moves again.”
————————————————————————
Now, would someone please tell me why we need a 140 horsepower car engine just to turn the Volt’s generator? Point of reference - a 10 horsepower Honda engine on a portable generator does a fine job of producing power. Why the need for SO many horsepower?
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:21 am
One other thought on the tax is that the gov’t might just concider it a “tax break” for those who decide to get off of oil. After all, its an e-rev, not a pure EV, therefor, they will be geting their tax income anyways.
Scratch my #15 comment.
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:56 am
For now, let’s increase the tax on gas,….(2 times)….and drop the tax on diesel …..now our goods can move at a less costly rate….THEN steadily increase the gas tax and put it toward alternative energy….Germany has been doing this for years and it’s working!!!!
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:05 am
The need to look at VTG and using the Volt as a Grid Storage Buffer as well all programmed through the Car’s onboard Wireless IP connection. A nice display of how much the car had earned you by leasing the battery when you were on holiday would be welcome.
Finally there are really huge, potentially life saving benefits for using the Volt as a stand-by generator for a house during a sustained power cut. All these things need to be being discussed and standardised now.
Go Volt! Go GM! Go USA!
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:27 am
Impressive news… GM seems to really be looking ahead!!!
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:50 am
Article says, The second area of focus will be education for the public. For years the public has had difficulty understanding what conventional hybrids are. Adding a plug to the equation increases the complexity consumers will have to grasp. New learning will have to take place and the utility companies are willing and able to help GM in this educational process.
———————
Education: Here is a plug. A male plug. Here is the socket. A female socket. Insert male plug into female socket. Done.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:06 am
#24 Rashiid
Good one Rashiid……
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:27 am
It is nice that GM and the US Power Companies are doing a little more. They now are about 2 years behind their Japanese counterparts in this kind of collaboration. They likely are getting started now because of some federal grant or need for federal approval of something. It doesn’t matter insofar as US PR value. Insofar as technical standards, though, maybe they will be wise enough just to copy what is being done already in Japan.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:33 am
It is almost comical how GM and the power companies, neither group seen as leading lights on technical matters, are going to focus on “educating the public.” The poor, dumb public (as they see us) is far ahead of either GM or the power companies in seeing the need and wishing to have electrically powered cars. The whole process is being held up by the failure to deliver any significant number of cars. Despite all this big talk about Hydrogen, GM still has no cost-competitive plan for hydrogen cars, no battery contract (so far as we know) for electric cars, and no real plans for substantial numbers of either one.
Rather than putting down the rest of us, they need to get to work (or get back to work) and build some.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:35 am
Besides V2G, road use taxes, and other items that will probably be long term considerations, I believe GM is working with EPRI and the utilities to find mechanisms to encourage the use of plug-ins.
Some posters have access to off-peak rates from their local utility, while some utilities don’t offer such rates. With the mass adoption of electric vehicles, the load profile for the grid will see a significant and hopefully beneficial change. See the attached link for the California ISO:
http://www.caiso.com/
As we can see from the demand curve, power draw is only a nominal 23,000 MW in the early am hours, and will peak today near 38,000 MW. With the adoption of plug-ins, and the use of proper incentives by the utilities, this curve could be much flatter, so that power plants can operate more continuously at more efficient load points.
I believe GM will lobby for utilities to provide low-cost night time charging. This will enable the utility to have a more efficient system, and also sell more power. It also provides lower rates for the plug-in users.
Without some night time incentives, many people will just plug in their vehicles at any time (such as after a day’s commute, plug in during peak time at 5:30 pm). This will serve to increase peak loading, rather than even out the system load.
Although I’m sure there are many things that need to be discussed, I believe this may be the primary focus at this time.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:38 am
I know every single one of us has seen “Who Killed the Electric Car” but do you know (and my fellow Texans will back me up on this) not one single theater played the movie in the Dallas area and only a select few aired “An Inconvenient Truth” for a very limited time. Conversely, in Oregon (where I live now), every theater showed both of those movies and a few still air them now at the dollar theaters. Even the DVDs are very limited in Dallas and I had to ask some stores to even find it and the sales people had to look it up cuz they have not heard of the movie.
The culture from place to place varies greatly and I will admit, that I was one who was misinformed on many aspects of electric cars until I watched the movie. Electric cars (and hybrids for that matter) are just not as accepted or commonplace in places like Dallas as they are in places like Portland. There is a HUGE need to educate the public. Dallas my be a bad example because they are not on EPRI, but I think you catch my drift.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:38 am
This is something our lazy government should get involved with, but they only will if forced into it.
Thanks GM for taking the initiative! In the end it will be really be beneficial for GM and it’s image.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:45 am
The lead news (Krisher, AP story) from yesterday at the Plug-In 2008 conference concerns Li-ion batteries, seen by speakers as performing much better, still in need of development insofar as cooling, and still too expensive ($10K per car) to allow cost competitive cars.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:58 am
Now this was a really long thread post (new record?), so maybe I missed what exactly this ‘collaboration’ is going to achieve. I think people understand, “plug in your car” just fine.
This is what I take from the article:
“By planning together, GM and the utility companies will be able to GO BEFORE GOVERNMENT bodies on a state, federal, and local level as a partnership seeking the same goals. These goals include the development of appropriate incentives at the consumer and CORPORATE LEVEL to encourage mass adoption of plug-in vehicles.”
Sounds like GM/ultilities going for the cash grab again to me. Unless we just had the longest post ever that says, “We are going to teach the public that if you have a plug-in car…you can plug it in…and it’s cheaper than gas”
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:03 am
I think you guys are missing the point all together.
If you were to go to the mall and ask people at random, would you concider buying a $30K compact car made by GM, but you have to plug it in, would you? Unless they follow this stuff like us, most will say no becase they think electric cars are too weak, to limited range, to compact, to ugly, to inconvinient to plug in, etc. and the Volt is far from a luxury car.
At the corporate level, changing fleets to electric vehicles is not what they will be preaching….it’s that it is finacially feasable.
Also at the corporate level, it is to allow more buisness to let you plug in at work.
Also, it’s to help convince apartments to have charging available to tenants.
THERE IS A VERY BIG NEED TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC!
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:09 am
Hey..wasnt their some connection of the lack of electrical power in california and enron??
