Grab our RSS Feed

AND

CEO of Compact Power Inc, Subsidiary of LG Chem and Current Maker of Volt Battery Pack Discusses Volt and EV Battery Issues

February 22nd, 2009 | Posted in: Battery

Compact Power Inc. is a subsidiary of Korea-based LG Chem, the company that was chosen to make the lithium-ion battery cells GM will use in the first generation Chevy Volts. GM will take over the pack assembly but Compact Power paved the way building the initial early prototypes and will continue to act as a partner to GM.

The highly talented Mike Milikin of GreenCarCongress spent some time with CPI’s CEO Prabakhar Patil and got some very good information summarized below.

Patil notes his company plans to continue to make packs for various automotive applications from mild hybrids to pure EVs and says “we want to be a one stop shop, a center of excellence.”

He says he believes the reason GM chose LG’s cells is because of the safety and packaging flexibility of the chemistry. The LG cells use a lithium manganese oxide spinel cathode and have a proprietary specialized separator that prevents thermal runaway.

Patil notes it is his belief that the LG cells could last “more than 15 years” in the proper automotive setting. He explains the Volt cells are flat for better heat dissipation, fit, and abuse tolerance. Each cell is composed of many “mini cells” (shown in graphic) each having its own an anode, cathode, and separator.

He also explains how the Volt packs will have individual cell voltage management as well as several strategically placed temperature sensors that can modulate temperature within regions of the pack.
Patil said “originally we wanted to manufacture the pack for the Volt, (but) for various reasons, GM wants to do it in house and of course we support them as a partner but we are at the same time prepared to manufacture for other customers.”

He also said that CPI has already provided GM with 50 packs last year they will be providing them with “nearly 400″ packs this year.

He said of the assembly, “although it is being done on a prototype line we are emulating the processes that will be used in high volume production.”

Patil noted that his cells “deliver the same power with 30% less weight, 50% less volume and 10% greater efficiency” than traditional nickel metal hydride cells and he looks forward to his packs making it into other vehicles such as Hyundai’s upcoming blue drive hybrids due this year.

Finally Patil believes there are three barriers to widespread adoption of electric vehicles that need to be overcome:

1. Cost. Cells have decreased 17x in cost over the last 15 years, and he thinks they will have to reduce cost 2x to 4x in the next 5-10 years, admitting automotive lithium ion cells run about $1000/kwh

2. Capturing the residual value of the battery. At 10 years these batteries should still have 75% of their original energy storage capacity. There will need to be a market to buy those used packs.

3. Range expectations. A 100 mile range vehicle has too much moneys worth of battery for most of the driving distances the vehicle will do. This is why he believes GM’s range-extended approach makes sense, less battery cost with an option available for the occasional long drive. He says “people will start to feel comfortable and realize forty miles isn’t that bad … and re-evaluate their expectations for range.”

Source (GreenCarCongress)

Posted by: Lyle

130 Responses to “CEO of Compact Power Inc, Subsidiary of LG Chem and Current Maker of Volt Battery Pack Discusses Volt and EV Battery Issues”

NZDavid Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:41 am

He also said that CPI has already provided GM with 50 packs last year they will be providing them with “nearly 400″ packs this year.

400 battery packs for this year does not seem very many. IIRC was not GM going to produce 1000 Volts this year?

I have been thinking about this continuing reduction of the Volt programme since I hijacked Statik’s bankruptucy thread the other day.

Still with the SAAR for February looking to be about 9 million, I think everyone is taking the NO plug, NO sale mantra to heart.
/Tongue firmly in cheek.

LJGTVWOTR

(Quote)
Ford Is King Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:45 am

Most people here in Central Florida don’t care if GM go bust, those lazy UAW should be jobless and never hired by anyone. Those fat slob retirees should have their pension and health insurance wiped out.

I will never buy another GM vehicle, Chrysler will also be dead. Since GM borrows $ from me, I hope GM volt, and I believe GM volt will be a disaster. Go Ford, you are the only American car company to keep! Ford will be the dominant domestic company and I wish them well!

(Quote)
NZDavid Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:54 am

Ford, if GM and Chrysler go bust, wave goodbye to the whole parts chain for Ford and Toyota assembly in the USA, unless there is a massive govt. payout for GM and Chrysler debts, and the downsizing that will need to occur.

PS: The taxpayer will pick up the tab for the retirees.

EDIT: Ooops, think I just fed the Troll. Sorry team, I missed the Volt bit on the first read.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:01 am

I’m happy to see that temperature control is a priority for the Volt packs. This is one of the most important support systems on the car.

=D~

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:10 am

If Mr. Patil is correct in predicting reliable li-ion batteries for $500 to $250 per kwh in the next 5 to 10 years, then electric cars are coming in droves. . . with or without the volt, with or without GM.

Let’s hope he’s right.

(Quote)
ziv Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:20 am

Interesting, he stated that he thought the pack could last 15 years, then stated that it would have 75% of its original energy storage after 10 years, and went on to say that they were trying to figure out a market for used packs. I wonder if he meant that the pack could frequently last 15 years in a car by adjusting the depth of draw, or if he meant that the pack would last 10-12 years in the car, then when it had 75% of the original energy storage it would be sold to a power company to even the flow at peak power times during the summer, or to owners of home wind generators or solar arrays who want to live off the grid.
Obviously, as has been mentioned here before, the Volt can still get a near 40 mile AER even with a battery at 2/3 of its original energy level by adjusting the draw from 80% to 30% up to 87% to 13%, if my WAG methodology is nearly correct.
And if you have a decent residual value, and can sell a pack that only has 10 or 11 kWh storage left for a reasonable amount, the pack EOL issue is a lot less important, because in 9 or 10 years we will be able to buy another 16 kWh battery that is smaller and lighter for less, probably in the sub $5,000 range. If the battery prices have come down 17x in 15 years, it is nearly inevitable that this rate will slow, but Patil’s $250-$500 a kWh price range in 10 years is pretty reasonable.
Or drivers that fit into the longer commute end of the spectrum could buy a 32 kWh battery for $10,000 and it would probably fit with room to spare in the battery compartment.
Electric cars are going to last a lot longer than ICE cars, so maybe we should start planning on the value of the Volt and the IMiev and the Tesla staying higher longer than ICE vehicles, which again makes the energy sipping electric cars a better value as gas/oil prices inevitably rise.

(Quote)
koz Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:23 am

NZDavid #3

Don’t worry the vinegar-n-water posters will continue imposing their ignorance regardless.

“10% greater efficiency”

Only 10%? I thought NiMh was in the 65-70% roundtrip eficiency range and Li was closer to 90%. His comment indicates something below 80%, so maybe that is why there is such a need for complex temperature metering and active liquid cooling management. This also means 8KWh usable will actually require more than 10.5KWh from the plug. This is a little (not a lot) disappointing.

(Quote)
Biodieseljeep.com Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:31 am

Um, I don’t mean to be rude but…

WHERE THE &$%^$ IS Q4 ?!

Stockholders should have lawsuits brewing at this point.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:33 am

“A 100 mile range vehicle has too much moneys worth of battery …..”
______________________________________________________

Not true for the Aptera 2e.

If Mr. Patil is correct in forecasting battery cost at $500 to $250 per kwh. Then the Aptera 2e’s 100 mile range will only cost $5000 to $2500.

I still think lightweight affordable BEV’s will have the biggest impact on the electric car market. Once consumers realize that this car is going to cost next to nothing to run AND next to nothing to maintain, they will quickly adapt to two seats and 100 mile range.

BREAKING: Full Aptera specs released at TED
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/02/03/breaking-full-aptera-specs-released-at-ted/

(Quote)
Eric Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:34 am

I think the 40m AER is a good start, but we have never heard at what will be the cost in range when you run the AC or heater. Then you add a few years on the batteries and your AER is a lot less than 40miles. I hope as the cost goes down in the batteries that GM will increase the range or at least have a true 40m AER while running the AC or heater. I know some of you are going to say you don’t need AC, but if you are going to sell this car to the mainstream of people, they will be using the AC or heat and looking for that 40 miles of AER.

(Quote)
Herm Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:42 am

I tougth nimh were 80% and lithium 90%, so that goes with what he is saying.

The disappointing part is only 30% lighter than nimh.

I still think the LiFePO4 chemistry is more durable, without having to treat the cells so gently.. and perhaps cheaper.

(Quote)
Herm Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:49 am

I think far far more popular will be cars similar to the Mitsubishi IMIEV, a low cost 4 seater second car with a range of 100 miles. Perfect for students, teenagers and moms. The key will be cost.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I still think lightweight affordable BEV’s will have the biggest impact on the electric car market. Once consumers realize that this car is going to cost next to nothing to run AND next to nothing to maintain, they will quickly adapt to two seats and 100 mile range.

(Quote)
statik Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:50 am

1. Cost. Cells have decreased 17x in cost over the last 15 years, and he thinks they will have to reduce cost 2x to 4x in the next 5-10 years, admitting automotive lithium ion cells run about $1000/kwh

==================
….et le ouch. $1,000 per kwh now?

I didn’t know it was even possible to pay that much. Is that pre-GM ‘assembly’ or post? 16k a pack? Some kind of special ‘deal’ for the nearly bankrupt…are they paying a premium to do business in this segment? Even if prices fall in half, $8,000 was still the estimated cost from day 1…not at year 6.

Something tells me that GM is overpaying compared to their peers. Pricing has to be a big reason that the large players (Toyota/Mitsu) are doing it themselves.

(Quote)
statik Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:54 am

In other news sure to be signaling the end of the downturn for GM:

“GMC Acadia Named Pet Safe Vehicle of Choice”

This year’s Chicago Auto Show featured nearly two dozen auto manufacturers vying for the Pet Safe Vehicle of Choice award, and taking the honors was the GMC Acadia crossover SUV… the Pet Safe Vehicle of Choice award recognizes vehicles that provide exemplary protection while offering pet-friendly traveling accommodations such as increased seating space and privacy glass to cut down on heat and glare during bright summer days.

(pic of GM new targeted demo riding in the back)
http://image.trucktrend.com/f/17806953/163_news090218_02z+gmc_acadia+rear_seat_view.jpg

(Quote)
Van Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:55 am

From the above article: “1. Cost. Cells have decreased 17x in cost over the last 15 years, and he thinks they will have to reduce cost 2x to 4x in the next 5-10 years, admitting automotive lithium ion cells run about $1000/kwh.”

