Grab our RSS Feed
Next Generation Chevy Volt Might Have 80 Mile Electric Range With Same Size Battery
Two Ohio companies reportedly are working on next generation carbon anode materials for the Chevy Volt’s lithium-ion batteries.
The companies, Applied Sciences Inc. and Pyrograf Products Inc., are already on GM’s payroll to the tune of $500,000. They are partnering on the fabrication of new carbon nanofibers that will be used in place of the current graphite material.
Researchers at those companies believe their technology will allow the 400 pound-weight Volt batteries to double their range, and have been working on advanced electrode materials for the Volt’s battery for about two years.
We’ve heard before that silicone nanowire batteries might increase energy density tenfold, so clearly nanotechnology holds great promise in this field.
Source (Dayton Daily News)
Popularity: 2%
Related posts:
- GM-Volt.com: Interview with Dr. Cui, Inventor of Silicon Nanowire Lithium-ion Battery Breakthrough
- U.S. Nanowire Lithium-ion Battery Expert Gets a $10 Million Grant…From Saudi Arabia?
- Lithium-ion Battery Storage Capacity Research Breakthrough
- GM May Offer a 20-Mile Range Version of the Chevy Volt
- Under What Conditions is the Chevy Volt’s Quoted 40 Mile Electric Range Modelled?
(9 votes, average: 5 out of 5) 
Loading ...
Posted by: Lyle
October 13th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
More Juice !
First Post …… Woo Hoo !
October 13th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
This is just the tip of the ice berg. Electronics is making gains in leaps and bounds and will be applied to this new field of automobiles. NOW whether they will pass this on to us the consumer is another story.
God Bless America,
Tom
October 13th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Or, perhaps they can reduce the size of the battery to make the car a five seater. One of the advantages of the Prius is that it is real family car, without compromise. The Volt is at a disadvantage with only four seats.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
i wonder if they will make the mounting the same, so you can purchase one to replace your current 40 Li-Ion battery.
would be a nice upgrade to someone who buys a first gen car.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
I know Americans are conditioned to always want more, but sometimes less is better. For example, if carbon nanofibers double battery energy density, I would rather have a 40 mile Volt with 200 pound batteries for $25K .
The point is that 40 miles AER covers the vast majority of daily trips for 80% of the population. So for most people, I think that decreasing cost and weight would be more important than increasing AER.
Maybe they could even get 3 people in the back seat…
October 13th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Options. The volt (Thank God) isn’t going to be the only car and our only option. Before it is all said and done you will have as many options as we have now. Here is to more options!!!
October 13th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Tom M Says: “This is just the tip of the ice berg. Electronics is making gains in leaps and bounds and will be applied to this new field of automobiles.”
————————————————————————————–
The rule-of-thumb for electronics is that the number of transistors doubles every 2 years.
The rule-of-thumb for batteries is that energy density doubles every 8 years. That figure comes from Elon Musk (Tesla CEO). At that rate, getting the Volt up to 240 miles AER with the same size battery would take around 21 years.
And that assumes people would want 240 miles of all electric range in 21 years. If E85 becomes cheap and plentiful, then the argument for increasing beyond 40 miles AER becomes mute. That’s why GM is investing in coskata:
http://coskata.com/EthanolFeedstockPotential.asp
Their process can make ethanol for as little as $1/gallon.
There is no single answer to our oil problem. The solution involves multiple answers.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
All these people saying “drill, drill, drill” is the only answer to our transportation energy needs don’t realize that the future really IS with cars like the Chevy Volt. An 80 mile all electric range Volt that costs around $30,000 would be a definite “world changer”. GM would not be able to build them fast enough.
It doesn’t matter if a gallon of gas costs $2.00 a gallon, the price of electricity will ALWAYS be lower. People will be buying the Volt for MANY reasons. It’s not just about the price of the fuel. It’s about the environment, energy independence and lots of other issues like health concerns, politics, terrorism, etc.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
We don’t really have an oil problem. We have a lack-of-good-electron-storage problem. Going to e85 is similar to oil - it’s a liquid, refined product. Whatever creates it can go into shortage and then you’re toast again. The E85 wars of 2020 or something like that. I don’t want to make this only about oil vs. non-oil but rather look for ways to just make the batteries better. That’s really about it - good batteries and let the oil usage atrophy.
Battery technology is bound to just explode (small pun intended for LiPo folks) such that higher capacities are stored in smaller packaging. Add Solar at a lower price point and things should be looking up for our children and grand-children.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Lets hope GM is still around to launch the Volt 2.0
Or GM offers battery upgrades by the time 2.0 comes around
And by the same logic, can’t they create a 40 Mi volt that’s 200lbs less?….room for a rear center seat?!
October 13th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Imagine an E-Flex vehicle that has 80 miles of All Electric Range !
For the typical driver who kept the battery topped off every night, the ICE might go very, very long periods of time without starting.
Perhaps GM should consider putting some hooks into the vehicle software NOW to enable / disable a special “PM / Auto-Start ICE” mode. The computer would track the number of days / weeks / months since the last ICE startup. If the feature was enabled, the computer might prompt the driver (via display) to allow the ICE to auto-start for a few minutes to burn off internal condensation and move the oil around.
Your thoughts…anyone ?
October 13th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
#11
I agree with you about the engine fully knowing how long it has been since its last start-up, and self-starting every now and then almost as a maintenence feature. It would probably be on for less than 60 seconds and use very little gas. I wouldn’t worry about the cost of this feature (in gas used), it’s peanuts.
The great thing about this more advanced battery technology is that it slaps low gas prices in the face, and makes an electric car future #1 in low cost of ownership, longevity of the car itself, and lack of depreciation, and i THINK low maintenence costs, when compared to ICE vehicles.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
One aspect where this nano-wire technology may be extremely valuable is with the developement of the All-Electric vehicle even moreso than the Range Extenders. If you figure an AEV with today’s tech can give maybe 100 to 150 mile range, if they can in effect double that as they imply above, the “range anxiety” issue will be all but erased. This nano-wire stuff is the future if they can get it to work!!!
October 13th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
#4 Leo M:
Amen.
I would rather have 4 seats and 80 mi AER than 5 seats and 40 mi AER. My wife insists on a 4 door car, but she is OK with 4 seats. We would carry a 5th person about once a year, if that.
Likewise I would rather pay a bit more and get the 80 mi AER.
#11 Exp_EngTech:
I don’t think that stale gas is really a problem. We try to put Sta-Bil in our race cars when we park them for the winter. They are full of 108 octane, which is a LOT more volatile that 87. Sometimes we forget, but getting them started in the spring has never been a problem, at least not attributable to stale gas.
Many have commented here similarly about lawnmowers, motorhomes, etc, etc. If GM recommended putting a bit of Sta-Bil in the tank, I would certainly try to remember, but it doesn’t worry me anyway.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
“I know Americans are conditioned to always want more, but sometimes less is better. For example, if carbon nanofibers double battery energy density, I would rather have a 40 mile Volt with 200 pound batteries for $25K .
The point is that 40 miles AER covers the vast majority of daily trips for 80% of the population. So for most people, I think that decreasing cost and weight would be more important than increasing AER.”
An 80 mile range Volt would be a great option for those drivers that need the extended range; surly GM would continue producing the 40 mile version at a drastically lower price. A 40 mile Volt at $25K would be the beginning of the end for Big Oil, good riddance.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
7.