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:19 am
#24
One small education item may be the gauge and length of the cable for the plug. One of the reasons for the non-standard plug on the concept vehicle is probably to ensure the appropriate sizes are used for the electrical cable.
I think existing electrical standards with any needed education on cable sizing should be used for the plug. Yes, the Volt concept’s plug portrays the appearance of “greater attention to detail”. However, I believe that it will be considered a negative on the Volt (no pun intended). Owners should be able to purchase the plug at any local hardware store.
If needed, just add a label like the “Unleaded Gas Only”. Something like…”X gauge minimum, Y ft maximum cable, Z amps”. The amps label would remind the owner that the Volt does not have a small cell phone battery. In other words, multiple devices on the same circuit could trip the breaker.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:22 am
Or the Li ion battery….
Even thoughs who knows a lot about batteries, but have not kept up with the A123 and LG improvments will still be under the impression that the battery will not last more than 3 years and / or shorten the lifespan in hot climates.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:25 am
29 Jes:
No offense but if you rely on your education in both matters on the information in those “Documentaries” then you are being taught wrong information.
Statik:
You would be surprised. People don’t understand serial hybrids. You have to combat range anxiety and technophobia. Handle it wrong and the technology becomes like modern nuclear plants, feared and misunderstood by the American public. Handle it correctly and 25 years from now the gas engine will be an anachronism and people will wonder why we drove such loud vehicles to begin with.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:29 am
#37 Morgan
FYI…no I don’t rely my info on documentaries (I’m a renewable energy engineering major), but in order to get the masses to understand something they have no interest in (energy and energy effeciency) you have to be able to present it to them in a manor that they walk away saying they learned something…and those are two documenteries that have impact.
And also, FYI, for you, I know they are made with a tone for the authors and they try to gear all the facts to their argument, but if you believe all the info is wrong, boy….you sure do need some public education.
Totally agree with the 2nd half of your post.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:41 am
I for one find this to be a good thing. Reason? Why would GM be in talks with the grid-owners unless they planned to make enough plug-ins to actually have it be an issue? I know we’ve heard a lot about ‘niche’ and ‘low volume’ but either one does not justify the expense and trouble of the actions taken here. We’re looking at a setup for a LOT of cars in a rather short timeframe.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:47 am
38 Jes:
Probably had a lot of the same classes as you are currently taking, including Environmental Management
That still doesn’t stop me from believing carbon offsets are bunk and a Ponzi scheme.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:51 am
The EDUCATION angle
to me seems to be for people to not overload the grid (think roilling blackouts when everyone kicks onthe A/C) add electric vehicvle charge and power management on the existing (ancient) grid is going to be neccessary.
If the neighborhood transformer handles X kw of power, sized for the average home at max draw with AC on, then everyone in the neighbrhood gets a plug in EV, the demand changes, the grid will need to adapt, and that will take time.
Simnple things like charging timers that kill the AC at night so as to not over load the system until “fuel” distribution is addressed by the utilities.
GM is smart to involve them, initially 50,000 volts all over the country will not be a huge dent, allowing the utilities time, but as the number of EV start piping up the demand will grow REAL fast.
The utilities need to be on board, and consummer education is a MUST, or the EV market will be tattered by “don’t buy electrics vehicles, the grid can’t support them.” It can, but it must be managed and that is where the education must be.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:55 am
jes — We on this blog are the public, too. Right now there are fewer GM electric cars than there are people on this blog (even this thread of this blog). Right now we can give credit to people who know nothing about electric cars as not having spent the time we have working on a topic that as yet has no productive value
That is, when there are cars for sale at dealerships, or at the least when there is a definite schedule and price for when cars will be available, there will be concrete benefits to be gained from “educating” a wider group. Right now the “educated” group (if you want to call us that) is so much larger than the number of cars available (which is zero) that there is nothing to be gained by missionary work.
All of us welcome anyone who would like to know what we do about this subject, but for the moment electric cars like the Volt are just an interest or a hobby. Until there are real cars, the subject is just a speculative fantasy about the future, not something that everyone needs to know about. I hope that changes, but it has not changed yet.
No one foresees a sudden flood of millions of battery-powered cars, Volts or otherwise, so there will be plenty of time, based on actual experience with real cars.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:59 am
#32
You are probably closer to the truth.
“We are going to teach the public that if you have a plug-in car…you can plug it in…and it’s cheaper than gas”
This could be a good message…but first, it is only true with higher oil prices. Yes, electrical energy costs less than gas, but not if vehicle cost is included. Second, the message needs to be communicated that the “electrical auto industry” will be supported to the same level as the “oil auto industry” for the long term. It is just talk until a little history is generated. I would guess most people think the Volt is just another EV1…”California Dreams”. If GM is serious about mass production, this myth needs to be dispelled.
Should the government put tighter controls on the auto industry to promote plug in vehicles? Like tax breaks for plug ins and more tax on gasoline.
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:01 am
#39 Grant
GM and the utilities may not be thinking about the public in the sense of individual people. Rather, they often are thinking about public money, e.g. federal grants and tax credits.
As Statik sweetly pointed out above
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:03 am
Static
>> “By planning together, GM and the utility companies will be able to GO BEFORE GOVERNMENT bodies on a state, federal, and local level as a partnership seeking the same goals. These goals include the development of appropriate incentives at the consumer and CORPORATE LEVEL to encourage mass adoption of plug-in vehicles.”
Sounds like GM/ultilities going for the cash grab again to me.
——————–
Funny how different people hear the same thing and take away different messages. I heard GM taking the lead by establishing a variety of standards with regard to the interface between electric vehicles and electric utilities. I’d much rather have the entities that are directly affected by this interface determine these standards than a buch of federal and state beaurocrats. Having been a Beltway Bandit for the better part of 20 years I know from personal experiece how staggeringly inept and just flat out wrong the “standards” developed by beaurocrats can be.
The establishment of interface standards is a major step in the development and dissemination of any new technological paradigm. It’s not sexy and the only time you’ll see it in the press is when its been done wrong and the media is looking for a scapegoat. One of the reasons beaurocracies botch standards is because the beaurocrats creating the standards have no real vested interest in the outcome of the standards… they get a paycheck no matter what the result. Good standards are developed by entities with long-term vested interests in the standards.
The way popular media has demonized large corporate interests, I understand how you could take your somewhat paranoid position. The impression I get from this partnership is that it is an outstanding act of LEADERSHIP.