To clarify, the cells do not cost $1000 per KWh, but the battery pack including the management system costs about $1000 per available KWh. This is because more KWh of capacity must be installed than call be initially utilized in order to provide long life. Hence, a 16 KWh pack could provide 12 kWh of usable capacity over the life of the pack. Therefore while the cost might be $750 per installed KWh, the cost per usable KWh is about $1000.

(Quote)
blkstne Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:03 am

I just decided that I will probally wait 10 more years before I purchase any electric car. I will sit and watch all the cars/technologies come and go and figure in about a decade the better long term electric car/technology will win out. This electric car race is becoming another Beta/VHS-tape/CD-HD/Blueray-Cable/Satellite etc war. In the end It’s not always the best technology that wins but the company who can convince the masses that there technology is the better ( or sometimes just the less expensive ) one.

(Quote)
Shawn Marshall Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:09 am

Ziv #6 – Thanks for a well reasoned post. Agree that (X)EVs will be long lived & high resale value vehicles. To use current (pun) PC language the Volt is a fundamental paradigm shift in automotive technology. GM needs to beat the drum for this initial price offset.

Carcus1 – I’ll give you a me too for a 100 mile AER EV 2 seater. Works for me especially as a second car. The market will rule if it outlasts the present government planned economy.

My company didn’t file an annual report for a long time when it got in financial difficulty. They had cooked the books to show ‘present value’ revenues of 10 billion to support an ambitious and disastrous acquisition program. Everything they bought turned to dust. This was in the era of electric utility deregulation; a con job by Wall Street and big manufacturers like GM and GE and willing government stooges and abettors. My company was Allegheny power.
All these folks hosed the public big time but that was nothing compared to the green power, smart grid wave of nonsense that the global warming freaks are pushing. Ask yourself, who profits?? It ain’t you babe. And it will make USA industry even less competitive. Low electric rates are crucial to our national economy.
Looking forward to buying a used battery pack to store solar power for my home. Don’t need your comments Dave.

Good info Lyle. Thanks for all you do.

Nukes + (X)EVS = the dawn of a new age in USA

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:14 am

Take a ride into the future:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgit7iIrxZw
Aptera Testride with Steve Fambro in the 2e @ TED

(best electric car footage I’ve seen yet)

(Quote)
koz Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:15 am

Statik #13

Yea, that $1000/KWh jumped out at me too. I generally ignore those kind of cost comments in this venue and from this type of source. Clearly he knows the correct #, but no way is he giving it up here. That’s the political, you should be happy to pay $40K for a Volt price.

Van #15,

Where did you get your info from?

(Quote)
GuyMan Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:16 am

#3 – NZDavid

I’ve heard this argument (”If one goes down, the parts supply chain will fail, and they will all fail”) before, and the more I think about it, the less sense it makes to me…

With SAAR at a 9MM running rate, my sense is this is a “zero sum game”, that is, the loss of one car company (say Chrysler goes down 1st), is actually a benefit to the remaining two companies. I work for a company that sells parts to the car manufactures (we’re 3 steps back in the supply chain, making catalyic converter substrates) – and our volume is down, say 40-50% (which makes sense with the rest of the car industry). The key point, is that we sell parts to ALL car companies, domestic, Asian, European, Indian, Chinese, etc.. There must be 40 or so car companies we sell to. My point is that if folks need a truck, they are going to buy a truck, they may have a preference on a Chrysler or GMC, but if Chrysler (or GM) is gone, they will just buy from who is remaining (GMC or Toyota, say). My point is the 9MM SAR will NOT change if we loose a few car companies, and if Chrysler is gone (for example) – that is actually to GM’s and Ford’s benefit, as they will pickup some of the displaced volume. People NEED cars, and getting into to 6-7MM SAR your starting to get to the “replacement” rate of based on the current fleet size. We, as a tier 3 supplier, will see NO difference in total sales volume (#parts), if Chrysler is gone, the displaced sales will just go to the other car companies parts (which will indeed have a different margin mix, but)..

Now we can argue/agree that loosing all 3 domestics is bad (security, etc – and I’m not sure I even agree with the “national security angle”, but that’s another post..), but loosing one (or even two) seems to help whatever is remaining, and even if a few Chrysler specific parts suppliers go under, the Ford and GM specific suppliers should pick up volume..

The overall “problem” is there is to much capacity (built for a 16MM SAAR) now that we’re at a 9MM SAAR – Something has to close, and folks will be laid off because of that – It’s happening now at GM.. The loans just seem to slow down the inevitable, as I don’t think we’re going to get back to a 16MM rate in several YEARS – My company certainly is planning for a 10MM SAR for the next several years..

So bottom line, I’m not sure that I agree that we can’t let at least 1 of them fail – The country will be just fine with 2 domestics – If were going to save one (with taxdollars) lets at least “thin the herd” and focus or efforts – And we may be at the point already (given the lack of GM Q4 results), that “thinning the herd”, means we setup to save Ford alone. Let the market forces have some impact in terms of sorting the winners/losers (as much as the likely means the death of the volt, which is a major loss IMHO) – I just don’t see how we can keep poring 3-4 Billon per/month into GM till the end of 2010 – Those 10K volts we get for those tax $$$ are going to make the EV1 look inexpensive in comparison…

Anyone else care to comment on the “zero-sum” market theory, that the loss of one car company, helps the remaining one’s – Am I completely missing something here?

(Quote)
Nelson Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:23 am

No Plug, No Sale is correct. The US Government should adopt a similar mantra. No Plug, No Money. Time to visit my local Junk Yard and scavenger for parts to keep my car running.

NPNS!

(Quote)
Van Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:26 am

Hi Koz, the source (Green Car) article where it explains the basis for the $1000. Read the section labeled Li-ion in traditional hybrid application, first point and following.

(Quote)
wwskinn3 Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:32 am

What about half as much battery in half as much car such as an electric SKY. That would be a fun ride and commuter car. What kind of mileage do you think we could get from it???

It is not necessary that all electrics be a four door and look like a Prius.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:43 am

#5 carcus1 Says: If Mr. Patil is correct in predicting reliable Li-ion batteries for $500 to $250 per kWh in the next 5 to 10 years, then electric cars are coming in droves. . . with or without the volt, with or without GM.
————————————————————————————–
The prediction that Li based batteries will cost 1/4 to 1/2 of what they do now is based on the assumption that Li based car batteries will ramp up to over 100,000 units per year before then. That’s what the $7500 tax credits are for – to get the unit volume up. In other words, what drives costs lower is unit volume. The manufacturing engineering required to lower costs doesn’t really kick in until you have significant volume.

For a practical electric car, I believe the EREV is only viable option. Range anxiety will keep the vast majority from buying a pure BEV, and PHEVs with a small amount of electric range are not worth the hassle.

As for mass market EREVs, GM seems to be the only game in town. What other cars makers with a network of dealerships throughout the U.S. have announced a production date for an EREV?

Chrysler has made a few prototypes, but hasn’t indicated what they will actually build. I suspect Chrysler will only build the pure-BEV sports car. It’s much easier for them to essentially hand build $80K sports cars than to figure out how to mass produce $35K EREV Jeeps or minivans. And this all assumes Chrysler is still around by then.

Ford’s CEO laid out their plans during the senate bailout hearings. Ford will not be moving toward EREVs any time soon, but will rather concentrate their efforts on making gas engines more efficient.

BYD, Fiskar, and Aptera have announced EREV production vehicles, but none of them have a network of dealerships throughout the U.S., so their sales will be very limited.

Volvo, BMW, and others have announced EREV prototypes and concepts, but they haven’t announced any production plans.

So if GM goes belly-up, and the Volt isn’t produced, then I fear a mass production EREV would be significantly delayed, which means it will take significantly more than 5-10 years to get the cost reductions Mr. Patil is predicting.

(Quote)
kent beuchert Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:45 am

The problem with battery-only electrics will not be solved by lower cost batteries – the problem of range and recharge times doesn’t disappear. That’s what limits the usefullness of an EV. And regardless of how cheap those batteries are, a battery-only EV requires a second car, which
means the total package won’t be cheap.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:02 am

#6 ziv Says: Or drivers that fit into the longer commute end of the spectrum could buy a 32 kWh battery for $10,000 and it would probably fit with room to spare in the battery compartment.
————————————————————————————–
Two points:

1) GM has stated repeatedly that they will not build more than 40 miles of AER into the battery pack, even when new battery technology allows it.

2) The battery pack is very complicated. It includes liquid cooling, internal heating elements, and a processor sub-system with lots of control code for fault tolerance. The processor sub-system in the battery pack has to communicate seamlessly with other Volt sub-systems. Any replacement battery pack for the Volt will have to be qualified and tested by GM. In other words, if you want a new Volt battery pack, you’ll have to buy it from GM.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:05 am

Message to GM marketing department:

On the GMC Sierra Hybrid “hug it or haul it” add (top of thread, refresh page to see hug it or haul it intro):

I can’t figure out what’s a bigger slap in the face to a “tree-hugger”.
A. Showing a giant tree being cut down out of the forest.
B. Suggesting that a $48,000 21 mpg pickup is the best way to haul it.

Are you finding that sarcasm sells?!

The only way this add even starts to make sense is if it’s tounge in cheek to the anti-environmentalist. And that crowd certainly doesn’t care about buying a hybrid.

You guys must be smoking crack.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:12 am

#25 kent beuchert,
“a battery-only EV requires a second car, which means the total package won’t be cheap.”
_____________________________________________________

It’s a non-issue.

New Study Shows Multiple Cars Are King in American Households:

“In a study of households with at least one vehicle, Experian Automotive, a part of global information services company Experian, found that households with three or more cars are the single largest group among American car owners.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS146089+12-Feb-2008+PRN20080212

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:25 am

#25 kent beuchert Says: The problem with battery-only electrics will not be solved by lower cost batteries – the problem of range and recharge times doesn’t disappear. That’s what limits the usefulness of an EV. And regardless of how cheap those batteries are, a battery-only EV requires a second car, which means the total package won’t be cheap.
————————————————————————————–
Yes, well said.

For example, let’s take the following scenario for pure EVs:

• In 2010 they discover a new battery technology that’s really cheap and can fast charge without any problems.

• By 2013, the first cars using these new batteries start to roll out.

• By 2016, fast charging stations have sprouted up in suburban areas and along interstate highways.

• In 2017, your parents retire and move to a remote location in the country. Since there are not enough fast charging stations along the way, you have to rent a gas engine car to visit them.

