Interview: CEO of Compact Power Inc. on Facility Requirements to Build the Volt’s Packs
Since we’ve recently heard GM must announce the Volt’s battery suppler by the end of the year, it is of interest to see what Compact Power and LG Chem would need to do in order to be ready for mass production of the battery packs. Below is a discussion I had about this with the CEO of Compact Power, Inc, Dr. Prabhakar Patil.
Will winning the Chevy Volt battery contract require the construction of any new facilities on your end?
We already have the space and the buildings and so forth. Because its not like we’re setting up a new facility just for this.
So you don’t need to build a new factory just for the Volt if you get the contract?
No. Its just the addition of another line. That’s the advantage we have over other people. Right now we make the little cells, the consumer electronic type of cells, on the order of 40 million per month.
That’s LG Chem’s production?
Right, and LG Chem will make these cells also. Compared to those kinds of numbers, even though the numbers required for the Volt are significant from an automotive perspective, from our perspective, we are used to those kind of numbers and can respond to it in a relatively straightforward manner, becasue we already have the facilities in place, the processes in place, the supply base in place, and the supplier quality processes in place and so forth.
So its just a matter of programming in the specifics of the Volts’ prismatic cells?
It is a separate line that will need to be set up. So there is equipment that need to be brought in, and we will need to know exactly where to go to get it, how long to get it commissioned and all of that, so its a well-oiled machine.
For the actual pack assembly, we would have to set up a new facility because all I can do in Troy where I’m currently located is to build the prototype packs.
Given the size of the Volt’s pack it will have to be co-located with a GM assembly plant, but (that can happen) quickly, because the setup time for that is not that long. Pack assembly is not anywhere near the complexity of an automobile manufacturing plant or even anything like the cell assembly line. That can be brought up to speed fairly quickly, in act the lead time for that is only a few months.
So you would be piggybacking a GM facility to do that?
You’d have to with anybody. Its not just GM. When your talking about getting up to the kinds of volume GM is talking about, my tipping point is about 50,000 units. Above 50,000 units I would set it up next to a vehicle facility like many other suppliers do. It’s economically better to do it that way to avoid shipping costs and shipping delays and a whole bunch of other logistical stuff. There is enough volume there that you can actually make it cost-efficient.
On the other hand if the volumes are in the 10,000 kind of a range, the we would do it in a centralized facility where you would make several different packs, because it doesn’t make sense to set up a pack line for those low volumes. But because of the volumes that GM is targeting plus the fact that this is an unwieldy pack to ship, you’ve seen the pack, that’s not something you want to be shipping lightly around the country, regardless of whether we do it or A123.
Is GM giving you some guidance as to the types of quantities they would expect in the first year?
The volume information is something that’s proprietary to GM. We have gone through scenarios for ramp ups and what it would look like, but it becomes really real when you sign on the dotted line.
Is that what the next contract will be about, is that when GM commits money to your company?
Its an official sourcing arrangement. It would be no different than any other production program where they bring on a supplier as a production source.
The cells then no matter what will be assembled in Korea?
For now, thats right. But what I’ve pointed out before is that there really isn’t anything magic about the location (Korea), its just that economically it make sense, not because of labor, because the labor content of a cell’s cost is relatively small. The bigger issue is a lot of the infrastructure in terms of the raw materials, the raw material suppliers, the equipment manufacturers, and all of that. Both in terms of the companies that supply them and the know-how. To set that all up here would require a substantial amount of volume in order to justify installing that sort of an infrastructure. Now it is more of a question of when there is that volume, and it doesn’t have to just be GM. If the collective volume gets large enough that I can see a time and an opportunity to do the cell assembly here.
Popularity: 3%
Related posts:
- GM-Volt Interview: Compact Power VP of Engineering, Martin Klein, Part 1
- GM-Volt EXCLUSIVE Interview/Podcast: Compact Power Inc. Executives Discuss Volt Battery Pack Development
- CEO of Compact Power Inc. on Timing of the GM Volt Battery Contract Announcement
- CEO of Compact Power on His Charge to Build the Volt’s Battery
- GM-Volt Interview: Compact Power VP of Engineering, Martin Klein, Part 2
(7 votes, average: 5 out of 5) 
Loading ...
82 Responses to “Interview: CEO of Compact Power Inc. on Facility Requirements to Build the Volt’s Packs”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- The 2009 Detroit Auto Show Should be Electrifying
- Chevy Volt Battery Temperature Control
- EEStor Gets a Trademark Patent on EESU and Provides Specs for a 24V EESU
- More Future Volt Competition?: Lotus E-REVs and Solar-Powered Toyotas
- Poll: Which 2010 Hybrid Would You Buy?
- Happy New Year From GM-Volt.com
- 10,000 Camaros Have Been Pre-Ordered, How Many Volts Will Be?
- How Will Air Conditioning Affect the Chevy Volt’s Electric Range?
- Volt Chief Designer on the Public Reaction to Chevy Volt Redesign
- US Battery Companies Seek Government Funds to Establish US-Based Lithium-ion Production Capacity
September 5th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Good stuff Lyle
… my tipping point is about 50,000 units. Above 50,00 units I would set it up next to a vehicle facility like many other suppliers do.
I will be watching closely to see where the assembly plant is. I sure hope it’s at the GM plant! Especially if they are serious about going to 60,000 Volts in year two.
Time will tell. Made my point, off to bed now.
LJGTVWOTR.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:16 am
It looks like supplying the early batteries will be possible because of the relatively low volume so we don’t have to worry that the contract is being setup so late. It also looks like someone does not have full confidence in the volt’s success or else they would be planning, from the start, for a battery plant near the assembly line. They seem to be implying a wait and see approach to ramping up battery production.
Just a thought…
The Volt appears to me to be a demonstration vehicle (somewhat like the solstice was an image car for pontiac) to create a green halo for GM but not really for mass production. The car will create a lot of buzz but will be a money loser like the solstice. This is probably a great idea. GM needs the image makeover and quite frankly, the follow on vehicles to the Volt should be superior in many ways and would make more sense to mass produce. True mass production may be planned for the follow on (V2.0 of E-Flex) vehicles.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Lyle — Excellent and informative interview. On the whole the interview is reassuring that things can come together (just) in time because it is (just) low volume per year. Even so, one ponders this Q&A
“So its just a matter of programming in the specifics of the Volts’ prismatic cells?
It is a separate line that will need to be set up. So there is equipment that need to be brought in, and we will need to know exactly where to go to get it, how long to get it commissioned and all of that, so its a well-oiled machine.”
The “we will need to know…” part makes it clear that it is not all so simple as just pushing a button to start the assembly line running. It is going to take a while to get a “well-oiled machine”.
In any event, LJGTVWOTR.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:17 am
It’s nice to see how these people explain capability to GM.
My small business is meeting with a pharmacy chain and some verbiage on capacity and logistics…how they explain in house and when it’s necessary to go into another facility… “having facilities in place”….
This is all very good news. I hope GM is also working on a Hybrid counterpart in the price range of the new Honda and Toyota Hybrids.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:38 am
To be honest I do not know what to believe about the batteries.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:45 am
I’m not familiar with all the lingo.
What is a line?
Is it an assembly line with all the people and all the equipment/tools needed to make a product?
September 5th, 2008 at 8:48 am
#2 nuclearboy
I think you’re being overly pessimistic with LG’s conservancy. Like most businesses, they need a contract to eliminate their risk. It’s wait and see. I don’t view their strategy to imply a weakness in the Volt. Just good business practice, especially if they can setup so quickly. They may not even win the contract.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:49 am
This is what I read…
talk talk talk
…but it becomes really real when you sign on the dotted line..
talk talk talk
/welcome to my world
September 5th, 2008 at 8:53 am
#6 Rashiid Amul
“What is a line? Is it an assembly line with all the people and all the equipment/tools needed to make a product?”
Yes. Conveyors, robotic equipment, tools, testing stations, etc…
September 5th, 2008 at 8:54 am
#7.
Its not LG’s conservancy that is the issue. It is GM’s. I am just saying that they don’t appear to be serious about ramping up and mass producing the Volt or else they would 1. announce the contract winner and 2. make sure the winner is ready to have a production line site picked out and ready to go near the volt production line.
I am not really pessimistic, I am just suggesting that it would make more sense to mass produce the Volt V2.0 which should be a superior vehicle with all of the lessons learned from V1.0 and a better battery.
The idea of going slowly with Volt 1.0 has some merit. Ramping up production to 100% on V1.0 is risky. GM just had an electrical recall on a windshield washer fluid heating system on the new crossovers (I really like those vehicles (GMC Acadia, et al.). Electrical recalls / overheating issues, are not what GM needs in the Volt. The Volt is obviously much more complicated.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:11 am
#8 Statik - you mean it’s all about “show me the money?” LOL
On the timing, if GM thinks the battery packs are falling in price, it might want to delay the timing as long as possible. Sort of like buying a house at the moment!
What’s interesting is their current volume. He says the Volt numbers would be large from an automotive perspective but not that different from what they do today. I wonder where all their current production is going?
Another interesting point is the continued confirmation that the price of oil makes a long supply chain uneconomic. That’s something recent. Obviously moving forward production will continue to shift to the physical location of the market, regardless of what company manufactures the vehicles.
Finally, I think GM has consistently said that production for 2010 would be 10,000 units for 2010 and 60,000 in 2011. This doesn’t seem to change that though it does suggest there have been scenarios bandied about where volumes are much higher. Are expectations different?
September 5th, 2008 at 9:15 am
I agree with #10 Nuclearboy.
It is a new product on which the companies future rides. Better slow and steady then having a huge problem with recalls etc on your hands.
It will take a little while for Joe public to embrace this product. Not everybody enjoys being cutting edge.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Korea. Yuck. ‘Nuff said…
September 5th, 2008 at 9:22 am
#11 DonC
What’s interesting is their current volume. He says the Volt numbers would be large from an automotive perspective but not that different from what they do today. I wonder where all their current production is going?
—————-
I believe (don’t quote me, lol), LG is the 2nd or 3rd largest laptop lithium battery supplier…I know they do the bulk of Dell’s laptops and they have some Apple contracts.
I know that it’s sister company LG Electronics is the 4th or 5th largest cell phone maker…I would think they supply the batteries for them, lol.
September 5th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Please excuse me if this is too dumb a question, I’ll try and do some research on my own when I get home from the office this evening, but … there have been numerous battery recalls from multiple types of companies (automotive, laptop, iPod, cell phones, etc) in the past few years due to “overheating” and “fire risks”. Does anyone know whether the problems been with the individual cells or with the packs?
Thanks.
September 5th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Did anyone see the Christian Science Monitor editorial on the proposed $25 billion loan program for the “Big 3″ posted on today’s Yahoo news page?
A cautionary tale.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:15 am
#16 noel park
Did anyone see the Christian Science Monitor editorial on the proposed $25 billion loan program for the “Big 3″ posted on today’s Yahoo news page?
A cautionary tale.
———–
No, but I did see the ‘Avoid this easy email scam’-Even Paris Hilton has fallen prey to this hacker’s scheme to steal passwords, article…a chilling read.
You got a link?
September 5th, 2008 at 11:18 am
It looks to me that they are saying “if there are Volt delays, it won’t be because of us”.
Just my read.
Be well,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR!!
September 5th, 2008 at 11:30 am
50,000???????? the toyota sells more than 100,000 preusses a year and they are just a cheesy hybrid. i think they shoun xpect to sell more like 300,000 cuse people want theese ev’s
September 5th, 2008 at 11:47 am
GM is saying to the congress “We’re ready to sign the contract, we just need our federal loan guarantee for the USA to get the electric cars it needs.” (a speculation, of course)
September 5th, 2008 at 11:52 am
CNN on loans to GM and others
“http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/04/news/economy/automakers_Congress/index.htm?section=money_latest”
September 5th, 2008 at 11:57 am
#14 Statik
But Li-ion batteries for laptops and consumer electronics are completely different than the manganese spinel batteries that would go into the Volt. Different chemistry and different properties. (The A123 batteries for power tools are the same which is why I’d think they would pose less risk).
That’s what has me puzzled. I don’t know of any large scale deployment of manganese spinel technology.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
psklenar -
I use both lithium polymere (lipo) and lithium ion batteries to fly model airplanes. The issues have been with cell construction. Early lipo batteries were very sensitive to over discharge and definately they did not like to be overcharged. The problem we were having was that our battery chargers would charge all the cells in a pack at once in series without monitoring individual cell voltages. People were burning up their SUVs, garages, and houses because the cells would go into “thermal runaway”. Now folks that use lipos have chargers that monitor each cell and don’t permit overcharging of a cell. There are still some problems because the state of charge varies with temperature, so a battery that is charged indoors and taken outside can be “overharged” as the temperature changes.
The A123 batteries were a breath of fresh air. The cells are inherently safe and do not support “thermal runaway” it has to do with the nano structure coating on the cathode of the battery and the balance of chemicals used in the fabrication of the cell. The cells support higher charge and discharge rates than the other lithium ion cells. They are used in both DeWalt power tools (V32) and the Black and Decker (VXP). They are used to fabricate Prius extender packs (Hymotion) and have been selected to power the Think car.
This thread from the EZone is one where people tell of the fires they have experienced with lipos.
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=719116
September 5th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Thank you Len, I’ll follow that link when I get home (it’s blocked by the firewall here in the office).
I have some experience with Lipo’s myself. I’ve used them in my laptop computers, hand-held GPS’s and my amateur radio hand-held radio, but I guess I’ve been lucky in that either the battery packs had circuitry to ensure individual cells don’t over-charge, or … I’ve just been lucky.
Again, thanks for the link. I need to do some more reading this weekend.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
The lipos did not last very long either. Some would last a couple years, but they were rare. There was a lot of variability even within brands. This is one big reason (besides not supporting thermal runaway) that I like the A123 cells so much. They take every sort of abuse and just keep on working. People have deliberately and by accident severly overcharged the cells and they have a built in pressure relief system that opens (electrically) the cell and removes it from the circuit. Other than severe overcharge, the cells take moderate overcharge and discharge to the drop off point and just keep on working. Nobody has 10 years experience with any lithium based battery that has survived that long, so there is a lot of risk there. Having said that, I would put my money on A123 to outlast the others.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
psklenar-
Consumer electronics today pretty well monitor the charge and discharge of the lipos. The chemistry has been changed to make them safer. The Sony recall problem was due to a misunderstanding of the instructions for putting the cathode into the battery by a line worker, a fabrication problem. There have been recalls by other brands for fabrication problems also.
The electric plane guys learned the hard way to treat them with respect.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Len@ 23 +25
Thanks for the very informative post. We have a few (several?) people who’ve been in the radio control hobby and it’s great to have people with hands-on experience with the different chemistries.
Question: Would the two different companies batteries likely be the same if the chemistry for both cell’s was the same?
Be well,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR!!
September 5th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Len re “drop-off point”
Just curious, but how did you “predict” the drop off point so that it didn’t occur while the plane was in flight? I’m assuming that GM will/has determined it for their cells.
Be well,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR!!!!
September 5th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Tagament -
No, the construction seems to be as important as the actual chemistry. There are lithium-ion batteries that just don’t deliver the goods. You could probably use them for a car battery, but would need supercaps for the regen breaking, and a large pack to supply the needed current to the motor. We don’t use them much for model airplanes because of the lack of current density. The five A123 cells I have powering a plane with a 63 inch span (and it hovers on the prop) are 2.3 amp hour cells and I have it propped for 52 amps at full throttle. You can’t do that with other lithium ion cells.
There are a couple of patents held by the University of Texas and licenced to a Canadian Hydroelectric company that deal with the lithium metallic oxide chemistries and layered construction techniques. US Patent 5,910,382 and 6,514,640 (cathode construction - and they have more patents on chemistry). There has been a law suit underway :
http://271patent.blogspot.com/2006/09/patent-battle-heats-up-for-lithium.html
September 5th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
I’m not a lawyer, but I have four patents(and I slept at a holliday inn), and unless the claims are very broadly interperted I don’t think they will be found to have violated the patents. I believe they use a nano particle process on the cathode that produces better results, but is not the same “layered” construction. It is, in my opinion, a more manufacturable technique.
September 5th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
For those needing something to tide them over for the 787 days (or is it 786 now?), FOXNews.com has this little gem to peruse:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/foxcarreport/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,415942,00.html
I assume most of us would have the $198,000 spare change available.
Of couse that may not be your favorite color.
LJGTVWOTR in all of our favorite colors.
September 5th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
11 DonC
“On the timing, if GM thinks the battery packs are falling in price, it might want to delay the timing as long as possible. Sort of like buying a house at the moment!”
That certainly makes sense. Although, GM could put a price deflater in the contract based on when the bats are required.
Perhaps, they are waiting for A123’s IPO, so as not to effect the initial offering price.
You would think it would be to the selectee’s benefit to know early and have more time for line preparation, competitive bidding, etc.
Perhaps they already did a “wink, wink, we have selected a winner, but we can’t tell you who it is yet”.
Or, perhaps, they are simply still negotiating.
September 5th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Tagament - re drop off point
My plane is a floater and is kept pretty close, usually we run timers on our transmitters and we learn that you can fly X minutes of a certain style of flying. The same site that had the thread on lipo fires also has graphs for batteries that show how they hold voltage under different current demands.
If the patent squabble has not been settled yet, they could be waiting for that.
September 5th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
#28 Tagamet
In battery talk the “drop off point” usually refers to what happens when the internal resistance of the battery increases to such a degree that the voltage at the terminals drops below what the appliance needs to operate. I don’t think this is what he’s referring to.
He seems to be talking about the minimal voltage below which the cell should not be discharged to avoid damage to the battery. In the Volt this is handled by the SOC (and cell balancing). For the Volt this would be what Andrew Farah called the “actual depletion point”. This is all handled by software the models lack - the models just run out of juice and die. The Volt is far more capable, and, to state the obvious, the beauty of the Volt is that it has a gen-set to take over whereas the model plane runs out of power. No worries.
September 5th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Not to sound dumb, but, why would someone bring an Etch-a-sketch into the battery technology lab?
September 5th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Michael@31
Sorry, it turned 787 at midnight.
And thanks to Len and DonC
Be well,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR
September 5th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
#35 George K
You sound too dumb. It isn’t an Etch-a-sketch, it is a cat door
There are others here that sound too smart. I appreciate them.
September 5th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
I went back and read the whole post once again. Basically it says, every so politely, what the Teamster’s used to say:
No contract, no work.
September 5th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
The drop off point I was refering to is a visual description of the voltage of the battery as it approaches “empty”. These batteries have a very steep curve at that point - almost straight down. Tagament’s question was right on. Very quickly after you notice a slight loss of power, you loose all power. You decrease the life of lipos significantly treating them this way, but A123 cells are tough. One guy that posts on the Ezone (everydayflier) has over 500 cycles on a battery that he charges with a zip cord straight from a 12Volt car battery (five to eight minutes) and runs nearly to depletion. He says it has lost about 10% of its capacity.
September 5th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
This is a total non-sequitur. I don’t give a damn how easy, or difficult it is to make battery cases. The real issue is the Li-Ion cells themselves. LG will not build new facilities to supply them.
GM finds itself in the same position as Ford did with Sanyo and the Ford Escape Hybrid. LG has just signed an agreement to deliver as many Li-Ion cells as any of the Korean auto makers want, through 2020. So Hyundai and Kia get first dibs.
Sanyo contracted to deliver cells to Ford, and soon experienced “production problems” as soon as other native Japanese firms showed up wanting Sanyo cells. Ford deliveries slowed or stopped, limiting Escape manufacture, until the “production problems”, cleared up Or what really happened is the diversions to its own Japanese firms were met and/or by expanded production.
Ford got shafted.
Now GM looks to be setting itself up for a similar result. When GM can’t manufacture as many Volts as it wants, and Hyundai is selling a competitive product, what would you like to wager that GM got shortchanged while Hyundai got all teh cells it wanted ? Contract or not.
Cell manufacture must be located near the assembly plant as a captive supplier, especially for such a critical component.
If not GM’s management and purchasing agents are fools.
September 5th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
#39 Len
I was more impressed with the 20% loss of capacity with 3-4C charges and 6-8C discharges over a 1000 cycles:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=672512&page=8
I’m not sure I’d call what you’re describing the drop off point. It’s really the “bonk point” when the cell just runs out of juice. But yes, you can damage a battery that way.
FWIW the Volt only uses half the battery pack, which means that GM can halve the discharge rate from any given cell, halve the number of cycles on any given cell, and charge and discharge the cells in the low-stress portion of capacity. Far less stressful than what you are doing with your packs.
The Volt will also not let the pack get anywhere near what you are referring to as the drop off point. There is a “Customer Depletion Point” which is about 30% SOC. The Volt can use some power beyond that point, which will drop the pack to an “Actual Depletion Point.” But even that point will be far above your drop off point, which is more or less the real physical depletion point. At a few grand a pack they’re just understandably not going to mess with it.
September 5th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I think the above is very appropriate for the uncertain and unproven Volt.
If the first 10,000 Volts fair well and are popular in America, GM’s next step is to build 50,000 and see how that number sells.
By that time GM will know whether they’re dealing with a winner and I’m sure they will be.
Whoever the battery maker is can then locate the battery plant next to the car plant.
Anyone notice John McCain mentioned electric cars as part of his energy independence plan at the GOP convention last night ? That alone would make me vote Republican.
September 5th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
I don’t understand why GM is not dual sourcing on these cells and battery cases.
Many electronic manufacturing firms would never want to build anything without dual-sourced components.
Dual-sourcing is one way around the Anti-Monopoly laws.
The precedent setting ridiculous extension of the anti-Monopoly laws that the Democrat Jacka$$ lawyers needed, were created to rip off Microsoft, in the Microsoft contracted-out monopoly case.
Attorney David Boies earned billions in fees, for only a few million in campaign bribes. That was just before he sued, to get Al Gore appointed President in 2000.
The Microsoft case essentially outlawed the creation of another auto industry equivalent, and the consolidation of auto component suppliers as GM, Ford and Chrysler did in the early 20th century.
You can’t buy a complete PC for all your needs from any one, by law. You must buy piece parts and assemble it to “allow choice”.
The automotive equivalent would be to buy a Fisher body, Dodge chassis, Autolite battery, Libby windshield, Sylvania headlights, a Bendix starter motor, a GM engine, a New Process transmission, Champion sparkplugs, Monroe Shock absorbers, and them find someone to put all the parts together for you. And hope they worked well together.
It is problematical whether GM or Ford could buy a cell manufacturer, and a case maker, as that would be anti-Monopolistic. They could create a cell manufacturing division, and start from scratch, but it would be years behind the established firms.
Toyota and Honda do not suffer from such Jacka$$ laws in Japan. They ARE both bringing critical cell manufacture in-house.
September 5th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
This is one of the craziest PR things I have ever seen out of anyone…let alone GM: A whole website to respond to harsh criticisms. Launched fresh today!
http://gmfactsandfiction.com/
Exciting topics include:
gm is looking for a government bailout
gm vehicles are not as fuel efficient as comparable imports
the Volt is vaporware
gm can’t compete
gm still doesn’t make cars that people want to buy
…it’s like they are fighting against the wind
September 5th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Statik@44 said:
This is one of the craziest PR things I have ever seen:
OOPS never mind.(lol)
What is?
Be well,
Tag
“LJGTVWOTR!!”
September 5th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
#43 stas peterson
You do realize you are referring to the anti-trust laws passed by Teddy Roosevelt and the Republican party, don’t you?
Dual sourcing has nothing to do with antitrust laws. Sometimes it just makes sense to have two suppliers. If one goes away you have another.
The Microsoft case broke no new ground. It was just a run of the mill attempted monopolization case.
GM could buy any battery manufacturer they wanted. They can’t afford it, and the trend is to outsource, not to bring in-house. The days when a steel manufacturer would buy an iron mine in South America, and then a shipping line to transport it, are long gone. Supply chains have gotten far more efficient.
September 5th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
GM is singing ….” Ya gotta know when t’hold ‘em..” . Mebbe they got a pair in the hole. Youse guys worry way too much.
September 5th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
#44 Statik
Where the heck is: GM DID NOT kill the electric car!
Actually it’s not a bad idea. There is so much silly stuff floating around. What harm can it do?
September 5th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
#44 Statik (Me)
I just have to say, I friggin’ love this new GM site. It is crazy. Personal fav ‘myth’ and GM’s retort:
——
Myth: GM can’t make money selling cars
Retort: Well before the recent dive in truck sales, GM was moving to increase the profitability of its cars and crossovers….Finally, although we expect the truck market to be smaller in the future, people will still need trucks. GM intends to defend its truck leadership by making sure we have the best — and most fuel-efficient — trucks available.
——-
What? So, no…you don’t make money selling cars…and you blab on about trucks?
—–
I could live on this fantabulous new site and pick it apart for days…I won’t, but holy cow…somebody has lost it at GM. It’s like your ‘crazy uncle’ drunk again at the family Christmas party.
September 5th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Boring filler-news!!!!
September 5th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Statik@44 said:
“This is one of the craziest PR things I have ever seen:…”
And then posted a link to gmfactsandfiction.com
I wonder who put that site up?
Be well,
Tag(ⓒ
“LJGTVWOTR!!(ⓒ
September 5th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I think many of the people who are here are ignorant of the LG chem
Manganese spinel batteries and its merits.
You can find its merits in the below link.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/merit_review_2008/energy_storage/merit08_alamgir.pdf
September 5th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
I can’t resist copy and pasting one more quote:
—–
GM and other U.S. based companies are literally reinventing the automobile. This federal direct-loan program is a powerful and appropriate incentive to help spur this transformation, which is vital to our industry, and to the country as a whole.
——-
Oh is that all? The loan is vital to the country as a whole? Overstate much?
Hehe, I love it.
September 5th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
#51 Tag
Statik@44 said:
“This is one of the craziest PR things I have ever seen:…”
And then posted a link to gmfactsandfiction.com
I wonder who put that site up?
Be well,
Tag(ⓒ
————-
GM launched it today…it’s a offical site, as hard as it is to believe.
Here is a FT article on it:
http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto090520081436458810&referrer_id=yahoofinance
(I accidently hit enter before I finished my link/comments, which I think threw you off…you must be refreshing way too much, hehe)
September 5th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Uh-oh, stas peterson and DonC are in a room together again. Be cool.
September 5th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
#44 Statik
Such “message control” websites are becoming more common.
September 5th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Statik@54
Both obvious misinformation campaigns. Toyota is probably behind them (lol)(evil grin)(wink, wink)(ⓒ
Be well,
Tag(ⓒ(ⓒ(ⓒ
“LJGTVWOTR!!(ⓒ
September 5th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
#56 ThombDbhomb
#44 Statik
Such “message control” websites are becoming more common.
—–
Yes, that is true. It’s just so amusing/over the top, I couldn’t resist comment.
I like how all the ‘myths’ have no source link to any actual reputable article…they are just pulled out of the sky, makes it pretty hard for retort…not that there is any part of that site that people could leave comments on anyway.
September 5th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Slow news day, I guess. It seems the CEO is sighing as he is waiting for the phone call from GM…..
#49 Statik
“I won’t, but holy cow…somebody has lost it at GM. It’s like your ‘crazy uncle’ drunk again at the family Christmas party.”
LOL! I just visualized Bob Lutz sitting over his computer all sauced and muttering under his breath as he is typing the “facts” and uploading the website… With his pink tie on, of course.
September 5th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Like some, I found this article kind of confusing. The first part of the article gives the impression that CPI/LG doesn’t need a new facility/infrastructure to supply the Volt battery. This is the CEO of CPI not LG talking and the important point about this is that WRT the individual cells this may be true. However, I’ve said it many times, the cells are not the battery, the pack is, and even Patil knows that the pack is MUCH more complex than sticking those cells in a box. While adding another line on the cell floor may have plant quality control nearly built in, a plant that hasn’t even been constructed to make the packs is a long way from any such scale.
September 5th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
#17 Statik:
Link? Moi? Hahahaha.
If you go to the Yahoo opening page and click more news under the headlines there, the editorials are at the bottom of the next page that comes up.
Quick synopsis:
It’s a bad idea because, the “big 3″ have not been willing to make the hard choices necessary to save themselves, they are suffering from years of bad management and bad product selection, and who determines what industry gets bailed out anyway? They also cite stringent controls placed upon the airline industry when they got government “help” not too long ago - less than 10% of the proposed $25 billion, BTW. They seem to imply that no such controls are included in this package.
It’s the Christian Science Monitor, so it does make one think a bit.
Sort of the counter spin to the website BS you quoted above. I have given up on GM’s websites/blogs. Fastlane, FYI, gmnext(?), forget them. There is a lot more straight story here, and I have all I can do to keep up with GM-Volt.com anyway.
LJGTVWOTR - the wolf is at the door. Or the Honda Insight.
September 5th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
noel park #61
Your being a little harsh on the big 3. Its the fickle American public thats partially to blame. For years they haven’t cared about gas usage because it was cheap. There’s been a lifelong demand for bigger and better cars from manufacturers.
The only thing I would fault the big 3 for, is not anticipating the cost of oil better or at least 2 of the big 3. I think GM saw it coming and Bob Lutz wanted to go different than just another hybrid.
September 5th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
#59 Aspherical:
Or maybe he’s sending an e-mail to the Volt team:
“LJGTVWOTR!!!”
September 5th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Slow news day today……………..
September 5th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
#62 Ed M:
It’s not me, it’s the Christian Science Monitor.
What I say and $1.70 will get you a cup of coffee down at Starbuck’s (last time I checked anyway). I know that. The Christian Science Monitor is a whole different deal.
I was just trying to summarize the editorial for Statik, as I am too backward to link it. Check it out for yourself, and see if I got it right.
When the CSM starts to criticize the deal on its editorial pages, the “big 3″ had better start raising their game.
September 5th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
_____________________________________________________
Tipping Point.
Although battery technology has had a very long and hard slog to get to this point, the technology is now progressing at an impressive accelerated rate. Battery technology has arrived at the magic tipping point of cost/performance that will make EV/E-REV vehicles commercially available and consumer preferable. For this reason, I believe GM is very wise to have taken an aggressive position in quickly building momentum on an EV/E-REV portfolio line. For those automakers taking a timid or wait-n-see attitude towards EV development (example Ford), they will soon learn what it is like trying to jump onto a fast moving train.
I believe that there may be a sleeper out there in the EV battery race. It’s an old friend with dramatic new enhanced performance capabilities: The Lead Acid Battery. The Carbon-Graphite Foam Lead Acid battery technology developed by FireFly Energy ( http://www.fireflyenergy.com ) is very impressive and may have the potential to play a significant role in the EV space. Although lead acid chemistry may be thought of as “old school” technology, the significant added performance obtained by the introduction of graphite foam into the lead acid chemistry may end up making Lead Acid a serious contender in the EV battery space.
_____________________________________________________
September 5th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
#65 noel park
“It’s not me, it’s the Christian Science Monitor. ”
———-
I don’t know why, but I love this line. I find it tres drole. I wish we could have signatures, I would definitely add that one.
September 5th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
#67 Statik:
Well thanks, I guess. First time I’ve ever been accused of being “tres drole”, whether accidentally or on purpose.
You would be pretty justified in using the signature, as they are saying many of the same things you have been saying. With all the respect in the world to you, being able to say the CSM agrees with you just adds some pretty serious gravitas to the arguments.
I have been pretty supportive of the loan guarantees, as you know. Still, this editorial was somewhat like being hit in the face with a bucket of cold water for me. $25 BILLION??? Where does it all end? If the Feds hold $25 BILLION in loan guarantees, does that put the auto industry up there with the merchant banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Too big to fail? At the rate they are burning cash, who is to say that they won’t be back at the well in a year? Then what?
September 5th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
#13, Jim in PA Says:
September 5th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Korea. Yuck. ‘Nuff said…
I’m shocked and APPALED. Your racist comment has no place anywhere either online or offline. I live in Canada; though I’m not in PA like you, we should both remember that South Korea is our staunch ally in the Far East against rogue state like North Korea and we have been friends more more than half a century.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Just get it done, GM. Then all will be forgiven. Except, of course, by the full-time GM-haters.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
BTVATWB
BUILD THE VOLT AND THEY WILL BELIEVE!
September 5th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
N. Riley@71
Or even “Build it and they will come!” Hmmm, better make that “Build the Volt and they will come”. er, no, that sounds gross too (g).I guess BTVATWB is the way to go. After, of course, LJGTVWOTR!! (lol)
Be well,
Tag ©
PS They better start releasing some solid Volt news SOON or we’re going to go nuts with all these initial games! TBSRSSVNSOWGTGNWATPI (bruhahahahahahaha)
LJGTVWOTR!!©
September 5th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Build it and they come!
BIATCH!
September 5th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
ok , I flubbed that up. I meant:
Build it and they can’t hate!
BIATCH!
September 5th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
or,
Don’t Ask for Money , Build It And They Can’t Hate!
DAMBIATCH!
September 6th, 2008 at 10:02 am
#68 noel park
#67 Statik:
Well thanks, I guess. First time I’ve ever been accused of being “tres drole”, whether accidentally or on purpose.
You would be pretty justified in using the signature, as they are saying many of the same things you have been saying. With all the respect in the world to you, being able to say the CSM agrees with you just adds some pretty serious gravitas to the arguments.
I have been pretty supportive of the loan guarantees, as you know. Still, this editorial was somewhat like being hit in the face with a bucket of cold water for me. $25 BILLION??? Where does it all end? If the Feds hold $25 BILLION in loan guarantees, does that put the auto industry up there with the merchant banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Too big to fail? At the rate they are burning cash, who is to say that they won’t be back at the well in a year? Then what?
————
I’m just ‘funning’ with you, I know they hold some weight with their opinion.
I actually got around to reading the article. It’s a good piece…
Speaking of FNM and FRE, there is alot of ‘joustling’ going on at the Fed right now, I won’t go into boring details about it…but makes me seriously wonder if something isn’t going down even as I am typing this.
Long story short Ben Bernanke & Henry Paulson met afterhours with the executive of them both…probably to talk about putting them into a conservatorship.
The MBA (Mortgage Bankers Association) dropped a bomb on friday saying that over 9% of ALL mortages are behind or in forceclosure. With Freddie and Fanny already tight on the cashflow, I don’t see how they can ride out the next week or so…let alone the whole thing.
Side note: On Friday, Nevada regulators shut down Silver State Bank, the 11th failure this year of a federally insured bank
September 6th, 2008 at 11:36 am
376 Statik:
Didn’t one of those shoes drop this AM? I thought I saw a headline saying that the Feds were going to take over one of the two. Not a pretty picture for any of us.
September 6th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
#76 Statik:
AP, 9/6, 8:38 AM ET, posted on the Yahoo site. BOTH!
September 6th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
I’ve seen a couple speculative articles like this:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080906/mortgage_giants_crisis.html
Nothing concrete though…it’s interesting nonetheless.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Statik,
Does a country exist that could stand a large run on their banks? I know the US can’t, even the handful going “under” made for pretty scary news video.
I figured you’d be the goto guy.
Be well,
Tag
September 7th, 2008 at 11:44 am
#46,
The anti-trusut monopoly laws of Teddy Roosevelt did not make it illegal to do vertical integration through acquisition,
David Boies extension-setting precedents against Microsoft certainly do and did.
GM created its vertically integrated empire in the 1920s witjh no impact from Teddy Rossevelt’s laws.
You can’t do that today. Ask Bill Gates and Microsoft. David Boies charterd by his Democrats, to sue Microsoft, in return for campaign contributions, needed that precedent to make his billions.
Screw the USA. That’s why “Big Law” and “Big Entertainment/Media” are the only institutions the Democrats don’t hate and demonize. Every other US institution is demonized and hated. From the Doctors that cure you, to the Pharmaceutical companies who develop new medicines, to the Big Retailer, to “Big Oil’, “Big Utilities” and “Big Detroit”.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:47 am
GM does not have a clue. The Volt is a waste of time and money.
Tesla Moters of CA has the ELECTRIC Car of the future…NOW!
Go to there web site http://www.teslamotors.com
Also, Jay Leno ownes one and you can view video of this car at
http://www.jaylenosgarage.com scroll down the left side of his car collection and click on the Tesla Roaster picture.
Another Electric Car company is in Norway. Th!nk Golbal is the Company and you can go to there web site. http://www.think.no
I would buy this car and have it shipped over to my house in New Jersey before I would buy the GM VOLT.
Rich from New Jersey!