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:07 am
#45 ThomC
Why exactly do we need a standard for plugging in a car? You take the cord, you plug it in. What else? I am not being sarcastic here, I’d really like to know what the goal is.
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:25 am
#34 THOM
There was some shady dealings going on. Do an internet search on “California electricity crisis,” ot go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:26 am
#40 Morgan
I guess we will respectfully disagree. When I watched An Inconvenient Truth, it was like Gore had been saying everything I have been preacing since 2001. So if you disagree, then we will respectfully disagree and get back on topic.
#41 Mitch
Totally agree that has a large part of it; good point. Maybe that is why GM wants to limit the first cars to 8kWh of charging instead of a full blown EV.
#42 RB
I see your point, but I’m sure GM and the electric companies want to have a more informed public before releasing the product.
#46 RB
I like the standard plug options for optimal charging and so that apartments and workplaces can have car charging ports without someone tapping into the line to power their house/apt onto someone elses account. I’m sure someone can invent an adapter, but it would be more hassel and some deterant.
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:28 am
#34 THOM
From Wikipedia;
“The California electricity crisis (also known as the Western Energy Crisis) of 2000 and 2001 resulted from the gaming of a partially deregulated California energy system by energy companies such as Enron and Reliant Energy.”
Search “California electricity crisis.”
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:28 am
On the issue of taxing the electricity: what if the CAR sent the information to the tax collectors?
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:30 am
Well I am just happy to see the ball rolling again. Back in th 70s we had a good start then the price of oil fell and we could not give away the alternative energy projects. We shall see what happens this time.
My brother sent me an email this morning saying he filled up his truck last night for $3.85. Down from $4.15 the day before. He lives in Mid state IL.
Take Care
Arch
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:40 am
Standards are long overdue.
Remember the large paddle, small paddle, AVCON charging station mess that lack of standards caused for electric charging a few years ago.
Will the new standards handle the 70 Amp / 240 V charging used by Tesla Motors?
Will utilities pay electric car owners for making their car batteries available for utility needs (Vehicle to Grid)? Will GM void battery warranties of owners who participate?
Will Big Brother issues pop up if vehicles provide their ID numbers when charging? Will Government use the IDs to tax vehicles for their power use?
Many important issues are involved. Undoubtedly many “Enhancements” to whatever standards are made will be needed to handle them.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:04 am
Building an infrastructure to recover the loss in tax revenue because of reduction in gasoline usage is an interesting topic. If we manage to shift to domestic energy from the plug for two thirds of our miles driven, then we will need to adjust our revenue stream to support road infrastructure.
Lets say the average person uses 60 gallons of gas per month and therefore pays about $15 per month in road taxes. So money could be recovered by increasing the DMV license fee by $200. That way people who do not shift to electric would in effect pay double the road tax. Sounds like a plan
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:08 am
It scares me when intelligent people are actually Wanting the gov’t to get more involved in using it’s tax mechanisms to bamboozle the public by giving what they shouldn’t have taken to begin with. Does the gov’t have a winning record in meddling? Rarely. Does industry? Usually. So lets keep the new electricity tax schemes O-U-T.
Wouldn’t it be nice if you purchased electricity off the grid like a commodity market. It takes an advanced meter. The price is constantly fluctuating based on supply and demand. If a mechanism like this were used I could sell my Volt electricity next time Enron tries to monkey with prices and drive them sky high. Electrical fill-up stations prices would vary based on the current demand, encouraging people to “fill-up” at optimum times. This would help level out the grid demand tremendously, eliminating the costly peaks and troughs that are designed for making it much more efficient.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:17 am
#24 “Here is a plug. A male plug. Here is the socket. A female socket. Insert male plug into female socket. Done.”
and if the polarity is incorrect onthe 115volt connection? I work with electronics and proper polarity is often crucial. most homes have improper polarity.
#27 “The poor, dumb public (as they see us) is far ahead of either GM or the power companies in seeing the need and wishing to have electrically powered cars.”
What the hell does this have to do with making sure the infrastucture is ready for electric cars? this “colaboration” is about setting standards, and ensuring infrastructure can supply..google overloaded grid, and see how our appetite is outstripping our supply, or how old the grid is, how much is required to fix it…it has NOTHING to do with seeing the need for and wishing for electric cars..
#32 ” I think people understand, “plug in your car” just fine”
see upper comment. Also…”Sounds like GM/ultilities going for the cash grab again to me” it could also be to improve the infrastructure to support the EV, but that was my first impression..
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:35 am
#48
OK…and the difference is….getting screwed by enron not exxon!
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:50 am
Won’t it be WONDERFUL in 2020 or whenever, when we won’t have to worry about some “stuff” happening in the Middle East or some other oil producing country? It seems like every time some rogue group in Nigeria or Iraq even THINKS of attacking an oilfield or a pipeline the price of a barrel of oil gets jacked up $10-20 dollars. Us drivers have to pay for this nonsense.
In 2025, we might not CARE if Israel attacks Iran because they are trying to build nukes. Maybe in 25 years, Iran could block the Straits of Hormuz and the oil traders would yawn … not that big of a deal. No more ridiculous military spending in the Middle East just to keep the oil flowing.
Why? Because America and the rest of the world can get all the energy for their cars they want from their local electricity plant 20 or so miles away. Like in the movie classic “Blazing Saddles” … we won’t NEED no steaanking oil! Not from the Middle East sheiks or Hugo Chavez or any oil baron who wants to rip off us drivers over in order to get rich.
The oil industry will have to focus on selling oil for plastics or something … while everyone is driving their cars and trucks using fairly inexpensive electricity … all they want. Hopefully, we’re going to be getting all that electricity from solar in the future. Or fusion energy or something. Fusion doesn’t have the safety, waste or nuclear proliferation problems that fission does. They just need to figure out how to make it work and do it fairly inexpensively.
Hopefully, the scientists will master the technology for superconducting electric transmission lines and they’ll be able to send electricity over long distances via a smart grid will almost no losses … inexpensively. People in Maine might could get electricity that came from the deserts of Arizona for the same price as a coal fired plant. Someday, those monster SUVs might even make a comeback … only they’ll be running on electrons instead of guzzling gasoline. I know this all sounds far fetched, but with the rate that technology is advancing in this global economy it might happen sooner than we think. Never know. Science fiction has a tendency to become science fact.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:02 am
GM is doing just exactly what they need to be doing in setting up the infrastructure for working with the electric companies to insure the successful adoption of electric vehicles. This is a necessary early step. Education of the “masses” is an equally important goal and involves many facets. It is not as simple as “here is a plug and you plug it in”.