• In 2018, your father has a heart attack. You don’t know if he’s going to make it. The rental car place is closed.

This is why I will never buy a pure BEV. I don’t think I’m alone on this. Range anxiety will always be an issue with pure BEVs. Building a complete fast-charging infrastructure that completely encompasses remote and rural areas will take 30-50 years.

So I believe most people will continue to want cars that run on gas for a long, long time. To me, the objective is to get those cars to run on gas as little as possible, and run on electricity and ethanol as much as possible.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:27 am

#28 add,

“It’s a non-issue” should read “it’s a non-issue for 2/3 of american households”.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:29 am

#28 carcus1 Says: It’s a non-issue. New Study Shows Multiple Cars Are King in American Households…
————————————————————————————–
What if your wife is out, an emergency comes up, and you have to get somewhere beyond your range fast?

I believe most people will continue to want cars that run on gas for a long, long time. To me, the objective is to get those cars to run on gas as little as possible, and run on electricity and ethanol as much as possible.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:33 am

#13 statik & #19 koz – on the cost per kWh of the battery pack

Check out the weasel words. The quote, attributable to CPI (didn’t know a legal abstraction could talk) is as follows:

“All four of these items together justify a 2.5x premium for the AT application (or approximately $ 1,000/available kWh) compared to the $350/stated kWh of a CE system, CPI says.”

Leaving aside the approximately qualifier, the $1000/kWh is for the “available kWh”. Since only part of the pack can be used, the cost of the pack is spread not over the entire pack but over the portion of the pack which is used. That can be a big difference. In the case of the Volt, where 50% or 8 kWh of the pack is being used, this arguably means that the pack costs $8000.

Adjust downward to account for the “approximately” qualifier for things like volume production and you get a number more in line with other estimates.

(Quote)
Mike the mechanic Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:35 am

I would like to know more on exterior colors for the Volt.

(Quote)
TALLPALL Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:50 am

*** 646 Day’s to go ***

(Quote)
vincent Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:55 am

So they last 15 years in the proper environment….
Lets back out the replacement cost of a second battery pack and lower the volt by what $10,000 minimum….

Sell the biatch for $29K get a Gov tax break and sell the hell out of them.

(Quote)
ziv Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:07 pm

to Dave G…, you mentioned that…
1) GM has stated repeatedly that they will not build more than 40 miles of AER into the battery pack, even when new battery technology allows it.

2) The battery pack is very complicated. It includes liquid cooling, internal heating elements, and a processor sub-system with lots of control code for fault tolerance. The processor sub-system in the battery pack has to communicate seamlessly with other Volt sub-systems. Any replacement battery pack for the Volt will have to be qualified and tested by GM. In other words, if you want a new Volt battery pack, you’ll have to buy it from GM.

————————————————–

I hear you, but by the time most of the batteries fail, they won’t be covered under warranty, and I doubt most of us will be buying our replacement batteries from GM and Mr. Goodwrench. We will be buying them from Hymotion, et. al., and having local mechanics install it for us. What we think is state of the art software and battery pack management now will be childs play to replace in 10 years. I think it is Rashid that has the commute from hell, and I bet dollars to doughnuts there will be companies by 2020 that will be able to install a much larger, non-GM, battery in a 10 year old Volt, thereby greatly extending its range for the 10% of us who really want it. I will be getting a domesticly built battery and pack and maybe extending the AER to 50 miles so I can get almost 40 on those super hot days I am driving at freeway speeds with my AC on. We are already seeing Prius owners doing things that break their warranty, because the benefits of a Hymotion pack are worth it for them to take that risk.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:08 pm

#31 Dave G.,

A BEV won’t work for everybody in every situation.

My contention is that for a majority of american households, the BEV could provide the most electric car “bang for the buck”.

Top 3 advantages of BEV over EREV as I see it:
1. Purchase Cost. BEV’s will be substantially cheaper
2. Electric range. 100+ looks easily attainable. Don’t have to drag around ICE and generator (heavy items, both) Never uses gas.
3. Maintenance costs. BEV’s are relatively simple. Almost all the stuff that normally breaks/requires maintenance is eliminated.

P.S. a search back through my quicken file shows that maintenance costs and fuel costs have been roughly equal over the years. I expect this is typical. With a BEV you’re eliminating all the fuel costs and almost all the maintenance. With an EREV you’re eliminating most of the fuel costs but the maintenance is a big question mark. I suspect maintenance could perhaps be higher on an EREV than on a simple ICE.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:10 pm

#32 DonC Says: the $1000… is for the “available kWh”… this arguably means that the pack costs $8000.
————————————————————————————–
Yes, that’s how I read this as well. The article in Green Car Congress says “$ 1,000/available kWh”, and the Volt’s battery pack has 8 available kWh to drive around 40 miles.

So in 5-10 years, the Volt’s battery pack should cost $2000-$4000, according to Mr. Patil’s predictions.

(Quote)
Welcome to reality Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:34 pm

Apparently kent #25 has never heard of rentals cars, airplanes, buses, trains, private shuttles or public transportation. Wilfull ignorance is no longer an excuse.

I use a 100% electric vehicle as my daily driver for my 26 mile commute and have zero issues with range or recharge time. If you already have an electric vehicle and range or recharge time are a concern to you I suggest you get a range extender (yes, you can get tow behinds) and a cheap outlet timer. You do have an electric vehicle, kent, don’t you, so that you actually know anything about what you are talking about, right? Which one is it?

Thank goodness for blogs like this. I’m continually amazed at the lack of basic information about electric drive that’s out in the general public and the arrogance of people eager to spread misinformation, fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) about electric drive. Automakers’ biggest challenge is to do constant education in their marketing.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:49 pm

#37 carcus1,

1) I think an EREV-40 would be less expensive than a similarly sized BEV-100. Remember that many of the BEVs being announced now are much smaller than the Volt. The range extender in the Volt probably costs GM around $2K-$3K wholesale. A 32 kWh battery would probably cost around $7K more than a 16 kWh battery today. In 5-10 years, it would probably cost $2K-$4K more.

2) The Volt’s battery pack weighs 400 pounds, and I believe most of that is the actual battery cells, so a 32 kWh pack would probably weigh around 700 pounds. I doubt the Volt’s range extender weighs 300 pounds.

3) Yes, a BEV would require the least maintenance, but an EREV would require much less maintenance than a regular gas engine car. Remember that range extender in an EREV runs very few of the total miles.

In the end, I believe most arguments for pure-BEVs come down to your phrase “Never uses gas.” EREVs almost never use gas, and ethanol can easily make up that difference.

(Quote)
Second Grade English Teacher Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:01 pm

#34 TALLPALL,

Do not use apostrophes for noun plurals.

Correct:
(There are) 646 days to go.

Incorrect:
(There are) 646 day’s to go.

For adults:
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_apost.html

If you are unsure how to use punctuation correctly or are unable to write a complete sentence, please study a little more grammar and practice on your own before you write in public again. Your public writing skills will dramatically improve, I promise.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:12 pm

#40 Dave G

imiev: 2381#, 16kwh, range 75 mi.
http://www.mitsubishi-motors-pr.ca/enhanced/en-ca/Media/Preview.aspx?mediaid=12900

aptera 2e: 1500#, 10-13kwh range 100-125mi
http://www.gizmag.com/aptera-2e-specification-released/10903/

volt: 3520#(unverified), 16 kwh, aer 40mi
http://gm-volt.com/2008/08/21/chevy-volt-curb-weight-around-3520-pounds/

Try to keep it real.

(Quote)
Eric Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:18 pm

In reading the comments above about EV vs. EREV cars is simple. If you are a person(family) who has only one car per household(driver) then the decision is clear. You would have to go with the EREV car at this point in time. But if you can afford more than one car per household(driver) then the EV is a good option. I just read an article that China is going to put several EV buses out that carry 24 people, run for 160+miles, recharge 2000+ times, and fully recharge in 20min… in June of this year. Tesla is also unveiling(end of March) the Model S that can go up to 300miles on a single charge. The pure EV car is coming to be a very attractive option when considering a 2nd car(again that is if you can afford a 2nd car).

(Quote)
Roger Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:30 pm

As a probable early adoptor of electric drive vehicles there are several factors that go into which vehicle I will purchase. MY current thought is that gas prices are very likely at their nadir for the forseeable future. Keeping in mind that the payback for gas and maintenance saving is about a 8-10 year payback on the cost premium. The payback inproves as gas prices rise from new gasoline taxes or supply related issues like Isreali air strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites. However, at this point my major motivation is political. I will gradly pay a premium so I can avoid sending money to people who wish to harm my country. Likewise, I feel that 19 year old young men should have to die in the middle east just so I can drive a nice car. Finally, one can imagine ecomonic stimulus of 50 new nuclear power plants suppling 100 million eletric cars with battery packs produced in this country resulting 700 billion normally going overseas cycling through our economy. NUKTOIL NPNS

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:32 pm

#41
Second Grade English Teacher Says:

“Your public writing skills will dramatically improve, I promise.”
_______________________________________________________

I say:

That is a run-on sentence. -5

“It is important to realize that the length of a sentence really has nothing to do with whether a sentence is a run-on or not; being a run-on is a structural flaw that can plague even a very short sentence.”
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/runons.htm

(Quote)
unni Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:32 pm

GM restructuring plan of Canada
http://www.gm.ca/inm/gmcanada/english/about/docs/Submission.pdf

(Quote)
Tom Harwick Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:43 pm

#37 CARCUST

Top 3 advantages of BEV over EREV as I see it:
1. Purchase Cost. BEV’s will be substantially cheaper

You are mistaken about advantage number 1. BEVs are much more expensive than EREVs, because they need a much bigger battery. The Tesla sells for $109k, and it can only carry two people.

(Quote)
Tom Harwick Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:49 pm

“It is important to realize that the length of a sentence really has nothing to do with whether a sentence is a run-on or not; being a run-on is a structural flaw that can plague even a very short sentence.”

The sentence above is a run-on sentence. I suggest you change the comma after “not” to a period, and start a new sentence with “Being”.

(Quote)
Gas Electric Volt Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:01 pm

I’d love to see the Volt equipped with a 10kwh battery or even a smaller 5 kwh battery until battery costs become more reasonable.

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:15 pm

I especially like his arguements in support of the E-REV approach. When costs come down, we will see what people opt for – cheaper 40 miles or same price with longer range.

