Those of us who follow the Volt story closely have known for a long time that LG Chem and A123 were in competition to get the Chevy Volt battery contract. Earlier this month, GM announced it had chosen LG Chem. I had the chance to ask Denise Gray, who is GM’S Direct of Advanced Batteries how and why the decision was made.
So why did you choose LG Chem over A123?
There was a number of reasons that went into the decision-making process, not one single element.
From a longevity of being in the battery business, design readiness, and a design that integrated into our battery pack design. There’s a lot of work to make sure that the size of the cells are appropriate for structural integrity or the cooling system that we designed to go into that, and for the electronic system, all the monitoring, for the high voltage carrying capacity, just for the overall height of the cells to fit into the vehicles so that all of our rear-impact and side impact tests are passed.
So you’re saying it was more the integration of the cells into the pack design that played a role than the actual chemistry?
All of the above, the chemistry and the capability, LG’s manufacturability, and the work that they’ve done and the lines that are in place today from a prototype perspective. The integration of the size of that cell equivalent to our overall scheme.
The different chemistries have different thermal characteristics and so we’ve been able to incorporate how to make sure from a thermal perspective that we’ve got it, from a functional perspective, not a safety perspective.
So it was all of those. Experience, manufacturing, and performance.
Did they win by a landslide or was it a close race?
I’d say it was a close race.
I heard you guys were from early on only using LG packs in the mules?
Both packs were in our laboratory undergoing tests. Both from the mounting capability, the shape of them all looked the same so we could put in one or the other (in the mules). LG had the lion’s share of our mule testing, because they had them available earlier.
So they were able to get you more packs sooner?
That’s right. It really wasn’t because one was better than the other at that time, it was all those things I mentioned coming together as well as the availability of the packs.
Jan 26th, 2009 (7:59 am)I will bet that LG was cheaper too.
Take Care
Arch
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (8:07 am)Physical size, temperature control (remarkable how often that comes up), and no doubt price.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (8:10 am)Hopefully the durability and longevity are there as well as the price. I just want my Volt to keep on running. Go Volt. Go GM.
Take Care,
TED
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (8:16 am)Now that A123 is building a plant in the U.S. and not Korea… and GM is using our tax dollars to survive…perhaps they should reconsider A123…all things equal. Right?
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (8:17 am)I do not think we need to make this more complicated than it was. If you had a supplier that delivered on time and one that did not, with all other things being essentially equal, who would you pick?
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (8:22 am)I don’t think any harm will come to A123 systems for losing out on this contract. There will be many more car companies looking to do this.
I think A123 is in the right place at the right time.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (8:26 am)Good to hear things have settled with the choice of battery.
The electric car I drive has a real nice launch feeling up to about 20 mph. I would like to hear more on the passing power of the Voltec System. Also, will there be some sort of lower/higher gearing? Or just a smooth feel though the entire available power curve.
Rather than having a “sport” mode. Why not just add a switch to the fully depressed “gas” pedal? Sort of like a 4 barrel carb or turbo kicking in.
=D~
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (8:31 am)#1 Arch:
I’m going with you…and the part about ‘LG’s manufacturability,’ I read as they are a bigger, more stable company that we don’t think we are going to have a issue with later.
There is a lot of talk implying that ‘functionality’ and the ’size of the cells’ being the main reason, but c’mon….I can’t buy that as reason number one to choose LG Chem (maybe convenient excuse number 1). Why have a year long battery competition, then another 6 month delay, if you know A123 cells aren’t physically going to work for you?
All that being said, GM probably made the right choice going with the ‘proven player,’ they are not in a situation where they can afford any more hiccups.
It sounds like A123 is no worse for wear, and has a lot of other things on the go now with some of the other 27 companies planning to build a EV in 2010…I have a feeling that when they have a track record they will do some business with GM.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (9:08 am)#8 statik Says: “…and the part about ‘LG’s manufacturability,’ I read as they are a bigger, more stable company that we don’t think we are going to have a issue with later.”
————————————————————————————–
Yes. Big companies like to do business with big companies. LG has annual sales around $100 billion. This is probably the main reason GM chose LG.
I’m glad. I would much rather have my battery cells manufactured in South Korea than China.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (9:21 am)#4 tom Says: “Now that A123 is building a plant in the U.S. and not Korea… and GM is using our tax dollars to survive…perhaps they should reconsider A123…all things equal. Right?”
————————————————————————————–
As I understand it, a battery cell manufacturing plant is a fairly big deal. It takes a long time to get the cell manufacturing up and running efficiently at large volumes. Much more difficult than building a battery pack integration plant.
So the reality is that A123’s cells will continue being produced in China for several years.
GM has said they will consider A123 in the future, but for the 2011 model year Volt, it’s a done deal – LG is the supplier.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (9:37 am)President Obama is to speak this morning re allowing Calif’s EPA CAFE exception and “other energy independence issues” I hope the latter refers to the electrification of vehicles.
Be well,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR!! NPNS
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (10:01 am)Arch #1 & Statik #8
Absolutely, what you guys said and I’ld add existing manufacturing capacity (which Statik alludes to as well). I don’t know about experience from a chemistry perspective. I think there may be longer real world application of A123’s chemistry. Perhaps GM was scared off by A123’s legal issues too. Aren’t they being sued?
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (10:09 am)So cost didn’t come into play? I guarantee that was towards the top of the list. I wonder why he didn’t mention it?
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (10:12 am)Lyle, I wonder how many mules there are out there?
eREV = electronic REVOLUTION…
Will Obama mention the Volt?
Red HHR (wishing for an eREV version)
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (10:17 am)As I’ve stated repeatedly, A123 will NEVER forget how this opportunity slipped through their fingers, because they delayed the delivery of their battery pack until the very last day.
Now the California Air Resources Board is killing their Hymotion business for the Prius, so they will sorely miss not supplying for the 1st generation Volt.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (10:24 am)#15 Jason M. Hendler Says: “Now the California Air Resources Board is killing their (A123’s) Hymotion business for the Prius, so they will sorely miss not supplying for the 1st generation Volt.”
————————————————————————————–
This is news to me. Do you have any more info?
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (10:40 am)I’m with GM’s advanced technology team and I agree with Van…sometimes people read too much into decisions we make and make them more complicated than they need to be. We source components from across the globe and LG Chem was chosen because of their performance, production readiness, vehicle integration, efficiency and durability.
We’ve been testing their cells for more than a year and we’re confident they will meet the performance and durability requirements of the Volt. Plus, they demonstrated the manufacturing readiness for prismatic cells to meet our program timing.