Working with the electrical industry, GM can design the Volt to charge itself at the most opportune times when energy cost is lower. Many important topics must be settled even down to how the electric vehicle will communicate with the charging station at home or at the mall. Design of the charging station in shopping malls, at work or where ever is another topic for collaboration.
I will trust GM and the electric industry to make the necessary designs rather than trust the government. If you leave it to the government, every state will differ and even within the states you may have differences. This is a national “problem” and it demand a national solution. This can be done as GM is approaching it or we can leave it up to our government to do it. Which do you prefer?
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:10 am
You may very well be resigned to the fact that government will find a way to recover lost tax revenues. It may not do so immediately, but when a significant tax portion is lost, they will act. I don’t even like to think about the ways the government may try to tax us. It hurts my head to even start. There are so many ways and none of them is good. They may try to tax your electrical use, but that would drive more of us into installing our on power generation equipment. They may try taxing the vehicle through the state when pay your annual tag renewal fees. Not all states pay annual tag renewal fees.
One thing we can be assure of - some bureaucrat will find a method because there is one thing the government is really good at and that is finding revenue sources. (The best thing they are good at is wasting our money.)
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:15 am
You guys are not going to believe this, but every day I plug in my toaster, and every day it works fine, and then I unplug it, all by myself, using existing technology and safety standards
All my neighbors are getting up about the same time, and many of them are using their toasters too, and so far we’ve not shut down the grid even once 
From what we’ve heard so far, the Volt takes the same voltage and about the same current as the toaster. If in some decades there should be as many Volts as toasters, it may be that the utility has to take that into account, and if so I’m sure they will. In the interim, I doubt it, as I don’t think either toasters or Volts have nearly the power draw of heat pumps, which are present in most all the houses in our town.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:24 am
Another article on this same subject.
http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080722/AUTO01/807220364
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:35 am
#58..your right..I don’t believe it..lol
but alternatively, I do not think your toaster is as complicated as a volt, and it has been designed to a STANDARD (think CSA / ULC) to which the utilities has input.
no one thinks that connecting the plug is tough, but how about if someone does not have it on a dedicated circuit? or polarity for the electronics? or should the plug be a dedicated HARD wired connection, does the electrical code need an amendment to adapt to the EV market.
Some appliances require a special plug so nothing else can use it..should this be the case for EV’s? (think welders, dryers and ranges..)
I work in a manufacturing sector, where the design standard for the stuff we build takes 8 2″ binders covering all possible parameters that we may need to meet depending onthe product we are building. Some are not applicable, and that is the design standard, then there are installation codes that need to be addressed, which have a national, state / provincial and local amendments.
this is not about teaching people to use a plug…
Mitch
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:36 am
Somewhat off topic, but I wonder how all this will affect taxes. After all, with the high price of gas, there’s a lot of tax revenue associated with gasoline sales. When we all start using EVs, that means there will be less tax revenue for the cities, states, etc.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:36 am
@ Dick #21:
One small problem with dropping the diesel tax - more and more, that’s the tax that goes to fix roads, while the tax on regular gas tends to be diverted to social programs or balancing the budget. Think our roads are bad now? One truck loaded to 18 tons (about half the typical legal load) does the same amount of damage to a road as 1,000 cars, due to the weight. Now if we encourage more truck traffic with cheaper diesel, rather that looking at more rail transport, things will get much worse fairly quickly! I agree with the principle you’re advocating (cheaper transport = cheap goods = better economy), just not this method of implementation.
@ Van #52: Excellent idea! Only problem I see is that it would have to be phased in slowly, or those without electric propulsion will revolt.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:45 am
#58 RB
It is a big deal, you only plug your toaster in for a few minutes each day, but you’ll plug your volt in for 8 hours each day, not to mention the volt should draw more amps for quicker charge times. Anyways, as more electric cars get on the road there IS a problem that arises. Every electric car means that so many gallons of gas worth of energy more has to be produced by the utilties. If we had enough to take us off foriegn oil, then all the energy from all those barrels of oil needs to be produced from by utilities, mind you it is more efficient, so it doesnt require as MUCH fuel (and mostly coal, not oil)
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:07 am
There is an easy way to shift the roadway maintenance revenue away from oil as more electrics hit the road. Roads don’t care about how much gas and electricity you car uses; what more affects them is the number of vehicle miles driven on them. So here’s the solution. Tax people on an annual miles-driven basis. Every state in the US records mileage when your car has to pass its regular inspection, and the inspection station could then pass on the information to the appropriate government agency. The tax rate per mile that you pay would be proportional to the weight of your vehicle, since vehicle weight also has a direct wear-and-tear effect on roadways.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:13 am
Oh man, does the general public ever need to be educated!! Example: A few years ago in PA I saw a girl in her early 20s walking around her car in circles at an interstate gas station. She was from Jersey, where gas stations were full serve, and she had no idea how to pump her own gas. I couldn’t believe my eyes. I actually had to help her. Folks, there are some duuuumb people in this great country of ours. If we want electrics to dominate the market, we need to educate people on the fundamental basics of the technology.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:16 am
The state of Oregon has done some useful work on the matter of what should replace the gasoline tax as gasoline sales decline.
I have not read it completely but Google “Road User Fee Task Force” and read their “Final Report”.
They did a pilot program where basically a GPS system logged miles traveled. The tax for vehicle miles traveled was paid each time you went to the gas station. For total electric vehicles, they suggest adding the tax onto a smart-metered home eletricity meter.
They say “The 2001 Oregon Legislature established the Road User Fee Task Force “to develop a design for revenue collection for Oregon’s roads and highways that will replace the current system for revenue collection.” After considering 28 different funding ideas, the task force recommended that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) conduct a pilot program to study two strategies called The Oregon Mileage Fee Concept: (1) the feasibility of replacing the gas tax with a mileage based fee collected at fueling stations and (2) the feasibility of using this system to collect congestion charges. ODOT launched a 12-month pilot program in April of 2006 designed to test the technological and administrative feasibility of this concept. The program included 285 volunteer vehicles, with 299 motorists, and two service stations in Portland.”