Dave G Says:
October 13th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
And that assumes people would want 240 miles of all electric range in 21 years. If E85 becomes cheap and plentiful, then the argument for increasing beyond 40 miles AER becomes mute. That’s why GM is investing in coskata:
http://coskata.com/EthanolFeedstockPotential.asp
Their process can make ethanol for as little as $1/gallon.
There is no single answer to our oil problem. The solution involves multiple answers.
________________________________________________
Bring on E85 and Coskata – the only concern I have about ethanol is the amount of water it takes to produce it – anyone know how Coskata is addressing water use?
Also, bring on hydrocarbon fuel from algae – it’s farther along than most people realize. Solazyme has a unique algal conversion process that allows algae to produce oil in large tanks quickly, efficiently and without sunlight. They are about 3 years away from Commercial mass production. If you’re not familiar with this company, read the link below.
http://www.solazyme.com/news090908.shtml
I see the potential for alternative energy to be the next big economic boom for the US – but it will require oil to stay above $60-$70/barrel. How about E85 and/or E10 blended with algae base hydrocarbon fuel to run the Volt’s range extender after the first 40 miles?
October 13th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
It seems to me that even with a 300 mile range, unless charging can be done in 5-10 min (15 at most), many folks (me, at least) would not want that vehicle. With battery capacity that high it would take 100amp/240v to charge - is that even fesible?
Hmmm… Can it take less power to go a mile? I would think you won’t get much more than 5m/kw in a family-sized car like the Volt, so to go 300miles on a charge, you would need a 60kw battery (well, 60kw of useable charge…) to charge that in 15 min, you would need a lot of juice, fast…
October 13th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
17. fishmahn - 300 mile range.
I think you’re talking about driving cross-country with an AEV. Yes, you can’t expect to have the same driving habits as stopping for gasoline and a sandwich and be full again in the batteries. It will take substantial science to fil up a 60kv battery in a short time. This is why AEV would be “regional” and cross-country driving will require on-board electricity generation. Just like diesel locomotives today run our trains (onboard diesel engines drive electric motors).
October 13th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Let’s get the first generation out and at a reasonable price before we start talking about the “next generation”. Doesn’t make much sense to be talking about the next generation when there isn’t even a first generation out yet, now does it?
October 13th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
This is crazy. GM flirted with A123 for two whole years, and learnt a lot about their nanotechnology, and now we discover they had clandestine nano R&D in the works — in direct competition to A123.
Great to be evaluating a product that is not in your line of business (does GM make tires or gasoline?) and then you are flirting with other R&D shops in competition to your supplier?
I am sure A123 is not pleased with all of this.
I think A123 is finished with GM. So GM will be the LG battery LiMn2O4. I for one would not want to drive this Volt, as it will explode in a fireball on first impact. And if i dont have an accident, the battery will die after 3 years anyways.
Way (NOT) to go GM. Just to save a few pennies on the battery.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Lets put this in perspective. If you had 80 miles of all-electric range, how much gas would you save over a 40 mile AER vehicle?
Obviously, it depends on your driving habits. Let’s say your yearly driving pattern looks something like:
• 30 days at 8 miles per day
• 50 days at 16 miles per day
• 240 days at 30 miles per day
• 30 days at 60 miles per day
• 3 days at 450 miles per day
We can argue the details, but I think this is fairly typical.
Using this pattern, a Volt-40 would use 36 gallons of gas per year, and a Volt-80 would use 22 gallons of gas per year. So doubling the AER from 40 to 80 miles will only save 14 gallons of gas per year, or $42/year at today’s prices.
That’s not a lot. As a comparison, the Volt saves around 350 gallons of gas per year compared to the Chevy Cruze. It makes a lot more sense to get more Volts on the road than to increase their range. If new battery technology makes a Volt-40 lighter, smaller, cheaper, and 5 passenger, more people will buy Volts, and that will save a lot more gas than a Volt-80.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
“They are full of 108 octane, which is a LOT more volatile that 87.”
Actually, it’s the opposite. It’s harder to ignite, which is why you can get away with the higher compression…
October 13th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Why does the battery have to be a T shape. Seems like it would be harder to cool than a long I shape. Also if they get that kind of miles they could just go all electric put in twice as many batteries and get 160 Mile range and forget the ICE extender.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
#20
It’s called competition…get over it.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Possibly an upgade option when buying the car, for a few dollars more twice the range, WE make a lot of 80 mile round trips and it would be nice to use only electric.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
For those of us that visit this site daily (sometimes more), how many posts have we seen by those short-sighted knuckleheads that have written off the Volt saying 40 miles isn’t near enough and they want a pure EV? They’re starting to look like the cave man from the Geico commercials. Stick around and the massive changes we’ve seen in music formats: vinyl to tape to CD to MP3 and in computers will be at our feet very soon in the form of these lighter, more powerfu batteries. What did you expect - that it wouldn’t change? Please.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
#14 noel park wrote:
“I don’t think that stale gas is really a problem….”
I didn’t mention stale gas. That’s a separate issue.
I am concerned about the effects of the ICE setting unused for many, many months at a time and then suddenly being called upon to perform at perhaps, 1/3 throttle. I sincerely hope that GM will implement a “standby oil pressure system” on the 1.4L ICE so it isn’t able to crankup with dry / unpressurized bearings in the block.
That would be quite bad……and a black eye for GM and the Volt.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
#16 Rooster Says: “the only concern I have about ethanol is the amount of water it takes to produce it – anyone know how Coskata is addressing water use?”
————————————————————————————–
“The Coskata process uses less than one gallon of fresh water per gallon of ethanol produced, versus 3-5 for corn, and as much as 7 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol for enzymatic routes.”
http://www.coskata.com/ProcessAdvantages.asp
October 13th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
#24 JB — you mean you lie to your supplier?
And the end result of this penny pinching is that the Volt becomes an unsafe car prone to explode on impact, with cooling (and servicing of the plumbing) of the Korean LG battery and impact protection of battery, and heating of battery in cold climates, and all the problems of LiMn2O4?
The A123 battery does not need cooling or heating, and will not explode on impact. This is not competition.
I am sure LG offered GM what A123 could not offer — a few pennies off the price of the cells underwritten by Korean government subsidies.
This is not competition. Competition should result in a better product. This is a step backwards.
This is just GM business as usual. Get over it. GM ought to go belly up.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
indeed battery technology will continue to improve . the 40 mpg is only the tip of the ice cream . the weight and size of Volt’s battery will decrease while tits power will double , triple or even quadraplegic. i would not be surprise if in the future Volt’s battery size will be as small as a laptop battery.As far as the engineers working on the Volt is concern , sky is the limited.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
#16 Rooster Says: “How about E85 and/or E10 blended with algae base hydrocarbon fuel to run the Volt’s range extender after the first 40 miles?”
————————————————————————————–
I believe algae is used mostly for bio-diesel and jet fuel. The high concentration of vegetable oil in algae is ideal for that. Note that these 2 fuels make up 22% of our oil consumption, so that’s really significant.
After the vegetable oil is removed from algae, the leftover biomass can be used to make ethanol, and the leftovers from that can be used as fertilizer, but I believe the yields on these secondary steps is significantly less.
45% of our oil consumption is from gasoline, and an E-REV-40 should replace 80% of that with electricity, leaving only 9% consumption from gasoline on longer trips. So ethanol replacing gasoline is probably less of an issue than diesel and jet fuel, which makes algae very important.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
I am starting to understand the wait.
http://www.hybridcars.com/carmakers/gm%E2%80%99s-green-gambit-decoded-25135.html
Take Care
Arch
October 13th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
#3 Question….