Plus, many people are overlooking the fact we will be manufacturing the battery packs right here in the U.S. in Michigan. That is no small feat. The cell is only one component of the pack. And we will continue to work with A123Systems because we have many needs that need to be met with our hybrid and extended range electric vehicles.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (10:40 am)#15 Jason M. Hendler Says: “Now the California Air Resources Board is killing their (A123’s) Hymotion business for the Prius, so they will sorely miss not supplying for the 1st generation Volt.”
—————
Felix Kramer (of Calcars) testified and reports back that the Board will now reconsider because of the negative impact their proposed regulations would have on startups.
HTH,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR!! NPNS
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (10:44 am)Well, Obama mentioned improving the electrical infrastructure, then improving auto mpg goals, pollution, California pollution rules. Also something about cars of tomorrow…
Also getting off of foreign oil…
No mention of the Volt per say, however everything else needed for the Volt!!!
Red HHR (GO eREV)
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (11:02 am)#17 Phil Colley with GM
Is a GM technical guy really responding in the comments section? If so, thank you for your input! This is a very exciting technology for all of us and we wish GM well. Sorry for the skepticism on your identity, but I seriously doubt that recent posts by “Ben Roethlisberger” were the real deal
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (11:03 am)#16 Dave G & #18 Tagamet commenting on the CARB issue.
CARB is requiring companies who do modifications to hybrids to test one car in order to prove that their modification doesn’t screw up the existing pollution control systems. It will cost about $1500 – $3000 for the test. CARB also requires companies doing the modifications to cover the warranty if their modification voids the manufacturer’s warranty (that’s been around for a while).
This got turned into one of those internet rumors that CARB was driving the companies out of business by making them pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, apparently misinterpreting the requirement to test one modified car as a requirement to test every modified car.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (11:10 am)DonC@21 said in part:
“…This got turned into one of those internet rumors that CARB was driving the companies out of business by making them pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, apparently misinterpreting the requirement to test one modified car as a requirement to test every modified car.”
Sorry, but this is inaccurate. I hope I kept the calcars email, but if I didn’t all the links are at the Calcars website.
It is not an internet rumor, or Felix wouldn’t have had to go to testify to try to stop it.
Just got in under the edit wire. go to
http://www.calcars.org/news.html and read the “10 latest posts” section.
Be well,
Tag
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (11:10 am)#17 Phil Colley says “sometimes people read too much into decisions we make and make them more complicated than they need to be.”
Thanks. Nice concise useful explanation. Yes, manufacturing the battery pack is a very big deal.
Also let’s note that GM has an ownership stake in A123. It’s not like they don’t want A123 to succeed.
As for price, BYD has announced it will sell battery packs to NA manufacturers at about half the price as existing packs are going for. If true that would be a big deal.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (11:17 am)#22 Tagament — Thanks for the update. While I’m just passing along what I heard from someone who works at CARB, I’m confident that it’s accurate, especially on the testing front. The warranty issue could pose a problem though as a theoretical matter it seems fair and as a practical matter it’s not likely to be an issue.
Could be a lot of people are confused. But it will no doubt get sorted!
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (11:35 am)Looks like the S Koreans have some good battery industry. I predict more Hyundai action in the EV market soon.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (11:40 am)#20 Jim in PA and #23 DonC
I wouldn’t necessarily say technical, but I know a thing or two about a thing or two as Robert Deniro might say, and yes, I do work for GM. I also know Denise Gray, Bob Kruse, Tony Posawatz and many others involved in battery and Volt development. I would definitely question Ben Roethlisberger posting on here too since he is probably a little busy right now, but I think the real question is, are you really in PA, Jim?
And, one more quick note for clarification purposes, GM does not have an ownership stake in A123Systems.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (12:05 pm)Well I hate it that the cells are going to be imported. Clearly we need every job we can generate at home. 20,000 Caterpillar employees laid off? Alas!
Having said that, I am confident that this is going to work. At least the car will be built here, and the packs assembled. So that’s progress anyway.
LJGTVWOTR!! NPNS! DBNGCMEMEV
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (12:12 pm)Does having a dangerous rogue state like North Korea next door have any implications on battery supply from only from South Korea? They have a huge standing army and an on-again off-again nuke development program. Also have a long standing desire for South Korean real estate. And right now they probably perceive Obama as much weaker than Bush was.
Now new war in Korea might mean no Volts in USA.
It would be nice to have multiple battery sources as soon as possible.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (12:17 pm)lol….
That sounds right…
“it was all those things I mentioned coming together as well as the availability of the packs.”
I worked in manufacturing, not in the auto industry, and it was almost always who made it to the prototype bench test first. AND, how much of the “Schmoooozing” factor came along with it. Trust me, It does happen.
Now, I know A123 has a great product and I believe the Nanophosphate tech is better. Since A123 did not get it, they can actually build a “Compatible” battery pack and sell it for a third party battery and compete in the battery market with it. They already have the dimensions and spec’s that are needed, just tweak the specs and dimensions so not to violate “Proprietary Knowledge”. Competition is always good.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (12:26 pm)Is the above photo an actual Volt? Maybe even a production ready version? If so, what happened to the tee shaped battery?
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (12:32 pm)@old man 30
I think they need to use a wide angle lens. The rear part isn’t in the photo. But you are correct, the battery is a “T”.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (12:47 pm)#26 Phil Colley says “GM does not have an ownership stake in A123Systems.”
Yup. My bad. I got GM and GE confused in my head.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (12:49 pm)#26 Phil Colley with GM,
Thanks for posting! Can you tell us anything about GM’s involvement with bio-fuels?
When you put E-REVs together with bio-fuels, my feeling is that this combination is unbeatable.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (1:01 pm)#27 noel park Says: “Well I hate it that the cells are going to be imported. Clearly we need every job we can generate at home. 20,000 Caterpillar employees laid off? Alas!”
————————————————————————————–
I’m not as bothered about importing the cells for now. We need to get the ball rolling. If Volt sales start to ramp up, and other manufacturers follow suit, then there will be more incentive for the U.S. to build battery cell manufacturing plants.
I feel the same about ethanol. We can use imported ethanol from Brazil to help jump-start our market. Once FlexFuel cars and E85 filling stations become commonplace, there will be more incentive for the U.S. to start producing cellulosic ethanol.
So, ironically, I think the best way to bring green energy jobs to the U.S. is to jump-start the green energy markets in any way possible, including imports.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (1:05 pm)#6Rashiid Amul Says:
I don’t think any harm will come to A123 systems for losing out on this contract. There will be many more car companies looking to do this.
I think A123 is in the right place at the right time.