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:39 am
I think GM and the electric utility companies ought to get a big keiretsu going like the Japanese have been doing for the past 50 years … an America, Inc. electric car keiretsu. We need to be able to compete vigorously against Japan, Inc. Japan clearly knows how to make pretty good cars. Japan is very good at electronics too. If America doesn’t get ready to ride this big electric car wave that’s coming, the Japanese and European companies surely will.
We need several industries to do their part to make the electrification of the automobile a big success. Semiconductor companies could play a big part. I see a bunch of IT related products going into the E-Flex cars … maybe a few HUGE nanotech innovations like nanoparticle electrodes or nanowire batteries, etc. Same thing with the software industry. Lots of lines of computer code will need to be written for all these control systems for the cars. Maybe thin film solar panels on the car and truck roofs will get practical. You could put some good sized solar panels on the top of all those 18 wheelers you know. LOTS of possibilities.
These big companies are all going to have a huge stake in the success of plug-ins and all electric cars. They ought to all help each other out in any way possible. If GM needs a cash infusion to accelerate research and development for some badly needed technology for the E-Flex cars, then maybe the utilities and other big companies can help them out financially, technically or both. I hear that GE is doing this already with A123. We need a lot of that. Lots of private and public collaboration.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:39 am
I am part of a campaign aimed at General Motors to become Green Motors and become a hybrid/electric car manufacturer. Check it out here: http://www.thepoint.com/campaigns/save-general-motors-and-the-planet-at-the-same-time
General Motors is falling apart, losing billions, and in jeopardy of going out of business. If we can convince them that there is a viable market for them taking drastic action to convert their cars and trucks to being the most environmentally efficient in the world, they have nothing to lose by unconditionally embracing the green movement.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:43 am
This is one of the more encouraging reports I have seen here lately. All credit to GM and the utilities for approaching this in such a professional way.
If GM and the utilities join forces to lobby for more incentives to popularize electric vehicles, I say so much the better. I said a long time ago that, if the US government can offer $3500 incentives to people to buy Toyota Priuses, it can by God offer $10,000 incentives for Volts. They are a huge jump ahead in technology, oil independence, national security, and will by made in USA by US workers. What’s the problem?
If people can circumvent the gas tax for the first few years by going electric, so much the better as well. One more incentive to get off oil. Take the road maintenance money out of the defense budget, as we will have to fight less wars for oil.
I totally agree with #62 Jeffrey on the diesel tax. Trucks beat the roads to death. They should pay for the maintenance that their operations create, not externalize it onto the public.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:48 am
#67 GM Volt Fan:
Amen!
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:52 am
So it begins…. the energy age!
The future is going to be good. With this kind of foresight from GM, it is quite clear the direction we are going. Much less oil in our future and this is great news. The space age and technology age have led us right into the energy age with GM leading the charge! PHEV’s are just the start we need.
Go GM Go…
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:57 am
Jes #33 says,
I think you guys are missing the point all together.
If you were to go to the mall and ask people at random, would you concider buying a $30K compact car made by GM, but you have to plug it in, would you?
————–
You have to get past the first part of your question, before you can get to the second part.
“Would you consider buying a $30K compact car made by GM?”
66 percent would say no. Use the exact same question substituting Toyota for GM, and I would bet the answer would be different.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:59 am
Carbon Offsets are not a Ponzi scheme. Rather, they are a green indulgence.
An indulgence is an absolution you purchase before you sin.
A Ponzi scheme is a confidence game where you pay high returns on the first round of investments (directly from the funds invested) in order to induce a second, larger round of investment. Once you have collected the money from the second group of investors you depart for a country that has no extradition treaty with the USA.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Rashiid,
What if you asked,
Would you pay $30k for a car that will get you off oil, help the economy and be better for the environment?
I think alot of yes would happen.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:04 pm
THOM @ 55,
You wrote, “Better to be screwed by Enron…”
I think it is better because we’re not importing oil from the Middle East. Moreover, electricity is fungible, meaning you can create it from many different sources; even sources from your own home. Solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, etc. GET ME OFF OF MY ADDICTION TO OIL FIRST, THEN WE’LL TALK ABOUT ALTERNATIVES.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:05 pm
74. Jim Rowland.
Yes. I think most people would say yes to that question.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:05 pm
After reading about all the regulations and specifications involved, it seems to me that the Prius and Prius-like cars are the way to go, rather than the Volt or anything automotive that is plugged in. Plugging in is too complicated, not from a technical viewpoint, but because of legal and regulatory considerations.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:05 pm
#53 Cautious Fan
“It scares me when intelligent people are actually Wanting the gov’t to get more involved in using it’s tax mechanisms to bamboozle the public by giving what they shouldn’t have taken to begin with.”
I take it you’ll be driving your nice new Volt up and down your driveway since you won’t have a road to drive it on. You want roads? Well there isn’t a “road fairy” so we need to pay for them.
“Wouldn’t it be nice if you purchased electricity off the grid like a commodity market. It takes an advanced meter.”
From what we’ve seen so far apparently not. Electric deregulation was a complete disaster in California and it’s not doing much better in Texas. I’m a big fan of deregulation but, for reasons beyond the scope of what we can deal with here, electrical generation may be the exception that proves the rule.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
On Standards
Yes, there are standards for 110v and 220v outlets and plugs. Those plugs are not really designed to be plugged and unplugged every day for four to eight years. Usually the reason you have to replace your hair dryer or your toaster is that the cord has frayed.
I think a nice set of idiot-resistant standards is just what the trial lawyers do *not* want.
They should get Underwriters Laboratories involved, too.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Don C # 78 says,
Electric deregulation was a complete disaster in California and it’s not doing much better in Texas.
——
Yup. A disaster in Connecticut also.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:13 pm
The utilities likely pushed for this effort since, with off-peak charging, they will increase their revenues ($200+ /yr./Volt) with little investment in their infrastructure. However, the utilities want more.
The utilities see additional benefits in a V2G scenario, despite the anticipated investment, beyond time-of-use metering, for equipment, communications and software. With V2G, the EV would be connected to the grid for the 23 or so hours per day that it is parked. The utilities would want discretionary 24/7 charging and discharging capability since it would allow the utilities to dynamically send/take power to/from the customer as the grid power capability fluctuates between surplus and deficit. This would decrease the need to maintain a spinning reserve and maximize power utility revenues.