(Quote)
Jake Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:21 pm

I’m not so convinced that something like the Aptera will really take off. It’s certainly out of the question for me, because I need a car that can meet all of my daily, weekly, or yearly needs. I’m not married with a house, family, and a conventional car already. I have an adventurous lifestyle and I need to be able to throw stuff (bike, skis, friends, etc.) in the car and head for the hills. Maybe down the road I will be able to look into a 2-seater, but I’m not holding my breath.

The notion that the American public will “discover” Aptera and promptly alter their lifestyles seems naive. I am more than willing to be proved wrong, however. I’m just kind of pessimistic about people adopting something so different from what they’re used to. Heck, I’m a young environmentalist and engineering major, and Aptera is not exactly sending chills down my spine. Here’s to hoping that my gut feeling is wrong in this case!

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:27 pm

#47 Tom,

I’m not talking about the Tesla for chrissakes!

For the purposes of BEV , let’s just consider imiev.

If battery prices come down to the area Dr. Patil has forecast ($500 to $250 per kwh) . Then we can reasonably forecast the 16kwh (same battery size as the volt, stay with me on this) imiev will cost $25k or even less. A $25,000 BEV that costs no gas, almost no maintenance, has batteries that last for 15 years and is usable for 90% of your driving needs is a huge hit for the family budget (if people actually ever thought about budgets). Assuming a mass produced car like this were to materialize (big assumption), I think the public would very quickly discover that they’d rather keep the $4k per year in their pockets as opposed to splitting it up between the House of Saud and the House of Goodwrench.

So you save about $4k per year, and just keep the pickup/suv around for those times when an electric car won’t cut it. Most households in the U.S. have at least 2 cars anyway.

To be clear. I’m not saying there is no place for the volt. I’m not even saying that I, personally would choose an imiev over the volt (I do a fair amount of long distance driving). I’m saying that I think the BEV for multilple car households has more potential for mass sales to budget minded consumers than an EREV.

(Quote)
Bob G Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:38 pm

#20 GuyMan Says: “… My point is the 9MM SAR will NOT change if we loose a few car companies … Now we can argue/agree that loosing all 3 domestics is bad (security, etc … but loosing one (or even two) seems to help whatever is remaining”

“Loose” = not tight (i.e. The rope was loose, so he escaped.), and “Lose” = to not win (i.e., We cannot lose another domestic industry.).

#34 TALLPALL Says: “*** 646 Day’s to go ***”

“Day’s” is a contracton of “Day is,” or posessive form (e.g., This day’s nice. This day’s weather is nice). “Days” = plural (i.e., 646 days to go).

If you expect to be taken seriously in a public forum, you need to have a basic grasp of the language. It’s really not that hard.

(Quote)
TALLPALL Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:40 pm

#41
Second Grade English Teacher:

Please help me. You should know this one.

How do i spell PR1CK?

(Quote)
TALLPALL Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:49 pm

Thanks for correcting me guy’s, sorry (guys)

BTW it only took you 4 weeks. I can sleep at night now, phew!

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:50 pm

Here’s a good place to take this whole grammar/spelling debate.

http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/

(Quote)
Bob G Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:50 pm

#48 Tom Harwick Says, “The sentence above is a run-on sentence. I suggest you change the comma after “not” to a period, and start a new sentence with “Being”.”

Comma?! That’s a semicolon. It acts like a conjunction, so the sentence is not a run-on.

It’s embarrassing that we have to discuss grammar fundamentals on a technical forum.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:51 pm

OMG – grammar? please!

(Quote)
swimdad623 Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:53 pm

#52 carcus1

I’m happy that you think a pure BEV like the imiev will be a usable choice for you. Personally, I’m the ideal market for a pure BEV (we have two cars, and I drive less than 10 miles per day on weekdays, and less than 20 miles per day on weekends – totaling about 3000 miles per year). However, I would never buy an imiev with a 75-mile range. The reasoning is range anxiety – the 75 mile range is just too short. If I get stuck in traffic on a hot day, the range goes down when I have the AC running. If it’s a cold day, and I turn on the defroster to take the ice off the windshield, the range goes down. If my wife takes our other car, and I want to drive somewhere 35 miles away, there a chance that I can’t get home.

Until the pure-BEV cars get a range of about 200 miles, a lot of people (including myself) will avoid them. I got involved with the Volt because I wanted to reduce our consumption of gasoline, but I’m not willing to get stranded away from home to do it. The range extender adds $2000-$4000 to the cost of the Volt, and that’s a price worth paying to be able to drive whenever I want, and for as far as I want.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:01 pm

#42 carcus1 Says: Try to keep it real.
————————————————————————————–
I think most people would agree that the iMiev and Aptera are much smaller than the Volt. If you want to compare a BEV to an EREV, use cars of the same size and type. Don’t compare apples with tangerines.

(Quote)
Bob G Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:06 pm

#52 carcus1. I agree completely. Batteries are still too expensive to make a BEV with sufficient range and low enough cost for most buyers.

GM knows this. That’s why the 40 mile battery range with the ICE range extender is a brilliant idea. It is pure electric, oil-free operation most of the time, with no new infrastructure required.

The only better idea is a Volt in my driveway!

(Quote)
omnimoeish Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:12 pm

I would imagine that $1,000 a kWh is right on right now. They are charging GM about $7.5k per Volt for the battery.

But that contract lasts 7 years.

I would imagine that once they go mainstream and start building 100,000 – 500,000 batteries a year and given the 17x price reduction figure over the last 15 years, if they can get that price down to $250-$500 per kWh within a year, they will about break even or maybe even turn a small profit.

The beauty for them is that once they are at a larger economy of scale compared to A123 and other potential competitors, they can out compete anyone.

It’s similar to the Sony Playstation 3. The first ones they made were costing probably 2-3 times as much as they sold them for, but as they ramp up demand and production, they can finally get them to a point where they can break even and then make a profit.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 pm

#49 Gas Electric Volt Says: I’d love to see the Volt equipped with a 10kwh battery or even a smaller 5 kwh battery until battery costs become more reasonable.
————————————————————————————–
Two points:

1) A Volt with a 5 kWh battery probably wouldn’t work. Remember that larger batteries have more energy (for range) and more power (for acceleration and uphill driving). The Volt’s electric motor draws up to 120 kW. I don’t think a 5 kWh battery would be able to supply 120 kW of power. I’m not sure a 10 kWh battery could supply that much power.

2) A 16 kWh battery gets the full $7500 U.S. tax credit. A 5 kWh battery gets less than $3000 tax credit. So the Volt’s 16 kWh battery won’t cost much more after tax credits.

(Quote)
Bob G Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:24 pm

Oops. I meant to agree with “#59 swimdad623,” not “#52 carcus1.”

(Quote)
Bob G Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:28 pm

#63 Dave G

And, I’d like to add that a larger capacity battery can accept energy at a faster rate, translating to more efficient regenerative braking. GM has done their homework.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:28 pm

#59 Swimdad,

” The range extender adds $2000-$4000 to the cost of the Volt, and that’s a price worth paying to be able to drive whenever I want, and for as far as I want.”
___________________________________________________

Ok. That’s a (mostly) reasonable explanation of why someone would buy an EREV over a BEV. You don’t want limited range, and you’re willing to pay for it. Understood. But how much are you willing to pay?

The unrealistic thing here is your numbers. You can’t even add a nav system for $2,000 to a new car. A crate engine’s probably gonna run you $3,000, and that’s before you put in the cooling system, engine controls, motor mounts, gas tank, generator, extra sheet metal, extra structure, engineering costs, controlling software etc, etc, etc,….

I think you’re talking about $6,000 minimum and $8,000 is probably more realistic. And these prices will not come down much over time as opposed to battery prices which most likely will.

Admittedly, no one knows what the maintenance costs are going to be on an EREV but they will certainly be more than on a BEV. My guess is that over the life of the vehicle it’ll be at least an extra $1,000/yr to maintain the EREV. (This advantage for the BEV gets diminished (wiped out?) if you factor in a necessity for a second car that wouldn’t have been kept otherwise).

In summary, my WAG for BEV vs. EREV costs are:
Purchase price: +$8,000
Maintenance costs: + $1,000/yr for the life of the vehicle.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:35 pm

#59 swimdad623 Says: The range extender adds $2000-$4000 to the cost of the Volt, and that’s a price worth paying to be able to drive whenever I want, and for as far as I want.
————————————————————————————–
If you are comparing a Volt BEV-40 with a Volt EREV-40, then yes, the range extender adds about $2K-$3K. But a 40-mile BEV is pretty scary. Comparing a Volt BEV-75 with a Volt EREV-40 would be more appropriate. A Volt BEV-75 would cost more than a Volt EREV-40.

So I don’t really consider that the range extender costs extra, since that’s what allows you to get by with less range.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:36 pm

#60 Dave G

“I think most people would agree that the iMiev and Aptera are much smaller than the Volt. If you want to compare a BEV to an EREV, use cars of the same size and type. Don’t compare apples with tangerines.”
_____________________________________________________

It’s a multi-car household scenario. So I’m fairly comparing this basket of fruit to that basket of fruit.

I’d say 90% of the time I only see one or two people in a vehicle at a time. Back into a parking spot at a busy corner gas station one day and watch for 20 minutes. Tell me I’m wrong.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:01 pm

#68 carcus1,

You make an interesting point. If most families have at least 2 cars, then a very small BEV may make sense for a lot of people. I would be concerned about not being able to go somewhere beyond my range if my wife was out, but I guess many people would be willing to take that chance.

Here’s something that I still don’t understand though. For everyone talking about a pure BEV, their other family car always seems to a regular gas engine car. Why not make that other car an EREV? Wouldn’t that save a lot of gas?

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:16 pm

#51 Jake Says: I’m not so convinced that something like the Aptera will really take off. It’s certainly out of the question for me… I have an adventurous lifestyle and I need to be able to throw stuff (bike, skis, friends, etc.) in the car and head for the hills.
————————————————————————————–
Actually, the Aptera will seat 3, and it will hold an amazing amount of stuff in the back (skis, 2 surf boards, 2 golf bags, 15 bags of groceries, etc.).

The real problem with Aptera is the 3 wheels. This won’t work in snow or ice. Aptera only sells in certain parts California, and I suspect they will stay that way.

