While in Warren Michigan for the opening of the GM advanced battery lab I along with a group of journalists was given a tour of the facility. I filmed the event (video below). In this segment we hear from Bill Wallace, engineering group manager, GM battery lab. He shows us the current Chevy Volt pack and tells us its the 5th design iteration.
Bill illustrates the progress of pack engineering since 2007. There is a process from proof of concept to Malivolts to current mules and soon on to mass production. GM will possess about 100 each lab packs, vehilce packs and manufacturing packs, for a total of about 300 by the third quarter 2009.
He notes over 200 li-ion cells from LG Chem are in each pack.
Bill explains what the packs contain in terms of thermal management structure and microprocessor controls.
He notes the packs are completely sealed to dust and water, and have insulation to maintain temperature when the car is unplugged.
He says the design has changed in every detail from the beginning and is now comprises of 155 unique part numbers of which 147 were designed and engineered by GM itself.
The pack completely supports high volume manufacturing. At full production volume, all the packs together will exchange over 3 billion kwh of energy in their lifetime.
Attacking Tesla he said “you cannot reliably attach 6000 cells over a large number of batteries,” extolling the virtues of the Volt packs advanced design and engineering with only between 200 and 300 cells each.
He answers my question and tells us that each cell is a little over 3.5 volts. He says he is confident there is no higher energy density cells available than these GM exclusive LG cells.
Finally he admits the battery pack can be safely completely submerged in water.
This entry was posted on Monday, June 22nd, 2009 at 6:15 am and is filed under Battery, Production, Video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
+7
Jun 22nd, 2009 (6:24 am)As the Volt shows the way, GM should use the Voltec as the basis of most of their line going forward and this battery lab is a good start.
(Quote)
-18
Jun 22nd, 2009 (6:31 am)(click to show comment)
+3
Jun 22nd, 2009 (6:40 am)Good to know it’s water tight. It may be rare, but it does happen in many parts across the US and I’m sure the rest of the world as well (and of course I’m referring to flooding).
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (6:42 am)It looks like they had the ev1 battery in the background next to the voltec battery. That thing looks huge in comparison.
(Quote)
+5
Jun 22nd, 2009 (6:43 am)Batteries will continue to drop in price and with Labs like GMs, they will continue to improve in performance.
There will be similar labs all over the world.
(Quote)
+6
Jun 22nd, 2009 (6:46 am)16kWh battery? Isn’t that the same as the Volt? Isn’t the warranty to meet or exceed 100,000 miles? If so, $2,000 isn’t very significant.
I assume all the engine work/maintenance in a combustion engine will add up that about that same amount in the same time frame.
(Quote)
+6
Jun 22nd, 2009 (6:59 am)Thaks for the post, Lylew. I enjoy learning the minutia of how GM is putting the Volt together. It increases our confidence that GM is going about this the right way.
(Quote)
+2
Jun 22nd, 2009 (7:01 am)Excellent video. Thank-you Lyle.
I’m hoping there is some more tech detail in the 2nd part about the number of modules per pack, cells per module and so forth.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (7:12 am)As NASA found out, all it takes is a new government structure to be voted in and all the rules will change. All the rules. GM should start taking out loans from people (large investors) to start paying off the governments loans.
Can it survive a nuclear blast too?
Cool stuff. Too bad Obama’s czar had to screw up the proper Ch11 procedure.
(Quote)
+4
Jun 22nd, 2009 (7:25 am)Those cells are realy thin. If they had just over 200 of them in that huge pack, most of the weight and bulk of that pack has got to be systems related. Damn those cells are small.
Lyle, Was it St. Patrick’s day when you visited?
(Quote)
+5
Jun 22nd, 2009 (7:31 am)Cool video…this is the kind of threads that I enjoy. Not to sound negative or doubt the reliability, but 155 unique parts =>
- 155 unique things that can break
- 155 unique parts that will need to be kept in inventory
With cost and size, this does not sound like a throw away item.
Questions:
- Is the battery pack servicable by dealers? 3rd party businesses?
- Can the environmental seal be broken and restored by a mechanic? special equipment?
- Has one person ever completely disassembled/reassembled the entire battery pack? How many man hours are needed? What level of expertise is needed?
- Any testing performed on rebuilt packs to find potential problems with rebuilding? Has anyone with no experience with the Volt project rebuilt a battery pack and the pack tested?
- Any efforts to maximize servicability?
(Quote)
+12
Jun 22nd, 2009 (7:41 am)Thanks for the post Lyle, I really enjoy ones like types. Volt specific…and lots of technical details. Looking forward to a lot more.
I guess he reiterated/confimed the 10,000 batteries for the first full year’s production with his graph and ‘Hoover Dam’ analogy. If I am not mistaken 365 days x 10 years x 8 kWh/day x 10,000 units = 2.92 billion kWh.
Also it sounds like they have done a lot of parital and virtual crash testing on the pack, but have yet to make the whole thing go ‘boom.’
PS) I’d like to mention that the first crash test/obliteration of a Volt would also be a very entertaining video to provide us with. I’d like to also suggest to GM they first destroy any of those ‘robin’s egg blue’ ones they happen to have lying around, that would make me smile (I hate that color)
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (7:47 am)I am sure that this was a good report. I would have gotten a lot more out of it if the GM lab would have employed better technology in the sound equipment used. The background noise wasn’t good however, the battery operation is good and the fact that the lab exist is in deed an indicator of commitment by GM.
