BusinessWeek has published an article entitled “Automakers Seek Profit in Electric-Car Batteries.” The report discusses how lithium-ion batteries for automotive use are likely to become an important source of revenue for some automakers, beyond just selling cars.
It is pointed out that Toyota is one of the only automakers that produces its own batteries. This gives them a competitive edge when future electric vehicles begin selling in large volumes. If EV battery demand outstrips supply, they could then keep those batteries for their own cars shutting out competitors, or sell them to other OEMs at significant profit. It was also noted that Nissan is in a joint venture with NEC that has plans to produce enough batteries to power 200,000 electric cars within the next few years.
The fact that Telsa will be supplying lithium batteries to Daimler is also mentioned. Those cells will be going into a test fleet of 1000 Smart EVs that will roll out onto US roads in 2010. Daimler itself also owns 90% of a new joint venture with Evonik Industries to build lithium ion cells not only for its own vehicles but for other manufacturers.
Finally it was noted that “GM squandered its first mover advantage.” It turns out, as many here know, that GM began a sideline nickel-metal hydride battery business 15 years ago. Those batteries were used in the original GM electric car, the EV-1. The company, called GM Ovonic, was a joint venture with Michigan-based Energy Conversion Devices (ENER). GM wound up selling their stake to Texaco (later bought by Chevron). Two years after that Toyota started their battery joint venture with Panasonic.
Now GM is simply buying cells from LG and others, and although entering the pack assembly business, has either decided against or is unable to partner in cell production. Is this yet another missed opportunity?
Time will tell.
Source (BusinessWeek)
This entry was posted on Thursday, January 29th, 2009 at 6:47 am and is filed under Battery, Financial. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Jan 29th, 2009 (6:55 am)I wouldn’t say that, the batteries are a completely different business model.. why muddy the waters? Heck they can’t make cars and make a profit right now. I would say get that right first.
Jan 29th, 2009 (7:07 am)Agreed. Get the E-REV cars on the road first. That is the highest priority. Once the perception of “slow, low range” electrics is gone, and the cars are being produced in significant quantities, then go into the battery business….
Jan 29th, 2009 (7:11 am)For all of those against some Govt. support to our automakers, take note that Japan (The Govt, not the automakers) has outspent the US Govt in battery development funds by a large margin. A recent budget I saw showed 20 Million in US funds vs 220 Million in Japanese Govt funds for battery development and research.
It is no wonder that Toyota makes their own batteries. The Japanese industry has been supported by an active Govt who sees the benefits of Japanese industry dominating the world. (ie: the rest of the world sending their money to Japan)
We are in an ecomomic war and we are losing.
Jan 29th, 2009 (7:13 am)Yes, GM missed a great opportunity. GM took the corporate eye off the ball in its enthusiasm for Hummer etc. GM is nonetheless taking a big step back into the business by doing its own pack assembly. This step may require as much or more expertise (value added) than cell manufacture..
Jan 29th, 2009 (7:16 am)Ditto to Nos. 1 and 2. Should GM ever get healthy and the market proves that Li-ion batteries are the long-term solution, it could go out and aquire EnerDel or some other LI-ion battery producer.
But if, for the sake of argument, something like EEstor should prove to actually work, (no catcalls, please, it’s just an example) GM will not have millions tied up in a manufacturing plant for obsolete technology.
Outsourcing gives them the flexibility to adapt as EV technology matures.
Jan 29th, 2009 (7:20 am)#3 nuclearboy said “The Japanese industry has been supported by an active Govt who sees the benefits of Japanese industry dominating the world. (ie: the rest of the world sending their money to Japan)”
—————————————————————
Japan has a different history and culture. We in the USA cannot be Japan, just as Japan cannot be us. Indeed they are hard careful workers and tough competitors. Generally Japanese industry has been less innovative than US industry, though they have been outstanding at making incremental improvements that led to a better overall product. It is too much of a reach though to say of Japanese industry that they are “dominating the world”, as from a Japanese perspective world competition often places them at a disadvantage.
Jan 29th, 2009 (7:27 am)Of course American corporations should be manufacturing Lithium batteries to power the future. You would think the stimulus package would include incentives to build Lithium battery production facilities as well as nuclear power plants to provide the energy they will store.
Jan 29th, 2009 (7:39 am)I don’t believe GM did wrong 15 years ago in getting out of the battery business.There were no large demands for electric car batteries back then. Today, it is a different story. GM will build a factory and will get the best machinery with the latest technology.I predict that the next Generation Volt will have the A123system cells and quite possibly, GM will buy A123system.
Jan 29th, 2009 (7:55 am)What happened in the past is over.
Today, if GM wants to get into the battery business, then so be it.
I would think they will decide either way when they are ready.
Make the Volt spot-on first. This is extremely important.
Jan 29th, 2009 (8:11 am)Building your own batteries is a chancy proposition that Businessweek obviously is quite unaware. They also failed to point out that those NiMH batteries that GM supposedly fumbled the ball on, have no future and sell for roughly 1/4th what they once did.
Who knows which battery technology will succeed. Toyota’s battery
technology will likely end up in the scrap heap, along with all the others. Businessweek is also quite confused about exactly what battery technology GM supposedly leads the pack with – they selected LG, which is hardly going to allow GM to produce their batteries, much less give them the technology. Here is a perfect example of how impossible it is to write a worthwhile article when the author is ignorant of his subject matter.
Jan 29th, 2009 (8:30 am)GM had a limited opportunity with NMH batteries and their Ovonic ownership. The patents are good and the players were few. That technology, however, was limited by iteself but there were some market opportunities they turned away from. The story is much different now. LI has many different chemistries and no one company has control of the technology. It is improving rapidly and with lower material cost has the opportunity to come down significantly in price.
GM is smart to enter the pack making part of the business this knowledge and value add with be there regardless of how battery cell chemistry advances. Toyota or Nissan could spend billions only to find their investment turn out to be worthless as something like the Silicon Nanowire tech (Stanford Univ) becomes commercially viable. Much like a computer manufacturer, GM should let others develop the cells (chips) and pick the best ones as they go along.
Jan 29th, 2009 (8:40 am)On to the favorite topic of some, financials:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123315761298524453.html?mod=djemalertNEWS
You may not be able to see this article in the WSJ about Ford’s fourth-quarter but the pertinant info is $5.88B loss, $13.4B cash, slower burn, elimante 1200 jobs at Ford Motor credit. I this sentence will be particularly enjoyable for those over ballasted on the right, “The Dearborn, Mich.-based auto maker will eliminate 1,200 jobs in its Ford Motor Credit unit and draw down $10.1 billion from its credit lines as it attempts to hold off from asking the federal government for money to ruin its operations.”
hint…nint (word for word quote)
Jan 29th, 2009 (8:48 am)GM’s current strategy sounds good to me. Battery cell technology has been, and will continue to advanced rapidly. To stay on top, better to buy cells from outside companies and integrate them. For GM to become the leader in battery chemistry development would be difficult given that they have not historically not been experts, and that many other industries also demand high performance batteries. This suggests the best research is going on elsewhere. You can’t just snap your fingers and make it happen internally.
The company that tries to bring this all internal will likely suffer a technological disadvantage compared to those who outsource the cell development.
Jan 29th, 2009 (8:51 am)I think GM’s approach is right on target. Let the various battery cell manufacturers duke it out in the market, and just pick the best one at any given time. GM will assemble the cells into packs, which makes them nimble enough to use any cell technology they want. Tesla seems to have the same model.
Given all the new research that’s going on, it’s probably a bad idea to place a bet on any one technology right now. Later, if a new technology becomes a clear winner, then it may make sense for GM to partner with them and produce the cells internally. For this reason, I’m sure GM has an advanced development team looking at all these new technologies. But for right now, the normal development will be done with whoever can makes cells the best.
Jan 29th, 2009 (8:55 am)#3 Nuclearboy
Japan (The Govt, not the automakers) has outspent the US Govt in battery development funds by a large margin
__________________________________________________________
Hmmmm. And yet GM chose between LG and A123, a South Korean and an American company. Meanwhile, the Japanese keep trying to push older technology batteries.