As for me, I would love to see an EREV version of the Orlando. Check out the third picture here:
http://www.chevrolet.com/orlando/

This micro-van / MPV is actually pretty small, but has lots of space inside. Seats 7 people or lots of stuff when the seats are down. The Orlando uses the same platform (chassis, brakes, suspension, etc.) as the Volt and the Cruze, so it shouldn’t take too much for GM to do an EREV version.

Would you buy an Orlando EREV?

(Quote)
D.. Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:19 pm

carcus- I think you see the near future, and it is electric, pure BEV.

In 5 years or so, when the price per battery Kwh falls to $250, according to my calculations Aptera will be able to sell you a fine automobile with a 200 mile Range(20kwhs of battery) for an affordable $23K. Works for me!

-assuming 100 mile e-range Aptera released to public late this year will be priced at 28k, has $10k in their 10kwh battery-

(Quote)
DonC Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:27 pm

#68 Carcus1 and #68 Dave G

I think it’s fair to compare the cars but I think it’s hard to size them. The i-Miev is quite small, but because it doesn’t have an ICE it seats four. The Aptera only seats two but it’s wider than a Hummer. The Aptera battery pack is 10 kWh and the i-Miev has a 16 kWh pack so the Volt isn’t completely different on that axis.

One big problem is that size (other than frontal area) and weight don’t really matter at high speeds. At low speeds these factors are big deals, but on the expressway aero drag and drive train losses matter much more. In this regard, it may turn out that the Volt is more efficient than either of these cars at high speed. GM has said the Cd for the Volt will be “very close” to the EV-1’s, and it presumably has a “top secret” super duper transmission which should minimize drive train losses. We’ll have to see exactly how all this turns out.

Skipping the question of the battery pack, surely a BEV is simpler and less costly to make. I’m not sure, however, if the maintenance will be a deal, much less a big deal. Yes the E-REV has an ICE engine, but modern engines have gotten so good there is barely any maintenance as it is. These things last a few hundred thousand miles, so I can’t imagine things really becoming a problem if you put a couple of thousand miles a year on them. Moreover, if you think about it, the ICE on the Volt will be used much like a generator, and those things can go something like 1000 hours between oil changes. That could be ten years!

GM seems to have hit the cost and technology right. Even if in ten years fuel cells (probably not hydrogen) become cost effective, the low cost of fueling from the grid is so cost effective that you would still want an E-REV.

#71 D.

Price is one issue. Recharging is another. Assuming your next gen Aptera would go 200 miles (I suspect the announced 100 mile will be more like 70 miles in SoCal BTW), what do you do if you need to go three hundred miles? Wait a day to recharge? The 40 mile range is also very useful given a recharge of 1 kW or 2 kW and hour, which is what we’re likely to see for awhile.

(Quote)
CDAVIS Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:53 pm

______________________________________________________
#27 carcus1 Says:
Message to GM marketing department:

On the GMC Sierra Hybrid “hug it or haul it” add (top of thread, refresh page to see hug it or haul it intro):

I can’t figure out what’s a bigger slap in the face to a “tree-hugger”.
A. Showing a giant tree being cut down out of the forest.
B. Suggesting that a $48,000 21 mpg pickup is the best way to haul it.

Are you finding that sarcasm sells?!

The only way this add even starts to make sense is if it’s tounge in cheek to the anti-environmentalist. And that crowd certainly doesn’t care about buying a hybrid.

You guys must be smoking crack.

——
My Comment:

I looked at the GMC Sierra Hybrid advertisement (”Hug it or Haul it”) that carcus1 pointed out. I’m not sure what to make of that ad other than it surely will alienate GM from the more sensitive (no humor) environmental crowd (as apposed to the environmental crowd many of us are part of that on one hand wants to help protect the environment but on the other hand can take a joke). What I find intriguing is knowing that at some point in time a GM marketing guy raised his hand at a marketing meeting and said “Hey I have a good marketing campaign idea that will help us sell the Sierra Hybrid…let’s make a commercial of a large old-growth tree being cut down and the Sierra Hybrid hauling it out of the forest with the tag line of hug-it-then-haul-it.” The marketing guy I’m sure said it as a wisecrack joke. It is indeed a very funny joke because of the ironical absurdity of the marketing message. After all the marketing guys in the room had their fill of laughs, apparently someone said “hey that might actually work, humor in marketing is what sells today…let’s go with it.” During the marketing legal review, a GM layer said “I’m concerned that some of our core customers will think that we are literally promoting tree hugging…that they should hug the tree before felling it. GM may face some liability if someone gets injured by taking marketing message literally and hugs a tree in the process of felling the tree. Let’s instead make the tag line hug-it-OR-haul-it so that it can not be misconstrued that GM is promoting hugging trees during the process of felling trees.” Hence “hug-it-or-haul-it”.
______________________________________________________

(Quote)
Shawn Marshall Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:22 pm

I think two people should rather use the telephone than stink up the thread.
You are obviously correct Carcus1 so just drop it and let the market decide. Don’t argue with fence posts.

(Quote)
CDAVIS Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:29 pm

______________________________________________________
PS to my above #73 CDAVIS post:

I’m not suggesting that carcus1 has no sense of humor. I agree with carcus1’s point that in this instance sarcasm/humor does not help GM sell more Sierra Hybrids.
______________________________________________________

(Quote)
statik Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:31 pm

I love all this lively debate over non-existent cars. (Actually I do…it passes the time reading, although I have spend about all the energy I care to on it)

/I think most of us are in the ‘just let me buy anything, and I will’ category…pretty hard to have standards or be picky in this segment

(Quote)
Michael Robinson Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:48 pm

The idea that the cost of Lithium ION batteries will come down at all in price is baloney. They are already mass produced and there are already economies of scale. The 15 year battery life belief is just that, a belief. There are no Lithium ION batteries that will last 15 years. There is also a Lithium shortage in the world. Repeat, there is a shortage of Lithium. The other problem with Lithium, it can only be found in China and Peru.

Nickel Metal hydride batteries are heavier per watt than Lithium
ION batteries, but they can be made from domestically acquired materials. Adopting Lithium ION batteries for cars is trading an
oil addiction for a Lithium one.

The Volt, not the Volt hydrogen, is a failure already. Noone wants
to pay $40k+ for a car that doesn’t have the power that a typical
car has. Hydrogen fuel cell cars are more powerful than BEV’s
and E-REVs.

Tesla is going to fold eventually, there is no technology available to
build a fast charging high enough capacity battery for BEV’s to be
practical. Even the Volt takes hours, not minutes, to recharge.

Fuel cell cars are not 15 years away, they are not 10 years away, they are not even 5 years away. They could be mass produced
now with current technology. The problem is lack of fueling infrastructure for them, but that could be solved by designing
fuel cell cars to reform Magnesium Hydride Slurry.

Educate yourselves EV zealots!

http://www.hydrogendiscoveries.com

http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:55 pm

TALLPALL #34 says,
*** 646 Day’s to go ***

—————
TALLPALL, Although the guys above are correct when they attack you grammar, I personally do not care if you spell it wrong.
When my English grammar becomes perfect, I might criticize then.

My only concern about what you type is that I hope you are correct.
I hope it doesn’t become 1,646 days or Never to-be-built days.

(Quote)
Elsie M Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:01 pm

I am curious to know how long it takes to reccharge the battery? Also, if one lives in a condo(as I do) and have a designated parking spot in the underground garage, where do I recharge the battery and who pays for it, the other condo owners via the common element fees? Anyone rum into this situation yet?

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:01 pm

Michael Robinson #77 says,
The other problem with Lithium, it can only be found in China and Peru.

You also said: Educate yourselves EV zealots!

————-
What about Bolivia? When you get this basic fact wrong, it throws your entire argument out the window.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:13 pm

An EV conversion VW rabbit or older Sentra can achieve a top speed of 50 mph using a 20HP electric motor powered by acid batteries. What is the weight of the 150HP electric motor used in the Volt ?

http://garfwod.250free.com/Photos/electric%20conv%20kit.jpg

=D~

(Quote)
GMguy Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:13 pm

You guys are mistaken if you think the price of the car is going to drop because, by your expectations, the cost of the batteries is going to drop. Gas engines have become more efficient (more power, same displacement), yet have you seen the cost decrease due to volume? No. How about the price of any automobile (with the exception of the current crises), has any vehicle been sold for significantly less once the 2nd gen came on line? No.

More like, lower line vehicles will come that will cost less.

Food for thought. Lithium batteries have been around for a while now and in mass production. I purchased a Sony camera 8 years ago with lithium batteries. Guess what? They aren’t any cheaper now then they were 8 years ago.

(Quote)
RB Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:14 pm

#20 GuyMan says
Anyone else care to comment on the “zero-sum” market theory, that the loss of one car company, helps the remaining one’s – Am I completely missing something here?
——————————————————————

I agree with you for the reasons you give. If someone needs a truck and cannot get it one place they will get it another (if the price difference is not too much). Parts suppliers of the former will be hurt while those of the latter will be helped. Many supply both companies and will be affected minimally if at all.

(Quote)
ziv Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:18 pm

Michael, you just hit a sore spot so I hope you won’t mind if I hit you with a bunch of links to the true truth about Lithium. First of all it is more common than lead, boron or tin, all of which are in plentiful supply. Bolivia has more than 5,000,000,000 tons of the stuff, Chile and Argentina have tons of undeveloped Lithium mines. The reason the US mine at Kings Mountain shut down was a lack of demand at a price that is profitable, now that the price of lithium has risen from $4 a kilo to $8 a kilo both Kings Mountain and the new american mine at Kings Valley become profitable and will be adding their production to the stream as will mines in Russia, China, Australia, Argentina, etc.
Lithium batteries don’t have to last 15 years, though that would be nice. A 10 year life with a secondary market for batteries that are only able to hold 70% of their original charge means that the lithium batteries can be sold to people that want to live off the grid and the Volt owner can get 20% of the price of a new, slightly larger battery in 2019 or 2021 by selling it to someone who doesn’t need a brand new battery. Or more accurately, Hymotion and other battery upgrade companies will be willing to take 20% off the price of their new battery installation process.
The only article I have ever seen that was really negative on lithium availability was Tahil’s The Truth About Lithium, and it was full of lies and omissions. When Meridian did their second article on Lithium they used Tahil’s work, but since he had such a reputation for being a nutjob, they took his name off the paper.
Fuel cells? Now that is just not right, they are even more expensive than the EV-1s were, and that is pretty expensive. Fuel cells will probably always be ten years out, much like nuclear fusion power plants.
GMGuy, I agree with you to some extent but I think you are comparing the late incremental development of the ICE, i.e. the past 40 years, when you should be looking at how much more cheaply Henry Ford was able to build the Model T by developing economies of scale. The EREV is not a developmental improvement in the ICE, it is a revolutionary change, a paradigm shift, as an earlier poster put it, and it will mean that the early adopters will pay a lot more for the first Volts built, while the people that buy the Volt in the years to come will be buying a Volt that benefits from the improvements in the manufacturing process of the battery pack that can only happen when 30,000 or 50,000, or more, of them are built each year.
The bottom link is the best one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth%27s_crust

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium

http://gas2.org/2008/10/13/lithium-counterpoint-no-shortage-for-electric-cars/

(Quote)
GMguy Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:20 pm

Dave K,

And for the backyard hack mechanic with his EV converted VW or Sentra… tell me, how well will that do in a crash? Especially, since in this day and age, the entire vehicle, every module is figured into the impact absorbtion?

