Volt vehicle line director Tony Posawatz gave us a teleconference update on GMs plug-in strategy specifically as it applies to supporting President Obama’s goal of 1 million plugin cars by 2015, led of course by the Chevy Volt.
The idea of creating a “plug-in ecosystem” was proposed. Tony envisioned this as analogous to the success of the iPod. The iPod alone isn’t what’s successful but how it is integrated with its infrastructure. GM feels such a cultural shift will need to take place to enable the plug-in car revolution too. Collaboration between carmakers, utility companies, municipalities, governments, individuals and corporations will have to occur.
GM is fostering relationships with key stakeholders, and in particular feels a capable green grid and excellent plug-in cars are essential.
GM is already working with many national utility companies through EPRI, and working with local progressive governments such as San Francisco.
Mark Duvall of EPRI and Bob Hayden, clean transportation adviser for the City of San Francisco, also attended the conference and support these measures. Duvall reported that the US utility grid in its present state could support 10 million Chevy Volts which would collectively only use 0.8% of the total electric capacity. He pointed out that charging the Volt is a similar draw to two plasma screen TVs. Furthermore he noted that most new grid capacity these days comes from wind and natural gas which are considered clean sources. He also reports there will be a 500 million ton per year reduction in CO2 emissions in the US when the automotive fleet is fully electrified.
A particular difficulty at present is determining how to handle daytime charging at workplaces and for apartment dwellers. This may cause potential grid strain in dense urban areas, and could be expensive. It was agreed a solution must be found through the effort of third party vendors like Coulomb technologies, utilities, or municipalities. The importance of local “plug-in champions” such as San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome was mentioned.
I know that many reader have a lot of thoughts and opinions on these important matters, and you will all have a chance to bring them up directly to GM’s expert in the field.
We will be trying something new and fun. Come here later today at 4PM EDT. Below in the CoveritLive interface we will have a multiblog real-time chat with Britta Gross who is GM’s director of electric vehicle infrastructure commercialization. She will be fielding our questions as well as those from readers at FastLane, GreenCarCongress.com and EVWorld.com.
See you then.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (6:04 am)I have a 2009 Hybrid Vue. We love the car even if GM dumps Saturn. Can GM convert it to a plug-in and at what cost??
Apr 3rd, 2009 (6:06 am)I hope 1 million by 2015 is not too ambitious given no plug ins of any sort will be sold till 2010.
I imagine a lot of this depends on the state of fuel efficient cars, and the price of petrol/diesel at the time. But without 1 million, you’re not going to get to 2 million. Every journey begins with its first step!
Apr 3rd, 2009 (6:14 am)I so want a plugin.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (6:16 am)“The idea of creating a “plug-in ecosystem” was proposed. Tony envisioned this as analogous to the success of the iPod. The iPod alone isn’t what’s successful but how it is integrated with its infrastructure. GM feels such a cultural shift will need to take place to enable the plug-in car revolution too. ”
_______________________________________________________
Aaahhhh, excuse me Mr. Posawatz, are we talking about the volt, here?
Apr 3rd, 2009 (7:10 am)Someone ask if GM plans to sell any Volts to the government to reach 1-million.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (7:13 am)A million by G M would be great. If the price can get to $25,000.00-$30,000.00 equipted then the total number will depend on how many can be manufactured more than how many can be sold.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (7:24 am)Every time I here someone from GM saying “the grid’s not ready” , that makes me think “the volt’s not ready” with the subsequent effect of lowering my confidence in both GM and the Volt.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (7:41 am)I wish there were more support for Nuclear here in the US (although the latest Gallup poll put support at 59%).
China’s declared goal for Nuclear Power — 160 GW capacity by 2030 (although they keep revising this upward).
Combine that with BYD (electric car) and they seem to be heading toward the technical combination that I think will dominate this century.
Nuclear Power + Electric Cars
Apr 3rd, 2009 (7:55 am)In the picture above, I love the fact that no corn stalk is in sight!!!!
#3- Don’t forget the home wind generator to plug it into!!!! Drive for free!!! (After expenses of course.)
Apr 3rd, 2009 (8:10 am)1. Admirable goal if GM will be around to fulfill it;
2. Will be interesting to see how the away-from-home charging infrastructure gets capitalized and installed. Thinking of the millions of people who commute to urban / suburban office parks every day with their acres of parking spaces…perhaps 10 -15 years from now plug-ins will hopefully be a significant % of the fleet…lot of charging stations. Perhaps a stair-stepped increase in installations as the % grows…
3. To the engineers in the group…again thinking office parks, shopping centers, etc…would extensive solar arrays on the acres of roof surface provide any significant % of needed charging power for say 1,000 vehicles? Guessing not, but would be interesting to see what the gap might be.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (8:15 am)GM’s level of commitment will be made evident by how much they advertise.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (8:28 am)EREV, plug-in hybrids or all electric vehicles…why not…each night I recharge my iPod, iPhone, my electric razor, my computer, my camera batteries, my work cell phone various toys for the kids, why not my car. In the privacy and convenience of my home I can “refuel” my auto without having to stop at a local gas refueling hut. Neat idea. What is interesting is if we always recharged our vehicles and someone told me we are now moving to gasoline and you need to stop every few hundred miles at a refueling station and add this liquid to your vehicle. You might get it on your hands. It will stink and could be messy. But that is the way it’s going to be. I am thinking our communities would be in an uproar. People would be outraged that this would be thought of. What a shift in thinking. I prefer recharging at home.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (8:32 am)I love the “positioning” in the photo above. That type of thing should be promoted to the max.
GO GM!
GO VOLT!
Apr 3rd, 2009 (8:39 am)Interesting video:
Ford During the Slide into the Great Depression
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5J2zW7mvyM
Apr 3rd, 2009 (8:48 am)#5 k-dawg has a VERY IMPORTANT suggestion…..
Someone ask if GM plans to sell any Volts to the government to reach 1-million.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (8:49 am)From the article: Mark Duvall of EPRI … reported that the US utility grid in its present state could support 10 million Chevy Volts which would collectively only use 0.8% of the total electric capacity.
————————————————————————————–
This is also confirmed by the recent NOVA program “Car of the Future”:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/tm/3507.html?site=22&pl=wmp&rate=hi&ch=5
“DAVID GREENE: Our existing electric utility system could handle tens of millions of plug-in hybrid vehicles if they would be recharged during off-peak times, such as at night. “
So what’s the problem? Why are Tony Posawatz and Britta Gross saying that changes to the infrastructure are necessary for the Volt?
If people believe them, Volt sales will suffer, since people will think the grid is not ready.
Is this some sort of internal GM conspiracy to limit Volt sales?
Apr 3rd, 2009 (8:52 am)GMs plug-in strategy is to work with others to create a “plug-in ecosystem.” Another way to support President Obama’s goal of 1 million plug-in cars by 2015; build a million Volts. Were Volt production schedules mentioned at the teleconference?
Apr 3rd, 2009 (8:53 am)#12, VOLTinME, you forgot one.. That liquid doesn’t taste very good either.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (8:57 am)Great news…. All that gasoline not being burned and all those Volts on the road….way cool.
Now, can I have mine in midnight blue and in October 2010 in time for my birthday?
Apr 3rd, 2009 (8:57 am)I will have some kind of electric car for my next car. My Honda Insight uses too much gas. No more imported oil before we backrupt the country.
Take Care,
TED
Apr 3rd, 2009 (9:05 am)#6 old man Says: A million by GM would be great. If the price can get to $25,000.00-$30,000.00 equipped then the total number will depend on how many can be manufactured more than how many can be sold.
————————————————————————————–
I don’t think there’s any way GM can sell 1 million EREVs by 2015. My most optimistic estimates are:
2009: 0 units
2010: 1000 units
2011: 10,000 units
2012: 60,000 units
2013: 100,000 units
2014: 150,000 units
2015: 220,000 units
which is just over 500,000 units total by 2015. Note that this is for all GM EREVs, not just the Volt.
It may be possible to get 1 million plug-ins from all car makers by 2015, but that would be a stretch.
As for price, yes, this will come down. It always does once the manufacturing engineers get a hold of the problem. For example, the company that currently makes the Volt battery pack (CPI) says it costs $8000 now, but will cost $2000-$4000 in the next 5-10 years.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (9:06 am)ATTENTION TREE HUGGERS!
We need more nuclear power. Get over it and get out of the way.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (9:08 am)ATTENTION NUKE BUGGERERS!
Apr 3rd, 2009 (9:12 am)#22 CorvetteGuy Says: ATTENTION TREE HUGGERS! We need more nuclear power. Get over it and get out of the way.
————————————————————————————–
As always, the devil is in the details.
For nuclear power to be cost effective, it needs to have a relatively constant output. This means nuclear is best suited to baseline power capacity, and is not well suited for providing peak power.
It just so happens that peak electrical load occurs during daylight hours, particularly on hot sunny days when air conditioners are running on max.
So to handle baseline and peak load, a combination of nuclear and solar termal power plants is best. In addition, a small amount of natural gas will be necessary to cover short power surges and fill in for Solar on hot cloudy days.
I’m not saying nuclear is bad, only that it’s not the magic silver bullet that will solve all of our electricity needs, as many people here seem to believe. Nuclear power needs to be expaned.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (9:13 am)Reduced electricity consumption is the key. Utility companies have low electricity demand at night but high during the day. LED “Light Emitting Diode” technology is rapidly advancing. By the time electric vehicles hit the streets, let’s hope that LEDs and other forms of efficient lighting sources are replacing older technologies which bog down the electrical grid during the day. The energy offset may just be enough were utility companies won’t have to spend huge dollars to make more.
Create more electricity locally; most businesses/companies have large flat roofs. FREE space to install Solar Panels to make their own electricity, perhaps tie it into the grid. Solar costs are coming down. Utility companies and municipalities should evaluate and consider marketing both concepts with incentives.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (9:14 am)#22 CorvetteGuy Says: ATTENTION TREE HUGGERS! We need more nuclear power. Get over it and get out of the way.
————————————————————————————–
Do you talk to your wife like that? If so, does it work? How many people respond favorably to your approach?
Apr 3rd, 2009 (9:18 am)Dave G @ 16,
It shifts the discussion away from why has GM failed to provide a Volt for Lyle or any other independent evaluator, for an exhaustive test run, say from Bakersfield to LAX.
Time of day metering seems to be the infrastructure vaguely referred to time after time. Now that the fiction that there is not enough electrical capacity to support daytime charging has been exploded, there is no need to worry about infrastructure.
We could shutdown many of the coal burners over the next 10 years if we added a few dozen nukes to the generation mix, but it is not going to happen.
We do not allow kids to smoke, perhaps we should outlaw non-hybrid diesel school buses. The hybrid’s could plug in at school and keep the bus either warm or cool depending on conditions without running the diesel. I am so up for that.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (9:21 am)Great article over at Green Fuels Forecast regarding an interview with the Chiefs at Chrysler’s ENVI program. They have a lot of discussion regarding their program and approach to EREVs vs. the Volt. Very good read. Check it out here:
http://greenfuelsforecast.com/ArticleDetails.php?articleID=699
Apr 3rd, 2009 (9:26 am)smart grids will help create many blue collar jobs and we can achieve it. one million can be achieved by ford gm tesla chrysler and everyone together
Apr 3rd, 2009 (9:31 am)#27 Van Says: We could shutdown many of the coal burners over the next 10 years if we added a few dozen nukes to the generation mix, but it is not going to happen.
————————————————————————————–
I think nuclear power will become a bigger part of the mix, but it might take more than 10 years, and it will probably never supply more than 50% of our electricity.
