Prior to seeing the production version of the Volt unveiled, we speculated whether it would have two charging ports as did the concept, or one. We actually took a poll here indicating that most readers preferred one well-placed charging port to two.
It turned out the production car has one charging port which is located just to the front of the driver side mirror under a sliding door (shown above). GM Volt vehicle line executive Frank Weber confirmed to me during the unveiling that indeed the car would have only one charging port.
Many readers here noticed on the GM diagram above that there seemed to be another structure further forward and lower than the charging port that appeared as though it might be accessible from the car’s exterior, and speculation began as to what that structure is (shown as blow-up above with blue arrow).
I asked GM.
GM spokesman Rob Peterson simply stated it was the “charging unit.” When asked to explain further, because readers really wanted to know, all Rob would say is GM was “not going to share any details at this time.”
I went to an outside source who is an expert in the PHEV field, who analyzed the image and gave us the following statement:
That is quite simply the charger. The cable coming into the car is AC, and the box in question has a heat sink, so it must mean power conversion. The cables lead directly to the batteries so this must be DC. No other boxes or chargers are shown. This must be the AC to DC power converter. It is a ~1-1.5kW charger. 8kWh needed, 6-8 hours to charge.
From what we also know, it is a smart charger that will automatically recognize AC input as being either 110 or 220V, charging in 3 hours with 220V. And at 220 V, the pack will be 50% charged in 1 hour.
This entry was posted on Monday, October 6th, 2008 at 8:48 pm and is filed under Charging. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Oct 6th, 2008 (8:55 pm)Great news! It’s exactly where I would have put it. The flexibility to use 110 or 220 means we have options without limitations.
Oct 6th, 2008 (9:00 pm)Sweet.
This may be irrelevant, but I wonder how much power is lost during the AC/DC conversion. Does it take 15kW-hr to charge 12.8kW-hr of energy (80% of 16kW-hr) due to heat loss in the charger? Or does it take 12.800001kW-hr?
Oct 6th, 2008 (9:02 pm)It looks vulnerable out there
Oct 6th, 2008 (9:04 pm)50% in an hour is very cool. I voted for two charging ports.
3 hours for a full charge is great!
220 is easy in your home…and as you can see by the charge time more efficient.
Oct 6th, 2008 (9:10 pm)Great technical info. That’s why I regularly visit this site. OK, I’m the nerdy type. I admit it.
Did you find out what the ECON/SPRT button is for?
Will the Volt have a driver selectable mode where the control system attempts to preserve battery power at full SOC in anticipation of a long upwards climb later in the day?
Will the Volt computer generate a display showing miles made purely electrically vs. with the ICE? That would be great info to accumulate over time.
What’s the AER when traveling at constant speed on the highway (at 55mph; 60mph; 65mph; and 70mph please)?
GM has stated that in really cold weather, the ICE will come on until the batteries have warmed up. Approximately how many miles will I have to drive before the ICE shuts off (answers wanted at 40, 30, 20, 10, and 0 degrees farenheit please) ?
There’s so much more to know … and, Lyle, you’re the guy we are all counting on to get it!
Oct 6th, 2008 (9:15 pm)Very cloak and dagger of GM to decline to comment on an obvious essential to the whole system, as if it were the Mr. Fusion or something.
Oct 6th, 2008 (9:27 pm)While this could be considered interesting….I wonder if enough topics exist until the Volt is in the few showrooms in 2+years.
#6
I agree…maybe it has one or two flux capacitors in the black box.
Oct 6th, 2008 (9:36 pm)Jeff, #7
I’m sure Lyle learned a lot at the Volt unveiling … and we’ll all be kept in suspense while he releases the info over the next few months in dribs and drabs.
Hey … I understand … it’s hard to come up with a new topic and keep up the suspense every day! And the responsibility must be weighing heavily on our favourite neurologist.
But Lyle, I’ll bet you are just dying to tell us everything
Oct 6th, 2008 (9:45 pm)That is a very odd location. It would seem to be more efficient and better suited to be either part on the power module unit or at least located near the power module unit.
Running the cables as shown seems like both a waste of cable and also potential for other problems.
I am not convinced that this is just the rectifier for the incoming ac. Also, I am not sure how true the picture is, but the size of these cables seems large, but maybe they are using some type of armored cable to protect it in the abusive environment.
Oh yeah, has anyone asked GM how much that fancy “plug” they are using to plug into the charge port, will cost. Looks expensive, and a likely candidate for a thief. The large handle will also pose a risk of breaking off either the plug itself or the socket. It appears to protrude quite a way.
Why not just let someone use an ordinary extension cord? Does that fancy plug have electronics for doing more than just connecting to the car? What happens if I lose it? What happens if one of the kids uses it a Star Wars laser gun, and loses it in the woods?
Oct 6th, 2008 (9:57 pm)#9 JEC
Oh yeah, has anyone asked GM how much that fancy “plug” they are using to plug into the charge port, will cost. Looks expensive, and a likely candidate for a thief. The large handle will also pose a risk of breaking off either the plug itself or the socket. It appears to protrude quite a way.
Why not just let someone use an ordinary extension cord? Does that fancy plug have electronics for doing more than just connecting to the car? What happens if I lose it? What happens if one of the kids uses it a Star Wars laser gun, and loses it in the woods?
——————————————————–
If you ask too many questions that make sense I am afraid we are going to have to ask you to leave.
Seriously, it is good question. There is no reason to have a plug like that. I want to use the orange hardware store special. It’s what is in use in the Prius Plug-In concept, the SMART ed fleet and production ready iMiev…so whats the issue here?
Oct 6th, 2008 (10:12 pm)make big electric cars like an e-rev 3/4 ton suburban we need virsitilaty. stupid gm
Oct 6th, 2008 (10:12 pm)LOL Statik
There is a very good reason to use a special plug. It will cost you big bucks! JMHO
Take Care
Arch
Oct 6th, 2008 (10:17 pm)#5 Shaft – Will the Volt computer generate a display showing miles made purely electrically vs. with the ICE? That would be great info to accumulate over time.
On a recent post, I believe it was about the Volt interior, we were told that the All Electric miles and ICE generated miles would be displayed separately. (The post was: “More Chevy Volt Interior Details.”) “The display in front of the driver will show vehicle speed, total range (electric range and fuel range), total miles driven (total EV only miles and total fuel only miles), a trip odometer (again, with EV trip and fuel trip), and an efficiency meter. . .”
Oct 6th, 2008 (10:21 pm)#9 JEC
#10 Statik
Lutz did say there was agreement on what the plug would look like between all manufacturers. This may be the standard. He also said something about slide and lock.
A 50a connection would be a very good idea. That could end up being a big deal since those connections are already available in many public places.
OT: I actually agree that nasaman had the better idea of two charging ports, one on each side.
Oct 6th, 2008 (10:26 pm)#9 JEC: I would bet a big part of the placement for the rectifier is for heat dissipation. Take any ‘wall wart’ (even your cell phone’s charger) and feel it after it’s been up for a while – that converts milliamps of energy (usually under 500ma) to a very low voltage (don’t know if the voltage delta has much to do with it though). This is doing something over 10 amps of charge rate* (about 20 times your cellphone charger). Having played with R.C cars I know fast charging batterys generates a lot of heat (and this is charging at probably 5x the rate I used to). It may be desireable to stick that extra heat source right where it can dissipate heat easily.
* I’m not an electrical engineer so my math may be off.
I’ll also guess that they’re using a ‘special’ plug to give it safe disconnect ability when someone spaces out and drives away without unplugging it. At least that will be their public reason…
Oct 6th, 2008 (10:27 pm)NO PLUG NO SALE =D–
Oct 6th, 2008 (10:30 pm)Is there an echo in here?
WOT
Oct 6th, 2008 (10:39 pm)Michael #13
Thanks! I missed that.
Oct 6th, 2008 (10:48 pm)#14 DonC
#9 JEC
#10 Statik
Lutz did say there was agreement on what the plug would look like between all manufacturers. This may be the standard. He also said something about slide and lock.
————————————
Geesh, I don’t remeber this at all, I must be losing it…you got a linky that I can have a ‘boo’ at at? Is there specs on some kind of universally accepted plug?
That is good news if there is such a agreement, that means I can chuck the ‘fancy’ GM one and just get a cheap…and more importantly cheap looking universal one. That must be what I am seeing on the autoshow pics of the iMiev, just a cheap looking universal EV cord…but not a standard ‘hardware’ store cord.
Thanks for the info.
Oct 6th, 2008 (10:50 pm)#2 Aspherical:
From Wikipedia: “Transformers are some of the most efficient electrical ‘machines’, with some large units able to transfer 99.75% of their input power to their output.”
Combined with solidstate voltage regulators to make the DC more palatable to the batteries, I imagine you’ll see very little loss in the AC/DC conversion. My guess is less than 2%.
Oct 6th, 2008 (10:59 pm)#19 Statik
I can’t remember what interview it was. It was video not a transcript. He was talking about how you could plug it in when outside the home. I remember his saying that “all the manufacturers had agreed” on the design. You plugged it in, slide the credit card, and it locked so no one could take it to charge their vehicle. When you were ready you slide the card again and it opened.
Maybe some one else can help with a cite.
Oct 6th, 2008 (11:13 pm)I’m not an EE, but the explanation only makes partial sense to me. If this unit is simply for converting AC to DC, why place it there? I imagine it takes 4 feet of extra wiring this way, as opposed to inline somewhere. Why not place it right behind the socket, or right on the battery? Heat dissipation maybe?
Oct 6th, 2008 (11:17 pm)From the look of it, that connector IS in fact the (soon to be?) standardized SAE J-1772 connector.
As for wanting to use an inexpensive cable for charging, I find it interesting that people are willing to pay $30-40k for this car, but want to “cheap out” on the power lead. Most curious.
Yeah, I get the “they’re just screwing me because they can!” mentality, and the desire to have inexpensive additional plug cords, and so forth. Those -are- factors, but personally I’d want the best engineered, smartest connector mechanism available — one that helps prevent accidental shocks, arcing, drive-offs while plugged in, etc. I expect it to minimize risks to myself and my rather pricey new automobile. Saving a few bucks is important, but decidedly secondary.
But that’s just me. To each his own, I guess!
Oct 6th, 2008 (11:19 pm)Thanks for getting the (very plausible) answers on this, Lyle! [Since we only had an overhead view, and the mystery item appears to be well outside & below the "underhood" components, it was tempting to think it might be a junction box for an optional electromagnetically-coupled charger input that could be coupled to a garage-floor-mounted charger input device.]
Oct 6th, 2008 (11:28 pm)The reason for a proprietary plug is simple. If you wanted to plug into a 220 outlet, a normal extension cord wouldn’t work, (the plug wouldn’t fit in either end). You don’t want to make a cord that fits 220 on one end and 110 on the other, talk about blowing stuff up if someone plugs their weed wacker into 220.
Oct 6th, 2008 (11:37 pm)I suspect the placement of the recharging port has a lot to do with making sure it’s AS FAR AS POSSIBLE from the fuel filler.
It would only taken one errant spark combined with fuel vapor to brand the Volt as a modern day Hindenburg.
It certainly looks as though it would have been cheaper and easier for GM to have put the charging port in the back or on the passenger side.
It’s a lot more convenient, and probably much safer for them to have put it where it is.
Oct 6th, 2008 (11:54 pm)The location of the unit is interesting. It’s a great location for cooling. It’s also a great location for a more stealthy plug-in port. I don’t know about you but I really don’t want that handle sticking out like that in some neighborhoods or charging at the store. I would prefer a low and idiot proof plug that will not draw unwanted attention.
It might also be a quick-charge port! Something for the future. Anyway, It will be a good point for me to tap into so I can bypass the attention drawing side handle thingamajig.
Oct 6th, 2008 (11:59 pm)Maybe also designed to resemble a gas pump nozzle? You know, to help transition people to EV’s by making the plug look like the familiar gas nozzle.
Or not. Sounds plausible at least.
Stew.
Oct 7th, 2008 (12:10 am)5. Shaft
Re: ICE warming the batteries
I believe that was just another example of a “GM exec saying something stupid as he attempts to fill two+ years of time with nothing accurate or important to say.”
It is a plug-in hybrid… how did they manage to think of using electricity instead of gas to drive the car and not electricity instead of gas to warm the batteries? I know, the exec didn’t think of anything… the engineers did!
Oct 7th, 2008 (12:18 am)The front is really where a plug like that should be.
If the power source is to the driver’s side of the car then you will be stepping over the cord when you walk to the front of the garage or having to walk all the way around the car. If the power source is to the front of the car then you will either have to drive over the cord or always “walk the cord” back to the front of the car (i.e. when driving away, first walk to the driver’s door, unplug the cord, walk the cord back to the front of the car, then walk back and get in the car).
Typical GM cost-cutting or lack of thought?
Oct 7th, 2008 (12:45 am)@GTX
I disagree, the convenience and cord hopping depends entirely on each specific owner’s car parking situation. Some driveways are on the left of a house, some on the right. Some people back into their driveways, some pull forward. Some people park on the street, others in a parking lot.