Other potential benefits for the utilities are:
o The ability to collect road taxes, with a fee from the government
o The use of the communications link to the customer can be expanded to include demand management and detection of grow operations and other non-utility applications.
o EV development will spur large-format battery advances that could be used for power system applications. For example, a needed upgrade of an overloaded power distribution line could be deferred by placing batteries at the end of the distribution line.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
This is a great step in the right direction.
It still does not release our need on an unrenewable natural resource which will be coal. The oil need will be reduced but coal will still be needed to produce the electricity to charge the cars. Where do we get it? Solar powered hybrids should be next with electric backup. But how do you pay “the man” for solar energy? This will be the biggest reason we will not see solar powered cars. It leaves out too many open hands.
Or even better use a magnetic “road rail” system for cars that is constantly moving. Like in the movies. Everybody still has their own cars. Onstar can be used to track mileage so individuals can pay for usage and wieght can trigger movement..so kids on their scooter can’t run away.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Yes, this is very good news for GM’s and our future.
Until now, all I’ve read on the subject was coming from California. Their utilities are working with Toyota and Ford, and it seemed that GM had missed the ball.
Some of you may have read about the PG&E demo with a Prius going V2G (vehicle to grid).
http://blogs.business2.com/greenwombat/2007/04/plugin_hybrid_c.html
Now, it seems, GM isn’t just getting in the game. They are helping to write the rule book.
Way to go, guys! Keep it up!
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
GM’s vice president of global program management, Jon Lauckner, in an interview yesterday said, “To make the Volt and the plug-in Vue succeed is going to take some work.” One big advantage to electric power is cost. Lauckner said the estimated cost per mile with electric power is 1 cent per mile in off-peak periods and 2 cents at peak periods, versus about 14 cents per mile at gasoline prices of more than $4 a gallon. “It’s simple economics,” Lauckner said.
Although we haven’t yet talked about it here, there are at least two things that MUST be addressed to assure optimum grid loading & minimal cost of charging a Volt or a Vue: 1) The charger circuits MUST include a timer that’s driver settable & overridable but that defaults (after, say, 8 hrs) to a charge period of 11PM-5AM, local time; 2) this charge period must be coordinated with the EPRI and local power companies to determine whether the off-peak rate is available only at 240V and whether demand metering is required.
Otherwise, Volt & Vue owners could be paying TWICE as much to charge the battery as should be the case.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Mitch #60.
I don’t know how much we need to worry about that.
I believe the Volt will take a standard 110, which works fine in the US and Canada.
OK. I will concede that it might need a dedicated circuit like the washing machine does, but I don’t think that is a real big deal.
Did I miss something? Thanks.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:43 pm
#84 nasaman wrote:
1) The charger circuits MUST include a timer that’s driver settable & overridable but that defaults (after, say, 8 hrs) to a charge period of 11PM-5AM, local time; 2) this charge period must be coordinated with the EPRI and local power companies to determine whether the off-peak rate is available only at 240V and whether demand metering is required.
I whole heartedly agree.
#33 jes wrote:
THERE IS A VERY BIG NEED TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC!
Yes, there is a real need to educate the public about all of this technology.
The sooner the better.
How about teasers like…
It’s coming !
or
The Next Big Thing ! (don’t be left out)
Look at what the Federal Government is doing now concerning Digital Television. I see those “DTV Answers” commercials all the time.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Not related to this topic - but another EV-supercar has surfaced
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/22/lightning_fast_charge_supercar/
its only 120,000… POUNDS
~$250,000.. haha.
It does have quickcharge though
They claim the batteries don’t need heating or cooling, and can work at -30c…
Why don’t I believe that? Seems too good to be true.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
First off this is a great site it has now become a part of my daily readings.
With regards to a Vehicle to Grid (VtG) application it is a whole different animal to what people are used too. VtG is a wonderful concept that will happen at some point, it is basically where the battery from the car can FEED INTO the utility grid as well as accepting a CHARGE FROM the utility grid.
The vehicles that are VtG will need some form of commonality like we see with USB ports on computers. The Paddles (plug), Voltage and AMPs especially at Malls etc need to have this commonality otherwise confusion could reign as different manufactures and venders could be shut out of different regions.
With a VtG feeding back into the grid, there has to be a feed in tariff rate set by the utility or through the State Energy Corporation Commissions. The utility might have to be legislated to accept a VtG as that now makes you a power provider. With home solar and wind turbine systems this is not a big issue as such, other than getting the Utility to pay a “fair” feed in fee for the kWhrs provided.
The other issue is any VtG set-up has to have some form of inverter at the service entrance box, Utilities will not allow any power fed into the grid without one, the reason is if the power were to go down the utility cannot have lines that are still live (hot) by Solar, Wind or VtG, the lineman do not liked get shocked when doing repairs to the system.
The VtG world will come around but safeguards’ ands commonalities must be met.
Geoff
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:48 pm
The Grump,
Why the Volt needs a 140HP engine…
The Volt needs an engine with real power, because that engine needs to meet the power needs of the car under all conditions and when the energy from the batteries is depleted.
A 10HP motor might make enough power for 90% of driving conditions. But if you tried to drive it up a long mountain road, it would slow to a 10HP crawl after the batteries were depleted. Needless to say, the result would be a huge trashing of the Volt by competitors and the media.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:58 pm
It’s amazing how people in California think they are the whole country. Much of the country, such as where I live, does not have different electric rates at different times of the day. We also do not have a shortage of grid transmission lines, or a shortage of generating capacity. We do not have rolling blackouts, and we do not have our utilities turning things on and off for us in our own houses.
I can see that the Volt is and will be made primarily for California — good luck with it. In thinking about issues more broadly, however, please do not assume that the whole world wishes to be like you are.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:02 pm
#84 nasaman
I’m not sure how important off-peak charging is for the individual. I don’t think many consumers have time of day metering. It’s certainly not the case here in CA or in any of the other states I’ve lived.