Have you ever sat in the BACK SEAT of a Prius for ANY length of time with 2 other adults. I have. The Prius is not a 5 passenger car.
I repeat.
THE PRIUS IS NOT A 5 PASSENGER CAR!
October 13th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
I agree with you Mohsen, the A123 batteries are superior in every way, except maybe price. GM, if they are around long enough, will find out the hard way when they have to start replacing batteries, or after a lawsuit or two when the battery explodes in a crash. Penny wise …
I heard yesterday from a GM employee that the non A123 battery had been chosen. I will be looking at other options.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
If this becomes true, perhaps bigger vehicles, like crossovers and large sedans, can get e-flex powertrains as well.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I am encouraged by the fact that GM is actually looking beyond the first model year. Going beyond the 40 mile limit will help the Volt to reach a wider audience. I myself could readily use the 80 mile range, better then the 40 mile. 40 is acceptable but 80 would be far better for my life. Combine that with the previously mentioned more efficient solar and a flex-fuel engine, and I’d have my dream car.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
#20, #29 Has there been any announcement of GM’s battery supplier?
October 13th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
#18 John McVicker - re Cross country driving.
That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Maybe good for someone else, not me.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
#16, Rooster,
On the subject of Solazyme (I don’t know a lot abou them, but I’ll read up…), there’s another company called Algenol that is working on Ethanol creation. They’re using waste CO2 from other energy plants and highly-reused water cycles to minimize the water used.
A low water utilization, carbon-neutral process sounds like a win-win scenario to me — f they can make the economics work.
http://www.algenolbiofuels.com/
EDIT: I should’ve added that another Algenol’s goals is to use ’scrub land’ or desert instead of arable land. So wise land use figures into their plans, as well.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
The Volt is built around the battery’s shape. If you change the battery’s shape just to add one more seat, you’ll be interfering with the cars chassis and weight distribution which will then affect the car’s feel and handling characteristics. The Volt is a four seater. If you need to carry more than four people, there will (hopefully) be other options for you to choose from within the E-Flex family.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
#23 Randy - re: T-shaped battery.
It fits the space available when you remove the drivetrain (on RWD cars) and rear axle (on all cars) - otherwise you lose too much other space (no trunk?). There’s also a safety factor - it’s in the middle of the car, farthest from any impact - and where it’s close to the edge, the wheels add protection.
If the battery could be smaller, an I-shaped battery would be feasible - either keep the huge hump or just hide it between the rear wheels.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
#27 Exp_EngTech re: ICE setting unused for many, many months at a time
I remember seeing one of these article where I think it was Lutz saying the ICE would come on occasionally for maintenance reasons or some wording similar to that. I’m assuming they’ve got your concern covered.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
hi JB # 24,
It’s called competition…get over it.
_________________________________________________
The Phoenix EV, manufactured in Southern California, is a good looking little truck/SUV which offers a range of 100 miles.
1/4 of the total curb weight of 4000 lbs is from the battery. The out-the-door cost is $50,000 and the Phoenix offers a 1000 lb payload.
You can see this design falls short. Or does it?
The reality is that California utility companies have ordered many of these full EV’s for short range service calls and personnel transport. I see these on the freeway as I make my 15 mile commute to work.
Would anyone be surprised to see Phoenix come out with a lower weight battery option? Maybe a 600 lb battery providing 140 mile range full electric? Maybe next year?
There you have it GM, get the wheels of the Volt on the road.
http://garfwod.250free.com/Photos/PheonixCar_rear.jpg
=D~
October 13th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
#9 John McVicker Says: “Going to e85 is similar to oil - it’s a liquid, refined product. Whatever creates it can go into shortage and then you’re toast again. The E85 wars of 2020 or something like that.”
————————————————————————————–
I disagree completely.
The U.S. only has 3% of the world’s oil reserves, so we have shortage by definition. By contrast, we can make our own ethanol, so there are no long-term dependence issues here.
Ethanol will be made from energy crops, not corn or other food crops. All you need is:
• sunshine
• some rain
• spare land that’s not suitable for food crops.
If there are shortages in any of these, we’ll have a lot more to worry about than ethanol.
The energy density of liquid fuels is 100 times better than the best Li/Ion batteries. According to Elon Musk (CEO of Tesla Motors), the energy density of batteries improves about 9% per year. At that rate, it would take 53 years for a battery to equal the energy density of today’s liquid fuels.
To be clear, the only problems with oil are:
1) It’s a finite resource
2) It causes pollution and global warming
3) We don’t have enough of it, so we have to import a lot, which causes political and economic problems.
If we could create a liquid fuel that eliminates these 3 issues, then what’s the problem?
October 13th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
More elctricity? Less gas? I’m loving it!
I think it’s too soon to celebrate, though.
October 13th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
An 80 mile range would definitely take care of my needs because on many days I go to the gym after work which is in the opposite direction and I easily surpass 40 miles. With an 80 mile range, other than taking a business trip or going on vacation etc most weeks of the year (if not all) I’d never use any liquid fuel. I suppose this would definitely take care of the remaining 20%.
October 13th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Rooster #16
“Bring on E85 and Coskata – the only concern I have about ethanol is the amount of water it takes to produce it – anyone know how Coskata is addressing water use?”
*** *** ***
Forget the exact amount but IIRC it’s less than a gallon of water per gal of ethanol. Coskata’s process is pretty good.
October 13th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
#44 Dave G., what you’re forgetting is that while the energy density of liquid fuels is a lot higher than batteries, most of that energy is lost as heat in combustion. I just pulled this off the Wikipedia entry for EEStor to provide some context:
The claimed energy density of the [EEStor] prototype is 1 MJ/kg; existing commercial supercapacitors typically have an energy density around 0.02 MJ/kg, while lithium ion batteries are around 0.54–0.72 MJ/kg. For comparison, gasoline has an energy density around 45 MJ/kg. However, the combustion process is unable to extract the majority of this energy and overall energy delivered to the wheel is typically less than 20% of this value; a value of 9 MJ/kg is more indicative. EEStor has stated that production examples should be about 2.5 MJ/kg, better than 1/4th the usable energy density of gasoline.
October 13th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
#35 Kyle S. Says: “If this becomes true, perhaps bigger vehicles, like crossovers and large sedans, can get e-flex powertrains as well.”
————————————————————————————-
Yes, good point. The more E-REVs on the road, the better.
October 13th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Show me the Gen-1 Volt, before you tell me about “what is next”. I have been hearing that for the 28 years I have been in the computer business…. I can’t sell what you are desigining now. I can only sell what is in the wharehouse! Get some Volt’s on the dealer lots!!!!
We need Tag here to do his magic chant!!!!
LJGTVWOTR
NPNS
October 13th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
The Prius could hold 5 people, if you only put kids in the back. Granted with the way car seats suck up space, and the chaos 3 kids sitting that close to each other would cause, The Prius is only a 4 person car in practical terms.
October 13th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Very good news. I was thinking of holding off to 2.0. Because first generations cost more and have less goodies than subsequent ones. Apple is a perfect example. Problem is if you wait too long you may never get one.
October 13th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Nano technology is awesome.
I’m not so sure I would be sharing this info though…
October 13th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Insted of 80 mile range, my desire would be for larger/more powerful electric engines that might then also be able to get the intended 40mile range: Pickup trucks, delivery vans and less aerodynamically designed/larger vehicle models.