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:23 pm

hi Elsie M #79,

“…who pays for it…”

_____________________________

We have common (free) outlets near our condo parking garages. They are used for vacuuming, polishing, and small power tools. I asked my association to install designated outlets for each parking area. Their reply was to call a licensed electrician and let the association sign on the work.

It’s probably better to buy the outlet outright then it is to pay more monthly dues over time. The other way to go is a $5 per month dues increase and upgrade all the garages, at the same time, with consistent installations.

=D~

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:27 pm

hi GMguy #85,

“how well will that do in a crash?”

_________________________

My question is, “What is the weight of the 150HP electric motor used in the Volt?”. I believe the per motor cost is about $5000.

=D~

(Quote)
Elsie M Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:57 pm

Hi Dave 86
The cost of upgrading over 400 spaces in our garage would be staggering! We also have an outlet for vacuuming etc, but what happens when there are several people all wanting to recharge? How long does it take? That is probably the critical factor.
I am thinking ahead as it hasn’t happened yet, but I am sure it will and as a director on the board we have to “be prepared”.

(Quote)
koz Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:11 pm

GMguy #82

A couple a things to consider:

-There are a lot of different types of Li cells. The type to be used in the Volt is very new to production. Just becuase your sony camera’s battery has Li in it doesn’t mean it is similar in chemistry or similar production techniques as a prismatic cell with a lithium manganese oxide spinel cathode.

-Yes, LiCo cells have gotten a LOT cheaper if you are speaking about what actually matters, $/KWh. Today’s packs are either significantly cheaper, hold significantly more energy, or some combination of the two.

(Quote)
koz Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:48 pm

Van #22,

Thanks for the direction. I hadn’t read the sourced article.

Van, DonC, DaveG

I read that section a couple of times and have yet a different interpretation. He starts by explaining why he feels automotive traction (AT) battery needs are different from those of consumer electronics (CE). He then states “these items together JUSTIFY a 2.5x premium for the AT application (or approximately $ 1,000/available kWh) compared to the $350/stated kWh of a CE system.” I see this as him talking hypotheticals as to why AT batteries are “worth” approximately $1000/available KWh. He arrives at this by assuming 70% of battery capacity is used, not the 50% that GM claims will be used. I don’t see him speaking directly to the actual cost of the Volt’s battery in this section.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:57 pm

#88 Elsie M Says: The cost of upgrading over 400 spaces in our garage would be staggering! We also have an outlet for vacuuming etc, but what happens when there are several people all wanting to recharge? How long does it take?
————————————————————————————–
The Volt takes around 6.5 hours to fully charge if it’s empty. That’s around 11 amps on a normal 110 volt outlet – about the same as a vacuum cleaner. If 400 Volt’s were charging at the same time, that would be equivalent to the electrical service of 22 apartments. It wouldn’t be too hard to wire that up.

The main issues for the installation would be how you will secure the outlets, and how you will charge the owner. If your garage has assigned spaces, or if you’re not worried about charging a particular owner, then a simple mechanical key cover system will do. If people can park anywhere, and you want to charge the owner, then you’ll need a more sophisticated card-swipe based system.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:10 pm

#90 koz Says: I read that section a couple of times and have yet a different interpretation… He arrives at this ($1000/available KWh) by assuming 70% of battery capacity is used, not the 50% that GM claims will be used.
————————————————————————————–
The article says:
“First, CE pricing is based on the beginning-of-life capacity whereas AT pricing is based upon end-of-life capacity and even for a highly durable chemistry the ratio of end-of-life to beginning-of-life is 75%.

Second, the AT application is sized for a 70% depth of discharge, the gap between minimum and maximum charge levels, which allows space on the high end for regenerative braking and space on the low end to provide enough power for charge sustaining operation.”

You have to take these two figures together. In other words, when the battery is at it’s end-of-life, it only has 75% of it’s original storage, and it only uses 70% of that degraded storage. 70% of 75% is right around 50%, which is consistent with GM’s figures.

In other words, at when the battery is new, the Volt’s control code will only use 50% of it, but when the battery is at it’s end of life, control code will use 70%. That’s how you get 40 miles of AER at both beginning and end of life.
http://gm-volt.com/2008/10/30/the-chevy-volts-all-electric-range-aer-will-be-40-miles-both-at-beginning-and-end-of-life/

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:11 pm

hi Elsie M #88,

“…as a director on the board we have to “be prepared”.”

____________________________

I would either send email to condo owners or use your newsletter. The other way to go is to place single sheet copies door to door. I suggest mentioning the usual stuff like clean areas, neighborhood watch program, and then add this:

The Board projects that electric car ownership will increase dramatically over the next 3-5 years. And many residents have asked about the recharging of their EV’s. We have a few options. The first is to have an electrician come in and do a one-time install on all units. The second is for each interested owner to contact a licensed electrician for individual bids. The third option is to set aside a recharge area for EV only parking (solar?).

This upgrade will pay for itself over time with less trips to the gas station, cleaner air, and quieter grounds. And future condo buyers will find the EV friendly feature very desirable.

________________________________

The projected full recharge times are 6-7 hours @ 110v or 3 hours @ 220v. The cost ranges from 50 cents per charge to $1.20 with overnight being lowest.

My workplace doesn’t have a problem with people using the recharge outlets. They actually PAY US for using alternative means ($75 a month bonus).

=D~

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:23 pm

#87 Dave K. =D~ Says: My question is, “What is the weight of the 150HP electric motor used in the Volt?”. I believe the per motor cost is about $5000.
————————————————————————————–
Two points:

1) The 255HP electric motor in the Tesla Roadster weighs 70 pounds and is about the size of a large watermelon.

2) That figure of $5000 sounds way off. Where did you get it? I never thought an induction motor would cost that much. Also remember that we are talking about high volume wholesale prices from GM’s parts suppliers. With this in mind, I would guess the electric motor costs GM closer to $500.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:27 pm

hi Dave G #94,

I don’t know what the 150HP motor weighs or what it costs. This is what I am asking. An internet search turned up the price range of $3600-$6000. I couldn’t find details on the weight.

(?) http://www.automation.com/content/rockwell-automation-releases-150hp-hpk-servo-motor?x=1&pagePath=00000000,00002687,00002766

=D~

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:39 pm

#82 GMguy Says: You guys are mistaken if you think the price of the car is going to drop because, by your expectations, the cost of the batteries is going to drop. Gas engines have become more efficient (more power, same displacement), yet have you seen the cost decrease due to volume? No.
————————————————————————————–
I would disagree with that statement.

First, adjusted for inflation, cars don’t cost a lot more than they used to, but you get a lot more for your money. Power windows, automatic trans, etc., etc., all pretty much standard now. The cost of the engine has become a lower percentage of the total cost of the car.

Second, the engine’s $/HP ratio has become lower. I think this is pretty clear.

Third, you have to compare apples to apples, meaning a similar type of car then and now. Don’t compare a Chevy Nova of yester-year to a Yukon today.

As for batteries, Li/Ion prices has dropped somewhat slower over the past 8 years, but remember that these are tiny batteries. Once high volume production of large batteries for EVs begins, that will be in a whole new league of Li battery cost reduction.

(Quote)
wwskinn3 Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:50 pm

How about making a BEV and putting the ICE engine & generator on a small trailer to tow behind for long trips. This could be sold as an option to just plug it in and tow. You could have your BEV for daily driving to work and hook up the small tow behind for longer weekends or trips.

(Quote)
koz Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:54 pm

DaveG #92

If you equate price to size, very reasonable assumption, your explanation is good.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:59 pm

hi wwskinnn3 #97,

“tow behind for longer weekends or trips”

_______________________

Good idea. Safety and theft may be issues. But, it seems like a step sideways from having a clean integrated system in use all of the time. The full EV with occasional car rental may be a winner for you.

=D~

(Quote)
koz Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:06 pm

Herm #11

I tried to find something that speaks to automotive NiMh efficiency but haven’t been able to. I did find a site that mentions consumer NiMh efficiency (66% coulometric efficiency).

http://www.powerstream.com/NiMH.htm

(Quote)
Van Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:23 pm

Hi Koz @ 90, I have a different understanding than others who have posted. First, I agree, he is not talking about the SOC window currently envisioned for the Volt of 8 KWh. He is saying inorder to get 12 KWh over the life of the battery, you have to initally buy 16 KWh. Thus if you pay $750 per KWh for the 16, you are actually buying 12 for about $1000. No need to make this concept more complicated.

Now lets talk about how much of the battery is “used.” In the charge depletion mode, the 8 KWh are used to get whatever AER you get. But lets say my house is located at elevation 3000 feet and my work is down at 1000 feet on a 6% downgrade road. So I use the brakes for the whole trip. Where does the regenerative braking energy go? To the battery, charging it above the 85% cutoff of the plug. So that to 15% is “used” in a manner of speaking. Similarly, when the car is operated in the charge sustaining mode, and I accelerate from a toll booth, where does the power come from. It comes from the battery, below the bottom of the SOC window, and then the ICE recharges it. So more than 50% of the battery is “used” in the charge sustaining mode.

(Quote)
The Grump Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:43 pm

I would love to own a pure BEV. Imagine, no more oil changes, ever.

However, I would demand double the battery range (200 miles) needed to cover my daily commute (just under 100 miles) – maybe. Possibly I would want far more than a 200 mile range. Why? Cold weather.

Batteries (even L-ions) become less and less efficient as the temperature drops. At zero degrees F, I would expect the output from any battery to be at least half (possibly much less). With such an important unknown to consider, I would hesitate to buy a BEV.