On the other hand, collectively and for the utilities this is absolutely huge. Most of the time utilities have more electricity than they can sell, which is too bad since, unlike oil, electricity can’t be stored. If the electrical utilities could sell this excess capacity and put it to use charging electrical vehicles, then every penny paid ends up as net profit for the companies. Additionally, since this additional revenue doesn’t require any additional cost, average cost per kWh sold will decrease, and this savings can be passed on to consumers in the form of lower kWh charges.
Alternatively, as you suggest, you could have time of day and season pricing, each with different different pricing — but this requres time of day metering. At the extreme end you have the idea of being able to actually sell your electricity back to the utilities in peak periods but this requires some relatively expensive infrastructure which makes it seemingly quixotic.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Regarding VTG…
I think it’s a little premature to be worrying about VTG at this point. It will be several years before there are enough electric cars where they can actually impact the grid in any significant way.
Also, even if you could do VTG now, each time you use the feature you would be cycling your very expensive battery system, making it wear out sooner. Probably not worth it for the small amount of $ you would make selling back the electricity. Some day, when batteries become much cheaper or much more durable, then the cost of the extra VTG cycles goes down.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:04 pm
There is’nt much that needs to be done to the grid in order to accommodate the Volt.
Its really just a question of where to put the charging stations in the urban environment.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/greentech-car,5941.html
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:05 pm
84 nasaman
“1) The charger circuits MUST include a timer that’s driver settable & overridable but that defaults (after, say, 8 hrs) to a charge period of 11PM-5AM, local time;”
Yes. Now that we are thinking along those lines, what about another setting that allows the utility to pick the time w/i a 24 hour period, which would be the cheapest (read, most convenient for the utility). This, too, could be overridable.
Many people today have flex schedules, work at home, etc. and could benefit from their own flexibility.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:11 pm
I hope they work all of this stuff out….it is nice to see the continued focus on dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s….
We wouldn’t want to live in a world where your license plate number determines whether or not you are allowed to plug in, much less actually get in and drive!
I am thankful to already be “educated” on this technology… Car use electric motor — powered by battery — plug battery in to charge — battery run out — flex fuel engine charge battery — electric motor keep turning wheels — car move forward
I’m looking forward to the marketing… I cant stand all the ‘hydrogen’ based car commercials already on the air (oh yeah, I’m one of those “hydrogen is a diversion by big oil” people)
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:19 pm
“It’s amazing how people in California think they are the whole country. Much of the country, such as where I live, does not have different electric rates at different times of the day. We also do not have a shortage of grid transmission lines, or a shortage of generating capacity. We do not have rolling blackouts, and we do not have our utilities turning things on and off for us in our own houses.”
Well good for you
About 5 years ago, Ontario was all of those bad things described (well in peak time, hot summer days), and we have nowhere near the population of Cali nor the energy hoggers.
)
Just because its working fine now doesn’t mean things won’t/can’t change in the future (especially once people start using electric cars)
What may be working now could overload everything in the future.
Ontario has turned things around, and we’re actually exporting more electricity than we use (probably to the states?)
In 5 years they have changed their operations to ensure we don’t run out of power - if they could do that now, then in 5 years, most electrical grids can be ready for mass-marketed plugin cars.
(It took a massive blackout for them to fix things here, lets hope it wont come to that in other states/provinces
Oh, and we’ll be starting time of use (TOU) meters all across Ontario by 2009/2010.
It’s not just California.
Some cities are using them right now (Parts of Toronto, etc.)
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Actually, I see this announcement as somewhat bad news. The implication is that our current grid won’t be able to support the Volt.
This type of implication is not correct. Here’s a quote from the recent NOVA program “Car of the Future”:
“DAVID GREENE: Our existing electric utility system could handle tens of millions of plug-in hybrid vehicles if they would be recharged during off-peak times, such as at night.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/tm/3507.html?site=22&pl=wmp&rate=hi&ch=5
With regard to the article and Brita Gross’s three points:
1) If everyone plugs in at night, there will be no problem. So the best thing the power companies can do is encourage people to plug in at night. The easiest way to do this is charge significantly less per KWh at night, and significantly more during the day. In fact, new electric meters that measure time of day usage are already being installed in many homes across America. So this is already happening.
2) Public education will be a non-issue. If running on electricity remains 4 times less expensive than gasoline, then people will take the time to figure it out. As an analogy, how long did it take for normal, non-geek type people to learn how to download music from the Internet? Money is a big motivator. Of course, if the Volt ends up costing $40K, then all the public education in the world won’t help. At $40K, the Volt will always be a niche car. Most people won’t be willing to pay more to drive electric.
3) It would be great to involve power companies in legislation that promotes plug-in cars. This is the only point Brita makes that I agree with. The electric power companies, as well as all the companies that provide fuel to supply electricity, stand to make a lot more money if plug-ins become mainstream. So it would be great to get them involved in lobbying for legislation that promotes plug-ins. This would do a lot to offset the oil lobby.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Here’s another article on this subject:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/22/news/companies/gm_electric.ap/index.htm?postversion=2008072204
“This vehicle is real. It’s coming into production,” said Britta Gross, a GM engineer who is helping to build the infrastructure for cars of the future”……”We want this to sell in just huge volumes, so we want to get it right,” she said.
Also, in this article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idUSN2147289020080722
In an interview, General Motors’ manager of hydrogen and electrical infrastructure commercialization, Britta Gross, said utilities would be key to not only raising consumer awareness about plug-in vehicles, but also implementing an infrastructure for public charging stations.
“The issue is going to be how many consumers have plugs in the right places in their garage?,” Gross said. “How many people don’t even have garages? We have to have a public charging infrastructure put in place and a strategy for that with corporations and municipalities. That’s where the utilities are going to be very helpful to us.”
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
canehdian
I’m in Ontario as well. Thank you for furthering the Canadian stereotype ‘eh. How bout them leafs? Think Mats will re-sign with them?
Ontario is looking pretty promising right now energy wise. We have a new refinery that’s supposed to be built about 30 minutes from my city in the next few years, there is an ethanol plant in my city as well, wind turbines are here now too, and we have 3 bio-diesel gas stations. Exciting times.
Chris
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:31 pm
#85 Rashid
“Did I miss something? Thanks.”