In general I want something I can put a class III trailer hitch when I need to move my boat on the weekend but still get somewhere close to the 40-mile all electric range during the week. How long till that day comes???
October 13th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
To the Moon Mars and beond , no stopping us this time .
With Gods blessed insights and options flowing freely .
God Bless
Edwin Mang Jr.
October 13th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Wow! My comparison of the Apple Lisa to the \Volt is looking better all the time!!
http://gm-volt.com/2008/09/22/forget-price-and-electric-range-the-volt-is-the-tip-of-the-arrow/#comment-70071
The quick summary is that the Apple Lisa was the predecessor to the Macintosh and that It was very expensive, mainly due to the requirement of a huge pile of memory. The parallel is that the \Volt is very expensive due to a huge pile of batteries. Voila! The complely unscientific tongue-in-cheek Lisa/\Volt comparison
“[because cars have different costs than computers] I suspect if you cut the price drops by half that factor it might be more appropriate:
Lisa volt 40mi/$40k
Lisa2 volt 80mi/$30k
Mac volt 4mi/$20k
Mac plus volt 40mi/$20k.”
Also I should point out that the computer release schedules were so much faster than car release schedules typically are, it doesn’t account for any inflation that might eventually raise the prices by the time we get to the mac plus version of the volt.
October 13th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
#55 DaveP…
Regarding the “Mac / Volt” analogy….
The Prius is truly the “Newton” of the “Hybrid World”.
It got there FIRST, but due to critical decisions that were made it will ultimately be a footnote in auto history.
E-Flex …… Rock On !
October 13th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Len, RB –
This is unconscionable. GM again screwed America.
They chose an inferior Korean product, the LG LiMn2O4 spinel, which needs cooling and heating and impact protection because it is not safe. And then its calendar life and cycle life is I believe not more than 3 years. That is why GM was saying they had to build in a battery replacement in the price.
This is CRAZY. GM short changes America again.
They got their $25 billion taxpayer money
They got their $7500 rebate on each Volt.
Then they turn around and screw A123, an American company doing state of the art work by awarding the contract to LG (no its not announced, but we all know it). Then to add insult to injury, they have clandestine works commissioned to the competitors of A123 to reproduce A123, while all the time GM is pretending that it will buy from A123.
GM is a scam. THIS COMPANY SHOULD GO BELLY UP.
October 13th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
mccain/palin 2008
October 13th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Hey, people - DO NOT FEED THE TROLL. LEAVE MOHSEN ALONE.
October 13th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
I didn’t get a chance to read any of the posts, so I apologize if I am repeating.
80 miles on the battery is not a 10 fold improvement, but it is definitely an improvement I could live with.
And it seems that it is a good thing I will not be able to purchase a Volt until 2012 or 2013. I would love the 80 MPC range.
October 13th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Mohsen @ multiple posts,
You’re clearly biased for some inherent (and undisclosed) reason against the success of GM, and thus the Volt. Your rationale that GM should not compete or shop around for better offerings than A123 tells me you are against capitalism and competition. Then you write that GM shouldn’t take the loan from Uncle Sam, at a greatly reduced rate of interest–obviously in the best interest of the Company which is out to make a profit. I do not believe your conclusion “GM is out to screw America” makes any sense. Go to a forum which is for the closed-minded like you.
October 13th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Dave B -
Heh, taking $25 billion dollar handouts from hapless tax payers — is that competition? Is that capitalism?
Owning 40% of the market the size of the US, milking the US population through a monopsony (supplier monopoly) and then colluding with Chrysler in merger talks to divvy the market — is that capitalism? Is that competition?
Which marxist school did you graduate from?
With socialist friends like you, capitalists do not need enemies.
October 13th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
80 miles per charge? Forget the emotional knee-jerk, and do some quick calculations of how much gasoline 80 MPC will save over 40 MPC. In post #21, I calculate a typical driver will only save 14 gallons of gas a year.
Now figure that you could use the same new battery technology to cut the battery size and weight in half, seat 5 passengers instead of 4, and cut the price by up to $10K. Would you give that up to save 14 gallons of gas a year?
When the new battery technology arrives, I think most people will stay with 40 miles per charge and enjoy the benefits of lower cost and more passenger space . 80 MPC may be offered as a pricey option for those who would really use it a lot.
And by the way, once E85 comes along, the whole argument will become a non-issue. The solution is:
• E-REVs with 40 miles per charge will eliminate around 85% of our current gas usage.
• Ethanol will eliminate 13% of our current gas usage.
• Domestic oil will provide the remaining 2% of our current gas usage.
October 13th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
If the next generation Volt is likely to have an 80-mile battery (or a much better battery), is that a good reason to pass on Volt gen 1? Or maybe the better battery should just go into Volt gen 1.
Whatever, it is senseless to buy an inferior Volt if a much better one is right behind.
October 13th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Sorry Lyle, I guess I am blowing up some of your posts in the kitty. I didn’t know this one was ‘new thread worthy’ when I posted it.
I find it amusing that 500K to Applied Sciences gets you a 80 mile battery.
Speaking generally, this whole costing of a electric vehicle really seems off.
I don’t know if some companies are just getting suckered into paying tens of millions (or in GM’s case, billions of dollars to develop them), or if the companies themselves are just making stuff up and adding in ‘regular automobile’ development charges and other random crap into their numbers.
It almost seems like you can set any budget and ‘poof/presto’ you have a electric car program with just about any set of parameters.
October 13th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Automotive news has a ditty on GMACs new lending practice that goes into effect today:
“GMAC Financial Services today implemented a more conservative purchase policy for consumer auto financing in the U.S. as a result of the lack of stability in the global capital and credit markets. The changes include limiting purchases to contracts with a credit score of 700 or above. Additionally, the company will restrict contracts with higher advance rates and longer terms.”
Nutshell: You got to have the super shiny credit to get a car loan at GM…and then the odds of you getting the advertised 72 months is probably only going to happen if your last name is Paulson…or Buffet.
Source: automotive news (sub)
http://www.autonews.com/article/20081013/ANA05/810130269/1142
Sidenote: Toyota has ratched financing/leasing up a notch, blowing a insane amount of scratch to get the word out through standard media venues…offering 0% financing and leasing.
October 13th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Dave G Says:
October 13th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
The Coskata process uses less than one gallon of fresh water per gallon of ethanol produced, versus 3-5 for corn, and as much as 7 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol for enzymatic routes.”
http://www.coskata.com/ProcessAdvantages.asp
_____________________________________________
Thanks - I thought that was the case, but wasn’t positive so I appreciate the link.
October 13th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
31.
Dave G Says:
October 13th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
I believe algae is used mostly for bio-diesel and jet fuel. The high concentration of vegetable oil in algae is ideal for that. Note that these 2 fuels make up 22% of our oil consumption, so that’s really significant.
____________________________________________________
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/06/solazyme-unveil.html#more
“Solazyme has unveiled a microalgae-derived renewable diesel fuel, SoladieselRD, that meets American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D-975 specifications for petroleum diesel fuels. SoladieselRD is the first algal renewable diesel to meet these standards, and the second algae-derived fuel from the company. SoladieselRD is output from a refinery, where a hydrotreatment stage deoxygenates the algal oil, resulting in a pure hydrocarbon product. The final product’s chemical composition is identical to that of standard petroleum-based diesel, and SoladieselRD is fully compatible with the existing transportation fuel infrastructure. Having fewer particulate emissions, SoladieselRD also has a more desirable environmental footprint than standard petro-diesel. In addition, it meets the new ASTM ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) standards….”