I’m not sure they’re getting their money’s worth out of all the gov’t spending (suprised?). Maybe it’s the Japanese who should be trying something different.
Jan 29th, 2009 (8:56 am)The world-wide space industry has produced and launched over 25,000 spacecraft, most of which contain large, long-life batteries. With few exceptions, spacecraft manufacturers procur their battery cells from outside competitive sources that specialize in cell-level chemistry, packaging, etc., while the spacecraft manufacturers themselves focus on battery (pack) level assembly and testing. Its been a highly effective business model for decades.
This same approach makes lots of sense in the automotive industry as well. As with spacecraft batteries, the cell suppliers benefit from the cost savings of producing large quantities for many different customers and the end users benefit from the competitive savings while retaining the proprietary design and flexibility of assembling their own battery packs.
IMO, GM is very wise to pursue this same well-proven business model.
Jan 29th, 2009 (9:00 am)There is no question GM is at a disadvantage here to Toyota (and Mitsu) because they are not in the manufacturing of lbatteries, but I don’t think they ‘missed’ the boat this time…it is more like they didn’t have enough money to board the board.
/such is life, we have to accept where we are now
==========================
Other random news: Ford reported Q4 results
Loss for Q$? 5.9 billion…street expected 3B
Cash burn? 5.5 billion
Revenue fell from 45.5B to 29.2…street expected 26B
AND, in a move we are all too familiar with, Ford said it is, “immediately drawing down $10.1 billion in available credit lines because of concerns about the instability of the capital markets and the uncertain economy”
…as GM’s history would indicate we know this to mean,’ we are in such bad shape we are expecting the banks/investors to snatch this away from under us…so we are going to max the tar out of it before they get a chance’
That leaves Ford with probably about 19 billion left in cash at the moment…and with a cash burn of close to 2 billion a month, they are probably internally thinking about ‘changing their tune on gov’t assistance’….but just looking for the best way to approach the back peddle. They could feasibly go 4-5 months more pretending they are ok (Ford’s magic minimum number is about 9 billion), but they risk losing their place at the ‘trough’
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Ford-loses-59B-in-4Q-says-apf-14192305.html
(There is a lot of optimistic stuff out of Ford’s mouth in that link as well…but it would make me feel dirty to repeat it…like on Ford’s proposed gov’t line of credit, they say, ‘we don’t plan on using it if we got it’ —sigh
/GM’s Q4 is in a few days
side note: Sweden rebuffed GM on its attempt for some of the 28-billion-kronor bailout pie
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jUJwaalz60hIfRTno4–nT2OdgUg
Jan 29th, 2009 (9:00 am)#3 Nuclearboy
For all of those against some Govt. support to our automakers, take note that Japan (The Govt, not the automakers) has outspent the US Govt in battery development funds by a large margin
__________________________________________
Hmmmm. And yet for the Volt, the competition was between a South Korean and American company. Maybe it’s the Japanese who should take note. Gov’ts have a poor record of picking technological winners. They back technologies that are political (jobs, biggest lobby, political ties, etc) Companies have an incentive to actually pick the best technology, or risk loosing out to a competitor.
Jan 29th, 2009 (9:09 am)#12 Koz:
Sorry Koz, didn’t see your post it, took me that long to write it, lol.
===================
Side note: Can we stop with the ‘Japanese have subsidized their car makers R&D now?” I mean the US gov’t has completely bailed out our automakers (and their finance wings), to the tune of over 70 billion and counting.
When did it become wrong for a gov’t to develop/incentivitize/subsidize more renewable and cleaner technologies. Is not one of government’s roles to help its people live a healthier, cleaner, more sustainable life?
It is not Japan’s fault they have been supporting battery tech, if anything it is our fault for not following their lead.
Jan 29th, 2009 (9:15 am)I don’t think you really want to open this can of worms, do ya? Most of this is documented in the movie, Who killed the Electric Car.
Texaco was bought by Chevron, not Exxon about a week after GM sold the rights to the sturdy and dependable and known NiMH battery. Chevron then created Cobasys who disallowed anyone from creating large format batteries that could be used in EV applications.
Chevron then sued Toyota preventing them from making the Panasonic EV-95 NiMH battery used in the Rav4EV. This RAV4 EV is a living testimony of the durability and functionality of NiMH batteries as they have been in use for nearly a decade and over 100,000 and still have great range.
The history of this epic failure by GM is convoluted and obfuscated at best. The end result is not. We cannot use NiMH batteries because they (Chevron, an oil company) own the patents and thus we are relegated to unknown, costly Li ion and have to wait YEARS for a car because of all the testing…bogus.
Bogus.
Bogus.
BTW – COBaSys – Chevron Ovonics Battery Systems
Jan 29th, 2009 (9:15 am)Seems like the US oil companies would be spending all of their time/money developing Li-ion batteries. They would hate to lose their stranglehold on the American consumer.
Jan 29th, 2009 (9:27 am)#20 k-dawg says “Seems like the US oil companies would be spending all of their time/money developing Li-ion batteries. They would hate to lose their stranglehold on the American consumer”
——————————————————-
I agree with these views, but not with the implied sub-text that we all should be mad at the oil companies. I appreciate their bringing me a commodity that I need at a very reasonable price, considering all the steps required from the well to the pump.
It is true that I certainly hope not to continue to purchase petroleum fuel, but that is because of the foreign policy and economic implications, not because I am hostile to the oil companies. They try to compete in a world-wide market that now is mostly owned and run by various governments.
Jan 29th, 2009 (9:29 am)In the long term (if GM survives that long) I think the GM plan is the right one. Advanced battery technology is still in its infancy, and Li-ion could be replaced by a new chemistry or improved Li-ion approach within a couple of years. When that happens, GM still retains the crucial pack assembly, integration, and control function, while simply switching vendors to get the new style cell. Case in point is A123 vs LG. Once the A123 technology develops over the next year or two, GM could quickly switch to them without eating any sunken factory costs. It sounds like the A123 technology may be superior, just not as well established or tested. Electric / Serial Hybrid cars won’t start taking off for another 3-4 years, which is a lifetime in terms of battery technology development.
Jan 29th, 2009 (9:32 am)If GM were to produce its own batteries, it would lock them into a particular technology. They should have the ability, every two or three years, to sign new contracts with whatever firm is producing the latest and greatest batteries. Toyota is behind in the li-ion battery race precisely because they’re locked into a particular chemistry because of their joint venture with Panasonic. GM will profit more in the end if it can sell cars with the latest batteries, not by selling the batteries themselves.
Jan 29th, 2009 (9:38 am)If EV battery demand outstrips supply, I’ll bet GM could figure out how to manufacture cells.
Jan 29th, 2009 (9:39 am)flexibility to move to the latest battery breakthrough quickly will be huge in the years to come.
Jan 29th, 2009 (9:44 am)#18 Statik says “Can we stop with the ‘Japanese have subsidized their car makers R&D now?”
Good point and good substantiating points. The only issue I have, and it’s with all the Asian countries, is that they do manipulate their currencies. Since you like numbers, check out how much Japan exports to and imports from China as compared to the US, especially after China joined the WTO. What you’ll see can only really explained by currency manipulation. The Obama administration apparently has the you know whats to take on the Chinese on this issue, but the issue is not limited to the Chinese by any stretch of the imagination.
Thanks for the morning Ford update. I was wondering what you thought of the run rate. I didn’t see any numbers on that. I would BTW not be so pessimistic. The last quarter of 2008 had to be the worst meltdown we’ve seen in our lives, though if you were around the 1980-1982 downturn job losses were worse in percentage terms, albeit without the financial meltdown. The first quarter of 2009 doesn’t seem like it will be as bad, and the Fed actions along with the bailout is slowly unfreezing credit.
Then again maybe we’re looking at a black swan.
Jan 29th, 2009 (9:45 am)As many others have stated here the Business Week article shows that the author doesn’t understand that batteries are a rapidly developing technology. Because of this there is much uncertainty as to which will be the best anodes, chemistry to use, separators etc. Also, we don’t even know if in the long run batteries will be the dominant technology due to the development of ultra-capacitors and the potential for lithium shortages. GM’s current strategy of capturing profit along the supply chain by building the packs and being flexible on what type of cells it uses seems to be the most appropriate strategy due to the high degree of uncertainty. The author clearly does not know his or her theories on disruptive technologies in business nor does s/he know the history of the car business from academic business perspective. Great uncertainty equals great risk. We have not really seen this level of uncertainty in the technologies employed in the automobile since the turn of the last century. I would argue GM is doing exactly what it should be doing, mitigating risk and trying to maximize profit while reducing exposure to a high level of uncertainty/risk.
Jan 29th, 2009 (9:49 am)I agree with those saying now is not the time for GM to get into the battery cell manufacturing business. Also agree that GM is smart to hold back now and see what happens with EEStor or other technology. The last thing they need is to have billions tied up in a battery facility if new technology would wipe out that industry. So, lets take a wait and see attitude for now.
Jan 29th, 2009 (9:52 am)In the medium term, it’s a lost opportunity. In the long-term, the batteries will become just another commidity — prices will drop, margins will compress, and they would ulitimately just outsource it anyway.
Jan 29th, 2009 (9:53 am)#18 static,
“It is not Japan’s fault they have been supporting battery tech, if anything it is our fault for not following their lead.”
I disagree that we can stop with the “Japanese are subsidizing their industrial base” mantra.
Your statement, as I quoted above, is exactly the point. The Japanese cannot be blamed for helping to develop some advanced technology. If their industry can use it, great for them. The point is that we should be questioning our Governement about this and that is the point of my comments.
We should be dissapointed that our leaders are not as forward thinking as the Japanese. Where are our intercity electric trains?, what is our energy policy?, what is our plan to get off of foreign oil?. On a national level, our leadership has no real plan.
If we never discuss these things, our leaders will continue to worry about today and we will continue to ship our jobs and wealth to others who have their eye on tommorow.
Our plan seems to be to just print more money so we can buy foreign cars that will burn the foreign oil that we are buyiung. Our kids will have to figure out how to pay off the debt we are building up with other countries.
Jan 29th, 2009 (9:59 am)For some levity regarding the future efficient cars, watch this short video. You dont have to agree with something, to still find it humourous
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAqPMJFaEdY
Jan 29th, 2009 (10:01 am)For some levity regarding the future efficient cars, watch this short video. You don’t have to agree with something, to still find it humourous
“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAqPMJFaEdY”
Jan 29th, 2009 (10:03 am)#22 Jim in PA Says:
> Case in point is A123 vs LG. Once the A123 technology develops over the next year or two, GM could quickly switch to them without eating any sunken factory costs.
LG already confirmed its Volt contract is exclusive and runs through 2015. GM fully intends to stay with LG battery until 2015, probably beyond that.
A123 may aim for GM’s non-plugin hybrid battery deals, but they are shut out of Volt contract.
Jan 29th, 2009 (10:07 am)#30 nuclearboy said “We should be dissapointed that our leaders are not as forward thinking as the Japanese. Where are our intercity electric trains?, what is our energy policy?, what is our plan to get off of foreign oil?. On a national level, our leadership has no real plan”
———————————————-
Well said.
Jan 29th, 2009 (10:08 am)#19 ,
Jabroni: one guy with internet access and a laptop
vs.
Chevron: Standard Oil of California, founded in 1879, 2007 revenues in excess of $220 Billion , 60,000 employees
Guess who wins.
Jan 29th, 2009 (10:13 am)21 RB Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 9:27 am
#20 k-dawg says “Seems like the US oil companies would be spending all of their time/money developing Li-ion batteries. They would hate to lose their stranglehold on the American consumer”
——————————————————-
I agree with these views, but not with the implied sub-text that we all should be mad at the oil companies. I appreciate their bringing me a commodity that I need at a very reasonable price, considering all the steps required from the well to the pump.
It is true that I certainly hope not to continue to purchase petroleum fuel, but that is because of the foreign policy and economic implications, not because I am hostile to the oil companies. They try to compete in a world-wide market that now is mostly owned and run by various governments.
—————
Maybe “stanglehold” wasn’t the best word. But i could say energy monopoly regarding transportation. I see them getting involved in biofuels, but not so much in battery technology. Its sort of like the DeBeers diamond company. They controlled the diamond market for over a century until recently (thanks to Russia a little & Canada). I just dont see big oil giving up their current energy control. Also, i think big oil is the only sector that was pulling in major profits the last couple years. I’d like to see their cash reserves going towards battery technology vs. buying their stock back.
Jan 29th, 2009 (10:17 am)I think lot American companies are trained wrong, even if they start production and selling of batteries, they will do it out side America and sell it in America. They will educate you economics and cost factors but they are forgetting that people need jobs to buy them.
If you want economy to come back, manufacturing needed to be in America, outsourcing and keeping management in US will never help US.
Jan 29th, 2009 (10:17 am)#19 Jabroni
We cannot use NiMH batteries because they (Chevron, an oil company) own the patents
—————
When did they buy these patents and when do (or already have ) expire?
This smells like regirgitation and not original thought.
Jan 29th, 2009 (10:29 am)#32 HyperMiler
A123 may be shut out of the Volt contract until 2015, but I don’t think the LG Chem contract covered new EREV vehicles not scheduled for production at this time. If GM decides to produce the Cadillac Converj I would think they would be free to select a batter supplier for it independently from the Volt contract. I don’t know this for sure, but I just don’t see GM locking all future battery needs to LG Chem through 2015. Of course, stranger things have happened. We probably can not get this confirmed from GM.
Jan 29th, 2009 (10:31 am)If you misspell regurgitate does that make it an original word? ….and what do original thoughts smell like?
Jan 29th, 2009 (10:37 am)#39carcus Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 10:31 am
If you misspell regurgitate does that make it an original word? ….and what do original thoughts smell like?
—————
Was this just a random post.. or are you commenting on the Chervon patents?
Jan 29th, 2009 (10:39 am)#26, DonC, “Good point and good substantiating points. The only issue I have, and it’s with all the Asian countries, is that they do manipulate their currencies.”
The Japanese are doing a damned poor job of that. The yen is at about 88 to the dollar.
And most Japanese manufacturers have large US manufacturing presences, where currency manipulation (if it existed) would help them not at all.
Jan 29th, 2009 (10:46 am)41 Charlie
Correct, having your currency devalued is what is desired. Makes your products cheap for exporting. Right now Japan is hurting. I work for a japanese company and they are trying to have us source everything.
Jan 29th, 2009 (10:49 am)Enough of the blather.
GM did not kill the electric car ! Puleaze !
Great story on that topic – it’s probably been posted here before, but everytime I see some pinhead raise that issue again it makes me irritable …:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/09/15/at-witz-end-gm-ev1-the-real-story-part-iv/
Jan 29th, 2009 (11:06 am)#38 N Riley Says:
Of course GM is free to seek alternative suppliers for Converj or other plugins, but the scale of economy would likely prohibit such multi-sourcing. GM’s contract with LG is structured in such a way that cells get cheaper as GM buys more.
Given that Volt would be GM’s biggest volume plugin model, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for others to beat LG’s cell prices. This is the reason why GM doesn’t even bother to look for second Volt battery cell supplier; they are committed to LG cells throughout the life-span of 1st gen Volt.
As for 2nd gen Volt, of course the contract is open to all bidders, but LG would have an inside track for the contract, unless some Chinese battery company puts in some wacky crazy bid. Once again, it would be difficult for any US based battery makers to beat LG’s terms, unless they come up with some revolutionary battery structure that’s like a quantum leap to all existing batteries.
Jan 29th, 2009 (11:08 am)http://www.pickensplan.com/act/
Jan 29th, 2009 (11:12 am)I keep watching and know that at some point GM will get into gear the full model . Perhaps it is the fact that electric cars do not have gears that is the problem .
God Bless
Jan 29th, 2009 (11:16 am)I think the US Government and GM backed the wrong technology.
If the fuel cell had worked out GM and all of us would be in good shape. Giving Hydrogen top priority never did make sense. Even tho GM has some mules out hydrogen is not getting any press.
Jan 29th, 2009 (11:31 am)Who knows ?
Vertical integration can be great when it is a critical – largely unknown – technology. This gives you competetive edge.
But, if all the car companies have the tech – it may not be all that important. You can get it from a 3rd party or from one of the car companies for a good price. I don’t think batteries will be in short supply any time soon.
But trashing EV1 and giving up battery technology at that time was stupid – since GM was the leader at that time and could have used the tech and prospored now i.e. if they had continued to develop.
Jan 29th, 2009 (11:47 am)They can’t even afford to build an engine plant. How could they possibly gear up to build batteries?
Jan 29th, 2009 (12:02 pm)GM doesn’t need to worry about missed opportunities to make profit, or even making any profit in the future They are a taxpayer funded corporation now.
Jan 29th, 2009 (12:12 pm)#16, Statik,
side note: Sweden rebuffed GM on its attempt for some of the 28-billion-kronor bailout pie
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jUJwaalz60hIfRTno4–nT2OdgUg
—————————————–
As Saab has has been the motorcar of choice for those that lean left politically (along with Subaru) and Sweden is held as a model of social reform, could GM nationalize Saab? Just give it to them? I would expect the first response of the Swedes would fine GM for littering.
The Hummer brand could be banished to the middle east. Iraq or Iran, let each build half. There would be some Mideast harmony! A new peace plan. (tongue most firmly in cheek)
Buick would most definitely be sold to the Chinese, they have always had preference for Buick’s since the last emperor. I am not sure if Saturn could be bundled in with Buick, there are enough automakers in Europe. Though the Austrians my like there own brand?
Pontiac could be rewarded with an Australian Vacation. Plenty of space to open up a revived GTO…
As one of the modern originators of state owned industries, Russia has shown a preference for the Cadillac brand…
All i had wanted to say was when does Lyle get to drive a Volt?
There seems to be a lack of transparency in the development of the volt that was available earlier. it could be because the lack of funds have brought development to a standstill. The current “bailout/loan” could be smoke and mirrors. As Statik has suggested it would take 100 billion or so to revive GM.
Or, a revived GM has been resurrected as a defense suppler and therefor a much less transparent organization?
Red HHR (to Volt or not to Volt)
Jan 29th, 2009 (12:19 pm)GM never should have given up NiMH battery tecnology. They could still be making money on every one put into the Toyota RAV-4 EV the finest electric car ever made. Instead they sold to Chevron/Texaco who killed the battery tecnology by suing Toyota and Panasonic to prevent the manufacture of these batteries thus preventing these cars from being made. After all Texaco and Chevron are in the gasoline business.
Take Care,
TED
Jan 29th, 2009 (12:28 pm)#47 Xzlon says – I think the US Government and GM backed the wrong technology. If the fuel cell had worked out GM and all of us would be in good shape.
——————————————————————-
Try and follow me, Xzlon – If you want your plumbing fixed, you go to a plumber. If you want brain surgery, you go to a brain surgeon.
So, why don’t you leave the thinking to actual thinkers on this site, and try to keep up ?
Hydrogen…
1) is energy poor, compared with other flamable gases (you don’t go as far)
2) takes a lot of energy to compress to a useable PSI.
3) dangerous – it will immediately begin to degrade any container it’s stored in (due to it’s tiny atomic size, it can penetrate any material, and we cannot contain it in a magnetic bottle yet.)
4) may explode if the containment vessel is damaged in a car wreck (easy to do, when the vessel walls are already weakened by the hydrogen itself)
So let’s forget about hydrogen and fuel cells (fool sells), and get the Volt on the road already.
Jan 29th, 2009 (12:29 pm)#43 Guido
Thanks for the link. I found all four articles very interesting. I was never one to blame GM for the EV1′s death. I knew battery technology was no where near where it needed to be to sustain a program like that. GM learned a lot from the EV1 and you can see some of it in the Chevrolet Volt.
Jan 29th, 2009 (12:41 pm)This article suprised me. UAW and GM got rid of the Jobs Bank program and UAW is talking about more concessions. I think my prediction on that was about 180 degrees off.
http://www.freep.com/article/20090129/BUSINESS01/901290396
Jan 29th, 2009 (12:44 pm)#53, Zen
You’re a jerk – let me school you point by point:
Zen – 1) Hydrogen is energy poor, compared with other flamable gases (you don’t go as far)
Hydrogen is energy rich by weight, known as specific energy.
Zen – 2) Hydrogen takes a lot of energy to compress to a useable PSI.
All gaseous fuels require energy to compress – natural gas, etc., just as it takes energy to charge a battery.
Zen – 3) dangerous – it will immediately begin to degrade any container it’s stored in (due to it’s tiny atomic size, it can penetrate any material, and we cannot contain it in a magnetic bottle yet.)
Quantum technologies offers carbon fiber tanks with non-permeable internal membranes to contain the hydrogen. There is NO degradation of the container, because NO hydrogen permeates the membrane.
Zen – 4) may explode if the containment vessel is damaged in a car wreck (easy to do, when the vessel walls are already weakened by the hydrogen itself)
Carbon fiber tanks do NOT explode, they tear, so there is no explosion or shrapnel in an autowreck. If the carbon fiber tank tears, the hydrogen rushes out both too cold and in too concentrated a form to explode. The hydrogen would have trickle out, mix with air and be exposed to an ignition source to burn.
Zen – So let’s forget about hydrogen and fuel cells (fool sells), and get the Volt on the road already.
For all those upset that Asians are beating the US in batteries, do a quick google search on available fuel cell devices, and you will see the majority are from Asia as well – hydrogen, methanol, hybrid fuel cell / battery, etc. These devices have now found their way onto electric bicycles in place of large battery packs, so fight it all you want, fuel cells are encroaching on the slow moving battery technology’s markets.
Jan 29th, 2009 (12:47 pm)Each EV-1 was hand made making the costs very high. The NiMH battery was expensive but cost could have come down dramatically with volume. GM and its refusal to sell the EV-1 and collection and crushing of running viable vehicles prohibited the general public from seein how maintenance free they actually were prevented them from selling mass quantities. The NiMH batteries were very durable and long life. The proof is the RAV4 EV. Thousands are still running on the original batteries. GM only marketed them in Cali and Arizona and made them unavailable to the rest of the Country. Of course GM was at fault for killing them with the help of George Bush and the California Air Resources Board. They have another chance with the Volt. I’ll take mine in white. GM do it now. Do not waste another minute.
Take Care,
TED
Jan 29th, 2009 (12:50 pm)BusinessWeek article fails to mention that Honda is also in the Battery manufacturing business now to the tune of 49% of 15 billion yen.
Honda to form joint venture with GS Yuasa for lithium batteries
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/12/18/honda-to-form-joint-venture-with-gs-yuasa-for-lithium-batteries/
Article also fails to mention BYD which already produces something like 1/3 of the lithium ion batteries in the world and wants to be the number 1 car manufacturer by 2025
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7779261.stm.
GM still drags their feet around, hoping that the the good old days are about to come back and they can return to business as usual. That mindset lost round 1 and put them on the ropes. Round 2 may deliver a knockout punch.
Jan 29th, 2009 (12:53 pm)#50 Jenson
Your oversimplification makes you seem extremely uninformed. GM does need to worry about making profits. GM got loans, which must be paid back.
Jan 29th, 2009 (12:54 pm)Zen #53.
I think you blasted #47 Xzlon for no reason.
Go back and read his post. It looks to me that the two of you agree.
But many of us make mistakes here. I make my share also.
Jan 29th, 2009 (1:00 pm)@noel park 49
“They can’t even afford to build an engine plant. How could they possibly gear up to build batteries?”
Amen brotha!