————–
GM is still working with A123, just not for Gen1 Volts.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (1:12 pm)Noel @ 27, says “Well I hate it that the cells are going to be imported. Clearly we need every job we can generate at home. 20,000 Caterpillar employees laid off? Alas!”
—————–
It’s nice that we CAN either build the cells or import them. Flexibility to me is important–especially because we don’t have to rely on a supplier that hates the US (ie oil from the Mid East). Just glad to be moving out of that part of the world.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (1:16 pm)Not sure if this is the right or wrong place to post this question about batteries. If the cost of the batteries is so high what about a Volt-like car that does not have the batteries? If the car gets 50mpg running the engine/generator offer a Gas Powered Electric (GPE) vehicle or better yet a Diesel Powered Electric (DPE) that would get 80+ mpg. The car would still be “electric” driven and still be better than anything else out there. Without the cost, weight and cold/hot battery issues that come with the large battery component. It would be a lower cost model. Just a thought…..
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (1:19 pm)I wonder if GM ever explored the idea of “Batteries not included?”. Then they could price the car at $15K-$20K and not warranty the battery. All the battery companies would be given specs to build to, and the buyer would have the option of buying from whomever he/she wanted to…. just an idea.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (1:20 pm)@Ken-o 37
Good idea.
I myself have been asking for the BEV only. No ICE or Generator, just battery power plugin. Seems like offering three models would be an interesting “Rollout”.
I’ll take my Volt No Generator and No ICE, shaken not stirred….
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (1:29 pm)#37 wasnt there when i typed my post..ha
In response to #37, there were some articles from Bob Lutz addressing that. In short, he said the idea was to have a car that runs w/out using gas. So to have one that required filling all the time, was not the goal. There are also engineering issues about storing energy, acceleration, rpm efficiency.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (1:55 pm)#38 k-dawg Says:
All the hybrid/PHEV systems are specific to one vender’s battery type. You just can’t swap batteries.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (1:57 pm)k-dawg #40
Thanks for the background information.
In light of the current economy a no-battery option may make the Volt more affordable to more people.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (2:03 pm)#10 Dave,
I wonder where you got the figure 95 – 98 % efficient electric motor. In my google search for motors, The efficiency depends on the type of electric motor. Ex: stepper is made for more accurate control where efficiency is very low. where as brush less DC motors are better but i was not able to get the % of efficiency.
Wondering what kind of motor GM uses as efficiency of the motor is also key is range and life of motor.
#37 ,
In my expectations
ICE engine ( max efficiency 32% ) ==== Battery ( assume no losses) == Electric motor ( lets say 95% efficient )
should be same as 30 percent efficient ICE engine ( study says average ice engine efficiency in US driving is 20 % ) and optimization of power distribution on different driving conditions by software should give Volt an extended range mode mpg of 70 – 90+ mpg on road.
thoughts ??
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (2:22 pm)A123 is still in the game for supplying future batteries to not only GM but to Ford, Chrysler and others. They just were not “ready” for the Volt version 1. Later on, GM and A123 will do some business, I feel sure. There will be enough of demand and diversity of cars and trucks needing battery cells that one company can not handle all the orders, I would think.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (2:23 pm)______________________________________________________
#9 Dave G Says:
I would much rather have my battery cells manufactured in South Korea than China.
—-
I agree w/ Dave G on that.
South Korea is more Quality Control orientated compared to China with regards to manufacturing. I find the China QC issue interesting in that China has a serious QC conundrum: The degree to which a government both centrally controls a national manufacturing base (other than setting minimum industry quality levels) and also centrally controls citizen’s personal lives is inversely correlated to QC levels. Another way to say it is that high QC levels require individual citizen initiative/pride/heart/resolve/ownership and China’s centralized political culture is designed towards diminishing each of those individual attributes. This QC dynamic is something for America to be mindful of as we march down the path of nationalizing large segments of American remaining private industry (autos, banks, insurance, health care, etc…).
http://chinachallenges.blogs.com/my_weblog/2008/11/china-is-losing-its-manufacturing-luster.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea
GM made the right choice in choosing LG Chem.
______________________________________________________
Electric Cars + Nuclear Power = American Energy Independence!
______________________________________________________
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (2:36 pm)#28 mikeinatl.
If we get into a “shooting” war with North Korea, I don’t think anyone is really going to be worried about electrification of our automobiles. Unless Obama proves soft and caves into NK demands, which is certainly a possibility. Let’s hope for peace on the Korean front. Obama will undoubtedly be tested, it is just a matter of time and by whom.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (2:42 pm)Missed in my previous comment : max efficiency of ice engine normal is 37 percent and not 32.
Boils down to expectations of extended range mpg after all the losses on extended range should be minimum to 90mpg+.
means with volt should give 90 + 40 + 5 miles with a fully charged battery and a gallon of gas in normal road test ( 5 for regenerative breaks/shocks ).
This is the minimum numbers in theory to expect with this much research,test and hype .
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (2:46 pm)#42 Ken-o
If all you are after is higher mileage it can be gained with out using a Volt with out a battery. The Cruze is one example. I know your question was for a Volt to have a generator ICE that supplied electricity to the electric motor that turned the wheels. I can see that as a possibility, but probably not a desirable one. The battery helps to supply additional power when operating in ICE mode when the car needs extra power up hills or passing, etc. Theoretically your Volt with out the battery would work, but would be a pretty ho-hum car. IMO.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (2:50 pm)I am still in the minority here about GM offering a purely BEV version of several of their smaller cars (ie: the Spark). I would like to see several companies starting to offer strictly electric cars with as much miles per charge as they can muster. There is plenty of room in our auto world for both BEV and E-REV vehicles.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (2:55 pm)In reference to the above picture, I could see GM selling just such a “car” shell to other manufacturers who would add their own body and other components. That would be an interesting spin-off of the Volt development process. The above picture has all the working parts of the power train, the battery and the software to control everything. All another company would have to do is to just finish the shell, the interior and add tires, etc. What do you think, GM?
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (3:05 pm)#50 N Riley Says:
And who would buy Volt underbody from GM? All the other major makers have their own PHEV programs.
If you are going to build your own electric car off somebody else’s underbody, then you are better off going to the Chinese, like Miles and Tesla have done.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (3:10 pm)#43 Unni Says: “I wonder where you got the figure 95 – 98 % efficient electric motor… Wondering what kind of motor GM uses as efficiency of the motor is also key is range and life of motor.”
————————————————————————————–
The Volt uses a 120kw (160 hp) AC induction electric motor. I believe the efficiency of this motor is somewhere between 90-95%.
All of today’s hybrids use brushless motors. Cars that use induction motors include the EV-1, the Tesla Roadster, the tzero, and the Volt.
The main advantage of induction is that it scales better for higher power applications. The downside of induction is that the software for the motor controller it is much more complicated than with brushless motors.
Induction motors use wire windings on the rotor, whereas brushless motors use permanent magnets on the rotor. More info here:
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/?p=45
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (3:15 pm)#51 HyperMiler
Well, you just never know, now do you? With success comes imitation. Why imitate the Voltec technology when you can purchase it and add the rest of the components to build the car or truck you want to sell. Might work, might not. I’m just supposing.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (3:23 pm)#28 mikeinatl. Says:
Well, poor Kim Jong Il’s army don’t even have oil to get their rusty tanks rolling and 40 year old jets to take off from runway. Beside, China doesn’t want a war so close to its capital(Chinese fear a USAF airbase just 20 minutes in flight from Beijing) in the event of NK’s collapse, so they won’t fund Kim Jong Il’s war.
Beside, the most likely conflict in East Asia right now is between China Vs Japan vs Korea over sea territories, and all three sides massively beefing up their naval and air power to prepare for possible naval confrontations. The fact that these territorial wars would be fought in the sea over small islands instead of their mainlands make the wars far more likely. As of now, the most likely war in East Asia is the naval war between Japan and Korea, not Kim Jong Il’s war.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (3:23 pm)#37 Ken-o Says: “… fithe cost of the batteries is so high, what about a Volt-like car that does not have the batteries? If the car gets 50mpg running the engine/generator offer a Gas Powered Electric (GPE) vehicle…”
————————————————————————————–
This question has been asked and answered many times before.
The Volt won’t work without a fairly large battery. The Volt get’s high milage by using a very low power gas engine. This engine only provides AVERAGE horsepower. PEAK horsepower is still provided by the batteries, even after the gas engine turns on.
If you removed the battery from the Volt, it would be such a dog that nobody would buy it. Think 0-60 in like 30 seconds. It would be unusable in the real world.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (3:28 pm)#53 N Riley Says:
> Well, you just never know, now do you?
I am pretty damn sure.
> With success comes imitation. Why imitate the Voltec technology when you can purchase it and add the rest of the components to build the car
Cost. Chinese underbodies are always much cheaper than GM’s.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (3:28 pm)Dave G @ 34,
It depends on where you live. E85 vehicles are already commonplace (look for the leaf logo on non-hybrid Ford vehicles, and similar logos on newer GM vehicles). They’re common enough I almost bought a used E85-compatible Ford Ranger in 2003, but I opted for a cheaper gasoline-only Ranger from a more reputable dealer… Also, if you live in the Midwest, E85 stations are scattered throughout.
But it depends where you live — when I lived in Virginia, I never saw an E85 station, despite a couple of road-trips through the midwest. The fuel-finder on http://www.mapquest.com can search for E85 stations.
Sorry to inform you that what you suggest is already here (and has been for years), but it doesn’t seem to be jump-starting cellulosic ethanol just yet. I sure hope it does, and the snippets that I’ve heard about a cellulosic ethanol pilot plant or two have been encouraging. But, really, the reason ethanol is so common in the Midwest is because increased demand for corn is good for local economy — and the politicians and voters know it. I’m hopeful that the cellulosic ethanol catches on, though — it just sounds like such a Good Idea!
Anyway, I just wanted to complicate your day — have a good one!
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (3:44 pm)I wouldn’t be surprised if A123 got the contract for battery cells for the Converj or “new and improved” battery cells for future Volts in 2013+. A123 is a much smaller company than LG Chem. They need to get super organized and get a track record of high quality automotive battery cells coming out of their plants. A year of rock solid production would probably make GM more confident about going with A123. A123 also has to meet all of GM specifications too. GM wants those flat “prismatic” cells that are easier to keep cool and assemble into the packs, etc.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (3:58 pm)@N Riley 49
“I would like to see several companies starting to offer strictly electric cars with as much miles per charge as they can muster.”
I’m with you there bro. If they can just plop the Volt battery and engine on the “Spark” you’ll have a little commuter hooptie with a SWAG min range of 60mpc and a quick 0-60 for the small lightweight of the Spark. Now that’ll cause a spark huh?
I think Ford will beat most mfgrs to the BEV market with their Blue Oval Focus BEV that Lyle got to drive. They went down the road of “Retrofitting” an existing chassis, not from a ground up build. It was cheaper than engineering and “Time to prototype” was about less than a year. That’s the version Lyle drove, I think it was the production intent also. It looks like their “Time To Market” is for a 2011 rollout,
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (3:59 pm)Oh yeah……
SWAG = [S]cientific [W]ild [A]ss [G]uess
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (4:01 pm)#56 HyperMiler
“Cost. Chinese underbodies are always much cheaper than GM’s.’
———————
i am not completely disagreeing with you on this subject, but I for one will not buy a Chinese automobile. I don’t have any choice on a wide range of products, but I suspect I will not see the day when all autos are made in China. As long as one is made somewhere else, I intend to not buy Chinese. If I have a choice on any product today, I buy from a non-Chinese manufacturer. If it says “Made in China” I start looking for alternatives. That’s all I am saying.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (4:08 pm)Let me expand on my preference for non-Chinese products. I know I said that was all I was going to say on the subject, but sometimes you have to clarify a statement. I am not anti-Chinese. I feel the same way about the Chinese as I do about mid-east oil. We are buying products from Chinese manufacturers who are controlled by a government that would like to see American under its heal. I do not want to see any one buying Chinese if there is a second choice. Damn right, I’ll pay a higher price for the opportunity to buy from a non-Chinese source. If you think about China the same way we think about importing petroleum products you have to agree with me or be not very consistent with your policies.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (4:16 pm)CaptJackSparrow:
I believe you are correct in your Ford assessment. I would love to see GM do the same with an existing model, but I don’t think their heads are on straight right now. They have “future” car madness and can only think in those terms. There is no reason why an existing model could not be converted without the worry of aerodynamics since we are not asking for a hyper mileage car. The “Spark” concept is designed well enough aerodynamically to achieve high miles per charge, I would think. If THINK can produce a vehicle that gets good MPC with the shape of their vehicle, just think what the “Spark” should do. But, GM has their attention somewhere else and I don’t see them seeing the bull that gores them.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (4:41 pm)#58 GM Volt Fan Says
> I wouldn’t be surprised if A123 got the contract for battery cells for the Converj or “new and improved” battery cells for future Volts in 2013+.
LG’s contract is exclusive and lasts through 2015.
#61 N Riley Says:
You may not have a choice. All the US-based electric upstarts are looking at Chinese automakers to supply them on OEM bases. Tesla’s “White Star” mass-market sedan is a modified Chinese car with Chinese battery pack.
#63 N Riley Says:
Spark you speak of isn’t really a GM model; it’s a Daewoo model. Daewoo has its own engineering priorities(Spark’s engineering was primarily governed by Korean regulations, hence its narrow stance) and may not find GM’s all-electric version request(It’s called Internal OEM) economically feasible. Afterall, Spark was designed to be a cheap econobox serving developing worlds where low cost is of utmost importance.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (4:43 pm)I can’t imagine that the Volt T pack can fit in a Spark and still have the car pass collision tests. The Cruze/Volt genset engine would likely be overkill for such a small car. And this ignores the weight implications …
That’s not to say that there won’t be an EREV Spark (or something like it), just not until GM feels comfortable enough to modularize the Volt batteries into sub-units of the “T,” probably at around the same time as the power density improves. Say, 2013 at the earliest?
I have the distinct impression that GM has found a “sweet spot” it intends to stick with; mid-size 40 mile AER automobiles: perhaps at the risk of abandoning of a more popular segment (and perhaps not).
Eventually, I suspect that several companies will have full-ranges of electric vehicle types and sizes, but the smart ones will start by concentrating on just one paradigm.
Interesting times ahead …
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (5:01 pm)N Riley #61 #62
I am with you. So there’s at least two of us.
Seems there’s not many of us left these days.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (5:08 pm)N RILEY 61 and 62
I agree with you regarding China. Think about this, they are drastically increasing the size and ability of their military and we are paying for it!
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (5:11 pm)#65 Jackson
When I suggested using the “Spark” concept as GM’s entry into the small electric vehicle market, I was not suggesting using it as an E-REV type vehicle but as a BEV. I am not suggesting using the T-shaped battery in the Volt as the electric Spark’s battery. Surely GM can design a battery for an ALL ELECTRIC VEHICLE that is not T-shaped. If not, then to the dust heap of history goes GM. But, not to worry, of course they can design a different shaped battery. I am just suggesting GM get into the BEV market with something that gets good MPC.
As far as LG Chem having an exclusive contract lasting through 2015, I suspect that is only for the Volt. If GM brings out the Cadillac Converj, I don’t think LG Chem will have any exclusive contract and will have to “win” the contract just like any other battery manufacturer. They would have the “inside track”, of course. The same would go for an all electric car or truck (BEV) GM might decide to make.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (5:11 pm)41
HyperMiler Says:
All the hybrid/PHEV systems are specific to one vender’s battery type. You just can’t swap batteries.
———————-
My point was to create a standard where multiple companies could build to. Let them compete on price vs. GM latching on to one of them, and having to warranty it. A very simplistic analogy; my watch requires a special battery, but more than 1 company makes that battery.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (5:21 pm)#66 Redeye and #67 Old Man
Some of us are naturally willing to sell our bodies and souls to save a few pennies at the local WalMart. I am not. I stand on principle where there is a place to stand. Those places to stand are being eroded daily by our government and industries. I know we all want superior products at the lowest possible price, but that is exactly what leads to our losing American manufacturing jobs and industries going overseas for everything from pickles to pickaxes. I don’t agree with those that say we must buy from China, India or other foreign suppliers for everything we want in this world. At the very least we can chose to buy from suppliers that are somewhat friendly with us.
And, yes, we are funding China’s military. The Chinese military owns many of China’s factories. Sure China is becoming more capitalistic, but only in markets where they need to do so to compete.
I just don’t believe everyone is going to jump on board with China supplying all the electric cars for the world. Japan will make them, Korea will make them and maybe, just maybe the good Ole U. S. of A. will supply some also. As long as I have a choice I chose to not buy Chinese products. That’s just me. You other people do what you like.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (5:24 pm)The recent food products from China for humans and animals that contained industrial waste chemicals should tell us what the Chinese think of the American people. Our market is just a good place to get rid of some chemicals they don’t want to handle. What happens if they become a major supplier of food products to us?
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (5:27 pm)#33 Dave G
Since you asked, GM is the clear leader when it comes to biofuels, specifically ethanol. We have more than 3.5 million flex-fuel vehicles on the road and have committed to half our fleet being flex-fuel capable by 2012, including the Volt which will be flex-fuel at launch. We have also invested in two of the more promising cellulosic ethanol start-ups, Coskata and Mascoma. And there are many who agree with you a combination of E-REV with flex-fuel, especially if the flex-fuel is cellulosic ethanol, is an unbeatable combo. Btw, there are more than 7 million flex-fuel vehicles on the road across all manufacturers. And to be clear, no one is saying ethanol is THE solution, but it’s definitely part of the solution.
#50 N Riley and others:
Honestly, there are a whole host of reasons against those kind of scenarios, not the least of which are vehicle safety and complexity of the integration. Vehicles are not a plug-and-play type of product, and when you’re talking about the heart and soul of the vehicle, i.e., the battery, you have to have rigorous testing in place to ensure the vehicle will be up to snuff. For example, we’ve tested the Volt battery packs 24-7 in a controlled environment for more than a year, while also testing the packs in cars on the road. This testing will continue right up until start of production.
And as far as selling off the Voltec system with its chassis for other manufacturers to finish off the product, it’s probably not in our best interest. That’s not to say as future generations of the system evolve it wouldn’t happen, but we have a clear competitive advantage with the system and need to protect it for the long term.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (5:34 pm)@N Riley & @65 Jackson
“Surely GM can design a battery for an ALL ELECTRIC VEHICLE that is not T-shaped.”
I recommend an ” I ” shape. OK the top of the I doesn’t show up but I think you get the jist. Battery along both axles and through the center of the car. This should give at least 10 more mpc and the smaller vehicle and weight should give it another 10mpc. This will work for me.
I think GM can do it but if History reveals itself, it will be deemed “Marginally Profitable” and they won’t even take a second look at it.
That’s why they are working so hard on the Converj or whatever it was called. They said they can sell it for more at a higher profit margin.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (5:39 pm)#72 Phil Colley with GM
And I do not see GM allowing others to make batteries beyond just cells for them. I don’t think they will ever allow someone to make a “battery pack” that is plug & play with the Volt or other GM vehicle. GM would have to give out too much info on pack controls in hardware and software. I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
Thanks for you input today. We are looking forward to more from you. We also know that you can only say so much with our getting into trouble (unless you have been given the green light by GM management to speak “on their behalf”). I assume you are just a typical GM employee who has something to say. We welcome your input.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (5:42 pm)I really don’t want to leave the impression that I am anti-Chinese. I am not. I am opposed to what the Chinese military and government is doing and could possibly do in the future. I would be just as opposed if it were another country that we are paying for the “rope to hang ourselves”. As always – IMO.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (5:48 pm)The Volt won’t work without a fairly large battery.
__________________________________
That’s incorrect. There are several prototypes demonstrating it, most notably the FCHV. Much smaller battery-capacity than “40 miles” is quite realistic.
Reduced size would make Volt competitive, but we know how certain people have campaigned heavily in support of the “40 mile” marketing and are now stuck with it.
Of course, little proof is needed anyway. Operation in Volt’s depleted-mode confirms that.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (5:53 pm)Did anyone notice the AP story on the Yahoo page this afternoon about additional GM layoffs and temporary plant shut downs?
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (7:00 pm)#75 N. Riley says “I really don’t want to leave the impression that I am anti-Chinese”
My impressions from having lived there is that I think you can relax about the Chinese government having some sort of imperial ambitions. China is a very big place and it thinks of itself as being the center of the universe. The desire to militarily expand simply isn’t there. Of course it wants to protect its borders, and there is definitely nationalism, but it’s hardly like WWII Japan.
That does not mean, however, that they don’t want to best us in trade. That’s a completely different issue.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (7:18 pm)With reference to getting a Volt without a battery it would not get the miles per gallon because you need it for capturing the energy from regenerative breaking. You could probably get by with a battery a quarter of the size of the present one, even smaller if the cells were A123 as they take a charge faster without overheating due to their low resistance.
As far as the Chinese military owning the manufacturing, maybe for tanks, but not for a lot of stuff, I know two people who buy products manufactured in China for resale in the US. Both will tell you the quality varies from crap to excellent. It is a matter of the design, and testing built into the contract. You can’t test quality into a product if the design is inadequate to start with, but you can inspect the product to insure the design requirements are adhered to and enforce it.
With respect to the baby formula contaminated with plastic, many Chinese children were sickened, some died, and two, maybe three people will be executed because of their actions. I do not think that is any sort of America hating. I believe it was more like unregulated capitalism. I could only wish we would execute a few crooks in wall street that have wiped out peoples retirement, leading to many early deaths due to inadequate health care but it won’t happen.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (7:41 pm)Chevy Volt = Opel Ampera
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/01/26/geneva-preview-google-translate-says-chevy-volt-opel-ampera/
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (7:55 pm)With the modularizing of the battery, GM ought to be able to make an “I,” a box, an “H” or whatever. For now, it’s just the “T,” and I think all we’ll see for awhile is the range of vehicles from GM that can be deployed with it.
N. Riley,
Personally, I prefer the EREV concept, though I wouldn’t say “No” to a higher AER. Frankly, I’ll be surprized to see a small BEV from GM, with so many others around the world apparently poised to pounce on this particular concept. I see no reason why a smaller car wouldn’t go just as far as the Volt, but only using an “I” battery in the 10-ish Mwh range, and 3-cylinder genset.
My point is that, at first, we’re unlikely to see different kinds of electric vehicles from the same manufacturer. Someone will get an early “winner,” everyone will move to copy it, and only then will we start to see more complete lines, once real money is being made.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (7:55 pm)The Volt won’t work without a fairly large battery.
__________________________________
“Charge-Depleted” mode clearly demonstrates that with battery-capacity down to 30%, the Volt design will still deliver impressive efficiency. You still get acceleration & regeneration benefits from the electric-motor. Only the improvement from plugging in is held back. In other words, it becomes a viable SERIES hybrids without a plug.
Reducing the size of the battery-pack is a topic that is clearly being evaded under the disguise of a false claim.
There is nothing that doesn’t work.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (8:12 pm)“”"I’m hopeful that the cellulosic ethanol catches on, though — it just sounds like such a Good Idea!”"”
The problem with cellulosic ethanol is not one of catching on. The problem is no one has developed a process for making ethanol out of cellulose on a large scale. Such a process may be possible, or it may not. No one knows.
Funding for trying to find a process is very good public policy. But using the “promise” of cheap cellulosic ethanol as an excuse to fail to support nuclear power and electric cars is very bad policy.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (8:14 pm)#72 Phil Colley with GM Says: “We have more than 3.5 million flex-fuel vehicles on the road and have committed to half our fleet being flex-fuel capable by 2012″
————————————————————————————–
Obama has promised a federal mandate that will require all new cars sold in the U.S. be FlexFuel by the end of his first term in office:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf
(top of page 5)
Will GM be ready for this?
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (8:24 pm)One of the neat things about being in business is that you can get to the point where you know a technical field so well, that, you can let time work for you. You can let any opposition go to work for you (to efficiently control unwanted excessive-growth before you have all your “ducks in a row” to thoroughly control your position of leadership in any feild). The impressive thing about GM, is that GM does this exceedingly well. You can let one battery chemistry (and supplier) be in an initial position to “prove their salt” in durability, delivery, cost, business long-term “follow-throughs” (as I call them), where what you promised a year or two ago, you have perfectly delivered, (which becomes your reputation).
It’s really a lot of fun to see which companies do what in business, and to finally realize that they are either highly dedicated to their customers needs, or, that they are highly dedicated to shareholder needs as their highest priority. I think A123 is dedicated to the customer and the environment firstly. (Not to say LG is not.)
But it really seems to me that you need not be the “first” to be the “best”.
America demands jobs here in America. We will certainly keep that in mind if there comes available the choice in battery pack suppliers from GM (USA-Made, for example) at whatever differential cost as a commitment to helping take care of our own long lists of unemployed, if that choice means more jobs in North America, it seems to me.
Understandably at first, there must be an extremely vast concert of production schedules which essentially number in the tens-of-thousands of direct and spin-off contracts to suppliers and the suppliers to those suppliers (and on, and on).
But it is really a lot of fun to watch these pros.
That means GM’s efficient acceleration of these projects.
The open sharing of milestones and benchmarks is really entertaining as well as a profound set of business lessons in patience, dedication, relentless drive, and follow-through for all of us if we are able to view it all in these terms.
America is back on the track to being the very best in technology, and it is General Motors Corp. which is getting us all there and re-affirming our technical heritages.
Dan Petit Austin TX
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (8:25 pm)#72 Phil Colley with GM Says: “Btw, there are more than 7 million flex-fuel vehicles on the road across all manufacturers.”
————————————————————————————–
Wow, that’s more than I expected. But I believe there are about 40 million passenger vehicles in the U.S., so 7 million flex-fuel vehicles is still only 18%. Classic 80/20 marketing says you don’t really worry about anything under 20%. So if I were a gas-station owner, I probably wouldn’t offer E85. Once we get to 30% or 40%, I think things will start happening.
Anyway, I’m really glad GM is leading on bio-fuels and EREVs. It’s nice to see. Thanks again for your reply!
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (8:43 pm)#82 john1701a Says: “Charge-Depleted” mode clearly demonstrates that with battery-capacity down to 30%, the Volt design will still deliver impressive efficiency.
————————————————————————————–
30% of 16kwh is 4.8kwh. Thats about what you need in the battery when the engine is running. You need that to get up a steep mountain slope and still not drain down near zero. And 4.8kwh can’t be 100% charge, or the battery will wear out fast. You need a little buffer on top of that. So for the Volt to work without plugging in, you would probably need a battery around 6 to 7 kwh. That’s a fairly big battery, which was was my original point.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (10:11 pm)So for the Volt to work without plugging in, you would probably need a battery around 6 to 7 kwh. That’s a fairly big battery, which was was my original point.
____________________________________
In addition, the size of the battery must be significant enough to supply the peak horsepower. Bigger batteries not only have more energy storage (kWH) but also more instantaneous power (kW). So a little battery with a 5 or 10 mile range won’t cut it.
____________________________________
Neither of your posts make sense. They seem to contradict each other too. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding or incorrect assumption based on lifetime overhead.
SERIES hybrids can’t be that much less efficient than FULL hybrids. Requiring a significant amount more battery would be a serious shortcoming. That’s hard to believe.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (11:04 pm)Here’s a rough stack up that allows full electrics to be compared to all types of hybrid configurations, or all gassers for that matter.
Assumptions:
1 gallon retail gasoline = 33 kWh of energy, supported by several sources, and reasonable for current retail gas, which has 10% ethanol (less energy), NOT valid for diesel, which has more energy.
Manufacturers claims taken at face value except where noted:
The metric is number of kilowatt hours per 100 miles (# kWh / 100 miles). The smaller the number, the more efficient the vehicle. To directly compare vehicle efficiencies, divide the larger number by the smaller number – that’s how much more efficient the smaller number vehicle is compared to the larger number vehicle:
Camry hybrid or Ford Escape hybrid
mixed mode 98 kWh / 100 miles
Prius (2004 to current version)
gas only 98 kWh / 100 miles
mixed mode 75 kWh / 100 miles
all electric mode 52 kWh / 100 miles
Chevy Volt (dubious number on weight issues – see Tesla)
33 kWh / 100 miles
2009 Tesla Roadster (NOT the Sport version)
28 kWh / 100 miles
2008 Zero X Motorcycle (kitted, average real world energy use over 7,000 mile)
2 kWh / 100 miles
An example: The 2008 Zero X motorcycle is 14 times more efficient than the 2009 Tesla Roadster (28 / 2 = 14).
My numbers are based completely on the common gas energy assumption, on manufacturers claims and on manufacturer power pack specifications and likely power pack management regime to maximize total power pack life.
Can anyone improve on this, until the EPA gets off their fat assess and does it properly?
So far, it looks like series hybrids are WAY more efficient than parallel hybrid – why do you think diesel trains are set up that way. Electric drive wins again.e
Thanks.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (11:21 pm)Series hybrids can be less efficient than Prius type hybrids, mostly at hwy speeds where the engine is directly driving the wheels with little help from the motors.. motors have to deal with many losses.
Obviously this is only true in charge maintenance mode.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
#88
john1701a Says:
January 26th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
SERIES hybrids can’t be that much less efficient than FULL hybrids. Requiring a significant amount more battery would be a serious shortcoming. That’s hard to believe.
(Quote)
Jan 26th, 2009 (11:25 pm)Diesel trains are also setup that way to simplify the transmission (no transmission at all), high torque transmissions are delicate, same thing is also done with other large vehicles. Now batteries are also being fitted to trains so it is changing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
#89 Zero X Owner Says:
January 26th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
So far, it looks like series hybrids are WAY more efficient than parallel hybrid – why do you think diesel trains are set up that way. Electric drive wins again.e
(Quote)
Jan 27th, 2009 (12:35 am)#89 Zero X Owner Says: “Assumptions:
1 gallon retail gasoline = 33 kWh of energy, supported by several sources…”
————————————————————————————–
Does this take into account the efficiency of a typical gasoline engine? IIRC, a gas engine is less than 20% efficient, while an electric drivetrain (battery, motor controller, and motor) is over 80% efficient.
(Quote)
Jan 27th, 2009 (1:23 am)#88 john1701a,
If you wanted to get rid of the plug on the Volt, you would need a battery with 6-7kwh of energy storage, and yes, it might have to be a battery chemistry that is more optimized for power density than the current Volt battery chemistry in order to supply peak power. Battery cells that are optimized for power density generally store less energy, so the pack’s physical size and weight might be a little more than a 6-7kwh pack made from Volt cells.
The underlying point is this: If you want a non-plug-in car, a full hybrid is a much better solution.
It doesn’t make sense to shrink the Volt’s battery and remove the plug. This would be more expensive than a full hybrid, and offer no real benefit. The benefit of an EREV (aka series hybrid) only comes into play with a fairly large battery, and the electric range that comes with it.
Another way to look at it is this: If you want a fairly large battery for electric range, then you have enough power to run the wheels from the electric motor and batteries alone, which means you can disconnect the engine from the wheels and remove the transmission.
(Quote)
Jan 27th, 2009 (1:59 am)#83 Tom Harwick Says: “… using the “promise” of cheap cellulosic ethanol as an excuse to fail to support nuclear power and electric cars is very bad policy.”
————————————————————————————-
I don’t think it’s an either-or scenario. In other words, we’ll need nuclear power, electric cars, cellulosic ethanol, and other things to become energy independent.
Liquid fuels have dramatically higher energy density than any battery (including EEStor), so long distance travel by air, land, and sea will continue with liquid fuels for the foreseeable future. We need bio-fuels to cover this.
For passenger vehicles, the vast majority of miles will be converted to electric, and nuclear power will be a key player here. But even on the day when BEVs get 250 miles of range, cost $25K, and charge in 10 minutes, people still won’t buy many of them until filling stations everywhere offer fast charging. Converting all of the filling stations will cost trillions of dollars, and will probably take 25-50 years to completely make it’s way into rural areas. So although the lion’s share of car miles may be converted to electric, people will still be using liquid fuels for a long, long time – probably the rest of our lifetime. This is why we need cellulosic ethanol.
So far, nobody has ramped up cellulosic ethanol because the demand for ethanol is currently low, and corn ethanol is enough to supply it. When 30-40% of the cars on the road are FlexFuel, most gas station owners in the country will start offering E85. Converting a gas pump to E85 is trivial. At that point, demand for E85 will ramp up very quickly. This will trigger serious investments in cellulosic ethanol, and the supply will follow.
(Quote)
Jan 27th, 2009 (8:58 am)If you wanted to get rid of the plug on the Volt…
__________________________________
I certainly don’t want that. Like many others, I see the need to offer a choice of size.
Reducing battery capacity would make Volt much more affordable.
As for needing 6-7kwh of energy storage, that simply doesn’t make any sense. All along there’s been talk of how the Volt engine is so big it is almost overkill. Now you come along and claim it produces so little electricity that it must depend on a battery-pack with 4 times the capacity of the one in Prius.
The Volt engine should be able to sustain charge. True, it efficiency may drop to an undesirable level during times of extreme demand. But requiring so much excess is hard to believe.
(Quote)
Jan 27th, 2009 (9:46 am)#95 john1701a Says: “All along there’s been talk of how the Volt engine is so big it is almost overkill.”
————————————————————————————–
The Volt uses a 1.4L Atkinson cycle engine. The Aktinson camshaft is tuned for high fuel efficiency. The downside of this engine tuning is low maximum power output, only around 70hp. Since this is way too low for acceleration and uphill driving, the Volt requires additional electrical power from the battery to achieve reasonable performance when the engine is running.
A while back, there was a “Pike’s Peak” article here on gm-volt.com:
http://gm-volt.com/2008/09/02/the-pikes-peak-question-chevy-volt-and-the-infinite-hill/
This outlined what would happen with the Volt on mountain passes, and why having 30% of a 16kwh battery in reserve is a good thing for such situations. This formed the basis of my estimate of 6-7kwh battery size for a non-plug-in Volt. As always, we can only form estimates about other options from the information we get from GM.
There were also a couple of articles on gm-volt.com where GM floated the idea of a 20-mile Volt at reduced cost. Here’s one of them:
http://gm-volt.com/2008/06/16/possible-future-chevy-volt-options-version-one-will-have-40-miles-ev-range/
But then GM later seemed to back away from that by saying 40 miles was the right size. So apparently, GM looked at a lower range and found out it wouldn’t save that much money.
Also, don’t be surprised if the actual price of the Volt comes in lower than people think. At the time congress was debating the amount of the plug-in tax credit, GM said they would need 2 batteries over the lifetime of each Volt, and that would drive the price up to $40K. Then after they passed the $7500 tax credit, Lutz said battery testing now shows that only one battery is required. I’m betting GM will surprise everyone with a price well under $30K after tax credits.
But as always, predicting the future is imperfect. The information we have now can change at any time.
(Quote)
Jan 27th, 2009 (11:26 am)The Aktinson camshaft is tuned for high fuel efficiency. The downside of this engine tuning is low maximum power output, only around 70hp. Since this is way too low for acceleration and uphill driving…
______________________________
That’s the same as the Classic Prius… which has climbed Pike’s Peak and Mount Washington just fine with a significantly smaller battery-pack.
(Quote)
Jan 27th, 2009 (2:25 pm)It would be great if A123 was given the option to second-source the battery.
– Pete
(Quote)
Jan 27th, 2009 (6:26 pm)I am waiting for Duracell battery that I replace myself. I think they call it an E-cell battery. In the EU they want to drive your EV over a battery bay station that will swap out your battery automatically even faster than a gasoline fillup, not a bad idear if it works.
(Quote)
Jan 29th, 2009 (2:54 am)They just can’t be honest and use the words
LIFE-CYCLE COST
The plain fact is that Lithium is much more expensive than NiMH or lead-acid from a life-cycle cost perspective; and A123 was one of the more expensive LCC items.
No one can explain why GM fails to use NiMH, which is the lowest cost and longest-lived battery, the only standard and proven EV battery that lasts longer than the life of the car.
Lutz just smiles and babbles when NiMH is mentioned; that was the superior battery that GM tried to suppress in 1996, and sold control of to Chevron in 2000. Then Chevron sued Toyota, and now it can only be used for hybrids that can’t plug-in. But it’s best for full EVs, like the EV1, HondaEV and Toyota RAV4-EV; make no mistake, NiMH is still running fine after 6 or 7 years in our all-electric Toyota RAV4-EV.
(Quote)
Jan 29th, 2009 (5:48 pm)@ Dave G
Yes, it’s implicity included in the calculation, which is final output (miles) for original input (kWh energy), for direct comparisons of net output/input efficiencies.
What I’m measuring is how much energy, measured in kWh, it takes to go a mile for different vehicles. What’s in between for drive train efficiency is already reflected in the calculation results – it’s original amount of fuel energy in, translated to kWh, for the final number of miles traveld out. That includes all the mess in the middle. I think that the reasonableness of my relative results (example – look at my results for the Prius) and the fact that no-one in this thread reported anything different using that metric says that I’m doing it right (I’m just following US EPA and DOE published official methods for efficiency metrics, which they bizzarely fail to report the results on on their own site for all vehicles). If you have different numbers to report in the metric of kWh / 100 miles, please do so.
(Quote)
Jan 30th, 2009 (11:51 am)I will not buy this American car with a Korean battery.
This is not just a simple question who delivered a few battery packs for testing. This is a much bigger economic issue. We need jobs here, we need to invest in our innovation, we need our tax dollars going to American suppliers.
(Quote)
Jul 2nd, 2009 (12:58 am)I do not understand why people think electric cars are cleaner.
INFACT electric cars are more pollutant than any other car.
New cars have catalytic converters on them so fact is exhaust is cleaner than what goes in. “2005 & newer”
Electric power is from coal burning plants, (no filter) Nuclear power plants 250 degree plus water dumping in the ocean millions of gallons per second. Dumb asses.
I am an engineer working in South Korea Now, and have a public company. That has developed the only clean electricity machine in the world.
The ocean his being heated by Nuc plants and Earth rotation changes. NASA test fuels pushing millions of pounds of thrust against the earth in the WRONG manner dumb asses.
People simply don’t Think.
Am I the only one that can see?
(Quote)
Jul 2nd, 2009 (1:36 am)Further more I am a big GM fan,
Did you know they developed the nickel hydride battery then sold patent rights to chevron that now can tell companies like Mercedes Benz NO NO… and are making billions on all the batteries around the world.
People simply don’t think.
Ted
(Quote)