Someone corrective me if I’m wrong, but if the final product’s chemical composition is identical to that of standard petroleum-based diesel, can it not be further refined into gasoline if desired, with the same chemical properties as petroleum-based gasoline? That is my understanding.
Thus, the essence of the Solazyme algae process is petroleum from a renewable source. More importantly, the algae they use does NOT require sunlight and can thus be manufactured in large batches.
October 13th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
#63 Dave G
I’m with you. Give me half the cost and 5 seats. I don’t care about an extra 40 miles of battery range. The benefit to me is near zero.
Once batteries get sufficient range, say 200 miles, and quicker charging, I’d see a new paradigm opening up where people don’t own a range extender. Rather, for the 5 times year you need extra range, rent a range extending trailer with an ICE. Not for everyone, but I’m game for that. Vehicle cost would be less, depreciation would be less.
October 13th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Read what Dave G Says, he knows what’s up. Analysis on #21 is spot on. This development is huge, but not for more range, but smaller batteries and hopefully less expensive. I’m surprised none of the auto manufactures are looking at a modular design for the batteries. Instead of me having to hassel with BS options like the “sports” package with the “SR” edition you could mass produce the base model electric with a 10 mile electric-only range. Granola crunchers can shell out 1,000 for an additional 3 miles of extra range, up to say 15 battery packs.
When it comes to electric cars, “Make the change then worry about the range.”
October 13th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Exp_EngTech
Why not just run the generator to turn the engine for 20 - 30 seconds while charging each night? Keeps the oil moving, parts lubed etc. And if you have no fuel it won’t matter.
Rooster
Someone corrective me if I’m wrong, but if the final product’s chemical composition is identical to that of standard petroleum-based diesel, can it not be further refined into gasoline if desired, with the same chemical properties as petroleum-based gasoline? That is my understanding.
You are correct, with a cracker unit, the long carbon chains can be broken up, & with the Haber-Bosch process, short carbon chains can be joined together (Coskata et al.).
To the point of the post, I think a five seats with perhaps 50 mile range, at a lower cost point, is the way to go, for the Volt. Put the full size battery in the Vue, vans etc.
EDIT:
LJGTVWOTR
NO plug, NO sale.
October 13th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Rashiid Amul # 60
“80 miles on the battery is not a 10 fold improvement, but it is definitely an improvement I could live with.”
*** *** ***
Why did I think about your daily commute when I read this? It’s because I’ve been on this site for some time! It’s also because if it comes to fruition we’ll both benefit as I believe we’re both within the 20% minority who don’t drive less than 40 per day but still support the Volt!
October 13th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Dave G. # 63
“80 miles per charge? Forget the emotional knee-jerk, and do some quick calculations of how much gasoline 80 MPC will save over 40 MPC. In post #21, I calculate a typical driver will only save 14 gallons of gas a year.
Now figure that you could use the same new battery technology to cut the battery size and weight in half, seat 5 passengers instead of 4, and cut the price by up to $10K. Would you give that up to save 14 gallons of gas a year?”
*** *** ***
This will be a decision for GM to make. GM has always been about giving people options. For people like myself and I believe Rashiid and others, we’ll take this option. You’ve got a valid point about those who don’t need it, and I’m sure GM will offer a smaller lighter less expensive version that doesn’t carry the extra batteries.
What the advancement does is give the option to GM to offer a more viable vehicle to those of us whose daily driving routing puts us in the 20% minority who don’t want to use gasoline.
October 13th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Any news of longer range is good. Although perhaps not good for the program as a E-REV.
Every mile we tack on…is a mile farther away from gas. Every mile we add is more and more people choosing electric. Every mile of electric range is also unfortunately, one less Volt (as it stands).
The future is all electric. I hope we advance far enough, fast enough that Volt 2.0 is sold in ‘all electric’ form and outsells its E-REV brother 10 to 1.
October 13th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
______________________________________________________
The GM VOLT Program is for real…further and wider developed than made public (think blue tarps) - just my guess.
Multiple existing carbon/graphite micro/nano anode research projects have yielded (confirmed alpha testing):
a. 3X+ quicker charge time.
b. 1.5X+ battery life (due to better distributed wear).
c. Wider L2 usable cycle range of 70% vs. 50%.
d. 2X+ volumetric gain
e. 2X+ kWh/lb
f. Projected lower manufacturing cost due to simplified method of tying (wiring) battery components.
______________________________________________________
October 13th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
#3 Russel Raskins says…
“Prius is that it is real family car, without compromise”
Real cardboard, real ugly, real what? I have and will always despise the Prius because it is VERY UGLY regardless of its purpose. Plus it is built by the EVIL EMPIRE Toy friggin ota. yuck!! sorry had to rant my opinion…Take care all
October 13th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Statik #74
“The future is all electric. I hope we advance far enough, fast enough that Volt 2.0 is sold in ‘all electric’ form and outsells its E-REV brother 10 to 1.”
*** *** ***
Only in California…and not at all likely. “All electric” won’t be with us for some time and the sooner we come to grips with the shortcomings of EVs the sooner we realize that SMART liquid fuel solutions must become reality. The leading candidate is cellulosic ethanol and we need to move forward. The forces in opposition are only the oil industry and who really needs their opinion anyway?
October 13th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
I agree that a 40 mile EV range is the sweet spot, but would caveat it by saying it needs to be 40 miles at highway speed. It is my understanding that the Volt’s battery needs a few more KWh’s of capacity to go 40 miles at highway speed.
October 13th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
I find the American haters so ridiculous, and tiresome. If you hate the country and your fellow citizens so much, just LEAVE. There must be someplace else where you would be happier. Just do it.
Both Toyota and Honda are already bringing battery manufacture in-house. Any large automaker would do the same. A123, is a relatively tiny battery DESIGNER, that doesn’t even make what it designs. They contract manufacture to a Chinese assembler who really has all the manufacturing knowledge and now the A123 battery technology expertise too. If I were a big company like GM, betting my company on the Volt, could you expect that tiny A123 would be capable of dellivering on schedule or ramping up production if needed? LG is using a non-runaway technology too. Theirs is not a cobalt lithium battery.
You would have to be daft, to do so.
At the same time the Koreans are just like the Japanese, if a fellow chaebol wants their product they will get it on better terms than a foreigner like GM and Ford. So Hyundai or Kia will get the LG batteries if push comes to shove.
The Ford people found this out the hard way when they couldn’t get batteries from Sanyo for their Escapes, despite contracts.
October 13th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
steady improvements in battery tech are what will eventually lead to all cars being either electric or a series hybrid; which is a good thing. I’m especially excited what will happen in the coming years when the energy density gets about 2x-4x what is is now with efficient, economical, affordable sports cars. The huge torque band of an electric motor is a beautiful thing.
October 13th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
I need the 80 miles.
My commute is 32 each way. I doubt the cheap Ba#%ards at the Post Office would let me charge my Volt.
I know they wouldn’t let me charge an EV1.
October 13th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
stas peterson: LG is using a non-runaway technology too. Theirs is not a cobalt lithium battery.
Wrong. Lithium Mangenese Spinel is subject to thermal runaway. It is missing the phosphate. It is slightly better than Lithium Cobalt. But LiMn2O4 is still subject to disasterous thermal runaway. Read the report by Argonne National labs.