Currently, nuclear supplies only 20% of the mix. See second picture on this page for details:
http://gm-volt.com/chevy-volt-reasons-for-use-and-cost-of-operation/
To be cost efficient, nuclear power is best used for baseline load, meaning the minimum amount of power that is used, typically in the small hours of the morning. In many areas, peak electrical power consumption is twice the amount of baseline. So that’s why I say nuclear probably wouldn’t grow beyond 50% of the mix.
In any case, there is a lot of room for nuclear power to grow before we have to worry about this. My only point is that nuclear won’t solve all of our electricity needs, as some here seem to believe.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (9:38 am)Dave G. @21
I don’t think there’s any way GM can sell 1 million EREVs by 2015.
————————————————————————————–
I’m pretty sure that if blogs had existed in the ’60s, there would have been someone to say that :
“I don’t think there’s any way our country can go to the moon in 10 years.”
Goals have to be bold. Once you set your mind into them, you’ll find a way to make it happen somehow. Soon GM won’t be alone in this race.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (9:44 am)I find this ridiculous…just build the car already.
…let the people who are paid to supply power worry about supply power to the handful of Volts as they trickle out, they don’t need any committees or to ‘work with anybody’
As for infrastructure being able to handle it, the impact of daytime charging and each Volt being equal to 2 plasma screens….the answer has to be negligible to minmal impact at best…in the best of time.
How much ‘daytime’ electricity is going to be saved by shutting down Chrysler in 26 days? Chrysler only builds in the daytime. How many ‘plasma screen hours’ of power’ does building 100,000 cars a month in North America take up? How many ‘plasma screen hours’ of daytime will be saved when 3,700 odd dealerships are going to be closed? …or the 2,700 GM dealerships this year?
…a heck of a lot more power than all the EVs on the road even 10 years from now
================
As a matter of fact, just what is the year over year usage numbers for electricity in the United States with the recession, and all this stuff closing (that will take probably a decade to rebuild), and people worrying about dollars and cents?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090330/us_nm/us_usa_utilties_demand_analysis
http://tdworld.com/business/standard-poors-recession-cooperatives-0309/
“U.S. power use tumbling with recession”
NEW YORK/HOUSTON (Reuters) – U.S. electricity demand will continue to shrink in 2009 as the economic meltdown hits industrial power consumption…Electricity sales to industrial customers are expected to shrink 6.4 percent this year, leading to an expected 1.7 percent drop in overall power consumption in 2009, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said in its most recent outlook.
Demand in the 13 mid-Atlantic and Midwest states that PJM serves should rebound in 2010 but not surpass levels seen in 2008 until 2011
“We believe that recession-related issues include declining energy sales; regional capacity surpluses that render some units uncompetitive” – translation: so much power they have no way to sell it
Bascially, the best case is that maybe in 2011 we will be where we were 3-4 years early. And all of these electric companies had been trying to keep up to demand, now we find new capacity coming online when people are using less…and all the power compnaies scrambling to save money and moth-ball new projects.
So in this environment, what is this ‘Collaboration between carmakers, utility companies, municipalities, governments, individuals and corporations’ going to do? Are they going to start funding all these projects nobody wants to build…just in case someday they needs them at some point? Or is it just a big misplaced/mistimed stunt that is struggling to keep itself relevant in a world of excess capacity and public indifference?
/perspective….lets get some
Side note: I want to say something sarcastic about the fact GM (a company on the edge) has a job entitled “director of electric vehicle infrastructure commercialization” but I digress, because the person is going to be a guest here
Apr 3rd, 2009 (9:47 am)Side note to Lyle: As I wrote that last post, (and the previous couple) it occured to me it might seem like I am coming at the topics themselves. I reall am not…in any way. As a matter of fact, the posts are relevant, on topic and timely. News is news, and you report it all, good or bad…logical or insane.
(Just didn’t want you thinking my comments of late (or tone) were reflecting on the job you are doing, or what you are putting up for threads…they are bang on for the times, keep them coming).
Apr 3rd, 2009 (9:57 am)#32 statik Says: Side note: I want to say something sarcastic about the fact GM (a company on the edge) has a job entitled “director of electric vehicle infrastructure commercialization”
————————————————————————————–
Yes, I agree, and have said so before.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (10:00 am)Plug-in ecco system ? Personaly we have our own charging system in place all ready to go and have no need for dependance on some system. Lyle’s experience with the Tesla was such that an extesion cord and some adapter plugs was all that was needed to get a charge most any where. This not much different than a motor coach where we carry the same stuff to plug in over night or in the driveway. Parking lots & garages will be a commercial venue soon for charging and will come about as needed.
So why wait for some ecco system ?
Apr 3rd, 2009 (10:05 am)I totally agree with Statik #32. Just make affordable plug-in and the rest is just peanuts.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (10:08 am)Right Statik #32,
I’m just leaving a meeting with my local government on transportation and incidently EVs.
The whole discussion was biased because most members of the meetings don’t believe in economic incentives with a minimum regulation.
But they included a prospective study of the introduction of EVs, … a little late, but they dit it, great!
regards,
JC NPNS !!
Apr 3rd, 2009 (10:14 am)Is this what the report said they delivered to Congress asking for more money?
(“See if we sell this many, we can pay you back in this amount of time. And it’s almost no load on the Power Grids”)
GM, If you want to reach those #’s, you better get it out sooner.
I am ready for mine now!
Apr 3rd, 2009 (10:16 am)@ #25
LED Tech is here now…
My entire apartment is lit with LED bulbs. Even with my 50″ LCD TV myelectric bill is about $20. per month…
15 LED Bulbs in total.
4 of them are 7 watt bulbs, 2 of them are 1/2 watt bulbs, and the rest are the 1.5 watt bulbs that you can buy at walmart for less than $6 – They are not 100 watt equivelent but you adjust fast and will find that you dont need 100 watts of lighting…
This is the same shift in thinking that people are going to learn when they buy the volt. Many of the people doubting the 40Mile range will see that even with this range their gas engine rarely turns on.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (10:18 am)This whole base-power / peak-power issue could be revolutionized by economic power storage at the grid level.
There has been discussion here based on using old EV batteries for this, but I’m talking about tractor-trailer size and larger eutectic salt batteries (google sodium-sulfur battery, or ZEBRA battery).
Giant utility-scale batteries are already under test at a couple of wind-turbine sites in Texas; to see if they can even out an intermittent power source to a more steady one.
If the economies of scale work out (BIG “if”), there’s no reason why a large increase in “baseline” power based on nukes couldn’t supply part of the peak load through battery storage (though as noted above, they would actually make “peak” and “baseline” a pretty meaningless distinction, beyond the generator level).
Apr 3rd, 2009 (10:20 am)I only have one piece of advice for GM.
STOP THE “REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM” MENTALITY.
GM needs to start selling plug-in vehicles NOW.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (10:21 am)#25, #39
I’ve heard that the new Insight will have LED headlights, don’t know if it’s true.
About the only lasting thing to come out of the first energy crisis is the CFL, and that’s made quite a difference. There’s still a long way to go.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (10:26 am)Agree with the premise short term (perhaps 2- 3 years) economic conditions will keep electrical demand below aggregate capacity. Also can partially see the point that under GM’s current circumstances perhaps their attention is better directed at fixing what ails them.
“Someone” however does need to be looking into how potential individual customers without access to at-home charging (apartment / condo dwellers for example) will be able to recharge. Even in this blog many have commented on that being a real problem in their own situations. With vehicle rollouts from various manufacturers coming in less than 2 years time, unless that capability exists those customers may have to choose other vehicles.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (10:33 am)Statik
Although I (cough) agree with your post above (wheeze, clutch chest),
I think the key term there is “in this environment”. Oil price is currently on the rise as there are tiny indications of increased demand.
Regardless of the “current environment” the electrical impact doesn’t seem to crop up until there are 250K electric vehicles in the US, as long as they don’t all charge during peak hours (no, I don’t remember the study citing, sorry – but it was done by the govt, so it HAS to be accurate). So I guess we agree about minimal grid impact and that if all things stay as they are today (almost zero electric cars or plugins and lousy economy) we’ve got nothing to worry about. Except for the half million job losses each week…. but that’s a different discussion.
Be well, see you at 4,
Tag
Let’s just get the Volt.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (10:34 am)Mitusbishi looking at doubling E-Vehicle output. Doubling only means 20K per year. No commitment to U.S. deployment.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Mitsubishi-Motors-doubles-output-plans/story.aspx?guid=%7BF7E2DB94%2D57CF%2D4DCB%2DA758%2DFB203D3AA23D%7D
Apr 3rd, 2009 (10:35 am)#5 k-dawg & #15 nasaman
Doesn’t the Stimulus Bill have a specific provision allocating funds for this purpose? My guess is that it will depend on demand from the private sector. If the Volt sells very well I can’t see the GSA wanting to displace private buyers, and I can’t see GM wanting to rely on fleet sales. What GM would probably like to do is sell some hybrid Tahoes, but that is not going to happen.
#33 statik & #34 Dave G
I think it’s a good idea that GM is looking at this. A very good idea. Frankly it would be great if the Obama Administration engaged in this as soon as possible. We are going to need standards. Private bodies will get there but it can take a decade or longer. Federal involvement can speed this up — a lot — but making i clear that posturing and positioning will be penalized.
#32 statik on demand for electricity
This is one of those problems you don’t mind because the solutions are obvious and fairly easy to implement. The vast majority of electrical use is due to buildings, and the possibilites for savings here are enormous. Steven Chu says it’s not a question of picking the low hanging fruit, it’s a question of picking the fruit off the ground. The Stimulus Bill was criticized for funding weatherization in public buildings, and I never understood the criticism. The payback is terrific.
One part of this is getting the incentives right. One issue is that it makes no sense to reward electric utilities for selling more power if you want them to encourage conservation. CA made a choice to separate out charges for transmission and for the electricity. This eliminated the financial incentives for the utilities to push for more electrical consumption and, not surprisingly, the demand per pop for power in CA has been far below than that of other states.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (10:38 am)Schmeltz (#28)
Indeed a very good read for anyone interested in EVs, range-extended or not:
http://greenfuelsforecast.com/ArticleDetails.php?articleID=699
Since I’m very worried about cost & affordability, my favorite paragraph in the article is:
“In terms of cost, Rhodes (Lou Rhodes is President of Chrysler’s ENVI division) doesn’t see much difference in cost in batteries based on the power/energy balance. The element that will drive down cost is production volume and Chrysler is “willing to share technology, share ideas, share components because our (Chrysler’s) end goal is to make these affordable to our customers.” He sees the inflection point where costs really drop as “safely at 100,000 units” so that’s where volumes need to get to quickly to make electric vehicles cost effective from a purchase price standpoint.”
Yes, this IS a Volt site, but I also see it as an EV (range-extended or not) site so this Chrysler article is relevant. I want MANY EVs on the streets from all manufacturers. EVs just sitting around in showrooms because they are too expensive or because people can’t get the credit to buy them is worse than useless because it will sour the future EV market.
It takes a healthy FREE market with sound currency to absorb products in quantity and that’s why I post the articles that I do.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (10:40 am)PV Solar cells wouldn’t necessarily have to be placed where EVs will be charging. They produce their peak power at the time that load is at it’s greatest; if a city puts up enough arrays on roofs, they will help prop up the grid regardless of whether it’s used for charging cars, or not.
If you put a solar array on the roof of your house, and sell excess power back to the utility, the extra capacity may help someone charging an EV a few miles away, just a little bit. If your neighbors do it too, it will all add up. A solar-array initiative seems politically likely in the current climate.
To tie this in with the battery storage idea in my #40, I think old EV batteries are far more likely to be used by individuals and businesses to even out their power loads (given their availability, cost and size) than for the whole utility. I don’t know if it would pay merely to buy power off-peak and store it for on-peak use; but if you put up solar arrays and store the excess electricity rather than sell it (and your neighbors do too), this could limit the extent to which rooftop solar would bolster the entire grid. Interesting problem.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (10:41 am)#40 Jackson said:
This whole base-power / peak-power issue could be revolutionized by economic power storage at the grid level.