Remember when Nickel Cadmium was da shitz? Then came Nickel Meta Hydride then everyone thought it was the best. Now Lithium Ion then Lithium Ion Polymer then Lithium Ion Nanophosphate etc, etc etc……
Point is, Lithiuom based batteries are not the “Hoiy Grail” of batteries. It will evolve to another “Better” battery. Why should GM hunt down the Holy Grail when the battery industry can do it. People are just pissed because other foreign countries jumped on the bandwagon and capitolized on it and the US deemed it not worthy back then. OK so we’re behind on the tech, it doesn’t mean we can’t buy it.
GM should never go into the biz of battery mfgr. Pack mfgr maybe but not the cells themselves. Trust me when I say this but when it comes to the mfgring business, internally “WE are the worst providers/internal vendors.”
If you’ve ever worked in the mfgr biz you’ll know what I mean.
I think was a good idea NOT to go into the “Battery Manufacturing”.
Jan 29th, 2009 (1:06 pm)#26 DonC said:
#18 Statik says “Can we stop with the ‘Japanese have subsidized their car makers R&D now?”
Good point and good substantiating points. The only issue I have, and it’s with all the Asian countries, is that they do manipulate their currencies. Since you like numbers, check out how much Japan exports to and imports from China as compared to the US, especially after China joined the WTO.
Thanks for the morning Ford update. I was wondering what you thought of the run rate. I didn’t see any numbers on that. I would BTW not be so pessimistic. The last quarter of 2008 had to be the worst meltdown we’ve seen in our lives, though if you were around the 1980-1982 downturn job losses were worse in percentage terms, albeit without the financial meltdown. The first quarter of 2009 doesn’t seem like it will be as bad, and the Fed actions along with the bailout is slowly unfreezing credit.
Then again maybe we’re looking at a black swan.
———————————————
I think we are on the same page, especially on China manipulating the currency, but we’ll leave that discussion I think, hehe.
I also agreed that the last quarter of 2008 was certainly carmagedden. I would think Q1 should increase a little bit on the ‘free credit’ being offered again.
Although Credit Suisse doesn’t think so. It is out today expected the SAAR to stay at 10.0 million units (the low) and GM to have a year-over-year drop in January of 40-42%
(page 21 of the Credit Suisse Report)
http://www.schwab.wallst.com/alerts/reports/getReport.asp?docKey=869-CSFBW50_291257-11NDFRED3T9767L5IHIETLSMSM
Jan 29th, 2009 (1:07 pm)On the CA front….
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A judge has ruled that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has the authority to furlough state employees.
http://www.kcra.com/politics/18595811/detail.html?treets=sac&tml=sac_break&ts=T&tmi=sac_break_1_11590101292009
Little details because it was just ruled on….
Better than an IOU and much better than a Lay Off.
Jan 29th, 2009 (1:10 pm)#49 noel park said:
They can’t even afford to build an engine plant. How could they possibly gear up to build batteries?
=============================
I’m digging the new you.
Jan 29th, 2009 (1:23 pm)Just thought I’d mention that GM ‘officially’ put out a statement saying the engine plant is not cancelled, it is still delayed…but they had to cancel all the contracts before ‘triggers’ started to happen.
http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewmonthlyreleasedetail.do?domain=3&docid=51715
/tAmato-tOmato
Jan 29th, 2009 (1:28 pm)#62 statik says “It is out today expected the SAAR to stay at 10.0 million units (the low) and GM to have a year-over-year drop in January of 40-42%”
Thanks for the cite. The 10M number is the run rate for January. The forecast is for 12M units for the year, which seems consistent with what GM has been calling for. However, these forecasts are really just finger in the wind type things since they’re all based on the economy, and no one has a handle on this, if for no other reason than what the government does can have a big impact. If the banking mess gets sorted it will be better. If not it will be worse.
PS: Sorry to see you’ve turned Noel to the dark side.
Jan 29th, 2009 (1:28 pm)@statik 65
“engine plant is not cancelled, it is still delayed…”
And
“cancel all the contracts before ‘triggers’ started to happen.”
Hmm…
That’s like saying you are delaying the work by canceling the contract to do the work?
That don’t sound right. Sounds more of “Cancelled Indefinately”
Maybe it’s just me.
Jan 29th, 2009 (1:35 pm)#66 DonC said:
#62 statik says “It is out today expected the SAAR to stay at 10.0 million units (the low) and GM to have a year-over-year drop in January of 40-42%”
Thanks for the cite. The 10M number is the run rate for January. The forecast is for 12M units for the year, which seems consistent with what GM has been calling for. However, these forecasts are really just finger in the wind type things since they’re all based on the economy, and no one has a handle on this, if for no other reason than what the government does can have a big impact. If the banking mess gets sorted it will be better. If not it will be worse.
PS: Sorry to see you’ve turned Noel to the dark side.
====================
Yes sorry, the January run rate works out to be about 10 million annualized…my bad on that one, the SAAR is certainly not that low yet…as we have only had 4 months of the ‘horrific’ numbers.
As for the forecasted, actually GM (along with most ratings agencies) knocked down its 2009 forecast of 12M-12.5 million units to 10.5 million on January 15th, 2009.
Here is GM release on that:
http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewmonthlyreleasedetail.do?domain=3&docid=51403
“In light of the ongoing uncertainty of global market conditions, GM is adopting more conservative industry volume assumptions than those presented to Congress. For liquidity and viability planning purposes, GM will assume 2009 U.S. total vehicle sales of 10.5 million units and global sales of 57.5 million units. The initial plan included a downside scenario of 10.5 million U.S. sales in 2009, with a baseline scenario of 12 million sales. GM also revised downwards its assessment of global industry volume assumptions for 2010-2012 for liquidity planning purposes.”
Jan 29th, 2009 (1:39 pm)#45 Zack
I am not ga-ga over Picken’s plan. For starters, have all transportation run on NG fuel doesn’t make much sense because NG is much less energy dense than gasoline and does not operate as efficiently in an ICE. I think a superior plan is:
1. Replace coal with renewables, gas, and nuclear
2. Switch autos over to EREV option, with a long-term goal of electrification.
3. Commercialize biofuels that make economic sense (i.e. not corn ethanol).
One thing Pickens doesn’t really address all that well (I think) is that gasoline accounts only for about 48% of our oil consumption. Eliminating all gasoline still leaves us relying on imported oil as a feedstock for plastics, fertilizer, lubricants, heavy transportation fuel, etc. This is where biologically derived oils can play a factor in order to take the place of ALL oil products.
Jan 29th, 2009 (1:55 pm)#53 Zen
The biggest flaw in the anti fuel cell stance it that it always ties fuel cells to hydrogen. Sure hydrogen has its limitations. But test cells have already been developed that use other fuels (NG, acetylene, propane, alcohol), and because of the physics they are able to operate at a higher efficiency than an ICE ever can. This eliminates all the complaints people have about hydrogen, and allows fuel cells to be a technology independent of any specific fuel (like an ICE is). Sure, these alternate fuels emit CO2 instead of just water vapor, but the increase in system efficiency would be an advantage in itself if a low-cost unit could ever be developed.
By the way, commercial hydrogen fuel cells are already being used in the forktruck industry where acetylene can’t be used for air quality, and where cold temperatures kill batteries (i.e. in food and cold storage facilities).
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressReleasesMolt/idUSBNG12133520071022
http://www.forkliftaction.com/news/forklifts_news_international/National_Hydrogen_Association__Raymond_Corp__Plug_Power_6557.aspx
I have to laugh everytime I see someone froth at the mouth about “fool cells”. They certainly are not yet practical, but to give up on a promising technology is just downright foolish.
Jan 29th, 2009 (2:03 pm)If the engine factory is delayed, then it makes perfect sense to cancel the contracts for cost purposes, rather than put them on hold. 2008 saw a peak cost for steel, concrete, and construction commodities, so any contracts bid in 2008 are carrying those premium costs. Canceling the contracts and re-bidding them in a year will likely reduce construction costs. Plus, the contractors will be hungry for work in a recession will likely slash their prices for that reason also. Smart business move on GM’s part.
Jan 29th, 2009 (2:26 pm)GM Ovonics?
You guys ever thought of using Nickle-Metal Hydride batteries instead of lithium for the Volt?
Jan 29th, 2009 (2:31 pm)#64 statik:
You mean because the comments are shorter, LOL?
As to Japan supporting its car industry, I take your point. I would just say that, if the US govt. had supported forward thinking and R&D all along, it would have been a lot more cost effective that shoveling billions of dollars into the industry as it is about to belly up. Of course you could say, as my mother might, that, after they turned their backs on the highly subsidized hybrid research done under the Clinton administration, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.”
#66 Don C:
Actually, I went to the “dark side” along time ago.
#67 CaptJackSparrow:
No, it’s not just you.
#69 Jim in PA:
Yeah, but think about how the price of crude would crash if you could just get rid of even half of that 48% of the demand. I’m totally with you that it would be great to do better, but it would make a HUGE difference, IMHO.
Jan 29th, 2009 (3:03 pm)I bet GM wishes they had the buckeroos to buy A123 or LG Chem’s battery division.
Jan 29th, 2009 (3:14 pm)FWIW
Edmunds Sees January Auto Sales Falling 30% Vs Year Ago
Jan 29, 2009 13:51:07 (ET)
New vehicle sales in the U.S. for January are expected to fall 30% from a year earlier and 18% from December, according to car-shopping Web site Edmunds.com, which says sales will plunge for a fifth-straight month.
The downturn is continuing to hurt once-immune Japanese auto makers as well, Edmunds said. Toyota’s sales are expected to fall 25% this month, with Honda Motor Co. (HMC) projected to post a 23% decline and Nissan Motor Co. (NSANY) seeing a 28% drop.
The combined U.S. market share for Chrysler, Ford and GM’s domestic nameplates is estimated to be 46% in January, down from 52% a year ago and 50% in December. And if Edmund’s predictions are right, Chrysler’s market share would fall into single digits.
Jan 29th, 2009 (3:42 pm)I agree with # 15 nasaman and others who believe GM is very wise to pursue a well-proven business model.
With all the cell research going on around the globe, it is far from certain that lithium-ion batteries will be powering future EV’s. It is like #14 Dave G said — “Let the various battery cell manufacturers duke it out in the market…GM can just pick the best one at any given time and assemble the cells into packs…It makes them nimble enough to use any cell technology they want.”
Jan 29th, 2009 (3:49 pm)#3
Ummm…I don’t know where you got the idea that Japan’s economy is “winning a war” against the US. Japan’s economy has been stagnant since the early ’90s. I think people are still stuck on the “Japan is gonna take over the economic world” idea from back then and haven’t acclimated to the current economic reality, where most observers would say Japan is not in great shape.
Jan 29th, 2009 (4:08 pm)And #72
Hmmm…perhaps they aren’t using NiMH, because it is an old technology that is *significantly inferior* to Li-Ion. Goodness gracious, people need to do their research (and not from political propaganda like WKTEC?) before posting.
Jan 29th, 2009 (4:37 pm)from ccombs@77
Ummm…I don’t know where you got the idea that Japan’s economy is “winning a war” against the US. Japan’s economy has been stagnant since the early ’90s.
*************************************************************************
For a small nation Japan is an industrial giant. Yes, if they could they would monopolies all industries in the world. Take the time and read the link below.
http://www.uwsa.com/issues/trade/japanyes.html
Jan 29th, 2009 (4:39 pm)I mean selling controlling interest in alternative fuels to oil companies seemed like such a brilliant idea didn’t it?
Jan 29th, 2009 (5:04 pm)Volt for the wife and kids, but I just found my next work truck (and yes, I need a truck)
http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=784921
Jan 29th, 2009 (5:19 pm)There is an undercurrent here that socialism is great. Some central planning bureaucrat can act a “philosopher-king” and choose the best course is nonsense.
Marxist concepts have been tried since the 1870s, in many variations in numerous countries. There isn’t an example of a country that has grown increasingly wealthy, under the system, over the long term. Nor is there any real instances of philosopher-kings independence, Planners are susceptible to politics even more. Entrenched, politically connected, interests win every time, regardless of what is “better”.
People here talk of the wonderful PGNV project to produce 80 mpg cars. Politically-connected fools had their pet ideas incorporated, like blood suckers taking their “rents”. Like that fool Amory Lovins who bears the blood of milions of starving Chinese, on his head. Mao beleived in his “small is beautiful” bovine excrement. He ordered Lovin’s backyard blast furnaces, be built across China; which inevitably produced useless slag. Making slag, meant the poor chinese didn’t grow food; and then starved that winter.
On the PGNV project, he forced the installation of B2 bomber type carbon fiber car bodies, than ran up the cost of such vehicles to more than half a million of dollars per car, making them totally impractical.
The USABC consortia founded to let the Car makers work with the Battery makers without being sued by avaricious anti-trust lawyers, did more to bring the Ni-MH and Li-Ion battery to fruition for automotive applications. It let the real actors, auto companies and battery companies, with a motive to advance it, do the work and they did, rather that any connected-political fool. They chose things that actually helped, than to merely provide “rentiers” with some government wasted money.
The Japanese auto makers recognized that engine technology and battery technology are important to their companies long term. But usually they follow, not pioneer, merely improving on earlier designs incrementally. Toyota bet on Cobalt Li-Ion batteries, geared up to produce them in large numbers, that unfortunately catches on fire. They planned on using them for their second generation Prius, and their PHEV Priuses. Then had to stop. The Prius program was set back several years.
The result is that Ford has leap-frogged Toyota’s HSD HEV. GM has the EREV that is even more advanced; along with the advanced dual-mode hybrid drive, which is even more advanced then Ford’s efforts.
Then Toyota said PHEVs don’t work. Right.
All the Japanese auto makers are now losing money like everyone else. I reported elsewhere that the Japanese have an additional problem. Japan allows little imigration, it’s population is now dropping and aging rapidly. The driving age population is plummeting even more,and car sales with it. After all they did to prevent foreign automakers into their domestic market; that market is collapsing. That isn’t a temporary recession either, it would take a couple generations to breed that auto market’s return.
If you believe the SAAR is sitting at 10 million and will stay that way, both GM and Chrysler expected to survive with those numbers, as the low end of survivability, if they get the original amount of funding that they sought, some $34 billion. Ford will probably have to join the loan line too.
The UK is preparing to subsidize in auto makers.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/01/uk-to-provide-2.html#more
Jan 29th, 2009 (5:29 pm)@ThombDbhomb
If you think in a million years those “loans” will ever be paid back, then I have some forclosure properties in Florida to sell you….
Jan 29th, 2009 (5:57 pm)k-dawg #31:
No one else has said anything about your link, so let me be the first:
I really needed that laugh today!
Thanks. It was great!
Jan 29th, 2009 (6:13 pm)Let me see…oh yeah…I said it was STUPID for GM to farm out batteries….
Can I hear an “I Told You So”
Dam, I still say take a dozen of us from here and we will manage the project.
Job 1 Bye Bye Ricky.
Job 1A Build the Converj Body.
Jan 29th, 2009 (6:17 pm)I’m starting to get a complex. Everytime I get on the site I get the banner showing someones gut on a weight loss diet. Are you guys trying to tell me something about my Beer Gut?
Jan 29th, 2009 (6:23 pm)#19 jabroni
“…RAV4 EV is a living testimony of the durability and functionality of NiMH batteries as they have been in use for nearly a decade and over 100,000 and still have great range…”
___________________________________________________
How many RAV4 EV owners used their vehicles in very cold conditions? With NiMH batteries in my Segway, performance drops dramatically below 40 degrees.
Jan 29th, 2009 (6:32 pm)#81 Mitch,
Volt for the wife and kids, but I just found my next work truck (and yes, I need a truck)
http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=784921
______________________________________________________
You’d think for $44,000 bucks they’d paint that hybrid sign a little larger on your 21 mpg pickup.
Sorry, but I’m in a bad GM mood today.
Arguably, the most high tech/complicated hybrid on the market today. And it’s north of $40,000 and gets 21 mpg. Another brilliant move from GM. They can’t build a mid $20′s hybrid sedan to compete with the prius and the fusion??
WTF GM?
Get rid of the old management and start over!
Jan 29th, 2009 (6:38 pm)#62 statik “carmagedden”
————–
What a great word formation. Call Wm Safire.
\Credit +1
Jan 29th, 2009 (6:40 pm)#82 stas peterson:
Yeah, and our wonderful capitalist market system is working so well right now.
Jan 29th, 2009 (6:41 pm)#88 carcus:
No s**t!
Jan 29th, 2009 (7:16 pm)Why invest in a product such as Li-Io batteries when they are not a very good produce yet?
There is still products to be invented that my be much better solutions.
As we see there is not future in Ni-cad’s.
Jan 29th, 2009 (7:25 pm)______________________________________________________
Government 10 Step Plan to Fix the Ailing Auto Industry:
Step 1: Partially nationalize a large segment of the Auto Industry vis-à-vis taxpayer backed bailouts/loans.
Step 2: Government purchases used cars from taxpayers in consideration of giving taxpayers a voucher to purchase a new car.
Step 3: Government crushes (destroys) purchased used cars.
Step 4: Since the Government induced less supply of used cars in the market (by crushing the government purchased used cars) the price of used cars will rise closer to the price of a new car (in theory).
Step 5: Consumers determine that it is better to purchase a new car with their government issued new car voucher than purchase a used car.
Step 6: Government determines that above steps 1 through 5 did not fix the ailing American auto industry. The Government determines what is needed is additional Government involvement/stimulus of the auto industry.
Step 7: Government fully nationalizes the American auto industry (the unionized automakers) vis-à-vis further taxpayer bailouts/loans.
Step 8: Government allows the car payments of cars purchased from the nationalized automakers to be paid vis-à-vis tax rebate.
Step 9: Most people don’t buy the cars from the nationalized automakers despite the tax rebates because the cars suck (Government run automakers). Most individuals prefer to spend their own money and purchase cars from non-nationalized automakers (Toyota, Honda, etc…).
Step 10: Government adds a surcharge tax to new cars sold that are not manufactured by the non-nationalized automakers.
I bet you started thinking at about Step # 2 that the above scenario is overly outlandish and could never happen here in America. Well, read this:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/23/autos/government_car_incentives/index.htm?postversion=2009012909
______________________________________________________
Electric Cars + Nuclear Energy = American Energy Independence!
______________________________________________________
Jan 29th, 2009 (7:59 pm)CaptJackSparrow Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
I’m starting to get a complex. Everytime I get on the site I get the banner showing someones gut on a weight loss diet. Are you guys trying to tell me something about my Beer Gut?
You’re lucky. I keep getting those bloody Zap adds, rubbing in the fact I can’t have what I really want.
I have to say I’m with nasaman, GM can’t afford to make a wrong bet at this stage, concentrating on building the batteries gives them the flexibility to move to a better tech as it develops. And, as statik points out at this stage they can’t afford to get to the cell level playing field anyway.
As far as H2 goes, the only place it makes sense currently, is in applications where you need heat and power, ie houses, or low temp environments ie coolstores. The 2nd law of Thermodynamics works against it being EVER used efficiently in cars. H2 is ONLY an energy carrier, like electricity. Converting one energy carrier to another and back again, does not, and never will, make sense.
CDavis. That plan will only work if it’s restricted to buying used cars made in America, and the voucher used to purchase other cars MADE in America IMHO.
LJGTVWOTR
NO plug, NO sale.
Jan 29th, 2009 (8:35 pm)One thing I’ve noticed down through the last 31 years of being self-employed is that you never need to be the first in striving to be the best. Letting the “smoke clear” regarding the advanced battery industry development is a really smart thing. Getting the first gen Volt production systems going can’t be slowed down by a potentially risky long-term commitment to only one supplier or another.
Let all potential suppliers demonstrate their capacities over time, (which they all need). It’s really interesting how all these companies are striving like their lives depended on it (which is true) to have viable product. Every headline and commentary on these GM Volt sites is another piece of the puzzle being put into place, and nothing on TV or in the media has ever been as interesting to me as these posts.
Dan Petit Austin TX
Jan 29th, 2009 (8:35 pm)#83 Jenson
Well, since you’ve admitted they are loans, you’ve taken one step away from knee-jerkiness. Now, aren’t the loans secured? Yes, they are. Here are the terms:
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/gm%20final%20term%20&%20appendix.pdf
Jan 29th, 2009 (8:45 pm)Another reason why GM might want to invest (my tax dollars) in batteries:
The United States reached peak oil production in 1971, as forecast by M. King Hubbert, the Shell geologist. Before that time, the US attained a form of glory in its oil age with spectacular discoveries in Texas, a robust industry, strong exports to the rest of the world and lots of free wildcatting. The oil age in the US also gave rise to novels and films, like Upton Sinclair’s Oil and of course George Steven’s vehicle with James Dean, Giant.
Russia appears to have peaked now, without enjoying any such glory. ………………
Russian Oil Production Appears to Have Peaked
http://seekingalpha.com/article/116787-russian-oil-production-appears-to-have-peaked
BTW, if you haven’t seen “There Will Be Blood” (loosely based on Sinclair’s book), I highly recommend it.
Jan 29th, 2009 (8:52 pm)#47 Xzlon Says: “I think the US Government and GM backed the wrong technology. If the fuel cell had worked out GM and all of us would be in good shape. Giving Hydrogen top priority never did make sense. Even tho GM has some mules out hydrogen is not getting any press.”
————————————————————————————–
Hydrogen is the biggest scam going. It’s the oil companies that are pushing hydrogen. That’s why they call them Fool Sells. They are meant to deceive us.
Jan 29th, 2009 (9:08 pm)#69 Jim in PA Says: “I am not ga-ga over Picken’s plan… I think a superior plan is:
1. Replace coal with renewables, gas, and nuclear
2. Switch autos over to EREV option, with a long-term goal of electrification.
3. Commercialize biofuels that make economic sense (i.e. not corn ethanol).
————————————————————————————–
Yes, your plan is much better than Picken’s plan. Too bad you don’t have billions of oil money to sell it…
Jan 29th, 2009 (9:36 pm)Hopefully GM is smart, and they have warranty agreements in their contract with their battery makers, like most standard parts supply agreements. If there are big warranty problems with the batteries, then GM won’t take all the loses themselves. It’s a smart hedge, IF they have that standard warranty clause…..
Jan 29th, 2009 (10:01 pm)100 Nixon Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Hopefully GM is smart, and they have warranty agreements in their contract with their battery makers, like most standard parts supply agreements. If there are big warranty problems with the batteries, then GM won’t take all the loses themselves. It’s a smart hedge, IF they have that standard warranty clause…..
——————
Not a bad idea, and it really wouldnt surprise me. Most the equipment we sell to GM, we are forced to give a 2 or 3 year warranty vs. the typical 1 year warranty.
Jan 29th, 2009 (11:36 pm)My humble opinion, people would go without the range extender if they knew how to handle an accidental battery run out. To me, if we were given battery jumper terminals to recharge this would go a long way to satisfying that mysterious situation.
Battery terminal jumpers means I can get back on the road pretty fast by a jump/recharge.
Jan 30th, 2009 (12:23 am)#100 Nixon said:
Hopefully GM is smart, and they have warranty agreements in their contract with their battery makers, like most standard parts supply agreements. If there are big warranty problems with the batteries, then GM won’t take all the loses themselves. It’s a smart hedge, IF they have that standard warranty clause…..
=========================
The problem here is not getting the manufacturers to warrant their product is good, I’m sure they will have some coverage on that, but trying to get them to warrant its application in a virtually unlimited capacity (10 years/150,000 miles), as apparently decided by some people at CARB throwing darts at the wall, is another story..and is the main stumbling block to getting EVs on the road.
Much like GM is doing to the consumer (double charging), I’m sure LG would happily give them the 10/150 warranty…they’d just double the price. GM would rather not pay double up front to LG, so they are turning it back around on us…and trying everything they can to coddle out 10 years life on the packs, and keep the margin.
Jan 30th, 2009 (1:11 am)Let them first learn to make cars and quality service:
Ex: from http://www.thecarconnection.com/fullreview/chevrolet_traverse_2009
==========
GM’s long-running reputation for poor quality, especially when compared to import competitors, is proving hard to dispel, despite GM’s recent emphasis on improved interior quality. While one vehicle won’t be able to turn that reputation around, the 2009 Chevrolet Traverse is just one of many high-quality new models from GM
=============
And the first and only user comment :
Mr.
By Ken Golubski | Posted: Jan 14th 2009, 11:31:57 AM
This is the second Chevy I bought and it’s now the second time it sits in the repair shop and me driving a piece of junk loaner.
Less than 400 miles and twice I awake to a dead battery. Of course it’s intemittant and the source can’t be found. So I now have a car I cant’ trust to take anywhere. (My previous purchase what an Avalanche that leaked oil the day I took it home. Took them three tries before they had to drop the oil pan to fix it). Now I know why they need a bail out. I’LL NEVER BUY AN AMERICAN CAR AGAIN !!!!!
===================================
do they need more chances ?? I felt pity
Jan 30th, 2009 (1:23 am)Forgot to add: i posted the above for attention of some GM insider, if reads this blog to take action and correct things, If they don’t do it, this was one of the first pages i went in when i started looking reviews of traverse and i can imagine how people will feel seeing this kind of comments. find the case and do the needful and train service centres to find and solve problems fast is the only way. I too can imagine the feelings if the new car didn’t work when needed. Improving quality means better customer care also.
Jan 30th, 2009 (2:41 am)#8 Joe says
I don’t believe GM did wrong 15 years ago in getting out of the battery business.There were no large demands for electric car batteries back then
—————————————————————
Try telling that to all the people that had EV1s that wanted to keep them and it was kept a pretty good secret when they first came out, anyway I never heard of them when I was looking for a non gas guzzler
Just think what it would be like NOW if GM had continued the EV1 program
NO PLUG NO SALE, JGTVWOTR, DBNGCMEME, (my house)=D~~~~~=(my volt)
Jan 30th, 2009 (5:51 am)Just found this article this morning. Sign of the times, Tesla can’t get the money to build a plant.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28919645
Jan 30th, 2009 (6:59 am)Forget about the batteries. Let’s go with Fuel Cells.
Jan 30th, 2009 (11:28 am)When I read stuff like this I think GM should be allowed to fail. They can’t find their rear with either hand.
Feb 1st, 2009 (12:16 am)Jason M. Hendler@58,
Sweet, but you forgot metal-hydrides. They require heat to release h2. You can break-em, shoot-em, or throw-em off a clif; they won’t explode. You shoot tracers into them and they’ll just burn like ciggarettes. Not to mention that they’ll absorb up to 900x their wieght in H2.
NZDavid @96,
Thought I mentioned such facts before? Didn’t you respond for GM to “just stop”? Are you working for the oil cartels?
David G @100,
Why would the oil cartels push H2 when the fact is that they stand to loose their stranglehold on an addicted populace? Think about it for a bit. Most of the negativity of H2 comes from those who don’t want it being mainstream, usually by those who don’t investigate the various storage methods that’re being tested and showing promise, and the oil cartels themselves. It’s been said on this vary site that opec doesn’t want the e-rev to succeed. Notice how fuel prices have drastically dropped from damned near $5 gal since the election? What is the new president talking alot about doing? Advancing renewables. How far along are the e-revs now? Why would someone purchase a hybrid when gas is so low? Don’t you see who stands to loose the most with e-revs and fuel cells? Everything starts from difficult beginnings before becoming the accepted norm. Like oil did.
Feb 1st, 2009 (2:12 am)Hydrogen…
1) is energy poor, compared with other flamable gases (you don’t go as far)
2) takes a lot of energy to compress to a useable PSI.
3) dangerous – it will immediately begin to degrade any container it’s stored in (due to it’s tiny atomic size, it can penetrate any material, and we cannot contain it in a magnetic bottle yet.)
4) may explode if the containment vessel is damaged in a car wreck (easy to do, when the vessel walls are already weakened by the hydrogen itself)
—————————————————————————
All true, but you miss the main point. Hydrogen is not an energy source, it is a manufactured product which requires more energy to manufacture than it releases when burned. There is no economical source of Hydrogen, and this is due to the laws of physics and chemistry, and the composition of the earth.
Uninformed journalists always report Hydrogen has a bright future, but more (taxpayer funded) research is needed. Hydrogen has no future as a transportation fuel, and distracts us from proven solutions like diesel and nuclear, and well tested innovations like electric cars.
Feb 1st, 2009 (2:53 am)Tom Harwick @113
True, but you forgot something, oil has to be refined as well before it’s usable as fuel in any form. What you should say is that it doesn’t require as much energy & time to refine. When fuel was first produced the infastructure didn’t exist as yet, now it does. The same as it will be for H2 in time. Right now the tech exist to begin that stage of tech evolution. That’s the point. To constantly deride H2 is a testiment to our own tendancies to procrastinate until it’s too late and end up with a crisis that’ll cost us big in the solving of(aren’t we going through that now?Not yet). The bad part of it is that we as a people tend to deny what’s in front of us until we get it in the tail, then we whimper and whine before we decide to buck up and make the hard decisions that would have been made sooner had we not ignored it to begin with. Wow, history’s repeating itself!
Uninformed journalists? Or a reckless civilization? Does it really matter at this point? That’s up to us to decide for the future.
Feb 1st, 2009 (3:24 am)Besides,
.
alternitives need refinement as well. Wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, hydro,..etc, can all be used to provide power and fuel. Wind & solar are sporatic, but require no active fuel. Nuclear,–shut the tree humpers up and maybe we can get the fusion reactors going. Thanks for killing the fundings for that one, Willy! H2 doesn’t have to be the end all fuels. Just part of the solution. Not everyone will take the same vehicles, nor can the same vehicles perform the same task. Heavy work trucks may not be suitable for volttec. They may require diesel, bio-fuels, or something in the long run. Right now GM is on the right track, thanks to folks like Lyle who provide us with a means to tell GM what we want. If anything Lyle should be given a medal or a Converj as a reward for his efforts. He’s had to put up with us for heaven’s sake!
Feb 1st, 2009 (3:41 am)Personnaly, I think Lyle deserves both. IMHO.
Feb 1st, 2009 (4:31 am)tim-the-dreamer Says:
February 1st, 2009 at 12:16 am
NZDavid @96,
Thought I mentioned such facts before? Didn’t you respond for GM to “just stop”? Are you working for the oil cartels?
Why on earth would you think that I work for the oil cartels? I am saying H2 in cars is a bad idea. It’s the oil companies that would like H2 as it’s difficult to handle, needs specialised transport, distribution systems to be put in place etc.
I want GM to stop wasting money and resources on H2 development, unless, of course, it helps the Voltec electric drivetrain.
LJGTVWOTR
NO plug, NO sale
Feb 10th, 2009 (6:48 am)Blue
Feb 19th, 2009 (8:14 pm)[...] It is pointed out that Toyota is one of the only automakers that produces its own batteries. This gives them a competitive edge when future electric vehicles begin selling in large volumes. If EV battery demand outstrips supply, they could then keep those batteries for their own cars shutting out competitors, or sell them to other OEMs at significant profit. It was also noted that Nissan is in a joint venture with NEC that has plans to produce enough batteries to power 200,000 electric cars within the next few years. The fact that Telsa will be supplying lithium batteries to Daimler is also mentioned. Those cells will be going into a test fleet of 1000 Smart EVs that will roll out onto US roads in 2010. Daimler itself also owns 90% of a new joint venture with Evonik Industries to build lithium ion cells not only for its own vehicles but for other manufacturers. Automakers Poised to Profit From Electric Car Batteries, GM Missed its First Chance, Will it Also Mi… [...]