I will buy a Volt and take it to HyMotion (an American company) and quickly replace its deadly batteries with A123 safe phosphate batteries. I dont want to get fried.
The issue is not so much nationalism, but the fact that GM is using inferior technology and moving backwards in order to save a few dollars.
And then when Honda and Toyota come along using nano phosphates, and GM’s Volt gets clobbered and GM will play victim once more and howl about the Japanese automakers. THEY HAVE NOT LEARNT MUCH from their own debacle EVEN THOUGH they owned 50% of the market at one time and destroyed a lot of competitors and startups through unfair monopsony practicies.
I have lost any sympathy for GM — all the goodwill they gained through the Volt is getting evaporated as they continue to play the neanderthal thug on the block.
Lithium Manganese (LG batteries) is an inferior battery. Go compare the specs, and then voice opinion. Lithium Phosphate is already (or soon to be) a larger industry than Lithium Manganese, I believe.
October 13th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
the problem with the 1st generation Volt is that the battery packs chosen in order to last 10 years or 150,000 miles only use HALF the pack’s capacity… the Volt is lugging around the weight for a 16kwh battery pack but only able to use 8kwh of it (80% state of charge to 30% state of charge).
The 1st generation Volt’s probably could almost double the BEV only range by using 100% to 5% of the range if the chemistry supports it… but the cycle life for someone driving 15,000 BEV miles/year will be cut in half.
The EnerDel chemistry Lyle himself blogged about with his exclusive interview at http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/03/exclusive-interview-with-enerdel-chairman-charles-gassenheimer/ can do that but supposedly have the cycle life to meet the 10 year/150k mile life… and Lyle also blogged in another post that EnerDel claims to have the current lowest cost per kwh. Maybe EnerDel can’t produce them in the volume needed or they are more hype than reality?
In any case, sounds like great news if a future gen Volt (or other GM/Chrysler brands with the same drive train :)) can double the BEV range and hopefully without raising the price….
October 13th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
jefro # 81
“I need the 80 miles. ”
*** *** ***
So do many of us. One thing about GM is that despite the culling of re-badgedom there has always been a mantra of choice. If this technology manifests itself we’ll see both versions. Maybe even one with 5 seats and the other with 4.
October 13th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
GM, dump LG chem, stop sending american money out of the country and build your own battery
October 14th, 2008 at 12:10 am
I’m in at 40 and 80 is all the better. I drive 38 miles to work and 38 to get back home. 80 will take care of all without the worktime charge.
Does it take twice as long to charge?
October 14th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Yes, I worry too that America will allow the batteries to be foreign made. Our industry is increasinagly at risk by outsourcing parts. The quality certainly fell along with who will fund our society.
CHEVY VOLT: American made, American FUELED.
October 14th, 2008 at 12:15 am
law and JBFALASKA, you can’t ask a company to make decisions based on “what is good for america”. More often than not, blind patriotism would put a company at an economic disadvantage. After all, American companies have to compete globally.
Unless the USA can get back to being a leading innovator, it is done. The USA can’t compete in manufacturing - that’s for the third world. America isn’t rich in resources. The GDP relies on technology, and while the economy has turned to services, other countries have stepped. up.
If the USA can regroup and embrace the coming electrical revolution, there is hope. Otherwise, hello inflation, goodbye standard of living.
October 14th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Why do some bloggers talk about a 5 seat car? If 70% of car trips 40 miles or less I assure you 90% of all multiseat cars are transporting ONE person. If you do have the need for a five seater you will NOT want a 5 passenger sedan. You’ll buy an SUV or a minivan. Forget the 5 seat Volt.
Come on, Chrysler, lets see that ER-EV minivan!
October 14th, 2008 at 12:36 am
Take out the back seat I only need two seats anyway, put in two batteries, get 160 miles, @ a cost of about $70,000 ooops that’s a Tesla, never mind.
NO PLUG, NO SALE, NO WAY =D—-$00.00 (nobama)
October 14th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Build a lighter crew cab pickup with the new 80 mile battery.
Truck frames could hold 2 or more of these batteries. Could be made to tow 1500 lbs. and hold 4 people and luggage I would assume.
Hopefully someone will produce a truck with 75 mpg or higher equivalent in the next 8 years! (Price matters)
October 14th, 2008 at 12:40 am
Went did Gm sign a contract with LG? Gm has stated they are going too build there on battery and I ‘v heard that they sign a contract with A123 back in 2007.
October 14th, 2008 at 1:06 am
#8 gm volt fan,
drill, drill. drill, is not to keep oil going on, its drill baby drill, to get us off foreign oil dependency in case the nobama ten year of no oil, no nuke plan fails
NO PLUG NO SALE NOBAMA NO WAY =D——-$00.00
October 14th, 2008 at 1:10 am
Do not get mad at foreign auto makers. They have been able to setup shop in America’s back yard because the American Auto Companies started building mostly junk cars that Americans did not want. The so-called Big3 dropped the ball. If it wasn’t for the foreign companies you would still be driving junk over here. You all should be thanking us very kindly. Americans are so ungrateful and extremely arrogant.
October 14th, 2008 at 1:17 am
McCain said he is going to whip Obama’s $#!@
If I was Obama I would be watching my back at all times. Everybody knows the SS’s MO. Obama will be the most dangerous president in history. The real question is how long would he last ? Word.
October 14th, 2008 at 1:44 am
Grizzly #77
I support ethanol or biodiesel as long as they do not require technological shift in car making and see this as temporary solution. Flex fuel solution is even too much complicated. It is much cheaper and convenient solution to use biomass for electricity/heat generation than waste lot of energy and efforts to produce liquid fuel for automobile usage directly. It’s simply stupid solution.
The only viable biomass application would be aviation fuel since electrical solution is out of consideration. Most promising in that case are algae developments.
October 14th, 2008 at 1:48 am
Interesting article but no new information in just about a year. Any possibility on an update on last Decembers article ?
October 14th, 2008 at 4:42 am
#95 Jesse Jackson
Are you taking any drugs ?
- If you think Bush & McCain look good through rose coloured glasses!
PS
Stop watching FOX news it’s not the truth.
Go for a Holiday Outside of the US and take a look in, It will be a very disturbing picture ! SHOCK !
October 14th, 2008 at 5:32 am
Grizzly, #72 says,
Why did I think about your daily commute when I read this? It’s because I’ve been on this site for some time! It’s also because if it comes to fruition we’ll both benefit as I believe we’re both within the 20% minority who don’t drive less than 40 per day but still support the Volt!
——————
Yup. 101 miles a day. How I would LOVE to do all of that on a single charge. Someday perhaps. I’m glad it will work out for you though. I don’t need the 5 seats, so I will be happy to take more range. As my two children get older, I will need less seats than the four I need now. So I will be happy to take smaller car and a bigger (more range) battery.
October 14th, 2008 at 5:42 am
Statik #74
“The future is all electric. I hope we advance far enough, fast enough that Volt 2.0 is sold in ‘all electric’ form and outsells its E-REV brother 10 to 1.”
———
I hope the same. But I don’t see this happening until the range is a few hundred miles and quick charging is down to 5 minutes and is ubiquitous.
October 14th, 2008 at 5:55 am
I wonder how long we will have wait until Volt 2.0 comes out.