There has been discussion here based on using old EV batteries for this, but I’m talking about tractor-trailer size and larger eutectic salt batteries (google sodium-sulfur battery, or ZEBRA battery).
Giant utility-scale batteries are already under test at a couple of wind-turbine sites in Texas; to see if they can even out an intermittent power source to a more steady one.
If the economies of scale work out (BIG “if”), there’s no reason why a large increase in “baseline” power based on nukes couldn’t supply part of the peak load through battery storage (though as noted above, they would actually make “peak” and “baseline” a pretty meaningless distinction, beyond the generator level).
=======================
I think it might be a little early (especially with current conditions giving everyone a pretty large window to take a breath) to be considering power storage on the gride…projects like this feel kind of borderline Mad Max.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (10:42 am)i’m confused, why worry about the grid, charging stations,… isn’t that the “built in” ICE is for?…i like the Volt because i have no plan of recharging my car outside my house…
Apr 3rd, 2009 (10:44 am)Nuclear power is a 20th century technology who’s time has come and gone. Its just simply not as good as the alternatives. Its too costly to build, requires raw materials, generates waste, has inherent risks, and is relatively weak in its output. Once solar achieves cost parity with coal (projected to happen in 2-3 years), there is just no reason to pursue nuclear. Solar is orders of magnitude more powerful than nuclear, requires no raw materials, no waste, will be cheaper/easier to implement, no risks etc. Not to mention, wind, hydro, ocean, geothermal etc to suppliment solar. Nuclear was a good power source 50 years ago, but isn’t financially or rationally justifiable with the current alternatives
Apr 3rd, 2009 (10:53 am)MArk Duval must live in fantasyland if he claims natural gas to be a clean source of power. Nor is much juice being produced by windmills, a uniquely impractical “renewable.” He is probably
thinking in terms of rated capacity, which misleadingly implies three to four times the output actually acheived.
And the fact that 10 million Vols use only .8% of current capacity fails to note that 10 million Volts won’t have any discernible effect on anything, neither crude oil imports nor emissions. He simply is using big numbers that really are not big in reality. He must be from advertising. The big lie is Obama’s claim that a million electrics will actually accomplish something. Now THAT’s one whale of a lie, even for “balanced budget” Obama.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (10:58 am)#46 DonC said:
(in response to #32 statik on demand for electricity)
This is one of those problems you don’t mind because the solutions are obvious and fairly easy to implement. The vast majority of electrical use is due to buildings, and the possibilites for savings here are enormous. Steven Chu says it’s not a question of picking the low hanging fruit, it’s a question of picking the fruit off the ground. The Stimulus Bill was criticized for funding weatherization in public buildings, and I never understood the criticism. The payback is terrific.
One part of this is getting the incentives right. One issue is that it makes no sense to reward electric utilities for selling more power if you want them to encourage conservation. CA made a choice to separate out charges for transmission and for the electricity. This eliminated the financial incentives for the utilities to push for more electrical consumption and, not surprisingly, the demand per pop for power in CA has been far below than that of other states.
====================
I agree with you here, there is a lot of things still to be done out there. A lot of opportunities for conservation still untapped.
However, GM’s involvement I think is unneccesary, a waste of their time and resources, and a distraction. My first thought when I see stuff like this, is not ‘good for them-they are concerned about our infrastructure,’ my first thought is, ‘What exactly is in it for them? Grants? Greenwashing? Good PR? Governemnt & city contracts to buy product from them? Low interest loans?”
I know I’m a pessimist most of the time, but I find it hard to believe their motives are as altruistic as they are being presented to us.
Additionally, It is not like this is being ignored…there is a pantload of programs and ‘education’ being done out there. I don’t know about in the US, but I can’t turn on the TV without seeing David Suzuki or some other environmental personality ‘educating’ me and all the things I should be doing and all the options out there…or receiving ‘info-packets’ from my local PUC about what I can do for my business.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (10:59 am)#37 # Jean-Charles Jacquemin says “The whole discussion was biased because most members of the meetings don’t believe in economic incentives with a minimum regulation.”
Amazing isn’t it? In the 90s the UK had a head honcho and a few other employees to regulate the telecommunications industry. The US had the FCC with an army of regulators. Guess which approach worked better?
After the federal government deregulated the disparity between state and interstate calling was ridiculous. At one point the CA PUC did a series of public hearings so the public could tell them how it might better protect them. My contribution was to show up at our local hearing and point out that since I could call the UK for ten cents a minute while it cost me twenty-eight cents per minute to call a community located two miles away, the best way the PUC could help me was to stop helping me. It seems silly at this point since the new technologies make even these rates seem high, but the disparity of the rates brought the house down.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (11:03 am)but we still have the problem that the sun does not shine at night
……………………………….
#51
Once solar achieves cost parity with coal (projected to happen in 2-3 years), there is just no reason to pursue nuclear.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (11:07 am)Every time I here someone from GM saying “the grid’s not ready” , that makes me think “the volt’s not ready” with the subsequent effect of lowering my confidence in both GM and the Volt.
________________________________________________________________
That’s what I keep thinking. I read article after article about communities demanding cleaner air, communities setting up standalone charging infrastructure, utility companies are getting pressure to find a way to produce more electricity, there’s so much talk about electric vehicles being a silver bullet for all these problems…
The fact is, there are no EVs on the road (besides 250 Tesla has made) and there won’t be for 2 years, and there won’t be a significant number to mean anything for 3 or 4 years at best. Stop worrying about the utility companies. The DOE has already done research and found there is plenty of excess capacity to charge the grid. Take into account that most charging will be done at night, and I think we could handle at least 10 million as Duval said, there is tons of excess power at night, and most have to intentionally cut back production at night so they’re not wasting fuel. In a lot of the Northwest, the power comes from hydroelectric, the river doesn’t slow down at night. It’s producing just as much power during the night as it is during the day when the power consumption probably drops to 10% of consumption during the day.
Sure there are entire cities like New York, LA, and San Francisco where the vast majority of residents don’t have anywhere to plug their cars in, but in general, there are plenty of cities where people live in houses and this is a solution for them right now. When these cities see how nice it is to have EREVs, they’ll build their charging stations, or gas station owners will do it. But GM needs to realize, the Volt isn’t going to be a hit with many apartment dwellers even if there were charging stations because these aren’t quick charging batteries, it’s going to take a long time, and even if they were, that’s a lot of hassle for these people.
Good job though Tony, this kind of talk is exactly what America needs and what GM needs to have the vision to move in the right direction instead of more muscle cars (bringing back the Camero) , SUVs (pretty much everything else they make), and their never ending quest to dethrone Ford as America’s favorite truck maker.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (11:36 am)Hi Jake @ 51. Nuclear power could be the lowest cost provider. It is expensive to build and operate because of government regulation.
As far as not being able to load follow (ramp up power from about 3 PM to about 8 PM, then ramp down to base load from 9 PM to 12:01 AM) that refers to plants designed as base load plants. Other designs, such as in nuclear subs, can change power up and down with ease.
In your comparison, nuclear does not look too good compared to solar because it generates waste and is not a renewable. All true. Why not talk about cost and land use? Will solar be a cheap as coal in “2 or 3 years.” If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
Why have electric rates gone up and up? Again, government regulation. Laws that require buying high cost renewables, and laws that drive up the cost of the lower cost alternatives.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (11:50 am)And facilitating that integration is where government rightly belongs, not deciding how much bonus a mid level manager at GM is entitled to.
Any hints yet on a purchase lottery list? I’m assuming demand is going to far outstrip supply the first year so they’ll have to have some form of lottery for these things.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (11:52 am)Herm,
I’m afraid ‘price parity’ is not going to cause solar to be used as a power source over coal/oil. Solar is too unpredictable and is not suited to large portions of the globe for it to be more than a niche power source.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (11:53 am)Real good read. This is GM’s actual 2009-2014 Restructuring Plan/ Progress Report filed on March 30th. You get all the goodies in here. Projections/status/updates (some high…some reasonable) if anyone cares to read it:
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=84530&p=irol-SECText&TEXT=aHR0cDovL2NjYm4uMTBrd2l6YXJkLmNvbS94bWwvZmlsaW5nLnhtbD9yZXBvPXRlbmsmaXBhZ2U9NjI0ODI4NyZhdHRhY2g9T04mc1hCUkw9MQ%3d%3d
Has projections on things like US brands: 8 now…and 8 through Q4 2010 when it then goes to 6, then 5 in Q1 2011. Also says nameplates are currently at 43…and will still be at 43 through Q3 2010…then dropping off to 36 in 2012. It also says dealers are currently at 6,246 and they only plan to go to 5,300 by the end of 2010, and 4,100 in 2014 (wonder what happened to axing 2,700?)
They also say they will need 22 billion under their baseline scenario, which is 10.5M units on the SAAR. No number assign to a SAAR lower than that (where it currently is clipping)
/I stole this link from TTAC…so credit to them
Apr 3rd, 2009 (11:55 am)#50 – Exactly!
Assuming you can actually afford the car in the first place then an extra couple hundred bucks to have an electrician add a panel and plug to your garage seems like a non issue.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (11:57 am)The only problem I see from many of the comments is that GM is being attacked for doing what many here have said they should have been doing for the last 30 years, which is planning for the long term!
Building a new power generating plant of any type is a very long term project. I think I read somewhere that the last nuclear plant took over 20 years from initial planning to going online. If the power usage levels in 2011 are going to be back to 2008 levels, then there is a real need for additional power generation and tranmission upgrades. Have we already forgotten the rolling power blackouts in California? And although most of us here feel we will be charging only at night in our garages, if sales of EV’s and E-REV’s really do take off, these things need to be planned out now for the long term.
Finally, I can see why GM has an interest. If they are betting the future on electric vehicles, they better be really sure there will be adequate power available, or the conspiracy types will blame all of the problems on GM for “giving up on reliable ICE based vehicles”.
When there are zero to 10 million E-REVS on the road, this is a non-issue. But what about in 20 or 25 years, when there may be 40 to 60 million???? It has to be discussed and the planning has to start now.
JMHO
Apr 3rd, 2009 (12:00 pm)carcus1 #7 / Dave G #16 is on to something.
The grid will expand as the need arises. Sounds like stalling…..
GO EV !!!
Apr 3rd, 2009 (12:05 pm)If they build it, infrastructure will follow.
As I recall from reading (not having been around back then) that the first cars didn’t have gas stations on every corner when they first came out either, but gas stations and the infrastructure to supply them followed cars pretty quickly.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (12:21 pm)#39 Nick D on LED bulbs “4 of them are 7 watt bulbs, 2 of them are 1/2 watt bulbs, and the rest are the 1.5 watt bulbs that you can buy at walmart for less than $6 “. Since when? I have seen LED bulbs (edison screw type) for sale on the internet for as cheap as $40 apiece but I have not seen them in any local stores, certainly not for $6.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (12:25 pm)Solar Power is great. Wind Turbine Power is great. But both of those technologies require tens of thousands of acres of land to generate the same amount of power as 1 nuclear plant.
In California, the “tree huggers” ( I use the term broadly to all those who have the NIMBY attitude . . . Not-In-My-Back-Yard ) have already taken the wind farms to court over BIRDS being killed by flying into the blades. The same is happening to solar farms being blocked by legislation because of the desert tortoise or some kangaroo rat having their habitat changed.
For every ‘green’ technology that you can name there is a small group of people ready to shoot it down. Perhaps “tree huggers” was too harsh. I should have said “LIBERALS”.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (12:32 pm)#66 – Are there are more critics of Nuclear than wind or solar?