What is needed? A standandized rating system that would measure BEV battery output in extreme cold (International Falls, MN) and extreme heat (Death Valley, CA) conditions. That way, the potential BEV buyer would be assured of their battery range, no matter how hot or cold the weather gets.

Of course, if you lose your AC power, or some punk neighbor kid pulls out the plug, you’re in trouble. The E-REV clearly wins in these cases. I would take the risk, in exchange for no more oil changes, ever.

(Quote)
16falcon Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:55 pm

#23 wwskinn3 Says:
What about half as much battery in half as much car such as an electric SKY. That would be a fun ride and commuter car. What kind of mileage do you think we could get from it???

It is not necessary that all electrics be a four door and look like a Prius.
=====================================================
150 miles per charge. Get one here if you live in the Greater Cincinnati, Ohio area: http://www.ampmotorworks.com/index.html

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:55 pm

#97 wwskinn3 Says: How about making a BEV and putting the ICE engine & generator on a small trailer to tow behind for long trips.
————————————————————————————–
http://evmaine.org/html/ev_trailers.html

(Quote)
GMguy Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:11 pm

Believe what you want, the Volt won’t get cheaper because of batteries.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:14 pm

#102 The Grump Says: Of course, if you lose your AC power, or some punk neighbor kid pulls out the plug, you’re in trouble. The E-REV clearly wins in these cases. I would take the risk, in exchange for no more oil changes, ever.
————————————————————————————–
Great examples of why to buy an EREV.

It sounds like you really hate oil changes though. Which makes me think, how often would you have to change the oil in an EREV-40? With a typical yearly driving pattern, the Volt’s ICE would run less than 2000 miles per year. If you change the oil every 3000 miles, that would be once every 1.5 years. I suspect engine oil would break down slowly by itself even if you don’t use the engine, but I don’t know how long that would take.

So here’s the question: Let’s say I have a regular gas engine car that I drive once or twice a week, but not very far. How often should I change the oil? Every 6 months? Every year? Would using an oil treatment make it last longer?

(Quote)
DocM Says:
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:34 am

Try using a synthetic lubricant, which lasts far longer than conventional motor oils. The real rub may be long term gasoline/E85 storage, but then that’s what Sta-Bil and its sister & similar products are for.

(Quote)
AZK Sanders Says:
February 23rd, 2009 at 2:37 am

The Volt, with its 40-mile daily pure-electric range, will enable us to reduce our oil consumption by almost 80%. This means no more dependence on unreliable and even hostile foreign sources. That’s worth a lot. In addition, it will stop the outflow of anywhere from $300 billion up to a $600 billion yearly (depending on oil prices). That outflow is making us poorer and the oil exporting countries richer. That’s also worth a lot. That’s why the Volt is currently the way to go.

I don’t think the small engine-generator set will be so troublesome. Current portable units are air cooled so why shouldn’t the Volt’s be? And it doesn’t run all that much (not during the first 40 miles daily nor during stops in traffic); further running at a constant speed reduces stress and wear on the engine.

Aside from the above, I have a serious question about the Volt. Why does GM insist on experimenting with large Li-ion batteries? My understanding is that the result is that the sales price of the Volt has been increased to $40,000, which will sharply reduce the market. I know Chevron is sitting on the Ni-metal hydride battery patents and effectively won’t license them. But what was wrong with the lead-acid batteries that Panasonic furnished for the EV-1? Except for being a little heavier, they apparently were perfectly satisfactory for the EV-1 and cost just a fraction of what the Li-ion costs. And the technology is almost two centuries old, so there is no need for two years of experimentation during which time GM is going broke. My guess is that with the proven Panasonic stock batteries, the price of a Volt could be reduced to $20,000, which would guarantee its success. $40,000 will probably guarantee a failure. Anybody know the answer?

P. S. The reason I guess a $20,000 sales price if a stock Panasonic battery is used is that aside from the battery, the Volt power train is really quite simple and inexpensive. The engine-generator set is a single unit and in volume shouldn’t cost much over a thousand dollars. What else is there? In volume the electric motor shouldn’t cost over a thousand dollars. There are no expensive mechanical components that have to be expensively installed and teamed up (everything is just wired). Finally, the solid-state electronic controls are well-known to drop sharply in cost as time goes by. Th Volt should be very economical to build.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:04 am

hi AZK Sanders #108,

“large Li-ion batteries?”

______________________

I believe the T battery weighs 400lbs. There are two other EV’s out now that use 900lbs of acid type batteries. Also, outside of the temperature control system, the T battery should be “install and forget” unit.
I am an RC enthusiast and have seen the big jump in battery technology over the last 6-8 years.

=D~

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:29 am

Ziv #84

You said it way better than I ever could.

(Quote)
Anderson Says:
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:59 am

#58 Says,

“OMG – grammar? please!”

Grammar is important. While I tend to read as many comments as possible in this site–in the hopes that I’ll learn something new–I also tend to quickly dismiss those that are clearly written by poor writers.
I admit that this is a prejudice. You may be a poor writer and still know your subject very well, but my assumption is that if you are not well educated enough to follow simple grammar rules, you may also not know what you’re talking about in the technical arena.

(Quote)
RB Says:
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:04 am

#70 Elsie M asks a good question
I am curious to know how long it takes to reccharge the battery? Also, if one lives in a condo(as I do) and have a designated parking spot in the underground garage, where do I recharge the battery and who pays for it, the other condo owners via the common element fees? Anyone rum into this situation yet?
—————————————————————

There are two strategies, and you can chose whichever one works best.

1. The better plan (in the sense of having the lower overall cost) is for the condo owners to upgrade the parking garage by adding an electrical outlet to each parking space. Then charge the cost on the same basis that the parking spaces themselves are charged, so if every condo gets a parking space then every condo is allocated the same fraction of the costs. If spread out over time it will not be that much, because that can of addition is not that expensive. There will be a benefit to every owner in that everyone can more easily plug in vacuums and such, even if the car is not electric, but the electric car owners will be the main group. This plan is where you will wind up if there is widespread demand, even if you start with plan 2.

2. The alternative plan is for each owner who wishes to have an electrical outlet pay the cost to install. To make this plan workable, the condo owners association has to figure out a standard way to get the work done, and a standard price. That should not be too hard. Likely whoever does the other electrical installations also can do these. If there is a standard price, it can include a fraction of whatever additions are needed to the central electrical service, as well as the costs of the outlet as such. It also can include individual metering, if you wish, though I think you will lose money doing that if you include the additional staff time required to manage it. Probably better to let that be a part of the common fund, thinking of the electric vehicles as providing a benefit to everyone else in terms of less carbon monoxide and odor.

My suggestion is to consider doing number 2 for a while to see that the demand is real. Then if/as/when it becomes clear that a lot of people are going to want outlets, shift to plan 1.

You might also want to check with governments at all levels and with the electric company to see if there is some outside support you can get. It is always a possibility, especially right at first.

(Quote)
Elsie M Says:
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:42 am

Condos and EV’s
Thanks to Dave K. Dave G. and R.B. Your responses are much appreciated, will give our Board some direction for the future.
Elsie

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:02 am

#108 AZK Sanders Says: The Volt, with its 40-mile daily pure-electric range, will enable us to reduce our oil consumption by almost 80%.
————————————————————————————–
Try 28%.

U.S. oil consumption breaks down roughly as follows:
• 44% gasoline (mostly for passenger vehicles)
• 17% diesel (mostly for heavy duty long distance travel)
• 5% jet fuel
• 15% fuel oil (home heating and industrial)
• 19% other (petro-chemical, plastics, fertilizer, etc.)

Let’s say plug-ins got to 80% market penetration. The Volt would eliminate about 80% of the gasoline used in those cars. The total amount of oil consumed by the U.S. would be 28% less (80% * 80% * 44%). While this is a big deal, it’s less than half the amount of oil we currently import.

So it’s obvious to me that we need other solutions in addition to plug-ins. These would probably include:
• Ethanol from non-food sources ( http://www.coskata.com )
• Bio-diesel from algae ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxNeBQCRv1c )
• More domestic oil production (stripper wells, oil shale, tar sands, offshore drilling)

(Quote)
AZK Sanders Says:
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:05 am

Hi Dave K. (109)

Thanks for your battery comments.

GM says the Volt’s Li-ion battery will have a capacity of 16 kWh (to achieve a 40-mile pure-electric range). Do you know what this battery weighs (including temperature control and other necessary accessories)? And what is it projected to cost GM (in batches of, say, 1,000), including accessories?

What would be the weight and cost of a 16 kWh Panasonic stock battery (same type as was used successfully on the EV-1) on a comparable basis?

Thanks!

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:08 am

#107 DocM Says: The real rub may be long term gasoline/E85 storage, but then that’s what Sta-Bil and its sister & similar products are for.
————————————————————————————–
The Volt will have a bladder in the gas tank to help with this issue. The bladder keeps the gas/E85 fairly well sealed from any contact with air, which makes it last much longer. The Prius has a similar design.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:15 am

#115 AZK Sanders Says: GM says the Volt’s Li-ion battery will have a capacity of 16 kWh (to achieve a 40-mile pure-electric range). Do you know what this battery weighs?… And what is it projected to cost GM (in batches of, say, 1,000), including accessories?

What would be the weight and cost of a 16 kWh Panasonic stock battery (same type as was used successfully on the EV-1) on a comparable basis?
————————————————————————————–
The Volt’s battery pack weighs 400 pounds. Most of that is the weight of the cells.

Lead Acid batteries generally weigh 4 times as much as Li/Ion batteries with the same storage.

Bob Lutz said the Volt’s battery will cost GM $10K, but the CEO of CPI (who currently makes the packs) just implied the cost will be $8K today, and fall to somewhere between $2K and $4K within the next 5-10 years. Note that the Volt’s battery only supplies 8kWh of available energy. See the Green Car Congress link in the article for details.

(Quote)
wwskinn3 Says:
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:41 am

16falcon – thanks – this is just what I was looking for. Not in my neighborhood but might be worth a trip.

Electric SKY – 150 miles per charge. Makes you wonder why GM can’t just whip some of these out and get them moving.
150 miles per charge. Get one here if you live in the Greater Cincinnati, Ohio area:
http://www.ampmotorworks.com/index.html

(Quote)
noel park Says:
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:45 am

#9 carcus1:

thanks for the cool link.