October 14th, 2008 at 6:16 am
If the battery pack v 2.0 has the same weight as v 1.0 but the range will be double, it suggests the vehicle will be able to use most of the charge, instead of approx. 50% as in v 1.0. It further suggests the battery pack will have much fewer restrictions as to frequency of charge, etc.
Any engineers out there care to comment?
October 14th, 2008 at 6:32 am
Volt 20
Volt 40
Volt 80
The 20 mile AER Volt works for me, but depending on your daily drive, it’s will be good to have a choice, to fit your needs.
October 14th, 2008 at 6:42 am
#85 law Says: “GM, dump LG chem, stop sending american money out of the country and build your own battery”
————————————————————————————-
A123 batteries are made in China.
October 14th, 2008 at 6:54 am
#74 statik Says: “The future is all electric.”
————————————————————————————–
Right. Electric planes. Electric 18-wheel trucks. Plastics made from electricity.
The future will be a combination of electric and bio-fuels. Since the Volt uses both, it’s perfect for the future.
October 14th, 2008 at 7:19 am
#74 statik Says: “The future is all electric.”
————————————————————————————–
Right. Electric planes. Electric 18-wheel trucks. Plastics made from electricity.
The future will be a combination of electric and bio-fuels. Since the Volt uses both, it’s perfect for the future.
====================================
Yes, clearly I meant all those things!
Here is my quote as it was written: “The future is all electric. I hope we advance far enough, fast enough that Volt 2.0 is sold in ‘all electric’ form and outsells its E-REV brother 10 to 1.” Clearly I was speaking to the clientele that was looking to purchase a VOLT…not a jet plane or a 18 wheeler.
October 14th, 2008 at 7:29 am
#100 Rashiid
Statik #74
“The future is all electric. I hope we advance far enough, fast enough that Volt 2.0 is sold in ‘all electric’ form and outsells its E-REV brother 10 to 1.”
———
I hope the same. But I don’t see this happening until the range is a few hundred miles and quick charging is down to 5 minutes and is ubiquitous.
=========================================
Yes, it is hard to say what the ‘tipping point’ would be.
I think your right for the average vehicle purchase…it would have to be something pretty special for country wide adoption. I would think 200 miles with a quick charge delivery system…or 300 miles conventional charging. And of course the price…the average vechicle transaction in the US was a little over $25K through the first quarter this year…down from 27K in 2007. It would have to be in that range…so that is along way off, hehe.
Where is that bloody EEStor? Hehe.
I figure for a all electric Volt to just outsell a E-Rev Volt (40 mile), you would probably need in the 80-100 mile range. 80 miles would be about my lower threshold.
October 14th, 2008 at 8:09 am
Well, there goes Project Better Place’s last hope for fame and fortune. Now how can they ignore the obvious advantage of a plug-in?
October 14th, 2008 at 8:25 am
For me would be acceptable 200 miles and 10 minutes charging time. And I think for most of us. It is good to have brake after driving two or three hours and visit toilet or canteen. My wife and daughter always complaining about that. There is no need for EEStor. Lithium titanate (Altair Nano Inc) are available now. Nothing more is needed. In any case charging speed limitation will be voltage and wiring conductivity. The most powerful available charger is only 250 kW. Other vice voltage level shall be increased proportionally. The problem will be charging station density and especially in remote locations.
October 14th, 2008 at 8:27 am
and it will probably be 1/2 the cost… this is why i’m not buying a 1st generation volt…
October 14th, 2008 at 8:43 am
In case battery pack will be 32 kW (16 kW) I would propose to squeez genset size and cost accordingly and keep it for emergency only (not for mauntain driving).
October 14th, 2008 at 9:24 am
They just keep making all the right pro-active moves. Developing higher energy storage batteries is the right move, but I believe making a smaller / cheaper battery pack that still goes 40 miles would be a smart play. If 70% of Americans only need 40 miles per day, then doubling the range doesn’t make that big of a difference for most drivers. Making the vehicles more affordable, so that more families can by them, would make a bigger impact in reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
October 14th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Jason M. Hendler
Totally agree.
40 mile range and 80 mile range would be great if the cost was like $30K for the 40 mile version (I don’t expect it to stay at $40K in a couple of years) and $40K for the 80 mile version.
I’d have to buy the 80 mile version since most days I drive 60 miles (yesterday 165.1) for my job.
Yesterday’s cost now: $20.40
Yesterday’s with V80: $8.25
For most people, the cheaper 40 mile would do fine, but I guess I am not most people.
October 14th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Mohsen @ various posts.
Please link battery announcement. and the 25 billion is not from the gvmnt, but private sources, the gvmnt is basically a co signer..not a penny from tx payers, although like any good parent that co signs their kids 1st loan, they can apply rules.
As to competition? what are you reading? they say they are working on a carbon change (in America I might add - Ohio?!?) where the technology can be sold to a battery manufacturer (which they are not) to improve the storage capacity…
you seem to know batteries well..but reading seems to be a problem, and backing up claims of a supplier being chosen is nowhere in evidence…
Mohsen = Troll
October 14th, 2008 at 10:46 am
I like this possibility. More to come, I am sure,
October 14th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
#57 Exp_EngTech:
Hmmm, I think the Prius is already too popular to be the Newton. And the Prius wasn’t quite first in the US… Ok, so going with this fun analogy
that makes the Insight the Newton, the Prius the Palm Pilot and the \Volt the… what? Pocket PC? What displaced Palm… Oh, right the Blackberry. Hmmm, I don’t think the \Volt is a blackberry. Maybe an iPod touch or iPhone would be more like it since I need an Apple product with expensive batteries. 
Perhaps we just skipped the blackberry generation or something.
October 14th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
One thing about an 80 mile all electric range to consider is that if you only drive about 50 miles a day, that extra 30 miles of electric range gives you more peace of mind about flooring the accelerator more often. With 80 miles of electric range you probably won’t even think about the IC engine kicking in much at all unless you are going on a long trip.
That’s when you KNOW that electric cars like the Volt have reached “prime time”. When you can drive them around and not have to think about electric range … or having to use liquid fuel. Going to get some gasoline or E85 will be something you only have to do every 4 months or so.
I bet within the next 10 years, researchers are going to master the technologies for WIRELESSLY recharging your Volt.
http://www.ecoupled.com/
You simply pull the Volt in the garage and you see on the touchscreen “Set to Charge” (at night) or “Charging Now” if you press a button to do that (but you pay more for the electricity if it is not at night). The same technology might be available eventually for charging stations in parking garages, parking lots, etc. That would be the ultimate in convenience. You never even think about energy for your car. It’s all automatic.
October 14th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
“Lithium Mangenese Spinel is subject to thermal runaway. It is missing the phosphate. It is slightly better than Lithium Cobalt. But LiMn2O4 is still subject to disasterous thermal runaway. Read the report by Argonne National labs.”
Then I guess you won’t be buying the Mitsubishi iMiev, the 2nd most anticpated electric car after the Volt.
October 14th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
A smart move by GM’s product planning group. For a business that is in the process of changing the underlying power package from ICE to electric drive - energy storage is the key component. For a large volume manufacturer like GM, outside contractors building a key component makes sense only in early phases.
GM wants to control their battery production and most likely bring it in house ASAP. While a smart play would be to keep several types of chemistry on the burner - doubling the energy density will let them lower the overall vehicle costs for the 16kWh package. Going forward we can expect to see GM recognizing battery production on a par with ICE production. Once they settle on a good, viable chemistry - look for some of those retooling loans to go toward highly automated GM battery manufacturing. Located near to the vehicle plants.