Apr 3rd, 2009 (12:39 pm)Apparently on this site there is.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (12:42 pm)#60 statik – Thanks for the link. You’re right that it’s very interesting. I tried but failed to find this myself.
#66 Corvette Guy says “The same is happening to solar farms being blocked by legislation because of the desert tortoise or some kangaroo rat having their habitat changed.”
I find this irritating. It’s pure rubbish because you’re selectively redacting all the important details. What you’re not disclosing is that the conservation groups which are opposed to the construction of the solar farms put together the tracts, and in some instances bought the land for millions to dollars, and then transferred the land to the government for conservation purposes.
Now a bunch of freeloaders wanting to make a quick buck want to use the land FOR FREE, for a purpose which will interfere with the intended purpose. Cut me a break. If these clowns want to use land there is plenty available — literally hundreds of acres. They just have to BUY it.
And you think these con artists are the good guys? You should be embarrassed.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (12:51 pm)Solar collecting towers are about the same footprint as a nuke plant. But solar is all about decentralizing power production. The existing rooftops infrastructure of homes and business could be utilized for solar collection, with no land use.
The solar storage problem can now be addressed by fuel cell sytems for nightime and off peak times. And always supplimented by wind, tide, ocean, geothermal, etc.
Re cost parity in 2010 http://www.edn.com/article/CA6432171.html
Consider that the earth is expected to consume 30 Terrawatts of energy per year by 2050. How will we get there?
1. We could build one new billion-watt nuclear plant every 1.6 days until 2050: That would yield 8 terrawatts.
2. We could cover every inch of land on earth with wind turbines: That would yield 2 terrawatts.
3. We could cut down all the plants in the world (except those needed for food) to make biofuel: That would yield 7 terrawatts.
4. Or we could utilize a slice of the 800 capturable terrawatts per HOUR of solar energy hitting the earth. That’s 7,008,000 Terrawatts per year up for grabs.
source: MIT
Apr 3rd, 2009 (12:53 pm)statik (#49):
“I think it might be a little early (especially with current conditions giving everyone a pretty large window to take a breath) to be considering power storage on the gride…projects like this feel kind of borderline Mad Max.”
It is a natural progression which has already begun. The batteries being evaluated in Texas were purchased from a company which built them for the Japanese electric utility, for precisely the reasons I gave.
Almost every alternative-energy electricity-producing scheme harnesses natural forces which are, by their very nature (I meant to do that), intermittent. Solar, which isn’t available at night or on a cloudy day, and Wind, which sometimes doesn’t blow, cannot replace a power source which runs continuously; until some sort of storage is developed capable of averaging their outputs to a consistent level.
Addressing this need will result in an industry based on producing giant batteries, which will then look for new territory to exploit; and I think this will be general grid-leveling regardless of source (and yes, it would take awhile to get to this point).
Consider that if you transmit power at night which won’t be used until the next day, you are effectively doubling the transmission capacity on the same lines.
The next step would probably be the same giant batteries getting cheap enough to use for quick-charge EV service stations, but that’s even further out in the future.
Mad Max??? I was thinking more like “Star Trek.”
Apr 3rd, 2009 (12:57 pm)I don’t know if anyone else posted this yet and i don’t want to search all the way through…but here is a fun Volt fact sheet that motortrend.com posted:
http://wot.motortrend.com/6504824/auto-news/gms-chevrolet-volt-battery-to-last-at-least-10-years-and-other-volt-facts/index.html
Earlier today, GM held a Web conference to discuss progress in its program to integrate the upcoming extended-range hybrid-electric Volt into the nation’s electrical grid. Among the presenters were GM’s Tony Posawatz, Mark Duval of EPRI (the Electric Power Research Institute) and San Francisco’s Clean Transportation Advisor, Bob Hayden.
Although the discussion was mostly aimed at infrastructure planners, a few worthwhile automotive details emerged anyway. Such as:
GM is preparing an 80-car demonstration fleet of prototype Volts.
Bose is developing a premium sound system for the Volt that consumes less electrical power than GM’s base radios require.
Goodyear’s progress on low rolling-resistance tires is exceeding GM’s expectations.
If 10 million Volts were immediately introduced into the market and plugged-in every day, it would consume only 0.8% of the electrical industry’s output.
Annually, a Volt will use about 2500 kW-hrs of energy – or roughly three times what a fancy plasma TV and cable box consume. That is, per year, operating a big screen and cable box combo equals traveling between 3000-4000 miles in a Volt
Many utilities are developing free programs to install 240 volt upgrades for homes (garages).
When the Volt becomes available in November of 2010, it will be E85-compatable.
In cold climates, the Volt will ‘peel’ away some of its recharging energy while plugged-in to heat the battery so it’s immediately operable no matter the temperature.
If not plugged-in overnight in very cold climates, the Volt’s engine/generator will immediately start to provide full electrical power when you drive away.
Sales in Canada will begin about nine months after the U.S.
The Volt’s batteries will never discharge below 50% to enhance longevity.
The Volt’s battery will have both heating and liquid cooling systems to optimize its temperature.
GM’s target is to have the battery last at least 10 years, retaining 75% of its capacity.
Utilities are pondering whether to employ retired Volt batteries as static energy storage to absorb fluctuations in grid power (squeezing extra use out of them).
‘Several thousands of dollars’ can still be removed from the Volt’s cost via competition among suppliers.
GM desires to manufacture the Volt’s batteries as close to the Volt’s production location as possible to reduce transportation costs.
GM says its battery costs are already below the minimum that battery industry analysts are predicting.
Theoretically, the lowest possible battery cell cost is about $250/kW-hr.
Volt will utilize OnStar to communicate with utilities to find best rates (and maybe schedule recharging?)
Plugged-in Volts could provide temporary electrical power-storage for unpredictable green energy sources such as wind power.
The problem of providing home recharging to apartment dwellers and those without garages (street-parkers) is a tough nut to crack.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (1:03 pm)Dave G @21 said
“I don’t think there’s any way GM can sell 1 million EREVs by 2015″
and provides a table showing that delivery of 1 million by then is unlikely.
—————————————————
Realizing that “sell” is not the same as “deliver”, I can see some possibilities here. If each Volt is $40,000, and if sometime soon GM “owes” the government $40B, and if the government will take payment in kind (as Volts) rather than in cash, it could all get done by a “sale” of a million Volts in the form of an “agreement to deliver.”
It’s just a thought, but I doubt I’m the first one to have it.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (1:05 pm)Mike D, thanks for some actually useful information.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (1:08 pm)Post says “Collaboration between carmakers, utility companies, municipalities, governments, individuals and corporations will have to occur.”
————————————–
Sounds almost like big brother. Hope it doesn’t become coercive.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (1:14 pm)______________________________________________________
#32 statik Said:
“I find this ridiculous…just build the car already…I want to say something sarcastic about the fact GM (a company on the edge) has a job entitled “director of electric vehicle infrastructure commercialization””.
—-
I agree w/ Static.
Dear GM Chairman Obama,
Please get the Director of Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Commercialization off our (taxpayers’ supported) payroll!!!!!! Spend those freed up dollars on getting the VOLT out one day earlier. That also applies to all the other unnecessary employees GM has associated with “infrastructure development”. Fire them today…don’t wait until next week.
______________________________________________________
Apr 3rd, 2009 (1:15 pm)Blah blah blah….
Look, the Grid is here and it will handle the load. If you’re all worried about the grid here in CA, then use that $7500 rebate towards Solar PV for your home. This will offset the cost to charge your Volt as well as offset your home Heat/AC. All at the same time NOT put a load/Strain on the grid.
There, Problem solved for CA, the rest are on their own.
It’s lunch time. Going to H( . Y . )TERS for chicken wings and Beer!!!
Apr 3rd, 2009 (1:16 pm)GM Committed to 1 Million Plug-ins By 2015
________________________
Remember how GM boasted that they’d be the first automaker to deliver 1 Million hybrids?
That reputation for over-promise & under-deliver is an important reality to keep in mind.
As for this commitment, that’s not going to happen at $40,000 per vehicle. What will be changing?
Apr 3rd, 2009 (1:22 pm)I have a 2009 Hybrid Vue. We love the car even if GM dumps Saturn. Can GM convert it to a plug-in and at what cost??
________________________
ASSIST hybrids inherently cannot support that. With only a single electric motor which is very small and not actively cooled, just short bursts of power are available.
FULL hybrids have two electric motors, at least one of which is rather large (2010 Prius has a 60kW) that is cooled by liquid. So, it can provide a lot of power continuously… which makes it a good platform for aftermarket upgrading.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (1:25 pm)Don C
“4. Or we could utilize a slice of the 800 capturable terrawatts per HOUR of solar energy hitting the earth. That’s 7,008,000 Terrawatts per year up for grabs.”
And how much of the earth’s surface would we have to devote to the collection units and transmission infrastructure? I’ve heard with current Solar collection we’d have to cover about 1/4 of the US.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (1:33 pm)Here are some ideas from Canada: the province of British Columbia is considering changes to its Building Code to make installation of outlets for plug-in cars mandatory in apartment buildings. Other Provinces and States should follow.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (1:34 pm)# 51 Jake
>> Nuclear power is a 20th century technology who’s time has come and gone. Its just simply not as good as the alternatives. Its too costly to build, requires raw materials, generates waste, has inherent risks, and is relatively weak in its output.
Depends on the kind of nulcear power you’re talking about. If you’re refering to the U-235 thermal reactors from the ’50s-70s you could make an argument (maybe). If your referring to more contemporary nuclear designs (e.g. molten thorium salt), your assertion is invalid.
>> Once solar achieves cost parity with coal (projected to happen in 2-3 years), there is just no reason to pursue nuclear.
Would that be in dog years? Hampster years? Cockroach years? I’m tempted to say that solar will not achieve cost parity with coal in our lifetime, but ‘Never say never’.
>> Solar is orders of magnitude more powerful than nuclear, requires no raw materials, no waste, will be cheaper/easier to implement, no risks etc. Not to mention, wind, hydro, ocean, geothermal etc to suppliment solar.
Each one of those technologies requires raw materials and incurs some kind of environmental impact. Dude, just being alive requires raw materials and incurs some kind of environmental impact.
I ran some quick numbers and based on an average on-surface energy density of 1.35 Kw/sql meter with electricity efficiency of 30%, it would take a solar farm covering 953 square MILES to produce 1 GigaWatt of power. Talk about environmental impact! What do think would happen if you covered over 1000 square miles… and that’s just to replace two 500 Mw reactors.
# 70
>> 7,008,000 Terrawatts per year up for grabs
That’s the amount of solar energy hitting the exterior of the planet’s atmosphere. There are losses from cloud cover reflection, etc. Not to mention “how do you build a solar farm on the ocean?”, etc. etc. etc.
Your assertions are naive at best.
Besides, what does this have to do with GM’s claim that we need to modify the existing electrical infrastructure to accomodate EVs?
Apr 3rd, 2009 (1:34 pm)As an executive on the Mayor’s infrastructure team, it is mandatory that we find a suitable method of taxation of the EV that will overrun our urban areas sometime in the future. I propose a mileage tax on every EV entering/leaving our gorgeous cities. We welcome these new forms of transportation within limits. It is a small price to pay for the luxury of our urban accommodations. Another possibility is a small surcharge for every EV entering one of our beautiful cities. I am sure everyone here heartily agrees that someone will have to pay for the massive EV support structure that each city must maintain. I want to personally welcome all the EV enthusiasts to our fine cities during your next trip. Have a safe journey.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (1:38 pm)#80 Bill Marsh says “how much of the earth’s surfact would we have to devote to the collection units”.
Not much actually:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/04/solar_power_world.php
One relatively small farm in Libya could power the world:
http://www.globalenvision.org/tags/solar-power
But the problem is that while solar is great we don’t have any method of storing the resulting power (another way of saying the sun doesn’t shine all day). Nuclear is baseline. That’s a very big difference.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (1:39 pm)I think they need to publish standards and start a forum for this. Reason is they cannot work will all requirements, the best idea is to start making open standards similar to IETF.
This can avoid extra costs and more companies can follow across the world ( real global standards ).
#60 statik : Thanks , It looks to me Rick did a good job and the guys before him did the bad and he got the blame and the guy follows him get the good of what he did.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (1:39 pm)We need another car now – and no one has a viable electric option.
We want a SUV like the SRX or Equinox or Vue and only need 10 -20 miles on a regular basis for our daily commuting
Get the products out! Lots of people like us are not buying new because we don’t want to pay full price for a two year time frame.
My patience is wearing thin
Apr 3rd, 2009 (1:46 pm)This is madness. Has anyone checked the national grid over the past couple of years. Rolling Brownouts and blackouts from east to west coasts. Quit with the Monkey Math on this site. Please step away from your Donkey Kong calculator now. Yes, we even have blackouts at night during summer months (charging at night no work dunderheads).
More Nuclear plants is the ONLY solution to this EV nightmare that approaches. I am talking about completely sealed Nuclear stations that can fit in a back yard. Yes, they exist and will be going on sale soon.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (1:56 pm)Yo @Albert #87:
I no wanna glow hole in my yard.
I no wanna my child grow up with one leg shorter than other or one arm twice as big as other.
I no wanna Chernobyl children in my hood.
Wind and a Solar is all for me.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (2:02 pm)82. ThomC
“Would that be in dog years? Hampster years? Cockroach years? I’m tempted to say that solar will not achieve cost parity with coal in our lifetime, but ‘Never say never”
I suggest you do a little reading. Most targets for solar/coal cost parity are 1-8 years. Then solar will continue to get cheaper, while coal has stayed the same for years.
http://www.edn.com/article/CA6432171.html
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N16387007.htm
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10170650-54.html
” ran some quick numbers ”
Your calculations are based on incorrect assumptions of density and effeciency of current and projected solar tech.
“Your assertions are naive at best.”
My assertations were mainly from MIT research studies. What’s your source?
Apr 3rd, 2009 (2:11 pm)#8 Steve
Until the U.S. can recycle nuclear waste like the French.. no more nuclear power!! Currently they are just dumping the waste at sites like Hanford, WA.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (2:19 pm)Britta Gross clearly does not understand the Chevy Volt, or how it fits in with our existing infrastructure. PHEVs have enough range to get through a daily commute, but have long recharge times. So they are perfectly suited to workday travel and night time charge.
Day time recharging will be very rare, except for those who have a 20-40 mile commute and will have an employer provided plug at work. A small part of the market, and not crucial to the success of the Volt.
So getting the infrastructure ready for the Volt, seemingly her whole job, is a non-issue.
If she were simply embarassing GM by making poorly informed comments, that would be bad enough. But she is undercutting future Volt sales by promoting a message saying that we can start using the Volt after big infrastructre changes are complete. This is not the message put out by Lutz and co.
GM needs to revoke Britta Gross’s permission to speak publicly for GM.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (2:28 pm)Van @#57 – So would you like to make nuclear power cheaper by de-regulating it? That’s one pretty picture. Unregulated nuclear plants generating what, unregulated nuclear waste? You going to put one of these in your backyard?
Jay @#90 “But there are drawbacks, naturally. Reprocessing is extremely expensive and can result in the production of plutonium that could be used for nuclear weapons, raising a host of security concerns.” It also reduces waste by 96%, but does not eliminate all waste. (Source: the conservative Heritage Foundation.)
So shall we regulate nuclear and require it to be more expensive, which in turn will make solar, geothermal etc. look like more rational altneratives? Or shall we de-regulate it, make it really, really cheap, and not worry about the waste (like we are already doing re the waste)? Or shall we have the best of both worlds by requiring that the waste be recycled, but off-set the increased costs by de-regulating the sale of the now, refined, weapons-grade waste, on the free market to the highest bidder? No, no draw-backs to nuclear that I can see.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (2:30 pm)Cap’n Jack – love the cleavage – Good one!!!!
Nuclear power to the people from 10 MW to 1000MW!!!!!
Skeptics,
Go to the NIE website and do some reading and find out what you are talking about.
Utilities use the cheapest power first, that’s the reason nuclear is base line load generation. Nuclear is expensive to build because our country is so screwed up; all the greenies think nukes are like a boogeyman – but they will never confront or admit their emotional revulsion for nuclear power thanks to Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
GM is simply playing a warm fuzzy card again to curry favor with the present administration – the grid talk is bogus and every family in the US could have a Volt on the existing grid – it’s only a 24% increase in average usage and it is easily done and some of it in the daytime excepting only peak hours during temperature extremes. After everyone gets their first (X)EV then we can worry about grid capacity.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (2:32 pm)The forecast of 1 million Volts by 2015 has to be wrong. Currently, the Volt (refers to all PHEVs by GM and future competitirs) is not economically viable. It costs too much compared to expected fuel prices in the $2-5 gallon range. If nothing changes, it will be a niche product sold to people who will spend on a “green premium” to save the earth, without expecting the investment to pay itself back. Sell 10,000 per year from 2011-2015 = 50,000 Volts.
If the price of the Volt drops, and fuel goes up to $6-10/gallon, the Volt will be the most practical solution for economical family transportation. It will start displacing ICE cars, and will be selling millions per year by 2015.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (2:37 pm)42 Jackson Says:
I’ve heard that the new Insight will have LED headlights, don’t know if it’s true.
===========
I dont remember if if I saw it at the Detroit auto show or not. I believe the Lexus has LED headlights. I know that they are expensive (probably why they are on a Lexus)
Apr 3rd, 2009 (2:49 pm)Shawn @ #93 – Perhaps Shawn mean NEI – Nuclear Energy Institute, an paid industry trade group, instead of NIE – National Intelligence Estimate?
Apr 3rd, 2009 (2:52 pm)@62 Jim I
I agree. I don’t see the problem with planning and staying ahead of the game. Seems smart to me. Address the potential problems now before they become real problems. I dont think mass amounts of “tax payer money” is being wasted on these think tanks.
If people truely are getting confused by the idea of charging your car, its probably due to the lack of education on PHEV’s. I think more effort needs to be assigned to this task. I know I try my best to inform most everyone around me. There’s still a lot of crazy thoughts/myths I hear about the Volt and other electric cars, that reminds me there’s a lot of work yet to be done regarding education.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (2:53 pm)For alternate power ideas check out the link. Its for nuclear, but more efficiecnt as we are not interested inthe weapons grade material and thus can use it more effectively..in fact you can use the waste fuel we have now…reducing Yuca mountain storage..
Thoreum reactors..our next great electricity source…
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4971
Apr 3rd, 2009 (2:57 pm)#95
LED head lights were first used by Cadillac..FYI
Apr 3rd, 2009 (2:58 pm)#94 Tom H Says: The forecast of 1 million Volts by 2015 has to be wrong. Currently, the Volt (refers to all PHEVs by GM and future competitirs) is not economically viable. It costs too much compared to expected fuel prices in the $2-5 gallon range.
————————————————————————————–
The Volt will cost $30K after tax credits. By the time the tax credits expire, the Volt will still cost $30K due to lower manufacturing costs.
I think a million people would pay that, if the Volt proves itself in terms of quality and reliability.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (2:59 pm)At #65 BobS
Not sure if you will read this again – but the LED bulbs have been available at WalMarts in Des Moines, IA for Nearly 6 months now. They are in the light bulb aisle past the Incandescents and CFL bulbs. There are a whole bunch of different styles, the ones I like are $5.95 – they say 40 watt equivelent and use 1.5 Watts and are standard bulb type containging maybe 25-30 LED’s.
Not sure what part of the country you are in, but if we have them in Iowa, you should too if not already. I know walmart has an agreement with several LED manufacurers (from a very old treehugger.com article) and they also sell them at Sam’s Club.
email me if you want more info – dmrailjam@yahoo.com
Apr 3rd, 2009 (3:02 pm)Regarding the terawatts of solar energy every hour, that’s correct, its there, but the problem is actually collecting the energy. I dont know the current percentage that a solar cell can absorb/convert, but its no where near 100%, more like 20%. Also, you have to realize too that when you are using coal, wind, hydro-electric, oil, and bio-diesels, you are actually using solar energy.. just in a different form. So even when humans aren’t collection solar energy, the Earth still is, which we will use later.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (3:07 pm)#99 Mitch
#95
LED head lights were first used by Cadillac..FYI
============
I Googled this and came up with Audi in 2003???
Apr 3rd, 2009 (3:13 pm)I have all the infrastructure I need in my garage right now. All I need is a vehicle to plug into it.
There is $300 million in the stimulus package for “green cars”. This is to replace vehicles in the government fleet. That is something like 10,000 vehicles right there.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (3:15 pm)42 Jackson Says:
I’ve heard that the new Insight will have LED headlights, don’t know if it’s true.
——————-
#95 k-dawg Says:
I dont remember if if I saw it at the Detroit auto show or not. I believe the Lexus has LED headlights. I know that they are expensive (probably why they are on a Lexus)
=========================
Nope. It is a pretty costly upgrade. Here is a shot of the Insights configuration:
http://automobiles.honda.com/insight-hybrid/exterior-photos.aspx?num=EG-10
Only cars I know of with this is the Lexus 600h (which was first) and the Audi R8 (not talking running lights here either)…and the Caddy Platnum Escalade Hybrid, (they announced first…but didn’t make it..so they tout them as ’segment first,’ lol)
Lexus:
http://www.lexus.com/models/LSh/features/exterior/exterior_lighting.html
Audi R8:
http://wheelsweekly.blogspot.com/2009/01/audi-r8-v10-worlds-first-all-led.html
Platnum Edition Escalade Hybrid (lol)
http://www.autospectator.com/cars/models/0041668-2009-cadillac-escalade
I don’t know the packages exactly, I think the LEDs are ’standard’ on the Lexus (MSRP starts at $103,000), and the LED package upgrade on the R8 is $3,700ish ($5,500USD) pounds in the Uk…not sure if they have made their way onto the 2009 price sheet for the R8
Apr 3rd, 2009 (3:21 pm)103
Sorry. I ammend my statement. Audi used them as DRL’s, nit headlights, and needed a special waiver.
The Cadillac was the foirst to use thenm as actual headlights
http://www.autospectator.com/cars/cadillac/0036961-2008-cadillac-escalade-platinum-world-premieres-new-generation-headlights
&
http://www.autospies.com/news/Cadillac-beats-Lexus-with-first-full-LED-headlights-25910/
Apr 3rd, 2009 (3:51 pm)Why Doesn;t Obamas team put together a War time plan…..
Where Volts would be manufactured on mass at GM Chrsler & Ford Plants to be supplied to all Goverment agencies both Federal, State & Local.
Do you not think this would help the manufacturing price $ to come down and really help America get off it’s economic knees ?
Would be a big positive impact !
Apr 3rd, 2009 (4:03 pm)This would be interesting if they meant production would be 1M units *per year* by 2015.
As it is…oh hum. More projections…thoughts…ideas…from GM. Whoop.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (4:14 pm)1 million plug-ins by 2015? Completely doable, IMHO. If the political will is there.
As we have discussed here many times, it’s a national security issue, among all of the other issues. If a Volt cost $40K, you could buy 3500 of them for the price of an F-22. And it would do a lot more for national security, once again IMHO.
As to the “grid”, we could probably power the currently projected first 5 years of Volt production just by turning off all of the little red glowing lights on computers, TVs, phones, cell phone chargers left plugged in, power tool chargers ditto, electric shaver chargers ditto, etc., etc., etc., around the country.
By the time there are enough PHEVs around to seriously challenge the “grid”, it’s will be 2030 or something. LJGTVWOTR!
I’ve got the money put away. Bring it on!!!
Apr 3rd, 2009 (4:15 pm)107: Why should some IRS auditor get a Volt before us????
Apr 3rd, 2009 (4:15 pm)#107 Ausmartin:
That’s what I’m talking about! See my comment at the end of the last thread.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (4:16 pm)I strongly agree with those who have suggested the government buy large fleets of Volts. I am sick of bailouts- if the Government is gonna hand our money to companies, the very least it can do is get something useful out of it!
PS. I would love it if solar and wind were currently feasible to provide more than a small fraction of the world’s power, but they just aren’t and unless you are looking at wildly optimistic studies, won’t be for a long while. Bosch is a company with some of the most advanced solar tech out there, and they acknowledge it will take decades for solar to achieve cost parity with standard power generation. That’s why in Germany solar is subsidized so heavily. It will take less time for cost parity out here in the CA deserts, but still we have a long way to go. Despite the vehement statements for and against nuclear power on this blog, it is neither a magic bullet nor a fool’s errand. France gets fully 80% of its power from nukes, and has had 0 major problems thus far. Why do people keep saying we can only get 50% of our power from nukes at best? If we stopped hamstringing our nuclear industry (and stopped our insane policies preventing safe waste disposal), we could do the same thing! EVs + Nuclear power isn’t a complete solution to our energy problems, but it is a darn good start, and the best we can do with current technology. Of course, it won’t create total “energy independence”, since cars are not the only fuel guzzlers we have, but pie-in-the-sky wind and solar proposals will do even less good in the here and now. When someone builds a fusion reactor then we can talk about a hydrogen economy. Until then don’t bother me will Fool Sells. Until someone shows me a *real* economically sound solar panel, then we can talk about a solar-panel bonanza in Nigera
.Maybe I’m just a cynical engineer, but I prefer investing in solutions that are proven to work (like nukes in France), to those that “may work in a couple years if we cross our fingers”. If they end up working, then we’ll build them.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (4:20 pm)#110 Jim I:
If it would save some imported oil, I would even do that! Watch out though, next it’ll be an FBI agent checking up on subversive blog comments!
Apr 3rd, 2009 (4:28 pm)k-dawg #97: I agree that there will need to be a lot more education for the poor souls that are not enlightened enough to be on this forum!
But here is another thought: I doubt that it would be very difficult to insert some software into the Volt’s onboard systems to simply not allow plug in re-charging during periods of peak electrical load. That info could be downloaded via OnStar. I am not saying I like this idea, but I would guess that it has been discussed at some meeting….
My needs do not require day time re-charging, so for me this is a non issue.
Bsically, this is just passing the time for another 605 days!!!
Noel Park #113: I don’t know what you are talking about. I pay all my taxes, and the IRS is my firend!
But they can wait in line to get a Volt, just like the rest of us……… Now I have to go and find my cloaking device and get it hooked up to my car before the guys in the black suits and sunglasses come looking for me!
Apr 3rd, 2009 (4:28 pm)110 Jim I Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:15 pm
107: Why should some IRS auditor get a Volt before us????
======
As Noel says, it would prevent some imported oil, but if anything, it will reduce the cost and start the ball rolling for Volt Gen 2.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (4:36 pm)I got one question in, in the discussion group (the last one as a matter of fact). Not really the answer I was looking for, but hey, it was a long shot.
————————-
5:31 [Comment From Kdawg ]
Has the US Fed Gov expressed interest in buying Chevy Volts and setting the tone by developing/investing in a plug-in ecosystem in DC?
5:32 Britta Gross with GM: We’re already working with the DC community to enable plug-ins, and the federal government has already shown a commitment by passing a $7,500 tax credit for buyers of Volt-like vehicles. This is a great start.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (4:51 pm)I noticed Statik’s question sort of got dodged too. I think the answer/motivation is education and getting more public plugs out there, preferable free ones, to give the Volt even more of an economic advantage.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (5:01 pm)At the end of WWII, many of the planes were destroyed because FDR thought building planes for peace time use would be good for the economy whereas using the war planes would harm the economy. In a similar vein we should buy and crush all the SUV’s. That would shift the market to available models, and get rid of the glut. Right now, savy buyers are buying SUV’s at deep discounts, adding to our long term problem. We could then make a movie, “Who killed the SUV” and make Obama the villain.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (5:10 pm)Statik
1. Frothy? Ba ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
2. I notice she sort of ducked your Q re training for GM.
3. I also notice she decided to wrap it up right after your Q!
Apr 3rd, 2009 (6:53 pm)The idea of creating a new “plug-in ecosystem” makes me sick to my stomach.
The infrastructure we have right now will support tens of millions of plug-ins, so obviously, they are expending time and money in the wrong direction. This wouldn’t bother me so much except for the following: When they talk about the need for a new charging ecosystem in the same breath as the Volt, the average consumer will get the wrong idea, and will assume that the Volt is not ready for prime-time, since the ecosystem to support it is not in place.
So I think what Tony Posawatz and Britta Gross are doing here will actually hurt EREV sales, and delay the electrification of our transportation system. This is why I’m upset.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (7:07 pm)So I think what —– are doing here will actually hurt EREV sales, and delay the electrification of our transportation system. This is why I’m upset.
____________________
That’s also why I’m upset, but at different people… those that absolutely insist Volt must only be available with a 40-mile battery capacity.
Start with a smaller, less expensive configuration. Offer the larger as an option later.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (7:17 pm)I insist on around 40 miles of all-electric range because that’s where our current infrastructure shines. I could care less if it’s a full hybrid, series, GM, Toyota, or whatever.
With a typical driving pattern, assuming you only charge overnight:
Vehicle ……………… Gallons per year
Volt (EREV-40) …….. 37
Prius PHEV-10 …….. 182
Prius HEV …………… 228
30 MPG car ………… 380
20 MPG car ………… 570
When you look at the numbers, a plug-in with only 10 miles of electric boost doesn’t make sense for the masses.
The $7500 tax credit will offset the price of the larger battery. By the time the tax credit expires, batteries will cost 1/4 of what they do now, and other electric drive components will have come down as well.
A PHEV with an anemic 10 miles of range will only give plug-ins a bad reputation.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (7:35 pm)When you look at the numbers
__________________
How? You still haven’t provided any detail. All we get is a conclusion of “anemic” draw for us. Providing data allows people to decide on their own.
Meanwhile, the Prius which doesn’t even offer a plug yet is making people happy to abandon traditional design. How their embracement of hybrid technology, without even any tax credit, could be bad defies logic. They’re the very consumers that will want to upgrade to a plug later when it’s available.
Stop biting the hand that feeds.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (7:36 pm)A ten mile ranged plug-in can certainly be very effective for those who don’t need 40 miles of driving range (like me and many retirees). I would prefer 15 or 20, but it all boils down to costs.
The claim that a 10 mile ranged plug-in can’t be effective is utter nonsense. For a person who commutes 100 miles each way to work, a 40 mile plug-in isn’t particularly impressive either. One size does not fit all.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (7:44 pm)Vehicle ……………… Gallons per year
Volt (EREV-40) …….. 37
Prius PHEV-10 …….. 182
Prius HEV …………… 228
30 MPG car ………… 380
20 MPG car ………… 570
___________________
Never including an EREV other than 40 is another example of how conclusions are being draw for us.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (7:46 pm)Jake,
I’m not an expert (although I do hold a 1977 patent for a solar heating collector), but before you get too much farther down the “wind-and-solar-are-way-better-than-nuclear” road, might I suggest the following read:
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZDIwMjVjMTIyZTQ1NTJhNjM1YzFmZmFmNWVkNDA4ZjE=
Apr 3rd, 2009 (7:56 pm)Steve 10, jackson 48
There is plenty of land that can be used for solar without covering any green fields. A standard 9×20 parking space covered with sanyo 190 HIT solar panels ( a better choice of panel would catch light from underneath as well) will produce over 8kwh of electricity almost anywhere in the US on an average day. Double that in sunny places like Nevada and Arizona. The shade would keep the cars cooler and reduce energy used for climate control. Car owners could pay to plug in and charge at a slightly higher rate than the utility charges which would still cost much less than gas. Any electricty not used to charge cars can be sold back to the utility at a time of use premium. All of a sudden large parking lots begin to generate their own income and take care of peak daytime charging.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (8:01 pm)#119 DonC says:
Statik
1. Frothy? Ba ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
2. I notice she sort of ducked your Q re training for GM.
3. I also notice she decided to wrap it up right after your Q!
================================
I’m glad they at least put my question up…maybe Lyle had a hand in that (points to you Lyle), but geesh on the selective answers. Why put up a question for people to read if you intend on not answering?
I asked:
Can you be a little more specific with a tangible/real world goal on infrastructure?
—No acknowledgement…no answer
Secondly, as a impatient potential EV customer, what further ‘education’ do I need?
Answer: None, your fine.
Is there some fundamental roadblock that I am not aware of that stops me from simply buying a EV and taking it home and plugging it in that justifies this collaboration?
—No acknowledgement…no answer
With 2,000 odd Chevy dealers, is not your biggest problem with ‘education’ training yourselves?
—No acknowledgement…no answer
I gave them the opportunity to justify what they do…and I don’t think they knew how to answer.
/I’m still confused, what is it these people do? What are they trying to accomplish? Are they trying to get more actual infrastructure? What the heck is this ‘industry standard for charging and communication’? Give me a real world benchmark on something you are trying to accomplish…anything.
Britta Gross says, “My team is working with 45 utilities across North America and with EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) to shape the industry standards for vehicle charging and communication with the utilities. We’re also working to get supporting policies in place, educate the public and ensure a seamless customer experience for plug-in vehicles”
/could she be any more obtuse? I think I actually know less now. I have more questions…not less. (Side note: She has a team?)
She adds to my question, “People are hesitant when it comes to new technology, and that’s something we’re trying to avoid. Having a plug-in ecosystem in place from the automakers to the utilities to the dealer networks to community support is key.”
What does “a plug-in ecosystem in place” mean? Give me something here. I also don’t think people are hesitant to plug in a car and then not use gas. The concept of plugging something in is not exactly a “new technology,” I think people can handle it.
/sorry Britta I know I am beating you up…but c’mon, that is a lot of platitudes for a hour and a half chat
Apr 3rd, 2009 (8:02 pm)______________________________________________________
Welcome the New Media.
My hats off for Lyle for conducting the CoveritLive imbedded conference today w/ Britta Gross. What Lyle is doing with this blog site is very creative and leading edge; A game changer. This site in many ways is a glimpse into the future of how companies like GM will engage existing and prospective customers.
After watching the conference, I remain convinced GM could much better spend its resources towards accelerating the delivery date of the VOLT than to concern itself about EV Support Infrastructure.
_____________________________________________
Electric Cars + Nuclear Energy = American Energy Independence!
Apr 3rd, 2009 (8:13 pm)#128 Statik (Me)
/too much angst today
…I’ll try to tone it down tomorrow
Apr 3rd, 2009 (8:20 pm)#125 john1701a Says: Never including an EREV other than 40 is another example of how conclusions are being drawn for us.
————————————————————————————–
Fair enough.
With a typical driving pattern, assuming you only charge overnight:
Vehicle ……………… Gallons per year
Volt (EREV-40) …….. 37
Volt (EREV-30) …….. 43
Volt (EREV-20) …….. 98
Prius PHEV-10 …….. 182
Prius HEV …………… 228
30 MPG car ………… 380
20 MPG car ………… 570
Apr 3rd, 2009 (8:44 pm)Now where’s the detail?
Apr 3rd, 2009 (8:46 pm)NO! Forget about E-Revs and develop fuel cell cars. Take the platinum out of the fuel cell and replace the high pressure hydrogen
tank with a hydrogen on demand system that reforms hydrnol, magnesium hydride slurry, or something similar. No more Lithium
batteries in cars, this battery chemistry will never be cheap enough
or reliable enough to make sense in automotive applications.
Read my lips, no Lithium ION batteries in cars. No charging stations.
Hydrogen all the way.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (8:54 pm)“Not everyone is exactly like you and the education process has really just begun.”
========================================================
Now that’s the understatement of the whole interview!
/Just poking a little fun, ehhh
Apr 3rd, 2009 (8:57 pm)#133
Michael Robinson
Read my lips….ohhh, did you say HYDROGEN, as like in HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS!
Oh, my Michael, are you new to this blog? Please get your thermal underwear on, and get ready for your WHOPPING!
Apr 3rd, 2009 (9:05 pm)So maybe LG, Sony, Samsung, etal, should put together a czar for the eco-impact of new HDTV’s on the electrical grid.
Today, 1 in 3 homes has an HDTV, that number is expected to triple in the next 5 years! My god, we better alert the authorities, build more nukes, dam up some more rivers, dig more coal, fire up some natural gas furnaces.
The impact of TV’s will far exceed the impact of the plug-ins in the foreseeable future. Relax, have a beer and turn off the POWER SUCKING TV!
Apr 3rd, 2009 (9:08 pm)Ok, I used up my time limit on this site AGAIN! Got a soccer game to coach tomorrow, and the wife wants the computer.
Cheers! Have a good weekend all. I love this site…thanks Doc. for your continuing work on keeping this site interesting.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (9:13 pm)Is everyone working together? NREL, Better Place, Project Get Ready, The Big 3, Foreign Automakers, IEEE P2030, J1772, etc? We need great smart-grid standards so everyone is working off of the same page. That will make all of the infrastructure components much cheaper. It also allows specialty designed silicon chips which really drives the cost down. Great standards are priority one! Having many different standards will kill the movement and delay the comeback, possibly for decades.
Don’t forget the upgrade path! It will be V2G-like with normal (110/220), quicker (440) and quick-charge (5min for 200 miles – this will require a separate interface so there is time for this but it‘s coming sooner than most think) capable.
P.S. Lyle, that live chat is excellent. Can you please give a few day’s notice if possible? Thanks!
Apr 3rd, 2009 (9:14 pm)#126 coffetime
You seriously think a link to a propaganda piece in the national review from a nuclear industry shill is a credible source of independent info???
I’ll stick with the consensus of the the scientific/engineering community.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (9:18 pm)Interesting article on the 10 cars that sank detriot
http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/923/10-Cars-That-Sank-Detroit
Apr 3rd, 2009 (9:20 pm)YES! Regarding the ECOsystem. The solar, wind, tidal, etc. intermittent renewable resources are a perfect match for the built-in electrical energy storage that EVs have. It’s all about balancing supply and demand. EVs make it much easier. If these energy and storage resources are mated using a great smart-grid design it far extends how many EVs can join the grid before new, stationary electrical storage infrastructure is needed. Let the wind charge when the wind is blowing and let the sun charge when the sun is shining.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (9:40 pm)I think 1 Million by 2015 is possible if we open the technology to all car company…
To achieve, GM need to build a platform for all car company to use their technology…
In the end, we care electric-car because we care environment. It would be better if we have more car company provide more car model
Apr 3rd, 2009 (9:59 pm)Thanks Lyle, it was nice to know the standard on plug in interface is SAE Document Number: J1772, Title: SAE Electric Vehicle Conductive Charge Coupler.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (10:14 pm)I think that covered parking which generates solar electricity is a great idea, blog ghost (#127) … eventually. In the nearest term, a structure dedicated to holding up solar arrays is going to be much more expensive than placing arrays on structures already needed for other purposes.
===================
I am against V2G as a solution for load balancing. Any such scheme will depend on coercion of some form, I believe. If I’m buying the battery, I resent being forced to accept additional cycles which compromise it’s life (and I have no intention of leasing a battery). The idea behind V2G represents yet another arena for loss of economic control over my own investments / decisions.
It is especially galling to contemplate V2G when load balancing can be done more efficiently and economically by the utilities with large, stationary batteries dedicated to the purpose (several of my previous comments address this in more detail).
Apr 3rd, 2009 (11:00 pm)#12 VOLTinME
“What is interesting is if we always recharged our vehicles and someone told me we are now moving to gasoline and you need to stop every few hundred miles at a refueling station and add this liquid to your vehicle.”
——————————
Excellent perspective! – looking at it from that view point certainly opens up the eyes.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (11:35 pm)#126 coffetime
Nice link but I suspect the author is not specifically trained in nuclear engineering. He makes a couple of technical but significant mistakes about nuclear power. Most glaring is his assertion that the percentage of enriched uranium determines what makes a critical mass explosive. It’s not the level of enrichment (power reactors in naval nuclear ships have enrichment levels similar to that in nuclear weapons), its the configuration of the critical mass and how you maintain that critical mass for the necessary period of time. An atomic bomb is a marvel of engineering… albet a singularly violent one. Don’t get me wrong, I have no love for nuclear weapons. But it is MUCH harder to make an atomic bomb than a nuclear power plant
# 139 Jake
>> You seriously think a link to a propaganda piece in the national review from a nuclear industry shill is a credible source of independent info???
Better than the tripe you’re pitching.
>> I’ll stick with the consensus of the the scientific/engineering community.
I AM a member of the scientific/engineering community. Your position is at odds with the position of most every scientist and engineer with an energy background that I know. You haven’t supplied any references or citations, just a nebulous quote that you attribute to “MIT studies”.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (11:39 pm)“GM Committed to 1 Million Plug-ins By 2015″ pronounced oh crap 2010 is almost here and we are no way near production of the Volt, time to make the carrot stick longer… let’s talk about the future shall we.
Wow by 2015 I can’t wait! No really I can’t wait that long, that is stupid to put it eloguently. By then Toyota will be on it’s 4th generation of the Prius, a plug in, bugs worked out, and with costs so low GM will struggle to compete.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (11:42 pm)meanwhile at Ford:
The electric Transit Connect will be Ford’s first full-electric vehicle and will be followed in 2011 by a 5-passenger car that will travel up to 120 miles per charge, according to Ford. Further details on that vehicle are unknown, but Ford is has been testing a fleet of Focus compact sedans that use an electric powertrain built by Magna International of Canada.
I post this because there is nothing wrong with some healthy competition especialy if it’s US vs US.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,512423,00.html
Apr 3rd, 2009 (11:50 pm)# 139 Jake
>> I’ll stick with the consensus of the the scientific/engineering community.
# 146 ThomC (me)
>> You haven’t supplied any references or citations, just a nebulous quote that you attribute to “MIT studies”.
My mistake. You did supply other citations… from a company that makes solar collectors, a consultant for solar power and a CNet article quoting the company that makes solar collectors. IOW, your citations are from companies with vested interests in solar power. Not exactly a “credible source of independent info”.
Apr 4th, 2009 (12:27 am)Fuel cell cars are the only way to go. They can be refueled
in minutes, not 3 hours. They don’t have a large expensive
battery that will wear out. They don’t use any gasoline at
all even on long trips.
Concerning the whopping comment, not funny.
The Chevrolet Equinox fuel cell vehicle is an amazing vehicle.
I say it’s a better vehicle than the Volt.
I’ve posted on these blogs for quite a while, don’t know how
long exactly.
Grow up with respect to hydrogen, don’t be afraid of it. The Hindenburg disaster was not a hydrogen fire, the skin was
made of solid rocket fuel. The fire was a diesel/rocket fuel
fire, not a hydrogen fire.
Hydrogen gas is potentially not the answer, but hydrogen gas doesn’t have to be the medium that fueling stations handle.
There are many options where interesting ones that are going
to be tested fairly soon include organic compounds and hydride
slurry. There is the option of going with solid storage of
hydrogen as well.
High pressure tanks are popular, that doesn’t mean that they
are the best choice. Until recently, the technology hasn’t been cheap enough for anyone to manufacture fuel cell cars. Now, Mercedes is getting ready to mass produce them. The
Japanese are getting serious about abandoning the use of platinum and are succeeding. Platinum has been a pricey proposition from day one. The Mercedes B class fuel cell
vehicle will be in the U.S. $30k range.
The Chevrolet Sequel has a 95kW fuel cell. That is old tech.
Fuel cells are getting more powerful, they are starting better
in cold weather, and they are getting smaller.
A 3 hour recharge time for a battery that is going to wear out
in 5-7 years is unacceptable. Using tons of Lithium in cars is unacceptable. The only Volt I want to drive is a fuel cell Volt.
Give me a small nickel metal hydride battery thank you.
All of the problems that have kept fuel cell cars from
being mass produced are being solved far ahead of
the necessary infrastructure being built to support
them. While high pressure tanks are not my favorite
hydrogen delivery method, they are safe.
http://www.hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com
http://www.asemblon.com/energy
Apr 4th, 2009 (12:32 am)#32 statik
#34 Dave G
#35 Dr.Science #11 on the list
#36 Darius
#37 Jean-Charles Jacquemin
#43 StevePA
#44 Tagamet
I’m sorry but I agree.
I wonder if GM has position titled “director of sun deck chair management” also. While this would be a marginal “value added” position on a non-sinking ship, it is just ridiculous in GM’s current situation. Does any of the other numerous companies that produce electrical products have a similar position?
Apr 4th, 2009 (12:41 am)The comment in #151 is not directed at the person in this position in any way.
C’mon guys keep some focus here on an automaker’s core responbilities and business…how about a “director of EREV cost reduction”?
Apr 4th, 2009 (12:47 am)131 Dave G,
Can you list some of the assumptions you are using to come up with your numbers? Also, what about an EREV-10?
Looking at your stats, GM’s choice to go with a 40 mile range over a 30 mile range seems silly. Perhaps $3,000 in battery to save 6 gallons/year? Even the 20 mile range only uses 61 gallons/year more than the 40 mile range but for a cost of perhaps $6,000 in battery. Not that it would surprise me… the 40 mile range always seemed to have been picked for the wrong reasons.
Apr 4th, 2009 (3:50 am)Hey, I see Statik is now. apparently, advising GM’s new CEO Fritz Henderson.
/Statik, Director of GM’s Government Structured Bankruptcy and Profitability division?
LONDON (Reuters) – U.S. automaker General Motors Corp will move quickly into bankruptcy if necessary, chief executive Fritz Henderson said in an interview with the Financial Times newspaper published on Friday.
The company warned this week there is a growing risk it could file for bankruptcy by June as it has 60 days to reach deeper concessions with bondholders and unions after its previous restructuring plan was rejected by the U.S. government.
“If we have to resort to bankruptcy then we’re going to do it fast…there are non-traditional ways to do this but it requires a fair amount of force, will and leverage and we have force, will and leverage,” Henderson said in comments published on the newspaper’s website.
Henderson, who took over the reins at the struggling carmaker in a board shake-up on Monday, said “the over-riding objective of a clean and healthy balance sheet is not negotiable.”
source:http://in.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idINIndia-38876520090403
Apr 4th, 2009 (5:39 am)Can you list some of the assumptions you are using to come up with your numbers? Also, what about an EREV-10?
__________________________
The devil is in the details. Heck, even a graph reveals a different story. And switching to the industry standard 15,000 miles-per-year instead of that unusual 11,390 value reveals an interesting trend.
Comparing an EREV-10 to a PHEV-10 is dangerous, since the difference is small and the price advantage is for the PHEV. So, there’s no surprise it’s not listed.
But the real problem is the ideal being portrayed. No mention of the effects from winter is a big omission. Things often look better on-paper than out in the real-world.
The clock is ticking. June 1st is coming quick. Reality is about to come crashing down. The superiority nonsense must end.
Apr 4th, 2009 (7:16 am)Thom H #94
You are truely living in a digital world.
Apr 4th, 2009 (7:50 am)#150
Michael Robinson
Ok, sorry if my humor offended, sometimes I do say things without a lot of thought…
Anyway, I am not a proponent of Hydrogen, it is just not the answer. The premise is basically spend a lot of energy (electricity?) to produce another energy source. This is not cold fusion, and your not going to get more energy out then you put in, period.
NOTE: (this is hijacked info, but it says what I want, but more eloquently)
The mass media’s fascination with fuel-cell powered cars is understandable. The promise of “clean, cheap energy from water” has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, it makes better fiction than reality. Hydrogen-powered cars just emit their pollution elsewhere.
In any chemical reaction like the one that powers your car, energy must be conserved; meaning that the energy must “come from” somewhere. So where does the hydrogen “fuel” for a fuel-cell car come from? Two possible sources are
* Water – plentiful and everywhere.
* & Methane – while the U.S. has some methane reserves, we would need to import it from “non-friendlies” in order to meet current (and future) demand.
Let’s look at water. First of all, the hydrogen molecules in water are strongly bound to oxygen. Therefore, it takes (substantial) energy to split water into useful hydrogen (used by the fuel cell) and oxygen molecules. The majority of that energy – in America – is derived from coal power. If you take into account that a significant minority of the power grid in America is also nuclear, we have traded a clean-burning gasoline engine for nuclear and coal powered fuel-cells. Since so-called “greens” would never advocate more nuclear power – even though that would be the best solution – we can’t and won’t power fuel-cell cars from water-derived hydrogen.
If, instead, we power the car by reducing methane (CH4), then we have merely traded one energy source (gasoline) for another (methane) that is far less efficient — and therefore produces MORE carbon-dioxide per mile traveled than gasoline! Not to mention that we would have to send our troops to the same regions from which we currently get our oil to keep dictators in line. We would merely trade one ball-and-shackle (gasoline) for another (methane) that produces more of the so-called greenhouse gases!
PS: I have no fear of hydrogen since I do not plan on using it as a fuel source. Hydrogen is volatile, and the Hindenberg was basically a huge gas bomb! I would assume modern day containment would make it much safer, but how safe?
Apr 4th, 2009 (11:02 am)#154 NZDavid said:
Hey, I see Statik is now. apparently, advising GM’s new CEO Fritz Henderson.
/Statik, Director of GM’s Government Structured Bankruptcy and Profitability division?
LONDON (Reuters) – U.S. automaker General Motors Corp will move quickly into bankruptcy if necessary, chief executive Fritz Henderson said in an interview with the Financial Times newspaper published on Friday.
==============================
Fritz is the man! Hehe…easy to tell why I personally have been routing for him for so long and to get Wags/Lutz out.
/funny
====================
====================
#133 Michael Robinson –re:hydrogen
#135 JEC said, “Oh, my Michael, are you new to this blog? Please get your thermal underwear on, and get ready for your WHOPPING”
#157 JEC- various thoughts
———-
Hehe, the site is becoming a friendly place to have your thoughts on hydrogen….ignored, lol. I think we are all ust too dang tired to even go down the road again. I know I fall unconscious momentarily every time I see it mentioned.
/points to you for taking another stab…you masochist
Apr 4th, 2009 (11:13 am)ThomC,
Thanks for the nuclear clarification. As I said to Jake, I’m no expert. Closing in on 56, however, I am a healthy skeptic. I think that the Jakes of the world who believe that solar and wind will provide anymore than a token contribution to our nation’s power needs (and that “token” would be microscopic in size were subsidies eliminated) are mistaken.
I also think that the Jakes of the world have not thought through the ramifications of massive solar and wind adaption. I’ll give you two examples. The Columbia River gorge (on the Washington – Oregon border) is almost always windy. It is, or should I say “was”, a scenic drive. Now, there are towering windmills and transmission towers going on for tens of miles at a stretch. What was once nature’s beauty is now mankind’s ugly.
My second example would be solar. Be it concentrators (using mirrors to concentrate sunlight on a central tower) or photovoltaic panels, they would consume hundreds of square miles of desert. Put aside how ugly (remember, you’d need new transmission towers) and environmentally upsetting that would be for a minute, and think instead of the water it would take to keep the panels clean from dust and dirt. Water that is already a precious commodity for people who live in the southwest would be diverted to clean mirrors and panels.
Apr 4th, 2009 (11:31 am)I still think the answer/motivation behind this entire “plug-in ecosystem” is educating everyone (and creating a buzz) and getting more public plugs out there, preferable free ones. This will give a huge advantage to plug in vehicles like the Volt over other vehicles. If you see everyone around plugging in their vehicles while the shop/work/whatever and then you have to stop at the gas station later that day, your next car purchase is going to be a plug in EV.
Apr 4th, 2009 (2:45 pm)There is plenty of renewable energy potential to support a
hydrogen economy. Some kind of fuel has to be used to power cars where hydrogen by the time you account for all the pollution
to create and deliver it is the cleanest of all available options.
Carbon sequestration can help considerably lessen the impact of coal and I don’t buy the nutty notion that a ton of water will be
wasted to clean solar panels.
Solar cracking of water is more efficient than electrolysis
and sea water is easier to crack than fresh.
There is plenty of methane that is carbon neutral. Ground
sources of methane are not the only ones that exist. Think:
food waste, manure, etcetera.
More energy is needed no matter what. I reject the notion that plugging cars in for three hours to recharge them so they can
go 40 miles is a solution to the problem of our cars running on
foreign oil. If a battery the same size and weight without using
Lithium could hold 10 times the amount of power, it’d be a different
story perhaps. Still, a battery will never recharge as quickly as a
liquid fuel system will. Transporting hydrogen from point A to point
B via pipeline is more environmentally friendly and cheaper even
in it’s gaseous form than putting up a high voltage transmission line. Hydrogen is the cleanest fuel there is, it is cleaner to burn hydrogen than it is to burn natural gas. Hydrogen, unlike ethanol and NG, run through a fuel cell offers greater mileage per gallon than gasoline does. The problem hasn’t been the energy content
of hydrogen, it has been packing enough onto a car.
How much energy goes into mining Lithium to produce Lithium ION
batteries? 0 is not the answer. How much energy will be expended in 5-7 years when all these Lithium ION batteries have lost half their capacity to restore them? Lithium is explosive, carbon
doped with nitrogen is not. Fuel cells are safer than large lithium ION batteries and even though there is a definite energy input to produce hydrogen, that is manageable. If everyone starts plugging
in their cars, where will that electricity come from?
The Toyota FCHV adv SUV is the only electric vehicle to date that
can go 500+ miles on a single fueling without burning a drop of gasoline. That will never be achieved using a chemical battery. Only fuel cells can offer the kind of gasoline free range that people
need. The durability of fuel cells starts at 50k miles and it is going
up. The cost and size of the fuel cell are going down. The power
output starts at 94kW and goes up. Energy efficiency is not the only consideration in developing a replacement for gasoline. If it
were, battery electric cars would have taken over 100 years ago.
Fuel cell cars are within 3-6 years of being commercialized. There
are many solutions to solve the infrastructure problems that I have
outlined in other posts.
There is enough wind potential in the U.S. alone to produce all the
hydrogen that is needed and half the electricity as well.
I think you will find on close inspection that large battery !=
energy efficient in the long run. The 10 year promise is overly optimistic, to say the least. A gas free alternative is needed,
not a gas friendly one.
Even if we decide as a nation to ramp up the amount of nuclear
power in the power mix by say 25%, there is at least 100 years
worth of fissionable material without recycling and more with recycling. Pebble bed nuclear reactors are safe and they are refuelable without shutting them down. Nuclear waste does not
contribute to global climate change and some nuclear waste
produces hydrogen. There are other useful byproducts of
nuclear power plants as well.
http://www.hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com
http://www.asemblon.com/energy
Apr 4th, 2009 (4:13 pm)#161 Michael Robinson:
…so sleepy
/you definitely get the award for longest hyrdogen related post
Apr 4th, 2009 (4:19 pm)#162 Statik (me)
hyrdogen = hydrogen
(clearly my most misspelled word of all time…must be my subconscious)
Apr 4th, 2009 (5:15 pm)That’s impressive! Plug-ins sound easier and cheaper than ever!
Apr 4th, 2009 (6:31 pm)Math time folks.
GM estimated first year production of Volts (Ill leave out the plug in View for now) is 20,000. (Nov 2010 to Nov 2011)
Second year GM estimated production of Volts is 100,000. (Nov 2011 to Nov 2012)
So far we have produced 120,000 vehicles in 2 model years.
For Model year 2013, 14, and 15 they would need to produce 1,000,000 – 120,000 which equals 880,000 by my Microsoft supplied calculator.
880,000 / 3 model years equals a production rate of 293,333 vehicles per year, somewhat more than Toyota sells of the Prius.
I don’t see those numbers, esp. in a prolonged recession.
Apr 4th, 2009 (7:59 pm)“GM feels such a cultural shift will need to take place to enable the plug-in car revolution too. Collaboration between carmakers, utility companies, municipalities, governments, individuals and corporations will have to occur.”
This is crap… Just build them. NOW!
Apr 4th, 2009 (8:56 pm)At some point in the future what GM is saying will be true. But, for the first 10 to 20 years it will not be necessary to have all of this build up of power sources. Sure, it would be nice to have those things, but just not necessary. GM is playing political correctness with the electrification of their vehicle fleet with the federal, state and local governments and other groups that they feel must be on their side to not protest the creation of a large fleet of electric cars. I understand why they are doing it, but they are doing it too soon. Doesn’t hurt, but just is not necessary yet.
Apr 4th, 2009 (8:59 pm)#165 solo said:
Math time folks.
GM estimated first year production of Volts (Ill leave out the plug in View for now) is 20,000. (Nov 2010 to Nov 2011)
Second year GM estimated production of Volts is 100,000. (Nov 2011 to Nov 2012)
So far we have produced 120,000 vehicles in 2 model years.
For Model year 2013, 14, and 15 they would need to produce 1,000,000 – 120,000 which equals 880,000 by my Microsoft supplied calculator.
880,000 / 3 model years equals a production rate of 293,333 vehicles per year, somewhat more than Toyota sells of the Prius.
I don’t see those numbers, esp. in a prolonged recession.
=========================
You seem to be implying GM itself would be trying to get to a million. Not sure why this would be a ‘math issue’ The goal for Obama is just a million EVs on the road in America by 2015…thats everybody, domestic and foreign all in a big heap.
As for GM specifically, your numbers are a little dated. GM is on record for production to be 10,000 in the first year after production, then 60,000 the year(s) after that.
Because they are only using 1 of 3 lines at the Hamtramck, the could maybe really, really push it to 70-75K in year three, but capacity is about 60,000 copies per year. There is no way to go above this number with the setup of assembly. There would likely be no decision to open a second line for the Volt shy of going of it going to Europe…where they would eventually like to move all the production/Gen 2. So you are looking at something like this as a best case (provided they hit their goals):
2011: 10,000
2012: 60,000
2013: 75,000
2014: 75,000
Thats 225,000…tops. Then you have to subtract the fact that GM is not just building all these cars and selling them domestically…they are pushing this a ‘world’ car, and they have inferred in the past that up to half the production will be going to international market as well. So maybe 150,000 copies stay in the US.
You have also put 2015 in your ‘math’ for some reason, which is a non-year as Obama keeps saying 1 million by 2015…to me that gives him to December 31st, 2014.