I don’t know honestly,
My point in a simplistic way was trying to say what this is about. (see post earlier up about education…)
Some people think this is treating them like idiots.(I know how to use a plug) when in reality that is not what the “educating the public” is about., or others as a cash grab..it is about governemetn money, but there is SSOOO much more then here is a car, here is a cord..have fun..if it was that simple, Tonka would have the first EV…Whya re Toyatota and Ford working with the Calif Utility for EV’s if they are not really required, aren’t Californians able to work a plug? The Utilities HAVE to be involved.
Being in a manufacturing industry myself that uses and interacts with utilities with our products, when we devolloped a new idea, a first of its kind thing that would affect the grid, we have to do the same steps as GM, nothing like it was around, and develloping a standard was CRUCIAL, (it too by the way uses 120 volts, regular extension cords etc…) but because it is a first, there were no standards, either for construction, application, installation, code requirements had to be addressed, utility companies were involved..
THe WHOLE process is a massive undertaking, our idea is small niche, and will not get the major headlines (yet!), but hte VOLT is huge for a HUGE company, so it garners the lions share of attention. Many manufacturing firms do this, but it is a small potatoes venture compared to the volt..but we all need to address the standards, and if there are not, devellop them. That GM is doing this is a positive step to brining the Volt to the market.
Like Hydrogen vehicles..there is NO infrastructure to support it..there has to be one,and there will have to be standard for it,and Hydrogen manufacturers will have to deal with the auto companies about it….
That is reality
Mitch
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:34 pm
GM & EPRI should also discuss standards for wireless power technology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_energy_transfer
Although there are efficiency losses compared to hard wired, wireless is less susceptible to vandalism and would be ideal for unsecured areas such as public parking lots, motels and open apartment parking. The customer could swipe his credit card in the office, then be given the code to enter in a smart receiver under the hood, and be billed according to duration of the metered current draw (actual power, not total time, since draw may be pulsed).
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:35 pm
#98 Chris
The new Shell refinery near Sarnia was killed almost 2 weeks ago…
Sorry dude
Mitch
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:37 pm
#89 Paul-R says: “The Volt needs an engine with real power, because that engine needs to meet the power needs of the car under all conditions and when the energy from the batteries is depleted.”
————————————————————————————–
The energy from the batteries will never be depleted in any normal real world scenario.
If your daily commute includes significantly more that 40 miles of very steep mountain grades, then the battery will discharge below 30% regularly, and the battery will wear out sooner, perhaps in 5 years instead of 10. But this type of daily commute will wear out any type of car faster. In addition, this type of daily commute is very rare, perhaps around 0.1% of the population.
On the other hand, if you drive very steep mountain grades occasionally, then the battery will discharge below 30% occasionally, which probably won’t affect battery life in any significant way. This type of scenario is much more common, and the Volt should have no problem with it.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I agree with Paul-R (#92): I don’t want some faceless utility deciding when and how much to cycle my car’s batteries. I can see how something like this might be forced upon those who plug in during the day. However, if this is based in any way on the home electricity generator’s “sell excess power back to the utility” scheme, you’ll get less for the power you “give” than you’re charged for what you “get.” I’d want to be assured in any case that V2G didn’t rip me off by taking power away at a rate lower than what I paid.
If I charge off-peak, drive 10 miles and plug in, am I going to lose 20 miles worth of power to run the grid during the time I’m stopped?
It will take years for there to be enough cars (never mind the interface) to make this possible. In that time, I’d far rather see the utilities invest in their own (sodium-sulfur) battery technology for load leveling, and then pay money for used Volt batteries when they start becoming available.
It would also pay the utilities to get more involved in subsidizing solar arrays at the local level (homes and businesses), since they produce maximum power at about the time commuters would be getting a recharge at work. Most of them unplug and take to the roads ahead of 5:00 - 5:30, leaving a couple hours of sunlight free for the afternoon power crunch.
Something like this lessens the extent to which individuals must surrender to some kind of central control / tracking requirement.
===
About road taxes: if a system is established which bases road use on mileage, they ought to take the embedded gas tax away and treat everyone the same. Such a system should tax differently based on the weight of the vehicle, as well.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:44 pm
#74 & #76:
Yes to $30,000, No to $40,000.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
From chevrolet.com: “The EV1 quickly became the worldwide benchmark for electric vehicles, but its timing wasn’t quite right…. We didn’t kill the electric car; electric vehicle technology is far from dead.”
GM - YOU DID KILL THE ELECTRIC CAR.
GM was ’serious’ about the EV1, they poured millions into its development.
Then they failed to whip up any consumer interest in the car, failed to market it and failed to even show pictures of it to the mass market - me for instance.
Then they cancelled development, capped the leases at 800, called the thing a failure and blamed who? YOU.
GM even refused to allow the leased EV1 to be purchased by willing customers, many of whom videotaped their beloved cars being towed away.
Those cars were all crushed.
Ten years on, after Toyota proved it was possible to sell a 100+ mile range EV (the RAV4 EV) GM comes up with the ‘Volt’.
And you lot are talking about this ‘Volt’ thing as if it will actually be made!
How gullible are the American people?
Well, it’ll be 2012 before the light goes on and you figure out that all those unfortunate ‘issues’ keeping the Volt from production are deliberate. Then the Volt program will be nixed as a commercial failure and GM will trundle out some lame 42mpg subcompact called the Neo to placate the greens.
And guess who GM will blame?
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Paul-R #89
A 140 hp engine is excessive, unless you live in a mountainous area.
A 3,000 lb. car going up an 8% grade requires 48 kW (64 hp) to maintain a speed of 65 mph. The breakdown of this 48 kW is as follows:
o 4 kW for rolling friction,
o 9 kW for aerodynamic drag, and
o 31 kW to go uphill, i.e., make the grade
o 4 kW for electrical losses (10%).
To put this in perspective, consider the average 7.2% grade of the Pike’s Peak International Hill Climb of 1,439 meters over a 20 kilometer road.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikes_Peak_International_Hill_Climb
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:00 pm
91 Don C
1. “I’m not sure how important off-peak charging is for the individual. I don’t think many consumers have time of day metering. It’s certainly not the case here in CA or in any of the other states I’ve lived.”
There are plenty of areas that have or are implementing a time-of-use plans, do not do broad brush strokes on this. Look up PURPA TIME-BASED METERING AND COMMUNICATIONS (see EPACT 2005 Sec. 1252) http://www.oe.energy.gov/purpa.htm
CA has a bunch of utilities and Municipals that follow these ru