And I would not count A123 out of the GM game yet. While their design is good, their overseas manufacturing is a negative. GM may simply license some A123 chemistry for building at home. Import costs, quality and security issues continue to dog China manufacturing.
Rip it up GM! We’re rootin’ for you!
October 14th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
#32 Arch:
Thanks for the link. That’s what I’m so worried about. GM could very realistically run out of money before the Volt appears. Or maybe they can keep the core alive through Chapter 11? This is basically what Statik has been saying for months.
#59 Jim I:
Exactly. It is silly to be worrying about Gen 2 when Gen 1 is 2-3 years out, and the issue is still highly in doubt. See above.
October 14th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Hmmm …. I wonder if GM is going to HIGHLY consider using one of these “free piston engines” as the IC engine for future E-Flex cars like the Volt. It sounds pretty good based on what I have read so far. It just needs some refinement.
The “free piston engine” has a LOT of advantages I know that. It would give people the ultimate in consumer power when it comes to fuel choices for the IC engine. It is possible to use this engine with almost any fuel … gasoline, diesel, ethanol, LPG, hydrogen, etc. Just buy whichever one you prefer for whatever reason or just buy the fuel that is the cheapest.
OPEC and Big Oil would finally have some competition! This would be AWESOME. Gasoline would have to compete for your dollars the same way companies do to sell you toothpaste at the grocery store or whatever. Use one of these “free piston engines” as the range extender with an 80 mile all electric range battery for a future E-flex car and you could have THE ultimate in fuel economy. The acceleration and power in future E-Flex cars will also be much improved by then you know. 0-60 mph in 5-6 seconds is very feasible for series hybrids like the Volt.
http://www.freepistonpower.com/FP3.aspx
“An FP3 powered Series HEV power train takes up less space, is lighter and of simpler design in comparison with a parallel HEV. The advantages are a significant reduction in fuel consumption and harmful emissions and reduced manufacturing cost.
* significantly smaller, lighter and simpler design
* improved fuel economy
* lower harmful emissions
* quieter operation
* fewer moving parts
* much lower manufacturing cost
Read this: http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/21442/page1/
October 14th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
“silicone nanowire”
No, silicon nanowire. A much different material.
October 14th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Since early adopters are paying for a battery pack warranty that they may not need, I wonder if they will be rewarded with a “free” upgrade that would potentially double their all electric range?
October 14th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Darius # 97
“I support ethanol or biodiesel as long as they do not require technological shift in car making and see this as temporary solution. Flex fuel solution is even too much complicated. It is much cheaper and convenient solution to use biomass for electricity/heat generation than waste lot of energy and efforts to produce liquid fuel for automobile usage directly”
*** *** ***
Like it or not, w/o liquid fuel for RE engines, EVs would fail. Maybe Ca could sustain sales of pure BEVs, but I doubt that even there the numbers would justify the investment. Currently the only way that we’ll electrify what we drive is to ensure that we have alternate liquid fuels available like E85. Cellulosic ethanol is produced domestically, is relatively cheap and consumes less than a gallon of water per gallon of ethanol.
I’d love to wake up tomorrow and find out I’ve got a BEV with a 350mi range in my driveway and a national infrastructure of quick charging stations. We’re not there yet and it’s going to take some time. Until then, the one thing that could/would kill the EV is range anxiety. If we can alleviate this with domestically produced renewables, then we’re well on our way. I believe that E85 would be the best choice and we should make it and stick with it.
October 14th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Cost??
How much does this magic/micro/nano dust cost?
Does it need to be mfg in a dry room?
October 14th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Lyle…………….
Can you please dig around and find out if the reason they are using the same size & shape is to be able to upgrade the first generation Volt to a better battery when available?
I am hoping they are desiging the current Volt with the physical ability and firmware ability to upgrade later.
October 15th, 2008 at 5:02 am
Grizzly #125
Cellulosic ethanol is far away from being game changer. The production cost is rather high due to distillation process. Distillery itself consumes lot of steam in order to evaporate alcohol. Then you should have complicated sewage water treatment processes which are not available for the moment to be in economic way.
You have advantage with grain slurry since cattle can consume it. What you going to do with biomass slurry? Only fertilizer and during limited period of the calendar year. So verayity of issues which are not solved and may be not solved at all.
In ethanol price grain price was less than 50%. Last year it changed drastically. Then you shall be aware that the same problems you have with grain (you never know what price will be next year) you will face with biomass after significant volumes will be achieved. I personally have experience on wood chip prices and I tell you - they are extremely “demand based”!
On contrary power generation market is well established, country wide and we do not expect any drastic changes in the future. The PHEV’s and even BEV’s will never be game changes in good meaning of this word. Therefore I suggest that most convenient solution is PHEV and gradually shifting to the BEV. There is not better alternative and I do not expect any. Let’s concentrate on it.
I like algae process since it is completely integrated and more or less independent from outside market conditions. Another advantage - it will use obsolete area which will be not suitable for other crops. From technical point of view it is more advanced since algae owns most efficient photosynthesis on the planet.
October 15th, 2008 at 8:59 am
I think that this will be a big advance to the GM.
It will be great to have a electric car in this world.
Timothy Ray
October 15th, 2008 at 9:13 am
this is gay[!@$^!##$]
October 15th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
I for one would like more range. I drive 44 miles to work and back with a 600ft elevation hill near the end of my trip home so theres no way 40 will do for me unless I charge at work. I’d rather pay more and get 60 or 80 miles. Then I can drop my plans of putting 6 or 8 golf cart batteries in the trunk with an inverter so I can charge the volt while I’m at work…
Mike
October 15th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
“Preventive maintenance engine run” is likely on the engineer’s table, and is a great idea. More than a few minutes would be needed to clear a Catalytic Converter and light it up at 675 degrees or so to burn off traces of HC, as well as clear the exhaust of combustion water. This may be what GM engineering sees in modifying charge strategies.
Many scan tools have bi-directional controlling of the PCM already for Commanded testing and Commanded Relearns of things like Crank sensor position, etc. (if one is extensively trained to analyze graphing). More mundane toggles are available such as turning off the automatic door locking subroutine which automatically locks all doors at , say, 20 mph.
Licensing of these capabilities at a cost (in a scan tool) is a good idea to keep inexperienced and unintentional activities/switching from occurring, causing unnecessary expense and damages to the owner’s property.
In analyzing thousands of waveforms over the years, the clear intent of everything that the OEM finalizes is simply to the the best things for the owner.
I disagree with an Edmunds article I just read where editors felt the need to apologize for themselves for apparent inconsistencies/changes of GM reps regarding charging strategies. Clearing the Exhaust system may be one of those reasons. (No, you can’t conceive of everything all at once when critical things must change in a design.)
This is an entirely NEW FIELD. There just are not available “definite” specifications during any developmental phase of the Volt. You can not know finally what any specification is going to be until you have amassed vast numbers of sample sizes to validate the usage needs of various demographics. But the open discussions regarding various specs changes is clearly wise, since often some small comment or idea, or post containing one small little fact, written early enough, is each persons’ personal contribution to our futures, If the “Tipping Point” has passed us by already, then we still may be able to help make change feasible with our commentaries before we bypass our “Adaptation Point”.
I think all comments are important, even from angry people letting off their “steam” if they need to.
Dan Petit, Austin, TX
October 17th, 2008 at 8:31 pm