#42 carcus1:

Repeat after me, “Weight doesn’t matter.” LMAO. Very informative. You’re on a roll today!

(Quote)
Albert Sanders Says:
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:39 pm

To Dave G. (#114)

Thanks for refining and correcting my figures re gasoline consumption.

A few caveats: in big cities there are a lot of local commercial vehicles like delivery vans, taxis, etc. They are good candidates for electrification since they spend a lot of time in traffic. Maybe some of your diesel haulers really fall into this class. Also you assume 80% electrification. I agree this is reasonable but an optimist could just as well assume 100%. Concerning the 15% of oil used for space heating: using a liquid fuel for this purpose doesn’t make sense. I do it myself tho there is now natural gas available in the street. Just lethargy that could be cured by taxation.

I agree completely with you that biofuels should also be developed to produce ethanol, etc., from non-food feedstocks. An outfit called Range Fuels is currently building a full-scale plant using lumbering waste.

I do not agree with you that we should try to increase domestic oil production because fossil fuels cause carbon dioxide which causes global warming. This means that coal should also be phased out. Fortunately some states are requiring utility companies to switch over. An outfit called BrightSource has firm orders for about a gigawatt of thermal solar capacity from utilities in California. After the grid is reinforced and Volt-type cars available, the necessary energy will thus be provided.

Renewable energy is the ticket.

Renewable energy is the ticket.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 23rd, 2009 at 2:15 pm

#120 Albert Sanders Says: … in big cities there are a lot of local commercial vehicles like delivery vans, taxis, etc. They are good candidates for electrification since they spend a lot of time in traffic…
————————————————————————————–
Actually, this may argue better for full hybrids, like the Prius. Full hybrids also run all-electric at slow speeds, and full hybrids are much easier to scale up to large vehicles than EREVs.

(Quote)
ziv Says:
February 23rd, 2009 at 2:19 pm

Dave G., I like to play with numbers to try to figure out how things may develop and your figures are excellent. I have used an EIA graph and it looks like they agree with you about how the US uses the 21,000,000 barrels of oil we use every day.
I did a similar exercise in which I plotted what would happen if the US actually saw 50% of its passenger vehicles using PHEV40 type tech. I drive about 12,500 miles a year, which is about the middle of the pack, and my cars tax records indicate that even if the ICE in my Volt kicked in 2 or 3 days a week to cool the pack, and I go on long roadtrips 6 or 8 days a year, I would still only use about 50 gallons of gas a year. If I was representative of the US, we would be cutting our gasoline usage by 92%.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/dem_image_us_cons_sector.htm

(Quote)
The Grump Says:
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:31 pm

#107 Dave G – Don’t worry – re-read my post # 103 and you’ll see I still have huge “range anxiety” issues with any BEV. That is why I suggested extreme temperature range testing for BEVS. Once most people (probably includes me) see how far their BEV can go in a punishing northern Minnesota winter, the E-REV will suddenly become more attractive. I would demand HUGE range overkill in a BEV, but the price would probably kill the BEV sale.

Why my concern about oil changes? A local man died near my home a few years age when the car fell off whatever he used to jack it up for an oil change. The worst part – he didn’t die from being crushed – he died from asphyxiation. The weight of the car prevented him from breathing in, and he died.

Changing your own oil is exhausting, dirty, dangerous when you’re under the car, and much harder to do in winter than in summer. (Those with the luxury of garages can keep your smugness to yourselves).

So not changing oil is VERY attractive to me. But the BEV manufacturers will have to overcome A LOT of range anxiety to sell outside the lush green confines of California.

(Quote)
Doug Korthof Says:
February 24th, 2009 at 9:50 am

“1. …admitting automotive lithium ion cells run about $1000/kwh…”
Putting the VOLT battery pack at $16,000, while lead-acid would only cost $2000 for the same all-electric range, and 400 lbs. of NiMH would yield 12 kWh, for an all-electric range of 60 miles.

“2. Capturing the residual value of the battery. At 10 years these batteries should still have 75% of their original energy storage capacity. There will need to be a market to buy those used packs.”
One big problem with Lithium is that they have no recycle value, due to the energy required to process Lithium. With a high Internal Resistence, and odd form factor, they will still have no value for other applications, whereas NiMH and lead-acid EV batteries do have a recycle value as well as reuse as battery backup.

(Quote)
Albert Sanders Says:
February 24th, 2009 at 8:05 pm

Dear Dave G.:

To go back to your post #117, you said the Volt Li-ion battery will have a capacity of 16 kWh (to achieve a 40-mile pure-electric range, which, since it will reduce by 80% consumption of oil ending up as car fuel, I consider should be a national goal). You further said the Li-ion battery weighs 400 lbs. and a 16 kWh lead acid battery will weigh 4X as much, or 1,600 lbs. Dragging an extra 1,200 lbs. around is obviously disadvantageous even tho the lead-acid battery can be presumed to cost as little as $2,000 (per Doug Korthof) compared to Lutz’s estimate of $10,000 for the Li-ion or the maker’s estimate of $8,000.

Question: is the extra load more of a disadvantage (in lower mpg when the auxiliary engine is being used) than the disadvantage of the massive increase in cost (of Li-ion over lead-acid), which, after being marked up for overhead and profit, may result in a vehicle selling price of $40,000 instead of $30,000? I doubt that it is. If GM charges $40,000, I feel there will only be a niche market. We need a mass market to solve all the problems of cash outflow for increasingly costly oil, pollution, global warming, etc, etc.

But the above question is not really the most important one. Because the life of a Li-ion battery is reduced by full charges and deep discharges, (and GM wants it to last at least 100,000 miles) GM has designed the software in the controls to reduce the battery capacity by close to half. This is the result of not charging to over 85% and not discharging below 30%. So the Li-ion effective capacity is not 16 but only 8.8 kWh. Now, what would the cost of an 8.8-kWh lead-acid battery be? About half the previous guessed-at $2,000, or $1,000? And only half the weight disadvantage compared with Li-ion?

Further to my argument for consideration of lead-acid instead of Li-ion, it seems to me my guessed-at $2,000 comes from remembering hearing that the excellent Panasonic lead-acid used in the EV-1 also cost $2,000 for 19.7 kWh of capacity. And that was supposed to yield a range of 55 to 95 miles. The EV-1 curb weight was 2,922 lbs, perhaps less than the Volt (which I cannot find anywhere–do you know it?) but, since the Volt range is only 40 miles, it would seem that there may be room for some additional savings in battery cost here.

Do you know what the actual cost of Panasonic stock 19.7 kWh lead-acid batteries (in, say, 1,000 lots) was?

I want very much for the Volt to succeed and it seems to me that initial cost is the single most important factor: $20,000 instead of $40,000 should do it.

Of course, there may be other trade-offs of which I am not aware, like having to de-rate the lead-acid battery as well, for reasons of greater life and reliability.

I feel the auxiliary engine-generator set will take care of the range-anxiety problem (for me, anyway) and so there is no need to seek greater range than 40 miles (which the GM engineers have wisely chosen to save 80% of national automobile fuel consumption). And, for individual owners, fear of $5 gasoline and long lines at filling stations. The key is affordable initial cost, which a switch to the lead-acid battery could solve. Is it practical?

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 8:12 am

#124 Doug Korthof Says: “1. …admitting automotive lithium ion cells run about $1000/kwh…”
Putting the VOLT battery pack at $16,000,
————————————————————————————–
WRONG! Read the article:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/02/profile-li-ion.html
He says $ 1,000/available kWh, and he futher explains that available kWh accounts for both end-of-life and depth-of-discharge issues.

So this puts the VOLT battery pack at $8,000.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 8:15 am

#125 Albert Sanders,

Li/Ion is also much smaller than lead-acid. It wouldn’t really fit.

(Quote)
Wayne Says:
March 1st, 2009 at 2:41 pm

I wonder how long Li-ion tech can be built before we run out of that resource?

(Quote)
A Beer and a Cigarette » Blog Archive » Quick scan of the net - cathode maker Says:
April 14th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Shana McCracken Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 11:21 am

I agree with carcus (?) above (comment posted 2/22). “The hug it or haul it” banner ad—which popped up when I was on the HGTV Green Home site— made me gasp. The slogan is unbelievably offensive and insensitive, in my opinion. I teach Green Marketing to graduate students, and this will be one I use as a what-not-to-do example.

I’d be interested to hear whether GMC is finding the campaign to be effective. I can’t imagine that it would be with the LOHAS or Naturalite segments. Perhaps you were consciously targeting the lighter green consumer? Even so …

(Quote)

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

Embrace technology to turn nuclear energy into environmental solution November 6, 2009
From the Seattle Times: "STEWART Brand, author of "The Whole Earth Catalog," visited Seattle last week, promoting his latest environmental manifesto... […]
misslexi
Lutz to Head Opel November 6, 2009
Der Spiegel reports that Lutz is going to head up Opel: Spiegel Online(link)... […]
dagwood55
Do home chargers include meters? November 6, 2009
I conduct a real-world fuel economy survey (http://www.truedelta.com/fuel_economy.php), and will want to adapt it for electric and range-extended... […]
mkaresh
HHSE (Hybrid-Hybrid-Serial-Electric) vehicle invented November 5, 2009
A HHSE is a cross between using a lower efficiency but more functional serial hybrid drivetrain for city driving and using a mechanical drivetrain to... […]
Texas
Renault, Nissan to build $892 million battery factory outside Paris November 5, 2009
“This will be the center of our lithium battery production for all of our assembly plants and for other carmakers,” Ghosn said. “It’s a major... […]
Texas
GM to cut 10,000 Jobs Across Europe After Sudden U-Turn on Opel Deal November 5, 2009
Max Keiser on Russia Today. " ... General Motors cut ten thousand jobs across Europe at its Opel unit in favor of Christmas bonuses." -Max... […]
Guy Incognito
Nissan Releases Concept Sketch Of Light Commercial Electric Vehicle November 5, 2009
NISSAN RELEASES CONCEPT SKETCH OF LIGHT COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC VEHICLE _Link_... […]
Jason M. Hendler

CEO of Compact Power Inc, Subsidiary of LG Chem and Current Maker of Volt Battery Pack Discusses Volt and EV Battery Issues

130 Responses to “CEO of Compact Power Inc, Subsidiary of LG Chem and Current Maker of Volt Battery Pack Discusses Volt and EV Battery Issues”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts