Comments on: GM’s Advanced Battery Director on Why LG Chem Beat A123 for the Chevy Volt Contract http://gm-volt.com/2009/01/26/gms-advanced-battery-director-on-why-lg-chem-beat-a123-for-the-chevy-volt-contract/ Real-time news, information, and discussion about the Chevrolet Volt. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:41:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Ted Leverette http://gm-volt.com/2009/01/26/gms-advanced-battery-director-on-why-lg-chem-beat-a123-for-the-chevy-volt-contract/#comment-123185 Ted Leverette Thu, 02 Jul 2009 06:36:12 +0000 http://gm-volt.com/?p=1491#comment-123185 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 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

]]> By: Ted Leverette http://gm-volt.com/2009/01/26/gms-advanced-battery-director-on-why-lg-chem-beat-a123-for-the-chevy-volt-contract/#comment-123181 Ted Leverette Thu, 02 Jul 2009 05:58:13 +0000 http://gm-volt.com/?p=1491#comment-123181 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? 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?

]]> By: Dave http://gm-volt.com/2009/01/26/gms-advanced-battery-director-on-why-lg-chem-beat-a123-for-the-chevy-volt-contract/#comment-92908 Dave Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:51:57 +0000 http://gm-volt.com/?p=1491#comment-92908 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. 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.

]]> By: Zero X Owner http://gm-volt.com/2009/01/26/gms-advanced-battery-director-on-why-lg-chem-beat-a123-for-the-chevy-volt-contract/#comment-92793 Zero X Owner Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:48:31 +0000 http://gm-volt.com/?p=1491#comment-92793 @ 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. @ 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.

]]> By: Doug Korthof http://gm-volt.com/2009/01/26/gms-advanced-battery-director-on-why-lg-chem-beat-a123-for-the-chevy-volt-contract/#comment-92701 Doug Korthof Thu, 29 Jan 2009 07:54:37 +0000 http://gm-volt.com/?p=1491#comment-92701 They just can't be honest and use the words <b><i>LIFE-CYCLE COST</I></b> 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. 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.

]]>