For instance, someone with a driveway on the right side of their house who pulls in forward could have the cord running directly in front of the vehicle. They’d never have to step over it. For someone with a driveway on the left side of their house, they could simply approach the car from the rear, never having to walk over the cord.
I suspect one VERY big reason the socket is so large and placed where it is is to remind drivers to remove it prior to driving away. Even though GM will almost certainly provide an in-car alarm to alert drivers to a still plugged-in vehicle, there’s nothing better than being able to actually see the (admittedly large) plug from the driver’s seat.
Bottom line, no placement will be optimal for everyone. Other than keeping the socket as far as possible from fuel vapors, it’s largely a numbers game. I suspect they tested and focused grouped various positions, then found a majority of users preferred a driver-side arrangement.
Oct 7th, 2008 (12:55 am)GXT #29 “It is a plug-in hybrid… how did they manage to think of using electricity instead of gas to drive the car and not electricity instead of gas to warm the batteries? ”
======================================================
I’m not sure it’s so simple. If the car is finished charging, and is sitting for hours in cold weather, the batteries could indeed be heated by electricity to keep them warm. But there must be a tradeoff where the cost of the electricity exceeds the cost of driving the car for a bit on the ICE, and using execss ICE heat to warm the batteries up to proper operating conditions. There will also be times when there is no plug handy, so the batteries will indeed get cold. Using battery energy to warm the batteries in cold weather might not be effective because battery efficiency drops in cold weather.
Oct 7th, 2008 (1:09 am)>> There will also be times when there is no plug handy, so the batteries will indeed get cold.
60 days per year (12 business weeks) is a very realistic expectation for those of us in the north… sitting in a parking lot without a plug available while you work.
Efficiency estimates we’ve seen so far don’t take that into account, despite the fact that it is a rather large influencing factor.
Oct 7th, 2008 (1:35 am)A proprietary plug offers absolutely no benefit to the consumer. The engineers should have came up with something that’s a little more standards compliant (like include 110V and 220V outlets built-in), so consumers can just run up to a local hardware store to pick up a cord.
If they are going to have this huge proprietary plug that users have to lug around with them (and worry about paying huge prices to replace when it frays after 3 months of use), why not just pull the charger from the car entirely and have it separate like the Roadster.
I hope Ford and Chrysler will have more thoughtful engineers working on their EREVs that aren’t rushed to throw together an expensive piece of crap.
Oct 7th, 2008 (1:46 am)6.
DLO Says:
October 6th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Very cloak and dagger of GM to decline to comment on an obvious essential to the whole system, as if it were the Mr. Fusion or something.
7. Jeff Says:
October 6th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
While this could be considered interesting….I wonder if enough topics exist until the Volt is in the few showrooms in 2+years.
#6
I agree…maybe it has one or two flux capacitors in the black box.
___________________________________
Does this mean we all have to hook the cars up to the clock tower in the center of town every night and wait for bolts of lightning to charge up our Volts?
Oct 7th, 2008 (3:47 am)Only one charge port. Bummer.
SInce my wife and I both pull forward into the garage, a charge port on both sides would have been more convenient. I could install a drop cord right down the middle and charge both cars off the same cord.
Oh well. It is not a show stopper, just inconvenient.
Oct 7th, 2008 (3:51 am)Statik #10
I agree with Arch #12.
That special plug is there only to cost us more money. I hope a standard extension cord will work. It would suck to forget the special plug at home and then have to use gas to get back there.
Oct 7th, 2008 (3:54 am)#34 Kubel says,
I hope Ford and Chrysler will have more thoughtful engineers working on their EREVs that aren’t rushed to throw together an expensive piece of crap.
————-
I doubt it is GM’s engineers that should be blamed.
It was probably some marketing type trying to figure out how to squeeze more money out of the consumer.
Oct 7th, 2008 (4:00 am)I like the smart charging unit from a voltage perspective.
I can run 220 at home and use 110 at work.
I see this as convenient.
Oct 7th, 2008 (4:02 am)I must say, I am very excited about this car.
And I hope GM builds the Chevy Orlando as an EREV AWD.
Oct 7th, 2008 (4:48 am)Ok, I’m confused. Why would it be possible to charge faster with double voltage? I’m not sure thats right. In europe, they use 220V, but there’s less amps behind it (force of the electrical current). Furthermore, my laptop doesn’t charge any faster in Europe than it does in the US. It is good news that its a smart charger, because I’m planning on buying one and importing it to Germany (I don’t feel like waiting another year). However, don’t get your hopes up that you’ll somehow be able to cut the charge time to 3 hours. Either way, I am satisfied that it will work in Europe, as gas is way expensive here.
Oct 7th, 2008 (5:10 am)The GEM daily driver I use at work has a regular 120v extention cord plug in. I drive the GEM for 1/2 hour, then plug it in for an hour. Then use it again, and plug it in again…so on.
The battery is usually charged somewhere between 20% and 90% without even trying. And the having to plug and unplug is not work…it’s fun. No gasoline what so ever.
=D~
Oct 7th, 2008 (5:55 am)I would bet, that addition unidentified component is a maintenance access port, used when the vehicle is in the shop. It is properly used while the car is lift up on a rack, since the side access panel would be too high.
Oct 7th, 2008 (5:56 am)Thanks Lyle! This is a great site!
Oct 7th, 2008 (6:25 am)220, 221 whatever it takes…
Why not keep it simple… Incorporate the fancy charging handle into the car and make the charging port the male end of a standard plug that you can take an extension cord and plug into.
I have a diesel truck that has a block heater. The plug is behind the front bumper. Not glamorous but it works.
Oct 7th, 2008 (6:28 am)Better yet… People can start stealing the special charging handles from cars charging at work and sell them on Ebay…
Oct 7th, 2008 (6:31 am)I’m sure GM purposely designed that special charging cord connector to look similar to a gas pump nozzle.
Also, a standard AC connector would likely allow your hardware store “orange cord” to hang down close and touch the finish. Extension cords tend to attract abrasive sand and dirt.
Oct 7th, 2008 (6:31 am)Thats what I thought it was. The body panels wouldnt support the lower “plug”.
Oct 7th, 2008 (6:37 am)The post says
1) It is a ~1-1.5kW charger
2)..charging in 3 hours with 220V
==========================================
These two statements cannot both be true.
Doing the arithmetic, 8/1=8 hours and 8/1.5=5+ hours.
That is, if statement 1 is true the charger is the limiting factor in the charging time.
This is why people hate engineering and hate math, always telling you things you don’t want to know and don’t want to be true
Oct 7th, 2008 (6:43 am)#46 Brad G says “Better yet… People can start stealing the special charging handles from cars charging at work and sell them on Ebay…”
================================
Well they will only cost $139 from the dealer, and they will have an 8 foot cord (?) and plug at the other end attached, making replacements a good profit generator for GM and your local “midnight acquisition company”.
Actually I have no idea what the plug and cord will cost, but everything from the dealer comes at a high price. What is perhaps a bigger nuisance is the short cord attached.
Oct 7th, 2008 (6:52 am)Lyle, thanks for the new close-up picture of the plug cover as moved back, and the handle going into the car.
The slide-back cover is not going to make it through the first winter of daily use, as it will be frozen in place many days, requiring use of a screwdriver. There will be predictable consequences.
But for only $277.93 you can get it fixed at the local dealer
For the service department, the Volt is going to be the best car ever.
Oct 7th, 2008 (7:00 am)#49 RB: They probably mean it pulls 1.0-1.5kW at 110v. That’s ~9-14A. Most likely it still pulls the same amperage at 220, so it’s charging at 2-3kW (oversimplification probably caused inaccuracy).
Oct 7th, 2008 (7:03 am)RB #51,
Yup. I don’t see the slide standing up well to salt, sand, and ice.
I wouldn’t surprise me if it is one of the first failure points.
And if we can’t get it open, then what is the point of having a plug and an EREV?
Oct 7th, 2008 (7:06 am)41 Ken Clymer…… You said, “Ok, I’m confused. Why would it be possible to charge faster with double voltage?….”
——————————————————————————————————————————–
Easily explained…. P = VA (Power= Volts x Amps), so fully charging the battery requires 8KWh of power. If the charger draws 12 amps….
So at 110V…….
P = 110V x 12A = 1.32KW; a full charge will take 8KWh/1.32KW = 6.06 HRS
And at 220V…….
P=220V X 12A = 2.64KW & a full charge will take 8KWh/2.64KW = 3.03 HRS
(These examples would apply for the US AND the 220V case for Europe or elsewere if 12A is available. If not, the time for a full charge will increase by 12A/ X Amps, where X is the current available.
Oct 7th, 2008 (7:15 am)#52 fishmahn
#54 nasaman On why charging really is faster at 220V
============================================
What you say is true if it is the charging circuit that is the limitation, as we had previously thought.
In contrast, if we accept the statement in the post as correct, there is a 1 to 1.5kw limitation in the charger, perhaps reflecting heat dissipation requirements there. So, if the statement in the post is correct, there will not be faster charging with 220V. That is consistent with the fact that charging time for laptop computers similar on 110 and 220V.
Oct 7th, 2008 (7:18 am)Hmmm…seems to be some concerns over that charging port door.
I’m hoping it will be motorized (wave your key near it and it opens).
And…. built out of hardened steel !
If it doesn’t detect the charging connector it closes in 5 seconds.
Then I could use it to crack walnuts ! Nyuk! Nyuk! Nyuk!
Oct 7th, 2008 (7:20 am)#53 Rashiid Amul says “Yup. I don’t see the slide standing up well to salt, sand, and ice.
I wouldn’t surprise me if it is one of the first failure points.
And if we can’t get it open, then what is the point of having a plug and an EREV?”
===================================
Rashiid — We will get it open. That’s what screwdrivers are for.
Also works on trunk covers. Doesn’t leave too much of a scratch.
Oct 7th, 2008 (7:20 am)From the article: “From what we also know, it is a smart charger that will automatically recognize AC input as being either 110 or 220V, charging in 3 hours with 220V. And at 220 V, the pack will be 50% charged in 1 hour.”
————————————————————————————–
Once E-REVs and EVs catch on (and it’s looking more likely they will), then I think electric power utilities will take steps to discourage daytime charging as much as possible. Our current grid won’t support mass day-time charging.
Oct 7th, 2008 (7:23 am)#11 dylan Says: “make big electric cars like an e-rev 3/4 ton suburban we need virsitilaty. stupid gm”
————————————————————————————–
GM has already said this type of vehicle is not possible without much better battery technology than we have today.
Oct 7th, 2008 (7:24 am)Maybe the mystery plug is an AC *output* so that the Volt can be used as a generator.
Oct 7th, 2008 (7:28 am)#53 Rashiid — on the charger cover.
=====================================
Rashiid — after we get rid of the plastic thing, we can use duct tape.
Looks just as good, works better. Has to be cut neatly, though.
Oct 7th, 2008 (7:28 am)Dave G #58 says,
Once E-REVs and EVs catch on (and it’s looking more likely they will), then I think electric power utilities will take steps to discourage daytime charging as much as possible. Our current grid won’t support mass day-time charging.
———–
There have been studies that have shown that it will take years if not decades for EVs to cause a problem on the grid. We have had a post here about it. Sorry, but I can’t find it just now.
Thankfully we don’t have to worry about it anytime soon.
Oct 7th, 2008 (7:29 am)All this talk about the “plug”. It should be obvious – this is the sleek, futuristic looking “concept plug”. The production plug will be modified to allow for maximum performance and will be an orange cable with three prongs on the end.
Oct 7th, 2008 (7:30 am)I heard Bob Lutz mention a solar blanket accessory which can be unfolded and connected to the Volt during outings such as picnics. Maybe it’s a usb port system.
=D~
Oct 7th, 2008 (7:31 am)RB #61
Ah Duct tape. What would we do without the versatile stuff?
That stuff can be used anywhere. It wouldn’t surprise one bit if they carried it on the Space Shuttle.
And if your Volt is gray, the Duct tape will blend in nicely.
Oct 7th, 2008 (7:35 am)This is a bit of a sidetrack, but I thought it was interesting.
GM bought the Renaissance Center (HQ) last May outright for 626 million dollars. Now today they are trying to sell it…well refinance it for 500 million. Sounds like someone’s situation is deteriorating fast.
But it gets better, they are not going to the bank, they are trying to goto Detroit’s pension funds, lol. They meet on Thursday this week, but it’s not looking good for them.
“We’re not going to do it because we don’t have that kind of money,” said George Orzech, police and fire pension board member. “There’s no interest that I know of, but stranger things have happened.” He said the pension board already has too much invested in downtown Detroit real estate.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081007/AUTO01/810070376
I’m not sure exacted why they have not gone to the bank. Perhaps they already have, word just didn’t get out. I’m guessing their credit score isn’t too high these days? (Triple C) Or it could be the real estate market is a little weak in Detroit?
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080813/METRO/808130360
Oct 7th, 2008 (7:37 am)I agree that the sliding charge port panel could be easily damaged & hard to open. One easy fix would be to use a hidden hinge inside the door at the top so it will easily flip up (to open) & down (to close). We’ll get a clue when the Plug-in Saturn Vue hits dealer’s showrooms (expected several months before the Volt). I believe the Vue’s panel is currently hinged.
Oct 7th, 2008 (7:41 am)While I’ll agree that is one fancy lookin plug… we must remember that it is in fact a PLUG that is attached to our mode of transportation…
Got Plug – Got Sale ….
I like the ability for it to automatically recognize the AC 110v or 220v… I’ll be trenching out a 220v line to my detached garage next summer!
I’ll just go ahead and assume that the cost of such a fancy plug would be included in the price of this vehicle….
Instead of “Batteries Included” which is a no-brainer here…
I’m going to assume “Fancy Plug Included”
Oct 7th, 2008 (7:46 am)#15 fishmahn Says: “I’ll also guess that they’re using a ’special’ plug to give it safe disconnect ability when someone spaces out and drives away without unplugging it. At least that will be their public reason…”
————————————————————————————–
You don’t need a special plug for this. All you need to do is disable the car from moving when the charge port cover is open.
I also agree with others here that the fancy plug is a bad idea. The charge port slide cover also seems susceptible to issues with ice, snow, and road salt.
It would probably be better to have 2 layers of protection against the environment. In other words, have a regular door type cover like on your gas tank, and then another cover under that. Note that this is exactly how they do it today with the gas tank. They have a gas door cover and a filler cap – 2 layers of protection. Older cars just had the filler cap, but I’ll bet that caused problems with ice, snow, and road salt.
If you had 2 layers of protection, then the outer door could be designed to be closed when the car is plugged in. This would allow the use of a regular orange extension cord from Home Depot.
The special plug will end up being a hassle, especially if you need to plug-in away from home, or if you lose or damage the cord. By the way, what happens when you drive over the end of that cord with your front tire? I know I will. A regular orange cord costs $20 to replace:
http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10051&langId=-1&catalogId=10053&productId=100083560
Oct 7th, 2008 (7:52 am)#65 Rashiid – Ah Duct tape. What would we do without the versatile stuff? … And if your Volt is gray, the Duct tape will blend in nicely.
No problem, Rashiid. Duct tape already comes in colors. I know I have seen Brown and White (although I can’t imagine someone wanting a Volt in that shade of brown). I’m sure your GM dealer can sell you Duct tape color matched to your Volt for only $39.95.
Oct 7th, 2008 (7:52 am)#68 Murray
I’ll just go ahead and assume that the cost of such a fancy plug would be included in the price of this vehicle….
Instead of “Batteries Included” which is a no-brainer here…
I’m going to assume “Fancy Plug Included”
————————————————-
Again, I think that only comes in the 1SB package with the air conditioning and power windows, cost? $7,500
Side note:
Overhead at GM, “Adrienne, good news, we put your profile up on corporate website as the Volt Battery Test Engineer, you made the big time! Your really moving up fast! Unfortunately your a woman, and in keeping with out policy of unbelievably awkward bio photos of women, we must post the highest resolution picture of your face possible…so you can be mocked at the next meeting.”
http://media.gm.com/volt/people/bios/billiau.html
Oct 7th, 2008 (8:01 am)#66 Static
I wish you wouldn’t have brought that up Static. Now I’ll get an ulcer. Grrrrr. Let me get this straight, the folks who benefit from GM jobs aren’t willing to save the company. They want the other citizens to save GM. Another good reason why gov’t involvement here isn’t healthy. I’ve said for a long time, if GM provides such great jobs for suppliers and workers, let the suppliers and workers buy the bonds. Not me. They want the benefits, while I pay the costs, and the only way they can swing this is to get the federal gov’t to do it for them.
Oct 7th, 2008 (8:10 am)So much for being transparent. But with all the fault finding over
the design of the charging port cover, you can see why GM seems to have programmed the revelations of design, rather than just answering our questions openly.
Oct 7th, 2008 (8:14 am)#71 Statik…
Again, I think that only comes in the 1SB package with the air conditioning and power windows, cost? $7,500
—–
Funny…the 1SB package huh? I get it… at a reasonable price of $7,500 they can now officially even say its 100% tax refundable…
Oct 7th, 2008 (8:15 am)#73 Van “But with all the fault finding over
the design of the charging port cover, you can see why GM seems to have programmed the revelations of design, rather than just answering our questions openly.”
=============================================
Whether there is or is not fault finding will not affect whether the cover freezes over in the winter.
What GM will do, if the smart people there have any influence, is make use of the comment and make a door for the production model that works in wintry weather (just as does the gas tank door). Then they can laugh at us dumb bloggers.
. Advance comments are much easier to handle than those that come up after production starts and people start complaining to NHTSA.
Oct 7th, 2008 (8:25 am)All this whining about the plug. Don’t you think that if the Volt requires a ‘special plug” to charge the car that it will be included in with the price of the vehicle? Think of it as an accessory that comes with the car. Certianly you aren’t going to have to purchase the plug seperatly!
And if you are worried about your kids playing with it… Keep it away from the kids!
Oct 7th, 2008 (8:28 am)For some reason, GM thinks this “fancy” charging cord is needed. Why not just sell the adapter that plugs into the Volt and provide a standard electriclal connector on the other end of it?
Maybe, Lyle can get some detail info on this “fancy” cord?
Oct 7th, 2008 (8:29 am)All this whining about the plug. Don’t you think that if the Volt requires a ’special plug” to charge the car that it will be included in with the price of the vehicle? Think of it as an accessory that comes with the car. Certianly you aren’t going to have to purchase the plug seperatly!
And if you are worried about your kids playing with it… Keep it away from the kids!
—————————————————–
I think we are worried about driving to work, and getting it ripped off there…or in the parking garage of our apartment. It isn’t so much the initial cost, I think we are all just kidding about having to buy the first one, it is the (potentially repeating) replacement cost.
Oct 7th, 2008 (8:30 am)I would like the Volt and all E-Rev’s to have a override in the system software where the car won’t start with the plug in. Like many vehicles won’t start without your foot on the brake. I believe this will help prevent many ripped out plugs from the side of the vehicle etc…
Just build the damn things – the more styles the faster and with many battery capacities (40 mile all Electric, 30, 20 etc…) Get them out ASAP – from the sounds of the production I won’t be able to get a volt type car until 2012, that means I have to buy another gas POS
and this is getting frustrating -
Oct 7th, 2008 (8:33 am)nasaman Says: @54
Easily explained…. P = VA (Power= Volts x Amps), so fully charging the battery requires 8KWh of power. If the charger draws 12 amps….
So at 110V…….
P = 110V x 12A = 1.32KW; a full charge will take 8KWh/1.32KW = 6.06 HRS
And at 220V…….
P=220V X 12A = 2.64KW & a full charge will take 8KWh/2.64KW = 3.03 HRS
(These examples would apply for the US AND the 220V case for Europe or elsewere if 12A is available. If not, the time for a full charge will increase by 12A/ X Amps, where X is the current available.
***********************************************************
A charger can charge just as fast with 120V but it would simply need twice the size of the wires and higher current components. That makes it less feasible for the Volt and the infrastructure of charging stations.
Let’s not make anything more complicated than what it is.
Oct 7th, 2008 (8:38 am)The California Air Resources Board is considering a proposal that all plug-in vehicles be required to conform to SAE J1772 REV ?2009.
(The new standard is not finalized, therefore the question mark next to 2009.)
That picture looks like it could be the SAE J1772 Yazaki connector.
Sounds like GM is trying to be compliant.
Oct 7th, 2008 (8:47 am)I have thought from the beginning to use solar or wind energy to charge my Volt (assuming I can get one). Would I be able to charge it directly or would I have to convert it from DC to AC so the car can convert it back to DC, Or can I go directly from DC to DC?
Oct 7th, 2008 (8:50 am)#71 statik
Adrienne might read this blog. Please let her know that she looks fine.
Oct 7th, 2008 (8:52 am)I want to see what the other end of that fancy wire looks like; the end that can somehow plug into either 110 or 220.
More Duct Tape Colors: Black, Red
Oct 7th, 2008 (8:59 am)Does anyone think that GM will now keep the sticker price under 40,000 dollars?
What coupe for GM. They got a subsidy from you and I, and never had to reveal any meaningful information to the public about why the vehicle needs a subsidy.
Not a chance. Not. a. chance.
At this point, all I’m hoping for is to guess correctly which battery-maker(s) will supply the car market, and retire downtown so I don’t need a vehicle.
Oct 7th, 2008 (9:02 am)#65 Rashiid and #70 Michael — on matching the color of the duct tape with the color of the Volt.
======================================
Great job guys ! We’ve got the problem solved.
Oct 7th, 2008 (9:02 am)#77
If the EREV takes off, with anything like a standardized plug, I’ll be very surprized if you won’t be able to walk into a Wal-Mart and pick up that adaptor for less than $10
#86
What a good question. I expect a lot of folks are thinking this way. Unfortunately, you would need some form of DC to DC conversion to match the 300V battery voltage (and exposed DC connectors have a tendancy to corrode, especially on a car which might run through road salt or in humid envirornments). At the end of the day, it might be easier/cheaper to make AC (which you would need to do anyway to power anything in your home).
Oct 7th, 2008 (9:04 am)#
nasaman Says:@24
October 6th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Thanks for getting the (very plausible) answers on this, Lyle! [Since we only had an overhead view, and the mystery item appears to be well outside & below the "underhood" components, it was tempting to think it might be a junction box for an optional electromagnetically-coupled charger input that could be coupled to a garage-floor-mounted charger input device.]
***********************************************************
I’ve been in the electrical business all my life and I’ve never seen or heard of anything that could induce a current of that magnitude to another receiving object of that distance. It does not make sense. Transformers can accomplish that task but the physical dimensions are much closer.
Oct 7th, 2008 (9:08 am)A few thoughts onthe special plug.
1- It will make people comfortable about it as it imitates a gas pump (without the debt indicator)
2- Keeps the cord away from the body
3- Likely electronically Keyed to the car to prevent theft
4- Likely a breakaway design in case you accidently forget to unplug (also difficult to ignore so forgeting is more unlikely) I mean if you have a regular cord, and drive away and it rips a 3″ hole in your door and costs $700.00 to fix because it is also the charging port..you would scream about the poor design.
5 looks like a flush mounting so no pins to corrode
6- a regular extension cord is more versatile for average joe so more likely to be stolen IMO
I do not think it is likely to be stolen. It is too easy to electronically key it to the car (like stereos these days with a theft deterent chip), and with a breakaway connection, no damages, and it keeps the cord from the body.
I really think all you people that cry its a money maker, would be the first to complain that :
“the regular plug type extension cord is scuffing the body.”
That if you had dual charging ports and you use the passenger side and forget would be like “…if it was only on the drivers side I could never forget,”
and the damages you would also scream that “…it should have been a special breakaway…”
and of course because of those design flaws, GM should foot the bill because they should have thought of these thing.
I think it is a great idea they way it is..the 2 pennies I have
Mitch
Oct 7th, 2008 (9:08 am)#71 statik, on GM’s Battery Person, Adrienne.
=========================================
I take your remark as tongue in cheek.
She’s highly qualified as well as quite attractive.
Even GM’s limited capability on personal pictures can’t hide that.
Thanks for the link. It brightens up the day.
Oct 7th, 2008 (9:19 am)#81 – Gorden Green
You nailed it – GM isn’t making this stuff up – there are SAE standards involved here – SAE J1772 has been around for a while, and is currently be revised – there is WAY MORE than just a 110 or 220V wire – So it’s NOT going to be something you just “hack together” from Lowes or Home Depots (at least not for a few more years, anyways).. It’s not GM just trying to make money (although I sure the fancy volt logo model will cost extra), they are trying to following existing SAE standards in this realm..
Some great links (from a few quick searches are below):
http://evtransportal.com/staffpaper.pdf – About the need for standard charging infrastructures
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/hevtest/071608evchargingreq.pdf
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/hevtest/071608phevwrkshp.pdf – See Pages 44-60 for the
http://books.google.com/books?id=mxP_c_KsxnIC – A great EV book in general – Some folks on this board should buy this!
http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/other/rav_reliability_report.pdf – Shows some pictures of chargers, and shows the RAV4 on page 22 with a Yazaki charger plugged in.
Oct 7th, 2008 (9:22 am)I strongly recommend that anyone thinking of charging their Volt at home run a new separate single 220v line or 110v to their garage or outside carport. The expected current load on an existing 110v plug may make it questionable for people with older houses and older wiring. Most houses in North America are wired with 14 gauge for 110v and 12 gauge for 220v (electric heaters). I’d hate to see a house fire started from overheated faulty wiring. It will be interesting to see if GM publishes the ampere rating for charging at the 110 and 220.
I’m thinking a 10 gauge wire line would be enough to make me feel safe. 10/3 220v is standard for a common electric household clothes dryer. The larger wire (smaller the guage) lessens the chance of the wire heating from the current load. Junction boxes, nics and kinks in the wire can cause overheating points. Running a new line will ensure you have a good clean line direct to the car from your power distribution box (fuse or breaker box).
Check with your local electrical codes and get a qualified electrician to install the line. It may cost you a couple hundred $ but you’ll be able to sleep at night while your Volt is charging!
Oct 7th, 2008 (9:29 am)DonC & Static
DARPA is advancing portable power supplies with a competition (see link). They paid 1.75 million dollars and got 170 teams and 20 reasonable entires, and some really cool tech that reduces battery weight by 80%. This is a perfect example of what the gov’t should be doing. If it went through congress, we’d end up with a 100 million dollar subsidy to Energizer.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/07/pentagon_portable_power_prize/
Oct 7th, 2008 (9:34 am)Plug placement right in front of the drivers door is pretty obvious, isn’t it? It’s so you see it when you get in. Unless you climb in from the back seat, or over the console, it’s hard to miss there.
Oct 7th, 2008 (9:37 am)Some may have commented already, if so, sorry as I did not have time to read all posts. About the charge cord and socket/plug:
I believe the person who stated it was a new SAE standard is correct. The location and special nature of the cord/socket makes good sense to me. If indeed the setup is standardized then “charging stations” can be setup at hotels, rest stops, etc. and every manufacturer’s electrical car (think future here) uses the same pug and thus compatibility.
Also, I read here that the plug/socket must withstand thousands of insertions and still maintain good contact with minimized wear. A standard three prong socket will not hold up to say the 10,000 cycles over the life of the vehicle.
And for the placement, makes perfect sense. You can hardly miss the cord sticking out of the side of the car when you enter the drivers door. If it were on the passenger side, it would be easy to forget and try to drive off with out disconnecting. Which brings me to my final point…I am sure the connector/car will be “smart” enough to know that the cord is plugged in and NOT allow the car to be switched on/started or driven off.
And then for those who worry about tripping over the cord. Well, if you have a garage, simply hang it from the ceiling in the appropriate location. You can even get on of those reels that retract the cord when not in use…
Oct 7th, 2008 (9:48 am)#95 DavidF says “.. Well, if you have a garage, simply hang it from the ceiling in the appropriate location. You can even get on of those reels that retract the cord when not in use…”
===========================================
And for those of us who don’t have a garage …. not to worry, the special GM cord is not long enough for us to be able to plug in anyway
Oct 7th, 2008 (9:51 am)I’m curious on the 110 vs 220 charging options…
I know much of the testing and design has been around not abusing the battery so it maintains a long life.
Is there any difference in how these batteries would last given the different rates of charge? I mean if one were to only charge at 110 volts and thus charge at a slower rate would this lower the ‘abuse’ of the battery and give it a longer life vs charging at 220v?
Oct 7th, 2008 (9:51 am)All this talk about electricity started me thinking… Having just experienced my first extended power outage during the aftermath of Hurricane Ike, wouldn’t it be great if there was an output port and you could power your house with that wonderful 53kW generator sitting in our driveway? Believe me, it’s way easier to fill up a car every now and then than to fill up gas cans and dump them repeatedly into the top of a portable generator…that will only run a refrigerator, a few lights and a TV…while you sweat it out in the heat.
Just a thought…
Oct 7th, 2008 (9:58 am)#98 – GLV
It’s been talked about for about 10 years – See references on V2G
http://www.udel.edu/V2G/
Sadly, per GM on the Gen1 volt will NOT support power output – I definitely think this is a worthy idea – I just think they are too busy trying to get G1 out the door and control costs at this point.. Maybe on the later generations?? We can always hope its a later option (or 3rd party aftermarket solution?), and it would definitely be a bit hit/seller in FL and along the coasts…
GFA
Oct 7th, 2008 (10:08 am)Some of you are sure quick to make it a conspiracy…………..
Between tring to keep OSHA, and every other government agency happy, then meeting the ANSI standards, as well as worrying about every attorney waiting for somebody to get “hurt” plugging in their car in the pouring rain while standing nude in a six inch puddle of water at midnight, I am surprised the connector is as small as it is!!!!
Oct 7th, 2008 (10:09 am)#58 Dave G, they already got it covered, it is called Smart Meters, when it cost you more to charge your car by charging during the day than to buy gas & run the ICE the market will control the grid demand.
As for custom plug it keeps the cheap creeps from buying a 10 AMP walmart extension cord & burning down their house when the garage catches fire due to excess current through the cord. Having a custom cord insures the wiring is properly rated for the current load.
Oct 7th, 2008 (10:14 am)NDTNS
no duct tape = no sale
Oct 7th, 2008 (10:22 am)Speaking of plugging in: Read this:
Source: “http://www.japanautostore.com/electric-cars-in-emissions-shock”
Auto news; Electric cars in emissions shock
Auto Express investigation reveals hidden eco impact, with plug-in models’ reliance on power stations to blame
Electric cars can be more polluting than their petrol-powered equivalents, according to an Auto Express investigation.
We looked at the source of energy used for charging, and found a plug-in vehicle can do greater harm to the environment than a conventional model. Our calculations show that NICE Car’s five-door Ze-O has an equivalent CO2 output of 112.1g/km. That’s more than the Ford Fiesta 1.4 TDCi. And, in electric-only mode, Chevrolet’s new Volt clocks up 124.2g/km – more than a BMW 118d!
We checked the amount of energy used every kilometre by eight electric cars. Then, using Government figures for the amount of CO2 power stations emit per unit of energy, we calculated the g/km rating. The results speak for themselves.
AA president Edmund King said: “Some electric car drivers have a smug attitude. But these findings show electric cars are not the cleanest and greenest.”
Oct 7th, 2008 (10:29 am)#83 ThombDbhomb
#71 statik: Adrienne might read this blog. Please let her know that she looks fine.
——–
#90 RB
I take your remark as tongue in cheek.
She’s highly qualified as well as quite attractive.
Even GM’s limited capability on personal pictures can’t hide that.
Thanks for the link. It brightens up the day.
—————————————
Hehe, yes.
Just tongue and cheek reference about how seemingly all of GM’s female pictures are unnecessarily huge, Adrienne is a fine looking female. No disrespect was intended. All the ‘Volt team members’ are quite fetching actually.
If she happens to read this, I have some single friends that…nevermind.
Oct 7th, 2008 (10:44 am)I did not see in the above posts the thought that the plug contains a circuit breaker the will turn on the power after a secure connection has been made and turn the power off before disconnection. Somewhere in the cord they will have to have this feature otherwise the contacts in the plug will get burned by the spark on each connection and disconnection.
I believe the mechanical connection at the car should be solidly secured and any breakaway capability be in the cord itself or in the plug end away from the end containing the contacts. Being an owner of a 5th wheel RV trailer I know the problems created by forcing the plug to be pulled out of the socket when you pull away with out unplugging the cord. I would not think it to be the case but maybe the plug is close enough that you cannot open the driver door with the plug in place. Too much chance of damage. I can guarantee you that if there is not a good interlock between the charging cord being in place and starting the car you will need a breakaway feature.
Oct 7th, 2008 (10:45 am)Thinking about this logically, wouldn’t one prefer a charging port in the nose of the car? I pull all three of my cars straight into the garage. There are wall outlets on the wall in front of each stall so as not to have extension cords running on the garage floor to trip on I would think it would be smarter to put the charging port somewhere in front of the car????
Oct 7th, 2008 (10:46 am)#103
I wonder how this study accounted for the following…
- Cost (emissions etc) for refining / transporting the gas / diesel
- The ability of electric vehicles to charge in off peak times when there is excess output
- The ability to instead of sending money for gas/diesel to foreign countries we keep it locally where it can (hopefully) be used to upgrade the grid with greener alternatives.
Oct 7th, 2008 (10:53 am)Rashid Amul (#103):
The questions of electricity for cars and electricity from “green” sources are two separate ones. If you don’t convert from the internal combustion engine for transportation, it will mosl likely always be dependent on petroleum (and to a much lesser extent, specific biofuels).
Electricty replacing the ICE as the primary means of moving a car means that many more energy options become available; including a worst-case scenario for coal with no carbon sequestration — and a best-case for solar, or nuclear. It can only be considered a step (although a huge one) down the road to (pick one or both):
1) Energy independence
2) Carbon neutrality
…which would never be attained, otherwise.
Oct 7th, 2008 (10:53 am)One thing about the charger is that it’s connected directly and solidly to the chassis of the vehicle. Looks like there’s no question about its grounding.
Oct 7th, 2008 (11:04 am)#107 and 108.
I don’t really think the study was presented well in that article.
It doesn’t matter if EVs add more pollution. The pollution is coming from one place, the power station. It is much easier to control the pollution there than in the individual cars. In the end, EVs will contribute much less pollution because of the pollution controls at the power stations. IMO.
Oct 7th, 2008 (11:07 am)The end of the cable that plugs into the car looks like a Star Trek phaser, but the other end may have a Y-cord. So you can plug in a 120V extension cord, or a 220V cable. Either that, or you get 2 cables with your Volt. I think they’d make it a 10-15′ cable, that you could lengthen by plugging your own cable into it, if needed.
#103 Rashiid
What if my power comes from sources other than coal, you know, the ones that produce no CO2?
Oct 7th, 2008 (11:19 am)#65 Rashiid Amul:
Actually, if you go to a good race shop, duct tape is available in lots of colors now. We carry yellow, white, gray and black in our race boxes now. If we ever get our 1917 Chevy done I guess that we will need to get a roll of blue. You never know. In the Pegasus catalog they also offer red, silver, blue, green, orange, purple and clear. Maybe Chevy could just throw in a roll with each new Volt!
On the issue of the charging plug, I saw the one at the Santa Monica event which was plugged into something. It had one or more flashing lights on the handle and a light whigh illuminated the receptacle on the car, I guess for plugging in in the dark. Maybe the flashing lights indicated the state of charge, as on a power tool battery charger? Or maybe on was just a warning not to bump into it or drive away with it plugged in. I think that there was an extensive thread recently where people expressed interest in such things. So maybe they are responding to our concerns (LOL?) Maybe some sort of heating element for those icy mornings? Built in propane torch?
I agree, two years is going to be tough to fill.
Oct 7th, 2008 (11:21 am)Off-topic
Article on silver-zinc batteries. Sounds like they’ll start coming out next year in laptops. Given that car environments are more demanding (cost, life-span, etc), I think laptops tech will be a good predictor of what comes next in automotive. Given that, Volt 2.0 should have an AER of 55 miles if all else is held constant.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/10/07/zpower_major_laptop_design_win/
Oct 7th, 2008 (11:22 am)It is my understanding that the batteries generate a lot of heat while discharging, so why would they need to be heated externally,also the excess heat can be used to warm the car interior in winter,NOT?
Oct 7th, 2008 (11:29 am)Late edit:
Heat gun!
Oct 7th, 2008 (11:35 am)#10 Statik
“Seriously, it is good question. There is no reason to have a plug like that. I want to use the orange hardware store special. It’s what is in use in the Prius Plug-In concept, the SMART ed fleet and production ready iMiev…so whats the issue here?”
————————————————–
If GM has to have something built into the end of that plug then why not build that component into the car and allow the owner to just plug in a standard 3-prong electrical cord? I have asked myself this question every time I have seen that special plug shown. It just does not make sense to require a plug that is going to be costly and one that will be “ripped-off” of cars parked outside and re-sold on the “black-market”. I suspect that special plug is going to cost about $250.00 to replace. It just does not make any sense. Come on, GM, build every thing required into the car and let us use a simple extension cord.
Oct 7th, 2008 (11:38 am)Lyle,
Can you find out about the plug’s cord? Why this type of connector cord? Why not a simple extension cord?
Oct 7th, 2008 (11:47 am)#111 kdawg ask,
What if my power comes from sources other than coal, you know, the ones that produce no CO2?
—-
Even better. But if it is coal, it can still be controlled at the source, which will be better than controlling it in all the vehicles.
Oct 7th, 2008 (11:50 am)#112 noel park Says: Actually, if you go to a good race shop, duct tape is available in lots of colors now. We carry yellow, white, gray and black in our race boxes now.”
————————————————————————————–
Forget duct tape – use gaffers tape – the stuff they use on movie sets, like this:
http://www.filmtools.com/2blacwhitgre.html
Comes in white, gray, black, yellow, blue, green, red, brown.
Oct 7th, 2008 (11:50 am)#114 randy says,
It is my understanding that the batteries generate a lot of heat while discharging, so why would they need to be heated externally,also the excess heat can be used to warm the car interior in winter,NOT?
—————
Not from a cold weather climate, are you? The problem comes when the car sits in the parking lot for 8 hours and the temperature is below zero. Something will be needed to warm the battery.
Oct 7th, 2008 (11:52 am)#55 RB:
In contrast, if we accept the statement in the post as correct, there is a 1 to 1.5kw limitation in the charger, perhaps reflecting heat dissipation requirements there. So, if the statement in the post is correct, there will not be faster charging with 220V. That is consistent with the fact that charging time for laptop computers similar on 110 and 220V. =====================================================
That was a quote from someone outside of GM who doesn’t know precisely what it is. GM’s own reports say it is 6 hrs with 110v, 3 hrs with 220v. While your suggestion is possible, the evidence points a different direction.
The limited number of cells on a laptop computer (6 usually) limit the charge rate to a much lower number (60-80watts max). Therefore they limit the power in the adapters accordingly. Since there are a large number of cells in the Volt’s battery pack, the maximum charge rate is much, much higher and it can take the higher rate of charge with ease. It wouldn’t be feasible to require everyone with 110 only to install a 30amp circuit just to charge their car, but if you have 220v, you can get that much power with only a 15amp circuit.
#97 Kirk
Is there any difference in how these batteries would last given the different rates of charge?
=====================================================
Since there are a very large number of cells in the volt’s battery pack to give you a 16kW ‘battery’ (even the largest laptop battery is likely to be under 100W – note the lack of a ‘k’), each individual cell has a limitation on safe charge current, but when you’re charging them all at once, 100 cells (it probably has more than that – maybe 3x more) can take a lot of current at once. I would think (without getting out textbooks and doing the math) that charging at 110v would be almost a ‘trickle charge’ to a battery of that size, and even at 220 you’re still well under the maximum recommended charge rate – there will probably be a negligible difference in ‘abuse level’ between the 2.
Oct 7th, 2008 (12:10 pm)#116 N Riley
If GM has to have something built into the end of that plug then why not build that component into the car and allow the owner to just plug in a standard 3-prong electrical cord? I have asked myself this question every time I have seen that special plug shown. It just does not make sense to require a plug that is going to be costly and one that will be “ripped-off” of cars parked outside and re-sold on the “black-market”. I suspect that special plug is going to cost about $250.00 to replace. It just does not make any sense. Come on, GM, build every thing required into the car and let us use a simple extension cord.
=============================
If what we are led to believe is true and they are conforming to a standard SAE J1772 cord, then it shouldn’t be as large a issue.
I’ve been poking around the interwebs, and here is the press ditty from SAE on it from last month:
http://www.sae.org/mags/aei/POWER/NEWS
(they have a stupid site, hit the ‘Charging Connector’ ditty about halfway down beside the main article.
It’s not ‘old orange’ at $14.99 (#69 DaveG, HD actually has them on sale right now from $19.99, lol). But costing is in the $60 range, which I’m sure is about $339.99 cheaper than GM’s plug…and it looks like it will be very unattractive. (w00h00!)
The ditty from SAE if that link above scared you:
“Yazaki has teamed with the SAE J1772 Working Group to define a standard connector interface for charging batteries in the next generation of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) with standard electrical power. The group selected Yazaki’s charge coupler design proposal to develop the standard for PHEVs, which depend on electricity sourced from the utility grid to replace gasoline for improved economy and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Design features of the coupler include a compact size and crush-proof design; support of up to 70 A charge rate; and safe, touch-proof contacts. The connector was designed for more than 10,000 insertion cycles”
Side note: I’m still pulling for a little crappy conversion socket I can jam in there and still plug ‘old orange’ into.
Oct 7th, 2008 (12:19 pm)kirk: Is there any difference in how these batteries would last given the different rates of charge?
——————————-
I have a similar question. If I planned to drive 5 miles a day for a week, would it be less stressful to the battery were I to charge it once at the end of the week rather than plug it in every night?
I suppose this question belongs somewhere in the forum, but not everyone plows through the forums.
Oct 7th, 2008 (12:25 pm)#116 N Riley
I think that there are several things that can be done..See my post #89,
I work in manufacturing and am in contact with user daily..you canno timagine the number of issues that I describe in the thought process behind special plugs.
We use wire harnesses..why? it is checper to use a wire and spade connectors, but you cannot miswire our harness. We use different coloured wire..one colour is cheaper..again no errors, easier for troubleshooting, and STANDARDS.
From a manufacturing standpoint the list of things you must comply with is staggering at times..
I posted #89 with some of the nmore obvious ones in mind…and the examples are real world (albeit modified to fit a car).
Oct 7th, 2008 (12:28 pm)I already have a dedicated 220V outlet in my garage on the left hand side – SWEEEEET!!!! I am ready to go.
And the connection to the plug should sense when there is a cord there and prevent the car from “starting” until the cord is removed – voila – no driving off with the cord still attached!
Oct 7th, 2008 (12:36 pm)Oh yeah! Nice to hear.. here in Europe we have 220V!
Oct 7th, 2008 (12:52 pm)RB
“And for those of us who don’t have a garage …. not to worry, the special GM cord is not long enough for us to be able to plug in anyway”
So either design & patent one, or just keep crying about it……..
Oct 7th, 2008 (1:09 pm)#103 Rashiid Amul Says: “Speaking of plugging in: Read this:
Source: “http://www.japanautostore.com/electric-cars-in-emissions-shock”
————————————————————————————-
This article contradicts all other inforamtion I’ve heard. For example, on the recently aired program “Nova: Car of the Future”:
NARRATOR: Skeptics say that all plug-ins do is shift the pollution source from the tailpipe to the smokestack, but studies show that powering cars with electricity from today’s mix of power plants could reduce greenhouse emissions by about 40 percent. Further reductions are possible if electric power gets cleaner.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/tm/3507.html?site=22&pl=wmp&rate=hi&ch=5
Oct 7th, 2008 (1:24 pm)Thank you, Dave G #128
That was what I was trying to say in #110.
But what I didn’t know was that even without doing anything extra at the power stations, we will reduce greenhouse emissions by 40 percent. I like that very much.
Oct 7th, 2008 (1:45 pm)#129 Rashiid
The other rather obvious but overlooked point is that PHEV’s aren’t increasing the amount of electricity generated, they’re simply using excess capacity. Basically the electricity will be generated, and it either gets used in a PHEV or it goes to waste. Since the pollution has already been created, plugging in the car doesn’t lead to more electricity being produced and therefore can’t lead to ANY additional pollution.
Oct 7th, 2008 (2:07 pm)#130 DonC
“The other rather obvious but overlooked point is that PHEV’s aren’t increasing the amount of electricity generated, they’re simply using excess capacity. Basically the electricity will be generated, and it either gets used in a PHEV or it goes to waste. Since the pollution has already been created, plugging in the car doesn’t lead to more electricity being produced and therefore can’t lead to ANY additional pollution.”
You beat me to it. Until there are so many EV’s on the road that our grid capacity needs to be increased the useage is mute from a co2 standpoint. Plus that article assumes all electricity will come from coal fired electric plants. I guess solar panels on your garage, or a wind turbine in your backyard, or nuclear plants don’t fit into that articles “theory”.
I would love to find out where the funding for that “study” came from………
Oct 7th, 2008 (2:13 pm)Makes me glad that I have 220 ports all over my garage walls next to the 110 plugs. Hello 3 hour charge times!
Oct 7th, 2008 (2:40 pm)#130, 131 “Since the pollution has already been created, plugging in the car doesn’t lead to more electricity being produced and therefore can’t lead to ANY additional pollution.”
Not true. If the electrical demand goes down, then coal fired stations are the first to lower their output, burning less coal in the process, and vice versa if the electrical demand goes up. Since most peaking stations are coal in the USA, EVs will result in CO2 releases.
However, EVs do have the potential to flatten out the deamnd by charging at night. So, in the long term, this allows the construction of more base load stations (nuclear-relatively clean) rather than peaking (coal-relatively dirty) generating stations.
Oct 7th, 2008 (2:43 pm)#132 Joe OBrien Says: “Makes me glad that I have 220 ports all over my garage walls next to the 110 plugs. Hello 3 hour charge times!”
————————————————————————————-
Just curious, why do you want a 3-hour charge time? Does this makes a big difference for you? Is it worth paying the higher daytime electric rates? Is there any advantage to 3-hour night-time charging over 6 hour night-time charging?
Oct 7th, 2008 (2:45 pm)#133 Shaft Says: “If the electrical demand goes down, then coal fired stations are the first to lower their output, burning less coal in the process, and vice versa if the electrical demand goes up.”
————————————————————————————-
I thought natural gas was used more for peak load.
Oct 7th, 2008 (2:47 pm)#134-Dave-”Just curious, why do you want a 3-hour charge time?”
Weekends are also lower rates. If I go out Saturday morning, and then return home, I’d like a fast charge for my trip Saturday afternoon.
And I may even use the fast charge capability at peak rate times during the week if I need to. Even peak rates are cheaper than gas.
So, fast charging will benefit many people under many circumstances.
Oct 7th, 2008 (2:49 pm)#135-Dave-”I thought natural gas was used more for peak load.”
Correct. It is. But so is coal.
But the argument is also the same. Natural gas produces CO2, though I think less than coal.
Oct 7th, 2008 (2:59 pm)Bottom line: Don’t kid yourselves. EVs, when charging, will produce additional CO2, until some other method of producing electricity is used to replace the huge number of U.S. fossil fueled power stations. That will take a long, long time.
To me, the “greenness” of the Volt is not what is important. It is its capacity to reduce dependence on oil that is the Volt’s greatest contribution. That will prevent devastating wars over scarce resources, not to mention economic catastrophes when the oil supplies start to disappear.
Oct 7th, 2008 (3:19 pm)#127 Jon P says “RB
“And for those of us who don’t have a garage …. not to worry, the special GM cord is not long enough for us to be able to plug in anyway”
So either design & patent one, or just keep crying about it……”
===================================================
Did you notice that you left out my smiley following the comment? The sentence reads a little differently when it is present.
I imagine that GM’s cord can be plugged into a regular cord, if need be.
Oct 7th, 2008 (3:23 pm)#138 Shaft Says: “EVs, when charging, will produce additional CO2, …”
————————————————————————————
Additional CO2 compared to what? Driving on today’s mix of electricity will reduce greenhouse gasses by 40% compared to gasoline engine cars.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/tm/3507.html?site=22&pl=wmp&rate=hi&ch=5
This is all because gasoline engines are very inefficient, like around 20% efficiency. The compression stroke works directly against the power stroke. An E-REV running on electricity is around 80% efficient. Huge stationary coal power plants are inherently more efficient than small mobile gas engines. Shipping foreign oil, refining it into gasoline, and then transporting the gasoline to filling stations all produces CO2. When you look at the well-to-wheel efficiency, using electricity for transportation produces much less CO2.
Oct 7th, 2008 (3:28 pm)#121 fishmahn says “That was a quote from someone outside of GM who doesn’t know precisely what it is. GM’s own reports say it is 6 hrs with 110v, 3 hrs with 220v. While your suggestion is possible, the evidence points a different direction”
==================================================
I agree that the comment was from Lyle’s expert, who is outside of GM. Likewise, it was the expert who suggested that it was 1 to 1.5 kW, not a suggestion of mine. Presumably the expert made the suggestion based on experience of size, and by implication on heat dissipation.
What I did was to note the logical consequence of the expert’s statement, which is that charging time will have to be well beyond 3 hours. It could be that the expert is wrong, of course. (I make no claim to such expertise.) Still, it is plausible that if AC/DC conversion of some sort is involved that limits on heat dissipation could be a factor, and the location of the unit suggests that allowing air flow around the power unit is important.
Oct 7th, 2008 (3:29 pm)OK, I admit I did post my comment before reading what you guys have already said about the plug. Shame of me. Its just that after reading a comment or two, I want to say something on the subject. Bet I am not the only one doing that. But today, with the comments pretty well explaining the reason for the type of plug GM is using, I feel egg pretty all over my face.
Thanks, Statik (#122) and Mitch (#124). Good info.
Oct 7th, 2008 (3:34 pm)#140-Dave
I agree that it will produce less. But I’m dubious about the 40% number since I think that in the short to medium term EVs will not draw power from “today’s mix of electricity”. EVs will require that more fossil fuels are burned.
Anyway, my point was not about less or more. It was that EVs will still produce substantial quantities of CO2, and I think the main benefit is elsewhere … reduced dependency on oil.
Oct 7th, 2008 (3:38 pm)#119 Dave G says “Forget duct tape – use gaffers tape – the stuff they use on movie sets, like this:
http://www.filmtools.com/2blacwhitgre.html
Comes in white, gray, black, yellow, blue, green, red, brown.”
=================================================
Just gets better and better
Oct 7th, 2008 (3:40 pm)#138 Shaft Said, “To me, the “greenness” of the Volt is not what is important. It is its capacity to reduce dependence on oil that is the Volt’s greatest contribution. That will prevent devastating wars over scarce resources, not to mention economic catastrophes when the oil supplies start to disappear.”
Is it just me, or does anyone else wonder if the economic catastrophe has already started? I sure hope the Volt gets here in time…
Oct 7th, 2008 (3:47 pm)#141 RB Says: “What I did was to note the logical consequence of the expert’s statement, which is that charging time will have to be well beyond 3 hours. It could be that the expert is wrong, of course.”
————————————————————————————-
I believe the expert was just calculating the charging power using data provided by GM. For example, GM said the charge time would be at 6.5 hours using a 110 volt circuit. They have also said the battery charges 8kwh. So 8 kwh / 6.5 hours = 1.23kw, or around 11 amps at 110 volts.
For 220v charging, GM has said the time goes down to a little over 3 hours, which corresponds to around 11 amps at 220 volts.
Oct 7th, 2008 (3:48 pm)Why are we so involved with CO2 emissions? If I understand correctly where CO2 comes from, 96% comes from natural sources. Only 4% comes from human activity. So, if this is correct, what do we do about the 96% we don’t cause? Seems like CO2 creation is a natural occurring factor of our ecology.
Oct 7th, 2008 (3:53 pm)#147 N Riley
Why are we so involved with CO2 emissions?
========================================
Because November 2010 is along way away. We have make sure we fully split every hair possible along the way.
*cough* another fresh low *cough*
7.56 – .92 (10.85%) market cap 4.28B
Oct 7th, 2008 (3:53 pm)#144 RB
“#119 Dave G says “Forget duct tape – use gaffers tape – the stuff they use on movie sets, like this:
http://www.filmtools.com/2blacwhitgre.html
Comes in white, gray, black, yellow, blue, green, red, brown.”
=================================================
Just gets better and better
”
——————————————————————————–
Why use tape at all. Once you pull off the tape it leaves a sticky residue. Just stuff some silly putty (comes in many colors) into the charge port hole and it seals and waterproofs at the same time. If the color of the putty doesn’t match, just add a little food coloring to get the exact match you want. Then take your skull ring and make a skull depression in the putty for a real effect. Or whatever…………
Oct 7th, 2008 (3:58 pm)#147 N Riley Says: “Why are we so involved with CO2 emissions? If I understand correctly where CO2 comes from, 96% comes from natural sources. Only 4% comes from human activity. So, if this is correct, what do we do about the 96% we don’t cause? Seems like CO2 creation is a natural occurring factor of our ecology.”
————————————————————————————–
As I’ve said before, global warming is getting to be like religion. Either you believe it or you don’t.
But for those who do believe it, I believe the issues are:
1) More CO2 is being produced (because of fossil fuels).
2) Less CO2 is being consumed (because rain forests are being cut down).
So net CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.
But then there are counter-arguments that say increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is not that big of a deal.
I’m not saying who is right. I’m just trying to answer your question.
Oct 7th, 2008 (4:00 pm)#149 N Riley Says: “Why use tape at all. Once you pull off the tape it leaves a sticky residue. Just stuff some silly putty (comes in many colors) into the charge port hole and it seals and waterproofs at the same time. If the color of the putty doesn’t match, just add a little food coloring to get the exact match you want…”
————————————————————————————–
You could also mix two colors of silly putty to get a really cool swirl effect…
Oct 7th, 2008 (4:04 pm)#133, coal is used as baseline power in this country, not peaking, because coal plants do not throttle well. Peaking power is normally produced by natural gas in this country, and by throttling hydro if there’s a water source that isn’t enough to meet demand full time.
That does mean that if you create a new kind of load that flattens the demand curve, some daytime natural gas might be replaced by coal.
-dk
Oct 7th, 2008 (4:08 pm)#133 Shaft – “If the electrical demand goes down, then coal fired stations are the first to lower their output, burning less coal in the process, and vice versa if the electrical demand goes up.”
You’re missing the critical yet unarguable point that PHEVs should have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the supply of electricity. Because you can’t smoothly match supply to demand, for long periods of the day supply outstrips demand by a large margin and a great deal of electricity gets wasted. There is some supply elasticity, but there is also an irreducible minimum of electrical production — rivers don’t stop flowing, nuclear plants can’t stop producing, and so on and so forth. As a consequence, even in the summer in CA, more than a third of electricity produced at night is never used. It’s just wasted.
I assumed the PHEV was being plugged in at night but I probably should have been explicit about this. Assuming this is the case, there is so much excess capacity, which cannot be reduced, that plugging in PHEVs will not contribute any additional pollution.
This is also why from a societal standpoint PHEVs are an economic miracle — they turn dead weight social losses into useful transportation. Indeed, the societal cost of “fueling” PHEVs is effectively zero.
Oct 7th, 2008 (4:18 pm)GLV # 145 says,
Is it just me, or does anyone else wonder if the economic catastrophe has already started? I sure hope the Volt gets here in time…
————–
What economic catastrophe? Did I miss something?
Oct 7th, 2008 (4:21 pm)#154 Rashiid Amul
No, you didn’t miss anything. It’s just the old normal government corruption where congressmen and senators are in bed with some business (generally financial) and they don’t “mind the store” because there is money to be made for themselves and their friends. Same thing time after time. We have a den of foxes watching our hen house.
Oct 7th, 2008 (4:24 pm)Didn’t read all of the comments, so this may be duplicating some. The orange secondary leads from the “charger” indicate high voltage. Remember, it is 340V or so going to (and coming from) the battery. The power electronics module does appear to be located close by the “charger” but this is irrelevent since power is not routed directly between the two. It does seem out to the side some. Unless space just would not allow it, the charger would ideally be located just behind the charge port.
Where is the emergency house power switch?
Oct 7th, 2008 (4:34 pm)#143 Shaft Says: “Anyway, my point was not about less or more. It was that EVs will still produce substantial quantities of CO2, and I think the main benefit is elsewhere … reduced dependency on oil.”
————————————————————————————-
#145 GLV Says: “Is it just me, or does anyone else wonder if the economic catastrophe has already started? I sure hope the Volt gets here in time…”
————————————————————————————-
So the reasons for buying an E-REV are:
• To prevent dependence on foreign oil, which contributes to terrorism
• To prevent dependence on foreign oil, which drains our economy
• To prevent global warming
• To own something cool and high tech
Of course, each person will order this list differently.
Oct 7th, 2008 (4:40 pm)#156 koz Says: “The orange secondary leads from the “charger” indicate high voltage. Remember, it is 340V or so going to (and coming from) the battery.”
————————————————————————————-
220 volts AC is actually a sine wave with 616 volts peak-to-peak voltage. So it’s all high voltage, just different.
Oct 7th, 2008 (4:40 pm)#157 Dave G
You pretty well spelled it out correctly. All of those reasons are sound. For me, I kind of like the last one: “To own something cool and high tech”. Doesn’t hurt if it also answers some of the other reasons, also.
Oct 7th, 2008 (4:42 pm)Well, I know we have had all of our questions about the charge port answered by now. Correct? I suspect not. I like the idea about making the port hinged (nasaman?) at the top. Seems like it would give less trouble in icy weather that way. But what do I know.
Oct 7th, 2008 (4:44 pm)Did any of you notice how Mitsu iMiev solved the problem of 110 vs 220 charging? They have two charge ports. Actually, one port is for home charging over 8 hours and the other port is for quick charging at a charging station. Was it too complicated to create a “smart” plug port for them?
Oct 7th, 2008 (4:45 pm)There are reasons to have a special breakaway cord for driveaway situations. But consider if there are ever parking meter type charging stations, as I imagine will occur. It would almost be required that it be on the side of the car adjacent to the curb or front or rear of the vehicle, and not protruding in traffic. For the US, that would put it on the passenger side.
Similarly for Right Hand drive setups, you would want the charging port where it is now.
Overall, I would think the front of the vehicle would be the prefered single point of attachment, if there were only one.
Changing the subject slightly. With regard to 120 V charging. There are normal “heavy duty” 120v setups with a 20A wiring rating, rather than 10A or 15 A service. When attached to such a circuit, the charging time should be cut by 50% over 10A, or by 25% over a 15A circuit, I would think.
Oct 7th, 2008 (4:46 pm)It is going to be an interesting 25 months. I am still hoping the Volt will get released for the showrooms early (by 3 months or so). They may need to do that if they want beat the competition. It is going to get hot and heavy by 2010.
Oct 7th, 2008 (4:52 pm)Shaft ,
Most peaking stations in the USA are NOT coal fired. Except for the “semi-obsolecent & retired,” standby “old smokers”.
Most modern peaking is gas turbine generation. For usual off peak nightly charging, you would probably just use base load with a little peaking equipment.
Oct 7th, 2008 (4:53 pm)OK, we have all been batting a 1,000 today. Let’s hope for some real meat to discuss on the morrow. See you guys. You are the greatest. I really enjoy reading what ya’ll say.
Oct 7th, 2008 (4:58 pm)#145 GLV
Is it just me, or does anyone else wonder if the economic catastrophe has already started? I sure hope the Volt gets here in time…
====================================
Obviously you have not been reading my posts at all the last year or so., hehe. We are two years into the economic collapse already…these things take time to affect everyone and ramp up to ‘full speed’
Catastrophic is a not the proper word to describe it.
Definition of catastrophic is a sudden and widespread disaster. This bad boy has been brewing a very long time, with big bright flashing neon signs.
Oct 7th, 2008 (5:27 pm)153-DonC-”— rivers don’t stop flowing, nuclear plants can’t stop producing, and so on and so forth. As a consequence, even in the summer in CA, more than a third of electricity produced at night is never used. It’s just wasted.”
=====================================================
This is news to me. Can you provide a reference or study that makes this point? Frankly, I do not believe it … but I’ll remain open minded if you can present me with some credible evidence.
Oct 7th, 2008 (5:39 pm)#164- stas peterson -”Most modern peaking is gas turbine generation. For usual off peak nightly charging, you would probably just use base load with a little peaking equipment.”
==================================================
What you say rings true. So, EVs will add base load at night … and more coal will be burned … and CO2 will be added to the atmosphere. But, OK, perhaps a bit less than burning gasoline.
Or perhaps DonC is correct (153 and 167) and the coal is being burned anyway. But as I said in #167, I’ll believe that when I see solid evidence. I believe that the electrical utilities reduce coal station output at night, and will need to add it back to charge millions (we hope!) of Volts and other EVs.
I can guarantee that if the USA does not get over its nuclear phobia, coal will be king.
Oct 7th, 2008 (6:13 pm)Some points that NEED to be made (and some that don’t, but I want to).
Everyone can stop with the remedial arithmetic calculations of how long it takes the batteries to charge. Li+ batteries (and effectively every type of electrical energy storage device) do NOT charge linearly. They also are not plug-and-go – they require controllers to maximize charging rate based on the non-linearity.
As #164 stas and a few others have said, coal-fired power plants are GENERALLY part of the baseline power supply in this country. Depending on the time of day, they supply up to __ 60% __ of the nation’s electrical power, including off-grid sources. However, even baseline stations adjust for predicted electrical needs, so coal-fired plants will turn on more generators during the summer and daytime than they do at night.
Emergency / peaking stations are: natural gas, then old coal, then oil, in that order, depending on your area of the country.
Dig here: http://www.energy.gov/energysources/index.htm
It’s neither true that EVs will NOT increase pollution from power generation nor that they MUST. It all depends on the volume of EVs on the grid and where they are located / concentrated.
+ With only a few hundred thousand spread across the country, the grid will not feel them and the generating plants will not adjust for them, even if they know they’re there. It’s not in their best interest to generate more unneeded electricity.
+ With millions of EVs on the road, utilities will feel them and also be forced to factor in an amount of their peak possible load. Generating stations will thus need to produce more electricity. There will almost certainly be more EVs in California (where electrical demand is a BIG issue) than any other state, so we’re likely to see the precedents on the issue made there.
Summary of the above bullets : a couple of EVs skate by with NO additional pollution from electrical generation. A lot of EVs, even though still just a blip on the grid (likely far less than 5% capacity), should be taken into account in load planning and the pollution from the electricity they need catches up to them.
The Dow did not drop 500 points today. When I snap my fingers, you will awaken and remember nothing.
Oct 7th, 2008 (6:18 pm)#167 Shaft – “This is news to me. Can you provide a reference or study that makes this point? Frankly, I do not believe it … but I’ll remain open minded if you can present me with some credible evidence.”
No problem. I’m sure there are many sources, but this one — the online real time report of electrical use in CA — you can check every day and it’s highly graphical. It’s fun. If you look you’ll notice there are is a 50% overcapacity during the night hours.
http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html
The graph also illustrates why solar is a great idea for places such as CA, AZ, etc.– solar produces during the time periods and seasons of highest demand.
Oct 7th, 2008 (6:50 pm)#170 DonC
The graph also illustrates why solar is a great idea for places such as CA, AZ, etc.– solar produces during the time periods and seasons of highest demand.
================================
Solar is a great idea everywhere! Heeh…sorry I had to add that in.
I just wanted to agree with you on overnight production. It is obvious rivers don’t flow, but nuclear power plants just don’t flick on and off either. (We know a thing or two about nuclear power in Canada, lol).
I would also like to take this opportunity to encourage the building of many, many more nuclear reactors in America as well…as we produce about 30% of the world’s supply and we aren’t getting the $$$ like we used to a couple months ago for gas.
(actually in interest of being accurate we are down to 24% for 2008, but I couldn’t find a fancy graph to illustrate it…CIS has really upped their game, lol)
http://www.cameco.com/investor_relations/annual/2005/html/common/images/content/analysis/08-2005_world_u_production.gif
(btw…I’m just kidding)
Oct 7th, 2008 (7:24 pm)#169 jdsv Says: “With millions of EVs on the road, utilities will feel them and also be forced to factor in an amount of their peak possible load.”
————————————————————————————–
From the Nova program:
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
Oct 7th, 2008 (7:28 pm)#162 stas peterson Says: “There are reasons to have a special breakaway cord for driveway situations.”
————————————————————————————-
How can you breakaway the cord if you can’t move? I’m pretty sure the Volt won’t move if the charge port cover is open.
Oct 7th, 2008 (7:34 pm)#162 stas peterson Says: ” With regard to 120 V charging. There are normal “heavy duty” 120v setups with a 20A wiring rating, rather than 10A or 15 A service. When attached to such a circuit, the charging time should be cut by 50% over 10A, or by 25% over a 15A circuit, I would think.”
————————————————————————————–
I don’t think so. How would the Volt know that it was plugged into such a circuit? If it required a user selection, how many people would set it improperly?
There will be 2 modes:
• 110 volts at 11 amps
• 220 volts at 11 amps
Both should should work fine on a lightly loaded 15 amp circuit.
Oct 7th, 2008 (8:14 pm)I stated this along time ago, in a thread far…far…away.
But, regarding plugging in your Volt to an existing 110V outlet.
If this is outlet is not on a separate circuit I can foresee a lot of problems.
1) The garage door opener motor starts to open your door, and pop goes a circuit breaker.
2) The guy who wired your house was a little lazy and decided to just tap into the circuit from the bathroom. Then your wife runs her hair dryer and pop goes a circuit breaker. In the morning when you anxiously jump into your Volt, you realize the the batttery is barely above 30 SOC. Many expletives leave your mouth, and coffee drizzles down your pants.
3) One of the kids decides he needs to use the outlet to charge his Nintendo DS and just unplugs the ugly looking cord.
If (big IF, since I will not be able afford one) I were getting a Volt, I would want to install a dedicated service outlet (with a built in fuse and disconnect) that was hardwired to the Volt plug. Then just let that baby swing on a spring support, so all I do is pull it down, plug it in, and all is well in the world.
Of course I am a cheap son of a @$%%%^ so I would do all the wiring my self.
Oct 7th, 2008 (8:22 pm)#174 Dave G asks how the Volt will know it is on a special 20A circuit.
============
It will work like this. First the Volt will use its GPS to determine its location. Then the Volt will use its OnStar to call the homeowner and ask what kind of circuit it is connected to. If no answer or owner unable to state mother’s maiden name the Volt will use three power test pulses to see if power goes out. If it does, the Volt will turn on its auto-vapor-cloud ejector so that as the house burns down the Volt is left undamaged, thereby making everything financially possible because of lower auto insurance premiums. (The house will be covered by govmt bailout.)
(Please don’t take seriously.)
Now nearly 200 posts on a post about the charging port. Amazing.
Oct 7th, 2008 (8:29 pm)#175 JEC says
“2) The guy who wired your house was a little lazy and decided to just tap into the circuit from the bathroom. Then your wife runs her hair dryer and pop goes a circuit breaker. In the morning when you anxiously jump into your Volt, you realize the the batttery is barely above 30 SOC. Many expletives leave your mouth, and coffee drizzles down your pants.”
=========================================
Funniest comment ever. I will remember it! Thanks.
Oct 7th, 2008 (8:31 pm)N. Riley #116
“If GM has to have something built into the end of that plug then why not build that component into the car and allow the owner to just plug in a standard 3-prong electrical cord? I have asked myself this question every time I have seen that special plug shown.”
*** *** ***
Actually, I think it’s crossed many minds. I’ve always thought that the connector shown in the concept cars is a little dainty to hold up to years of use and abuse. The coup de gras in this thing is as you mentioned that the free market will affect the production of adapters that alleviate the problem.
Oct 7th, 2008 (8:32 pm)Boy, did I come late to this one :p
From the beginning.
Can we get an official word on the “cold start”, Lyle?
The volt is quite a waste for like 6 months of the year in northern states and up, if that’s the case. (You paid to have 40miles AER, but really you only get to use 20 (+20 gas) because your engine’s been running to keep the batteries warm)
If it is plugged in, use the power to keep the batteries at an optimal warmth, don’t be startin the engine; it’s a waste.
Propietary plug – there had better be a damn good reason. Breakaway cord? Give me a break. It plugs in next to the driver’s door. If you don’t trip over the cord walking in, you’re far too distracted to be driving.
re #89 – “chip” it to the car? Great, so it can be just like keyless entry pads where they charge $500 for a new set. $1000 for a new power cord anyone?
As for it being on the drivers side and having to drape the cord or in front or something to plug in… here’s a novel idea.. change the way you park! (GASP! I know!)
It’s not gonna kill you to back in instead of drive in forward. In fact, you’ll like it more, since you don’t have to back out. You just hop in your volt and get on your way.
re: 103.. the study.. I just have to say, what a crock of sh–.
The second they implied that CO2 was a pollutant was just.. wow. Pollutants are things that degrade air quality and cause harm to life. CO2 MAKES life or is MADE BY life. Without it, we’d be dead. NOx, CFC’s, etc are another story.
Oh yeah – another thing for proprietary cord – “Oh hey, you only need an oil change every year or so? gee, we’ll have to make up for that lost revenue.. how about we just sell power cords for $1000 and have them fail about every year or two?”
Oct 7th, 2008 (8:38 pm)RB # 177
Most people know what to do with an ICE vehicle. How to fill with gas, how to maintain etc. An electric car though, is all brand new. It’s like when we were about to be teens and it was a daunting idea to operate a car correctly. There are a lot of new questions, most will be fairly obviously solved once we see and sit in the cars. Until then there will be lots of questions about a new technology that seems to demand changes in our lives.
Oct 7th, 2008 (8:42 pm)Kaido # 126
“#
Oh yeah! Nice to hear.. here in Europe we have 220V!”
*** *** ***
Yes we have it here in the US but we’ve standardized on 120v, probably due to the fact that in the early days primitive devices like light bulbs were charred by 220V. The good thing is that our breaker boxes are dual pole so that bridging the poles for a 240V receptacle is a snap.
Oct 7th, 2008 (8:47 pm)JEC
“I would want to install a dedicated service outlet (with a built in fuse and disconnect) that was hardwired to the Volt plug. Then just let that baby swing on a spring support, so all I do is pull it down, plug it in, and all is well in the world.”
That’s exactly what I would do. Also I’d have a dedicated 220 volt 70 amp breaker in panel, for my car. Fortunately I have enough calculated capacity left to do this. I’d let the swing arm pivot so that I could pull in forward or backwards without sweating the details.
Oct 7th, 2008 (9:48 pm)116 N Riley
178 Grizzly – Standard 3 Prong Plug
179 Canehdian – Proprietary Plug..
Again, at the risk of repeating this – There are automotive standards involved here – SAE J1772 in particular – This is NOT a proprietary plug, nor is it a standard 3 wire 3 prong plug – it’s an AUTOMOTIVE standard that was defined 10 years ago, for EV vechiles, it’s MANDATED for EV’s in CA by CARB to get the ZEV credit – This standard is in the process of being updated by the SAE – Not GM. It’s not going to cost, $1K, it’s produced by various 3rd parties – per Statik (#122), the Yazaki connector proposed for the revision (REV ? 2009) SAE 1772 standard is about $60.
Just as “home” plugs are standardized by NEMA (See NEMA 5 – The typical plug is a 5–15R), the size of blades, spacing, etc is STANDARDIZED. It’s not about what’s proprietary or not, NEMA specifics home wiring standards, and SAE specifies car standards. GM really doesn’t have ANY options here (other than where to place the port, the cover, the logo, etc) – GM has to follow LOTS of SAE standards, and a conductive charging plug , is one of these..
Again, the details about updating the CARB standards, to match the new revisions to SAE 1772 are in the following link:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/hevtest/071608evchargingreq.pdf
Finally, if your interested in where some of the “decisions” around the original SAE-J1772 came from – The following is the best link I’ve found about what was considered, testing criteria, etc..
http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/public/TR-105608.pdf
Oct 7th, 2008 (10:05 pm)DonC #170-”If you look you’ll notice there are is a 50% overcapacity during the night hours.”
===================================================
No argument. There’s lots of overcapacity at night. But that doesn’t mean that the utilities are producing and wasting electricity. They will progressively lower the output of their most expensive plants (probably oil, then gas, then coal – all CO2 producers) to meet the lower demand at night.
Then, when EVs are connected at night, these plants will have to be loaded back up … so more CO2. Inevitably. Indubitably.
My objective is to demonstrate (contrary to what many believe) that EVs will produce a great deal of CO2. (OK, OK, probably a bit less than gasoline per mile driven.)
Convinced yet?
Oct 7th, 2008 (10:07 pm)#172 Dave G :
Thanks for the article. I think it’s been mentioned before that current estimates put plug-in cars at taking about 1/10th to a full 1% of the capacity (or use?) of the U.S. electric grid.. which is what I meant by a ‘blip’. In some places with a higher population of plug-ins, the maximum electric draw would be higher, theoretically requiring an increased buffer.
HOPEfully, though, it will be very easy to predict charging habits, and since the actual energy required is not all that significant to the grid, electrical generation will not need to be increased, even with millions of EVs out there.
Basically, the only tailpipe cost from the electric drive will be the $400 annual increase to our utility bill – no extra fuel resources consumed, pollutants produced, or stresses on our grid. Hooray.
Onward to the next blog entry.
NPNS! =D~~
Oct 7th, 2008 (10:21 pm)#184 shaft
My objective is to demonstrate (contrary to what many believe) that EVs will produce a great deal of CO2. (OK, OK, probably a bit less than gasoline per mile driven.)
————–
No system is perfect, and that includes both electrical transmission and conversion. But I don’t need a diesel truck to haul my electricity into town, and I don’t have to stop at an electricity store once a week.
There is an order of magnitude fewer processes involved with using electric motors vs. gasoline ICEs. Not only are there fewer transports and fewer refinements/transformations, but off the top of my head, EVERY SINGLE ONE is either equal or more efficient in favor of the electric motor.
I know that I’m getting tired, and I could be overlooking something, but even in oil’s biggest potential advantage, transport by pipeline as opposed to rail, the typical gallon of oil/gas must travel SO far that it still loses. I know energy. Bring it.
NPNS! =D~~
Oct 7th, 2008 (10:37 pm)#184 Shaft Says: “My objective is to demonstrate (contrary to what many believe) that EVs will produce a great deal of CO2. (OK, OK, probably a bit less than gasoline per mile driven.)”
————————————————————————————–
Here’s the problem.
If you tell someone that doing something something new will be bad, then they won’t do it.
If you tell someone that doing something something new will be much better that what they are doing today, then they are more likely to do it.
The fact is that running cars on today’s mix of electricity produces far less CO2 than running cars on gasoline. And it will only get better as time goes on. Electricity = energy choice.
Oct 7th, 2008 (10:40 pm)jdsv-#186
Oil, gas and coal are also somewhat transformed and transported to the power plant!
We’re agreeing (albeit somewhat violently). I’m just not ready to give EVs a significant nod just yet on CO2 emissions.
Now, if the USA gets over its nuclear phobia, that’s a completely different story! The nuclear powered Volt is the way to go.
Oct 7th, 2008 (10:42 pm)#176 RB Says: “It will work like this. First the Volt will use its GPS to determine its location. Then the Volt will use its OnStar to call the homeowner and ask what kind of circuit it is connected to. If no answer or owner unable to state mother’s maiden name the Volt will use three power test pulses to see if power goes out. If it does, the Volt will turn on its auto-vapor-cloud ejector so that as the house burns down the Volt is left undamaged, thereby making everything financially possible because of lower auto insurance premiums. (The house will be covered by govmt bailout.)”
————————————————————————————-
Forget the plug and use lasers! The fake front grill could be set up with little laser power receptors. If the lasers miss and burn down the house, then get AIG to cover it…
Oct 7th, 2008 (10:52 pm)#188 Shaft Says: “I’m just not ready to give EVs a significant nod just yet on CO2 emissions.”
————————————————————————————–
Studies I’ve seen say otherwise. The major issue is the gasoline engine itself. It’s very inefficient. It actually works against itself. The compression stroke opposes the power stroke. A typical gas engine is only 20% efficient or less.
In fact, I’d bet that if you burn oil to make electricity that runs an EV, the well-to-wheel CO2 emissions would be much less than a gasoline engine car. Huge modern power generating stations are just way more efficient than a small mobile gas engine. And the EVs and E-REVs themselves are around 80% efficient.
Oct 7th, 2008 (11:25 pm)Dave G-187-”If you tell someone that doing something something new will be bad, then they won’t do it.”
=====================================================
If you tell people that they will save money (and eventually they will), many will buy the Volt, even if they have to pay more up front. That’s a good.
If you tell people that they have to pay a bit more, but they will help to get the USA off foreign oil and onto a domestic energy source, many will buy the Volt. That’s a good.
I’m doubtful that 20% or so reduced CO2 car emissions will be a big motivator to buy the Volt for many people. Maybe a few. But you’d better tell the unvarnished truth about CO2 emissions and EVs, or many more will just be pissed off that you lied to them.
Oct 7th, 2008 (11:34 pm)#190-Dave G
Do you have a reference or link? I’d like to know how much less CO2.
Oct 7th, 2008 (11:39 pm)See http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Electric%20Cars%20and%20CO2.html.
Maybe this calculation isn’t quite right, but it doesn’t look that promising to me from a CO2 perspective.
Oct 8th, 2008 (1:23 am)24: nasaman
88: Joe
Touching on the topic that nasaman brought up regarding electromagnetic regeneration, it brought me to think about something else entirely. This is purely speculation if something like this could be made though.
If anyone has used a Apple laptop, you will know that the power connector for it uses magnets in both the laptop and the connector that more-or-less aligns them and keeps the circuit closed.
I was thinking it would be rather interesting if they had a recessed power jack in your garage floor such that when you drive over it with the Volt and turn the car off, it would unshield a magnet underneath the vehicle. When unshielded, the recessed jack would be drawn to a charge port located under the vehicle automatically. When the car is turned back on, the magnet is once again shielded which would cause the self-retracting power jack to return to it’s normal recessed position. I would think a simple ball-and-socket designed connector would help for alignment purposes.
Just some late night pondering!
Oct 8th, 2008 (3:52 am)Re: ICE warming the batteries
#29
I believe that was just another example of a “GM exec saying something stupid as he attempts to fill two+ years of time with nothing accurate or important to say.”
It is a plug-in hybrid… how did they manage to think of using electricity instead of gas to drive the car and not electricity instead of gas to warm the batteries? I know, the exec didn’t think of anything… the engineers did!
——————————————————————————
First of all, it is not smart to call people stupid in a post. I made a post my first few weeks on this board where I denegrated the quality of thinking that went into somebody else’s assertion with some harsh language. The person responded with a fact I failed to consider, and proved himself right. I felt awful about making an idiot of myself.
I would assume that GM will make provision for using electricity to keep the batteries warm while you are plugged in at night in your . They have been offering block heaters as an option on ICEs for maybe 50 years.
But when you drive your 20 miles to work, and leave your car in minus 25 degree cold for 10 hours, you want to heat up the battery as fast as your can. Using the battery to heat itself up is too slow. Under load, an ICE makes 3-4 times as much waste heat as motive power, and it is right there, so what is a better way to generate heat when the battery is too cold to put out a meaningful amount of power (it does have to at least be able to crank the starter, unless you have a capacitor to do this).
Using the ICE to heat the battery does not waste significant fuel, beccause it is only used for a few minutes, in the coldest parts of the country, on the coldest days of the year.
Oct 8th, 2008 (4:16 am)The cost of electricity delivered to point of use has two components:
1. The capital cost of the generating and transmission capacity. This is a fixed up front cost which does not vary with the amount of electricity generated or used, but has to be apportioned in some manner to the rate payers.
2. The cost of the energy used to produce the electricity. This is more or less constant per KWh delivered.
Our national grid is sized to handle peak load. Ideally this is the ability to cover the load at the busiest time of day, on the busiest day of the year, allowing for near-worst case equipment outages, with a few percent to spare. So it is true that every night, a huge amount of capacity lies idle.
But the person who stated this capacity is used to generate electricity which is wasted is incorrect. Nuclear reactors have controls which reduce the heat generated when it is not needed, hydro plants use gates to direct water to the turbines only when needed, and fossil fuel plants cut back their fuel feed when reduced power is needed.
So to the original point, BEVs and PHEVs will not require significant additions to generating capacity, but will require more energy to be generated. Until the US rids itself of the anti-nuclear superstition, most of this power will be fossil generated, and will put out CO2.
But you need to consider the quantity. Statements like “a bit less CO2″ are not meaningful. Stationary fossil fuel power plants are at least 2-3 times as thermally efficient as ICEs, so even in the worst case electric cars will result in huge percentage reductions of CO2.
Oct 8th, 2008 (6:09 am)Man, this beaten horse just won’t stay down.
#196 tom –
Yes, we know that generating stations do not run at peak load all the time. Yes, plants cut back at night, and depending on their type and service area, some plants cut way back. Other generating stations are normally not even on during most parts of the year.
SO, what we have is : capacity lying idle and electricity still going to waste even during times of predictably reduced load.
Thanks to DonC for this link:
‘http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html’
This Lazarus-ian horse is getting on my nerves.
- – - – - – - – - – - -
#193 Shaft – First of all, lol at the ‘violent’ comment. Second-of-ly, the power generating reference that calculation uses is a decent cradle-to-grave analysis of UK power sources, and the figures are reasonable. They conservatively overstate the carbon emitted and do not take into account the actual pollutants, but that’s another discussion. We can use those numbers, but the numbers for the gasoline ICE are based on narrow industry ‘averages’ and a couple of blatant guesses toward the total footprint.
So.. some bad data there, we can’t use that. You will probably notice that your point is not refuted, though! Maybe this evening I’ll have some time to put some figures together. If you want to try, check out the links below.
All your bases are belong to us:
‘http://www.eia.doe.gov/’
‘http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/’
‘http://www.epa.gov/nvfel/’
Oil/Gasoline : search for oil / gasoline + life cycle analysis / cradle to grave (I got better results with LCA)
And sorry for killing the links with quotes, I had to get past the spam filter.
Oct 8th, 2008 (8:02 am)197-jdsv
“Man, this beaten horse just won’t stay down.”
“This Lazarus-ian horse is getting on my nerves.”
================================================
Well, I think you should consider that there are a lot of incorrect views posted above that need to be corrected, and that it takes a bit of time to present proper arguments and get to truth.
Some believe that energy is being produced and wasted at night, when actually it is just excess capacity sitting idle. That needed to be corrected.
Some believe that EVs are environmentally clean. That needs to be corrected, even if EVs are “cleaner”.
Some need to be introduced to the advantages of nuclear electricity compared to coal, which amounts to about 50% of US capacity.
I learned a bit more about how the USA meets peak loads.
Although I’ve made some errors in my statements above, they are by and large minor. My major point, which I still sand by after all the discussion, is that significant use of EVs will require more production of electricity at night, and this new load will be mostly met by CO2 producing coal fired power plants.
Oct 8th, 2008 (11:11 am)EVs don’t produce emissions of any kind, including CO2 (except when they’re manufactured). The discussion of EVs as a “source” of CO2 is doubly irrelevent because:
1) It will take probably more than a decade for EV quantities to reach the point where any change in energy production/use is significant.
2) Electricity is made more than one way — that’s true even today. Electricity does not always equal CO2 emissions. Gasoline engine usage always equals CO2 emission
3) With a Global Warming Believer set to take the White House (whoever wins), electric power generation is likely to take a turn for the greener over the decade+ it will take for the number of EVs to reach significant proportions (see item 1).
We must take care that the kind of argument we’ve seen in this thread doesn’t take a turn for the “EV = Environmentally Bad.” Green electricity is a completely seperate issue, which will advance, or not, regardless of whether EVs take to the road in significant numbers.
The push, for the environmentally sensitive, must be towards greener electricity sources — if EVs get shouted down as polluters, it just means that transportation won’t share in any green benefit from greener electricity; and we’ll continue to eject CO2 (and pollutants) into the atmosphere from burning foriegn petroleum.
The EV is a tool for exploiting green advances in energy production, and we must not allow it to be seen as a barrier to those advances.
And no, I’m not a ‘believer;’ but I know better than to ignore the global warming movement: It wields awesome and ever increasing power in the public arena.
Oct 8th, 2008 (5:18 pm)Sorry. My wife says I shouldn’t always get the last word, but …
jdsv-197
————————————————————————-
Thanks for the references. Found this. Very interesting. I will use it to refute Jackson #199:
“http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2008).pdf”
===========================================
Jackson-199
————————————————————————-
Great points. I agree with a lot of them. Seductive arguments also. But I am not easily seduced!
Take a good look at the above link. Pretty official predictions from the US government. It seems that green president or not, CO2 believing president or not: “Coal-fired power plants continue to
be the dominant source of electricity generation through 2030 (Figure 61).”
EVs will add base load to the nighttime demand. Daily EV charging might add new peaking requirements. Assuming EVs take off in the next 20 years like we are all hoping, it means a heck-of-alot of CO2. (OK, OK, maybe less than gasoline engines … but I haven’t completely ceded that point yet. It seems somewhat controversial and dependent on assumptions.)
Oct 8th, 2008 (8:48 pm)So, when a candidate claims he can do something about clean energy in ten years, what are you going to say
?
I remember the first energy crisis. It was pitched as patriotic to cut back on energy use, to stymie OPEC (which wasn’t fazed in the least). Eventually, oil prices dropped, availability soared, and vehicle weights ballooned as mpg plummeted.
Clearly, patriotism was inadequate incentive.
If patriotism is insufficient to force us into energy self-sufficiency, perhaps frightening everyone with the DEATH OF OUR PLANET will be.
It is actually hard for me to take up the CO2 debate; I doubt very much that human-created CO2 has any significant effect on climate change. The climate is changing because that’s what climates do.
The Sun has more effect on climate and weather than any other factor, but it’s influence is consistently belittled by anthropogenic global warming advocates. Worse, when anyone with any agenda says that ‘the science is over, and discussion closed,’ that’s the very time we should all dig in our heels and throw up every resistance which can be raised; for that direction leads to a dark age of unenlightened totalitarianism.
Many of the loudest of the global warming advocates stand to benefit personally from a system of “carbon credit” trading, enough cause for suspicion even if it werent for the dissenting scientists.
Yes, coal will be king over the next 22 years, I don’t think anyone can deny that. But, can coal be made cleaner? Can CO2 be sequestered, or used to grow algae which is then turned into biodiesel? Will we be willing, over these next two decades, to plant the seeds of future “greener” (domestically fueled) alternatives?
The argument that electric cars release more carbon strikes me as an extremely cynical one, fueled (if you will) by a point of view which has already been fixed. But Why do I care? I don’t swallow the global warming line.
The answer is simple:
I don’t have to believe in Global Warming to exploit it.
We need those electric cars for more flexible energy options that can be met domestically, and once the public starts catching on about the CO2 conundrum, things are going to get ugly. Perhaps it will be electric cars which receive the backlash — cars we need urgently to displace foreign oil.
I think that it’s as likely that we’ll all be concerned by global cooling (again) by 2030, and it will be awfully hard to keep the green bogeyman scarey under such conditions.
If you can somehow make the case that the electric car is actually worse for global warmists, the backlash could start early, nipping projects like Volt ‘in the bud.’ Please don’t. We have to make the change to electric while the conditions permit.
…and if global warming turns out to be real; ironically, my attempt to exploit belief in it for national survival will also have much of the effects that the ‘warmers’ wanted to achieve in the first place.
So There.
Oct 8th, 2008 (9:13 pm)Well, I’d like to say “Go for it, Jackson!”.
But I prefer striving for the truth, which I do not claim to know. The problem with your approach is that if global warming is not man made, and if our efforts to overcome a natural global effect are doomed to failure, then we will spend a lot of money and achieve nothing. So, that debate should continue.
I predict that the Volt will stand on its own 2 feet without a CO2 argument.
Take that!
Oct 9th, 2008 (6:02 am)Shaft, you are totally owning us with your humility and open-minded enthusiasm.
Oct 9th, 2008 (6:46 am)“This may be irrelevant, but I wonder how much power is lost during the AC/DC conversion. Does it take 15kW-hr to charge 12.8kW-hr of energy (80% of 16kW-hr) due to heat loss in the charger? Or does it take 12.800001kW-hr?”
Voltage converters are between 85-95% efficient. So at 10% loss, it would take 17.8kW-hr to put 16 kW-hr of energy back into the battery. There are also some losses associated with battery charging, but not as much as voltage conversion.
Oct 9th, 2008 (8:44 am)My tongue was only partly in cheek.
I believe that truth will show that global warming is false, but reality is that it’s followers will be dislodged from their power base only with great difficulty. You’ll find truth falling on a lot of deaf ears. The efforts will be made, and money wasted, but there’s nothing at all we can do about it right now except stay aware of which way the wind is blowing, to see if some good can be wrung from it, and wait for the political storm to pass.
They’ve demanded an end to inquiry, while I only asked you politely.
I just don’t want the Volt to be hurt by the shrapnel, is all I’m saying.
For what it’s worth, I think the Volt will do better than gasoline in the CO2 department.
Even though Lutz is right on Global Warming, there’s still ‘good old fashioned’ Air Pollution which is a reality in urban areas (where most people live), and the Volt will surely help actual air quality, there.
Oct 9th, 2008 (9:37 am)Agreed!
Oct 12th, 2008 (8:32 pm)Altairnano had their battery tested with fast rate chargers c440Volt and charge time of under 10 minutes. We can look forward to recharge stations where it will take only 5 minutes/ Look at the news on battery development. What I wonder is, will the arrangement GM uses prevent us from using the upcoming technology for really fast charging? As far as CO2 emissions, have you’ll looked at T. Boone Pickens Plan for an Energy Independence Plan to get us of Foreign oil? We can generate much of our electricity through wind power. Large Solar Farms are also being considered by the government. What we need is Congress to pass plan to replace the aging transmission grid with up to date technology. All of this means tremendous economic growth! A rebirth of manufacturing in America; new jobs for the good of America. No more $700 billion to foreign countries that will kill our economy for sure. The wind corridor from west Texas to North Dakota, and the solar corridor form west Texas to California provides us with a cost efficient sources of electricity. Clean coal technology development will also insure a vast reduction of CO2. Natural Gas burns cleaner and we have an abundant supply of it. With Natural Gas, we can bridge the time it takes to build nuclear plants. Get with the program; its the only way this country will survive!
Oct 14th, 2008 (10:31 pm)I remember when we used to get only a few comments each day…
Now I’m #208 ?!
Wow, this is going to be a long 2+ years.
Hey Lyle, why don’t you take a break and come on out to Montana for some fishing.
Jan 5th, 2009 (12:28 am)>8kWh needed, 6-8 hours to charge.
goes 40 miles, so 200 watts a mile? Sounds incredible since the headlights by themselves take almost 100 watts.