GM is on a roll with the VOLTEC. They have traction in the field of electrical motivation just keep it up and get that Volt out in the field. We need to see it and get some commitments from the interested public. GM needs to work on getting confidence from the citizens and eventually, own their company.
(Quote)
+2
Jun 22nd, 2009 (7:56 am)Thank you for this article Lyle and great video.
The advances in the Volt battery (in 5th iteration already!) is an excellent sign of the energy and talent being put into EV battery technology. Not only by GM but from several major players (Panasonic, NEC, LG, etc.) and it bodes well for the future of electric vehicles.
+ + + to GM and to Lyle for bringing this info to us.
(Quote)
+2
Jun 22nd, 2009 (7:59 am)“slightly over 200″ cells to a pack.
I believe the number of cells is on the high side of 200; when asked by an audience member if the number on cells per pack is closer to 200 or 300 Bill Wallace said closer to 300.
(Quote)
+5
Jun 22nd, 2009 (8:09 am)I believe the number is 288.
It is actually in a GM presentation from November 17th, 2008 by Mary Stanek, who has a really long title at GM – “Director Environmental and Energy Policy and Commercialization” (I told you)
It is slide 15:
http://www.narucmeetings.org/Presentations/Stanek%20PHEV_Nov08%20-%20final90.pdf
(Quote)
+2
Jun 22nd, 2009 (8:16 am)Jeff, note that those are not MOVING parts, so reliability is probably very high.
(Quote)
+3
Jun 22nd, 2009 (8:19 am)OK, this is why I love this website. Very cool and informative video Lyle.
Thanks for all your dedication to the Chevy Volt.
(Quote)
+3
Jun 22nd, 2009 (8:24 am)I’m glad that GM answered this question as well. Here in Texas we get a lot of sun but when we get rain, we get a LOT. Flooding of intersections and side streets is to be expected. Knowing that the Volt pack will work (and the vehicle will not “stall”) while driving through a flooded intersection gives me a much greater sense of confidence in the design of the Volt and its battery pack.
Just imagine the PR hit GM would take if Volts were on the evening news stalled on the side of the road because of a little rain.
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (8:31 am)I hope GM has engineered the pack with no moving parts inside.
It sure would be a pity to have to take your $40,000 Volt back to see Mr. Goodwrench because a mechanical part (cooling fluid pump or air fan) broke down or generated a service code.
I’d like to see a block diagram of the pack if it exists.
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (8:35 am)“Finally he admits the battery pack can be safely completely submerged in water”
But can you drive a Volt underwater?
(Quote)
+3
Jun 22nd, 2009 (8:44 am)Excellent job of reporting on the Volt’s progress, Lyle.
With 288 cells in a battery pack at a little over 3.5 volts each, this equates to 1008 volts.
Now we know that GM will have some batteries wired in parallel, so for two circuits, we still get 504 volts. This still seems to be fairly high voltage. Therefore, it could be they are using 3 parallel circuits at 336 volts. This could also be interesting, as perhaps they are using each circuit to power one phase of the 3-phase AC motor. That will remain to be seen.
The other interesting comment is that GM will have the highest energy density batteries available. See this link for info on the LG cells (CPI website):
http://www.compactpower.com/lithium.shtml
CPI shows the cells having a voltage of 3.7 volts each, and graphically show 125 Wh/kg for energy density. For 16 kWh, this requires 128 kg or 282 lbs. This is ~120 less than the 400 lb that is quoted for the battery pack.
Could GM be using energy densities greater than 125 Wh/kg, and providing a battery pack that has more than 16 kWh? It will be interesting to see what the final product includes.
(Quote)
+3
Jun 22nd, 2009 (8:48 am)The biggest EV1 aluminium battery pack behind him is labelled (video@5:08) EV1 Four passenger Prototype Lead Acid Battery Pack, 1997, 54.5″ x 92.5″, 1200Lbs, 16Kwhrs.
There is a picture of the prototype 4 passengers EV1 there:
http://ev1-club.power.net/evpics/yellowev.jpg
More on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_EV1#EV1_drivetrain_prototypes
(Quote)
+4
Jun 22nd, 2009 (8:48 am)VOLTec needs to be rock solid.
GM can’t afford any problems.
Remember this Prius recall ? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9686049/
(Quote)
+3
Jun 22nd, 2009 (8:50 am)______________________________________________________
Excellent Video Lyle….thanks!
______________________________________________________
(Quote)
+3
Jun 22nd, 2009 (8:52 am)Yes BillR, and perhaps we could have a nice surprise with the first commercial Volt : less weight so more pure E-range or … any combination for a greater efficiency, we know that in practical life and between jan. 2007 and nov. 2010, some progress (already shown in this video) should be made.
JC NPNS
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (8:52 am)Off topic but important —> Lyle’s name is coming up from time to time on an advert banner on the right side of this blog. Lyle is listed as a person “running 26.2 miles” for a fund raising event for the American Stroke Association. We need to be sure the fund raising goal is met. [Then maybe Lyle can just walk, as 26.2 miles is too far in the hot hot sun
] There are a lot of us, so we should be able to reach the total without undue strain on anyone.
It happens that I know about this organization.
Funds go for good purposes.
Please consider.
/thanks to you all who gave wise advice on handling “moderation frustration”
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (9:03 am)Great slide show, thanks.
I don’t get it, I thought the voltage of the pack was 400 VDC.
If there’s 288 cells each at a voltage of 3.5VDC, then would that not equal 1,008 VDC all up?
Maybe maximum Bob is packing the spare battery in as well. Lol.
Actually, with over 50% of the battery operating in parallel as a safety measure for dead cells this could well fit.
(Quote)
+2
Jun 22nd, 2009 (9:04 am)That’s pretty amazing news. Thanks Lyle! The battery pack is insulated against cold temperatures, but can still actively heat / cool the cells; all while having it completely water proof? That is quite a trick!
I would have thought they would have forced air cooling, but that wouldn’t be water proof.
– Is there a water cooling system with an external radiator?
– Do they have a heat pump to actively heat / cool the cells?
– Maybe the Volt will have (2) air-conditioners. One for the passengers and one for the battery pack!
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (9:06 am)GM has said that it will stick with 40 miles AER, so more pure E-range seems unlikely.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (9:07 am)Lyle, this is great technical stuff, I sure am looking forward to Part two.
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (9:11 am)RB, I’m sure if I tried to run 26.2 miles, I would be a recipient of the stroke association. Hats off to Lyle.
(Quote)
+4
Jun 22nd, 2009 (9:40 am)1008 VDC? Only if they were all wired in series. It looks to me, from the shape of the pack, like there are either 3 or 4 series chains connected in parallel. So 288 \ 3 = 96 * 3.5 = 336 volts DC (or 252 volts DC if 4 series chains).
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (9:45 am)[re: flooding]
… or simply silly folks plopping their ride in the drink.
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (9:46 am)At least for as long as you can hold your breath…
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (10:00 am)My guess is that for the first generation, if there is ANY problems with these packs they will get swapped out and sent back to GM for repair. I don’t believe that they will be allowing any mechanics in the field to monkey with them. What this will mean for the consumer is, long waits to get your car back while they wait for the new battery. I’m sure they’ll give you a loaner in the mean time, but it won’t be a Volt.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (10:03 am)The statistical claim about the 300 billion kwHrs was not clear. I
think he was trying to emphasize the large volume of battery production, but have no idea why he phrased it in this incomprehensible fashion rather than simply state how many packs they could build per year. His claim that they have the highest energy density batteries may not mean much in light of MIT’s recent advances. However, GM apparently still has an agreement with A123 Systems, which is licensed by MIT to produce them. Looking forward to Part II.
(Quote)
+3
Jun 22nd, 2009 (10:06 am)thomb,
Although it may be unlikely that the AER range exceeds 40, it may still be tweaked so that the *manner* in which the car is driven won’t be as much an issue. A little like Lyle improving his stamina, without changing any body parts.
In any case, there is always room for improvement and there is certainly time for it as well. I’m still pulling for that July 4th Independence Day release.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR***************NPNS
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (10:08 am)In addition to the cells you have the controls and the housing. The housing looks like it weighs at least a hundred pounds by itself.
I’d doubt we’ll see more range. If the cells produce more power it’s more likely we’d see fewer cells in order to reduce cost.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (10:19 am)The 300 billion kWh thing was classic GM smokescreening to avoid answering questions that people like Lyle would ask “How many can you produce a year?”
Anyway, looks good. Loved the video Lyle. It was cool seeing the battery pack and the actual cells. I am really curious how those 2 batteries that they received 2.5 years ago are still holding up against the tests.
(Quote)
+9
Jun 22nd, 2009 (10:19 am)Lyle says that Bill Wallace “attacked” Tesla over its 6000 cell battery pack. I don’t interpret it that way. All he said was that you couldn’t have so many cells and produce packs in high volume. He said you could “certainly” produce packs with that many cells in low volume.
This is something of an obvious point — so many connections are just hard to wire and then maintain — but since the Tesla Roadster is a very low volume car it’s hard to see this as an “attack”. Making a valid point that the approach used for the Roadster can’t be used for a production vehicle like the Volt shouldn’t be equated to criticism.
Having said this, no doubt there is also some irritation at the “Tesla can do it so what’s taking you guys so long” criticism which many critics have mentioned from time to time. It takes an enormous amount of incremental work to make something suitable for high levels of production versus low levels of production. Seems like he wanted to make this point.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (10:22 am)To support your point about not being air heated / cooled, Bill Wallace said in the presentation — maybe we’ll see it in part II — that the pack is liquid heated / cooled.
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (10:24 am)_____________________________________________________
Colossal Lie?
This Volt battery thread is as good topic thread as any to post the link of a Li-ion battery article that has made me go hmmmmm. I’m at a loss of what to make of it. Is it true that the PR hype/promise of Li-ion batteries significantly going down in cost once volume/competition kicks in a colossal “lie”?
Article: Lithium-ion Batteries and Nine Years of Price Stagnation
http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2009/04/lithiumion_batteries_and_nine_years_of_price_stagnation_1.html
_____________________________________________________
(Quote)
+2
Jun 22nd, 2009 (10:24 am)Actually, 365*10*8*10,000 is only 292 million (not billion). So this is off by a factor of 10.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (10:35 am)Pfft…a mere technicality, lol. What is a couple zeroes?
Thanks for the correction. Now I don’t see how they got the 3 billion kWh over the life of the battery on the production. And I was maxing out a full daily charge. I guess one could argue 100,000 packs totally maxed out…but I can’t see that either.
/thats a +1 for you, hehe
(Quote)
+3
Jun 22nd, 2009 (10:58 am)Right on the money DonC!
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (11:02 am)Here is a video with Jim Queen, the VP of GM Global Engineering, discussing the battery lab:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka7mLYx6MRk&NR=1
In this video, he states that the battery lab has 160 test stands for testing cells, 42 thermal chambers, and can recycle 90% of the energy they use in the battery testing. This implies a 95% efficient charge/discharge rate, which is mentioned by Bill Wallace in the above video.
Also, GM has installed and is experimenting with wind turbines and batteries at the lab.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (11:05 am)Thanks for the links. Always fun to follow some of the links and get more information.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (11:08 am)I am sure GM would do whatever it took to mak you smile, Statik. So, you don’t like Robin’s egg blue? Strange man, you are. But everyone has their likes and dislikes. That is what makes things interesting at times.
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (11:10 am)The battery cell he shows is a “Pouch” style and it looks like a 40AH cell like this example: http://www.all-battery.com/32v20ahlifepo4lithiumironphosphaterechargeablebattery.aspx OR http://www.batteryspace.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=4062
Typical voltage for this type (Manganese) is 3.6VDC when using numbers to design a pack.
So to achieve 400VDC you need ~112 cells. My SWAG is there are actually two packs that have ~112 cells @40AH in them where the two are conected in parallel and have a a 7C draw (per pack) at the minimum. So it sounds like there are ~224 cells in the batt pack.
Being the nerd I am, I’d like to see the BMS electronics and the micro climate control they are using to cool/heat the batt pack.
The ICEAge is over, Embrace the VoltAge!!!
~
~
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (11:11 am)If battery development goes well, GM will produce pure EVs. GM says battery development is going well. So, can we expect to see a pure GM EV announcement in short order? After all, making an EV seems simpler than making an EREV.
(Quote)
+2
Jun 22nd, 2009 (11:13 am)Being that the VOLT will be driven in everyday situations the water & dust protection is very important!
Great video Lyle, needs steadicam help though
Are you posting info on the MINI yet??
GO EV !!!
(Quote)
+7
Jun 22nd, 2009 (11:17 am)Lyle,
A general comment on the new version of the blog comments with the “reply” feature. In some ways I like it and in other ways I don’t. I can see where if you come into the submitted article late you can follow all the replies for someone’s comment. I like that. But, if you are kinda up to date and staying current with the comments, you have to continually go back to see what “replies” you may have missed. That is the part I don’t like, just yet. I am new to the blogging sphere and I had gotten used to way we were doing things. I could come in and read down the line of all the comments and when I got through all of them I could keep up with any new comments by hitting the refresh button (or F5) and pick up where I had left off reading. Now, I have to go back over everything and check for new replies to a poster’s comments. Usually checking by date and time. Is this the best way? Maybe I will get used to this new way like I might get used to the “new” GM someday.
As far as the “thumbs up/down” vote, I will hold my opinion on that for a time. I have not figured out its real usefulness just yet. Is it just a quick way to see how others think of a poster’s comments? if so, maybe I will get used to it also. Comments, anyone?
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (11:19 am)@Anthony BC 31
“Being that the VOLT will be driven in everyday situations the water & dust protection is very important!”
Aw sh|t dude, I accidentally clicked the – on your post. My bad….
I agree with that. I have done many batt packs and corrosion of connection terminals is the biggest flaw. Protecting the contacts should be proirity one. Hopefully the cells are physically soldered to the controll bords.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (11:24 am)Elon Musk has been whistling by the Graveyard recently. Its not difficult to understand why. GM has admitted to manufacturing twice as many battery packs merely for testing than Lotus has built roadsters for Tesla in its four years of “mass production”.
The lack of engineering at Tesla is manifest. They couldn’t design nor build a reduction gear that that they had the effrontery to call a transmission, and wiring 6000 little cylindrical Lithium batteries together like you would find on a store counter, can’t be very reliable.
The day of pioneers like Tesla is rapidly drawing to a close. The rank stupidity of the market in valuing them at more than GM, when they don’t own even a single small factory, is utterly amazing and a commentary on what passes for investment advice these days.
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (11:25 am)Statik,
Is that 288 for the fifth generation of the battery pack? Maybe they have reduced the number of cells. But even with it being 288, that is a far cry from the 6,000 Tesla uses. Different technology, I am sure, but numbers do count for something when it comes to space and environment within the vehicle.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (11:25 am)I feel the same way.
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (11:34 am)Alright, I rewatched it, and figured out where I got off track. He said when the production line is up at full capacity (not the first year). So theoretically, if they had high enough demand they could produce enough packs to hit the 9 month ‘Hoover Dam’ number.
(I know nobody probably cares, lol…but I figured I should figure out the mis-step)
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (11:41 am)This 16kwh battery pack is big and bulky enough. I fail to see why toting around an even larger pack hastens the day of the BEV.
There is no intrinsic reason why Li-Ion battery cells can not come down drastically in price. It is simply that little automation has yet been applied to large cell formats. Thye are almost completely built buy hand, today. But as the technology matures, and mass production commences, prices will fall rapidly.
To date the chemistry is still being evolved. And the componentry is being improved. From cell seperators, to Anode and Cathode materials,all are being improved. Eventually this will reach a point where a stable cell will emerge. That cell will then be mass produced, in vast quantities with high automation,driving costs way down.
Lithium and the other components are relatively common materials with virtually no limitations in availability. Remember, mining less than 10% of the Lithium in known mines, would supply the World’s needs to electrify every car in existence.
The only thing we have to fear is Obama’s Cap & Tax bill which would add $100-$150 dollars to everone’s monthly electric bill, making electricity more expensive than gasoline, rather than only a tiny fraction of the current price.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (12:04 pm)Since there are 155 unique parts, and some of the posters have come to the conclusion that there is much more to the battery cost than the cost of cells themselves, perhaps in 10 – 15 years you can replace the cells only at a reduced cost. You’ll also have 10 years of battery tech moving forward, and will most likely have options of greater range when replacing the cells. Replacing the cells with standard 40 mile range will probably be the cheapest option (costing much less than the original pack did) and will scale up from there.
Does the submerged bit make the Volt a possible submarine for the first 40 miles? j/k
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (12:12 pm)No problem CaptJack!
Just thinking of all those VOLT owners who might be living/driving near the coastal areas where corrosion & sand love to live! They will definitely be happy to hear about those comments regarding battery tests.
GO EV !!!
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (12:20 pm)I agree. It makes replies easier to find but discourages people from writing them.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (12:23 pm)Here’s hoping !!!
GO EV!!!
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (12:24 pm)@Mike D 36
My SWAG is the additional cost is the management of the micro climate within the batt pack and the BMS control and programmable comm link interface to the cars system computer. i.e. the extreme “Proprietaryness” of the batt packs electroncs & controlls.
(Quote)
+2
Jun 22nd, 2009 (12:33 pm)I also heard that the batt packs case has internal blast protection just in case one or more of the cells explode. I highly doubt that will happen with this chemistry but that’s additional safety.
lol
(Quote)
+2
Jun 22nd, 2009 (12:37 pm)A little technical detail – 336 volts is used which just happens to be around the high peak of standard 240 VAC. The 336V is the DC supply for the power switching transistors which create the three-phase waveform by rapidly turning on and off. Three sets of transistors are timed to be 120 degrees apart. The three parallel 336V circuits in the battery can provide three times as much current as one circuit.
(Quote)
-1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (12:37 pm)That’s a big +1 for you Mr. Riley, the 288 might have changed to be closer to “slightly over 200.” I doubt the specific energy (about 125Wh/kg) has changed much, so it would take about 280 lbs to reach 16 kWh. And if that is about 70% of the package weight, the package comes in at about 400 lbs. If the package weighs about 375, and the cells still comprise 70% of the weight, then a slightly higher energy density is suggested. Ok, I will put away the chicken bones and the brown paper bag.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (12:55 pm)Ummm…
I thought the batt pack was 400VDC?
Did this change at some point?
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (12:56 pm)I really hope you’re wrong. Most companies–including GM, Ford and Chrysler started out as a start-up like Tesla. And start-ups are a major source of innovation. Intel. Genentech. First Solar, etc. Most of them fail, but the ones that succeed can transform our economy.
Yes, the market tends to overvalue “sexy” start-ups. People like the cache of investing in companies like Tesla, and that tends to be reflected in the market value. But that’s not the reason the market is “valuing them at more than GM.” Although I’m not sure where you got that from since neither is publically traded.
But the two situations are completely different. The old GM stock was worthless because their massive amount of debt outweighed their assets. I hope the new GM is successful. I think the US economy needs them to be. But they are facing significant headwinds. And there’s a significant chance that they might still liquidate. Tesla, on the other hand, is in better financial shape, and has a viable business model for building luxury cars at at a profit. You don’t have to be a large company to be worth something.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (1:04 pm)Lyle,
It’s been 3 weeks since they started builting the first integration vehicle, and it was only supposed to take 2 weeks to build it.
Any word from the folks at GM as to how it was going?
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (1:05 pm)The better question to ask yourself is why would you drive through an intersection that was flooded anyway? The Volt is not a Gibbs Aquada.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (1:08 pm)My thoughts, also. I just don’t know enough to talk about battery technology with the rest of you guys. But I had wondered if they didn’t actually have two separate packs connected based on the layout of the t-shaped pack(s).
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (1:11 pm)That is of course if GM didn’t contract at a specific volume with a set price within a given time frame!
That we don’t know. We can only see the commodity type cells drop in price and most are not Lithium-Manganese like the Volt’s. So far the commodity types have dropped from $200 per 100AH cell to $110 per 100AH cell in the past 9 months.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (1:12 pm)You would certainly thinks so, but GM doesn’t seem to be pointing themselves that way anytime soon. They seem intent on producing the Volt and a couple of other vehicles possibly using Voltec technology, but no direct BEV. Maybe they want to squeeze out another 1 MPG on their mild two-mode hybrid system so they can say they have a real winner there.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (1:13 pm)Isn’t there a fan in the batt pack? Something has to circulate the air, right?
(Quote)
+2
Jun 22nd, 2009 (1:15 pm)That is ok Capt Jack. I checked the thumbs up vote to give him a good vote for you. See, what a nice guy I am?
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (1:19 pm)But, Stas, as I said in an earlier post, it is the public perception of GM vs Tesla that counts. Right now Tesla is riding high on a big positive wave of public perception while GM is being washed over by a big negative wave of perception. It doesn’t help that GM is being scorched over coals by the news media every day. Tesla gets great press and GM deserves most of what it gets – good or bad.
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (1:22 pm)Back atcha!!!
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (1:24 pm)We all look forward to the day when we can drive on electricity for most of our mileage. We don’t look forward to the day it will cost us much more because of bad tax policy coming out of DC. Obama and the people supporting the cap and trade tax policy is wrong. It is wrong-headed to do this the way they are proposing and will only worsen our economy and place undue tax burdens on companies and families. All taxes get paid for by the consumer. Just where we will get the additional money to pay those taxes has not been determined as of yet. I know I don’t have any extra cash laying around after paying my monthly bills. How about the rest of you?
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (1:25 pm)The rumor is they are having a big problem connecting the ICE into the system. Something about not being able to decide the size of the fuel tank. Developing…
(Quote)
-37
Jun 22nd, 2009 (1:30 pm)(click to show comment)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (1:35 pm)You are on the right track here, I think. The battery cells comprise a certain portion of the weight and cost of the total pack. We just don’t know what percentage of either. I would think the control systems and its sub-systems would weigh a considerable amount and would certainly cost a considerable amount of money. But the key is what percentage, again.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (1:44 pm)Cool. You can do a REPLY now. It’s more like an NFL team’s message board now. Thanks Lyle or whoever is managing this blog site.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (1:44 pm)The Obama Cap and tax to death bill looks worse all the time.
I understand they are going to give more then enough credits to the Northeast and west coast but stick it to the middle of the country.
Low cost energy is the best way to attract new job creating business. Not clean energy low cost energy. So if you have lower cost energy or lower taxed energy you will attract more business.
This bill is just a tax increase and will punish the middle of the country.
(Quote)
+3
Jun 22nd, 2009 (1:45 pm)It works good…I tried to vote twice, but the website said “you already voted.” Smart website.
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (1:45 pm)It seems to be very good policy. The problem we have at the moment is that oil is not paying its own way — we subsidize it by providing a huge defense budget to protect the supply. Additionally there are the problems with pollution and carbon emissions and so forth, and all the related health costs. Plus it compromises our economy by greatly adding to our trade deficit and putting us in a position of conflict with other oil importing nations.
It’s basic Econ 101 that when you have external costs which don’t end up in the cost of the product the best policy is to make up for the missing costs by taxing the good or service. I don’t like the fact that the pollution credits are being given to the polluters, I’d prefer everyone have to buy them, but that seems to be the influence of moderate Democrats and conservative Republicans, and on balance even this is better than the nothing we have today.
Other than a reflexive dislike for anything coming out of the Obama Administration I don’t see anything here too distasteful.
(Quote)
+2
Jun 22nd, 2009 (1:46 pm)So I guess when get some trolls we can bombard them with thumbs down votes?
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (1:47 pm)That is a classic by now. Good one.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (1:49 pm)Hey, that is quite a list. And a good one, I might add. I clicked on the thumbs down for you, but not because of the list. It was really good.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (1:53 pm)Lyle,
Might I suggest you give us a poll and let us vote on the two new features. I have noticed the thumbs up/down causes a much slower refresh rate because of having to access the ebay site. I have not made up my mind on either of the two new features, so I would suggest giving us until the end of the week. Maybe by that time everyone will have a chance to really get a feeling for them. Kind of like voting for Obama. If we could have given him a six months trial, we might not have elected him. But that goes for the rest of the crowd of politicians over the last 30 years or so also. Bush included, of course.
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (1:59 pm)Sounds good to me……….
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (2:00 pm)If you pay close attention you will see that next to the old EV1 battery pack is the new Volt battery pack (standing up and also aluminum, although it won’t be in production). The best part is that both of those packs hold the same amount of energy (16kWh), and hence the improvement in technology.
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (2:01 pm)The charts in the article clearly show that the volume production of Li-ion batteries required to affect the costs have not yet been achieved. The author is right, we are not there yet.
There is a big difference in something that just hasn’t happened yet (cheap Lithium batteries for cars) and something that will never happen (Hydrogen).
With all the EV, ER-EV and hybrid models coming out in the next 3 years that use Li-ion and LiFePo, etc., we will be that much closer to the ignition point. By the end of 2013 there should be 210,000 Volts on the road, 100,000 iMiev, 100,000 Nissan EV (yet to be announced but slated to be on the road in 2010), 100,000 Aptera, and the list goes on.
The ignition point is somewhere in there I believe.
(Quote)
+3
Jun 22nd, 2009 (2:08 pm)Or up to 40 miles, whichever comes first. Well, now we can get into a discussion of the coefficient of drag in water versus air, the magnetic permeability of water, etc. Is the motor sealed and liquid cooled, thus would work fine under water, or is it open and air cooled. If open, it would probably work in fresh water, but with great parasitic drag. An open motor probably would not work well if at all in salt water. This should be a brushless three phase AC motor, so we’re not talking about electrical shorts. But then what about electrical shorts, how well do they work underwater? What are the risks? Oh, the questions, the questions!!!! I must get my medicine!!!!!
(Quote)
+2
Jun 22nd, 2009 (2:09 pm)Im blogging about the MINI over here:
http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1021641_week-one-driving-the-mini-e-electric-car
(Quote)
+5
Jun 22nd, 2009 (2:10 pm)This approach has its pros and cons, but I thought it was time to try to encourage the conversation. So far I like it. We’ll see how it goes, we can always revert back to the old system.
(Quote)
+7
Jun 22nd, 2009 (2:12 pm)By the way, I have the option to actually ‘COLLAPSE’ a comment when it reaches a certain number of negatives (ie -10). I haven’t implemented it but we could at some point.
(Quote)
-7
Jun 22nd, 2009 (2:15 pm)ALERT——–ALERT———ALERT——-ALERT
The GM IV Volt program was working so well and for so much cheaper than anyone imagined, that Chevron finally pulled the trigger. They bought GM and canceled the bankruptcy along with the Volt. Then they essentially bought the US government by buying up all the US debt to China and swore every one involved to secrecy. This is not a conspiracy theory but a little known fact.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled blog posting!
(Quote)
+2
Jun 22nd, 2009 (2:16 pm)IMHO, if they tax the individual consumer for carbon emitted by their cars, it’s a great idea. But that could be difficult to implement. If they don’t, and, therefore, cap-and-trade raises the price of electricity, while giving ICE powered cars a free ride, we have a problem.
Don’t get me wrong–I support cap-and-trade regardless. (Well, I’d prefer a straight carbon tax because I think it’s simpler to implement, but cap-and-trade is fine.) The benefits should outweight the costs in any case. While it could create an undesirable artificial distortion in the choice between an regular ICE and a plug-in, any distortion would probably be minor. Electricity would almost certainly still be cheaper on a per-mile basis.
But, IMHO, we should still do everything we can to encourage the adoption of electric cars. And that includes doing something to offset any negative effects of cap-and-trade. (Put a carbon tax on the car/tax gasoline, etc.)
(Quote)
+2
Jun 22nd, 2009 (2:17 pm)LOL. Voted. (Thumbs down of course.)
(Quote)
+2
Jun 22nd, 2009 (2:20 pm)Prices of Chinese LiFePO4 cells (large format) have dropped substantially over the last year. Several new brands but not as many new customers. When we see EVs actually being produced, price action will be interesting, because there will be a huge new demand along with a huge new supply. Good topic for Statik.
Photovoltaic panels have done the same over the last decade. No price drop for nine years until the recession hit. At least at the retail level. Supply will have to exceed demand at least a little for much price change at retail to occur.
(Quote)
-23
Jun 22nd, 2009 (2:21 pm)(click to show comment)
+4
Jun 22nd, 2009 (2:25 pm)IMHO, if they tax the individual consumer for carbon emitted by their cars, it’s a great idea.
__________
That sounds like a gas tax!
(Quote)
+2
Jun 22nd, 2009 (2:31 pm)288 Cells huh…..
OK, I’m going to throw out some figures here…
My thought is there are two packs in there so…
288 / 2 = 144 cells per pack.
I don’t know what VDC they are using as a 30% SOC because nobody knows the voltage range of this Maganese cell. Usually there are specs of Max voltage, Min voltage, Nominal voltage, pulse discharge rate, etc…, where nominal is the value you use to calculate voltage * number of cells.
That said, the following gives me close to the 400VDC per pack…
400VDC / 144 Cells = 2.7777VDC per Cell.
IMHO this 2.77777VDC is the LVC (Low Voltage Cutoff) of a cell but is the 30% buffer. I say it’s the buffer because typical LVC is 2.0VDC to 2.5VDC and reaching that is an NDE for the cells.
But he said the cells were 3.5VDC? So plug the numbers in…
144 Cells * 3.5VDC = 504VDC
Hmm, that doesn’t sound right.
He stated “A little over 200 cells” at 6:24 minutes in the video.
So I am going to hold fast to my calculations that there are 224 cells split in two packs of 112 cells in each pack because the numbers fit….
112 Cells * 3.5VDC = 392VDC
But it’s not exactly 400VDC you say?
Remember each cell has a HVC (High Voltage Cutoff) that is used to stop the charging process when it reaches that point. We don’t know what that value is but it’s usually .5 to .7 volts higher than nominal which means you are fully charged. Standard lipo’s have a 4.25VDC HVC. I’ll plug in the numbers with a low HVC of .5 over nominal…
112 cells * 4.0 = 448VDC at fully charged.
This seems a little more reasonble than 500VDC.
So why did I plug in the low HVC value? Because the batt pack was designed to never reach 100% SOC.
That’s my raw SWAG. There’s more we don’t know like the minimal/max operating voltage or the voltage operating range. All we know now is it’s supposed to be 400VDC @ 40AH at 16KWh rating using 3.5VDC cells and conflicting cell counts.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (2:32 pm)This far out from the industrial revolution we need a more sophisticated way of looking at energy use and it’s real costs.
Low cost energy has, up until now just been an expedient way of saying “pooping where you sleep takes less energy than the alternatives”.
(Quote)
+3
Jun 22nd, 2009 (2:34 pm)No. You missed the most important point of the video. The mixed energy source of the vehicle is what allows the battery to be kept at optimum temperature, which is what allows the long life, which is what keeps the per mile cost down, which is the only thing that makes it all economically viable. In cold climates, the ICE will come on to warm the battery. This has been stated by GM. I have not heard the same about cooling, but it is likely. Pure EV systems are only viable if they are plugged in at all times when not running. The Volt can be driven to a non-electrified destination, parked in hot sun or freezing cold for hours or even days. Get back in it, turn the “key”, and drive on. If the battery needs temperature conditioning, the ICE will come on to do the job until the pack gets to safe operating temperature. Try that in a Tesla!!! Count on a frequent, and very expensive, battery change schedules in pure EVs such as the Tesla.
(Quote)
+2
Jun 22nd, 2009 (2:38 pm)Arrrrr….
Me thinks this will confuse the Capt after meeting with Capt Morgan at lunch….
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (2:40 pm)I will say this: there was no post that stated “first” “second” etc.
I like the new system personally, I think many people need some time to get used to it.
Like:
+ choose your avatar
+ easily keep up with replies to a particular post
+ voting system makes it easy to see the overall agreement on a post
Don’t like:
- it is harder to keep up to date with the latest comments, have to scan the entire page
Suggestion:
= Write a cookie each time the page is refreshed with the time and date of the most recent post/comment as well as the highest number post that was shown on screen before leaving the page.
= Accessing the page again (or refreshing) reads the cookie and moves the page down until a post is found with a newer date and time from the cookie.
= If there are no newer posts the page location will be put back at the highest numbered post that was displayed in the prior session.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (2:45 pm)I agree. But we need to start getting history correct. Tesla isn’t really the pioneer in their design. Their design was first shown in a demonstration vehicle by AC Propulsion Corp. called the T-Zero. I think they started with a Honda body, stuffed it full of laptop cells, about 7000 if i recall, and put in their motor and controller package. There used to be videos posted of the thing besting a Dodge Viper in a drag race. It was very impressive. It was the watershed moment that proved that Li powered EVs could outperform even the best of ICE vehicles. AC Propulsion should be remembered in the history books. Tesla should be a footnote.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (2:47 pm)When I am up to date on reading comments, I refresh the home page to see the new comments listed there. Maybe Lyle could look at expanding something like that, or a feature that shows what’s new somehow from when you last looked.
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (2:49 pm)That’s my raw SWAG.
_____________
Love that line, I’ll have to jack you for it & use it sometime
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (2:52 pm)This is all territory that has been previously explored with no positive benefits. Except for the part about Letterman and Lutz. Do you have pictures? If you do, I would very much appreciate you keeping them to yourself. However pictures of the models at the New York unveiling of the Tesla S would be much appreciated.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (2:54 pm)That would be great, very difficult though, a second moon shot?
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (2:54 pm)Oops! I for got to add to the
Like:
+ you can opt to receive an email when someone comments on your reply to another person’s post
I’d like that to be an option on your original post as well.
Overall, love the change. Keep up your great work, Lyle. GM, please keep moving forward on the battery system.
Go EVs!
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (2:59 pm)I wonder how much of the price drop is due to demand and not manufacturing advances or material cost improvements at all.
Is GM manganese spinel literally energy density competitive with anything on the market like they are saying. I’m too lazy to look it up and as a serious hobbyist you (Capt) likely have the specs memorized
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (3:02 pm)Yeah, I wouldn’t want to drive any car though deep water.
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (3:07 pm)What materials are so expensive as to make the battery cost over $2000? Certainly not the lithium.
Of course, if you count the cells provided by LG as “materials” then the statement would be currently true, but that can’t be what you mean.
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (3:10 pm)The 400 pounds for the Volt pack is pretty heavy but let’s keep it in perspective.
The engine in a Cadillac weighs over 700 pounds.
The engine in a sedan weighs over 400 pounds on average.
Imports generally around 320 pounds and up.
http://www.team.net/sol/tech/engine.html -OR-
http://www.dtmpower.net/forum/e36-3-series/100564-how-much-does-m3-3-2-engine-weigh.html -OR-
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_a_toyota_22r_engine_weigh
Remember to factor in the weight of the transmission as well. Most electric cars either have no tranny or a simpler, lighter one.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (3:16 pm)Nobody said deep water. Obviously you do not live in Texas.
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (3:18 pm)LJGTVWOTR!! NPNS!
Other than that, I can’t think of a thing to add.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (3:19 pm)But everybody says the car is perfect in every way?
(Quote)
+2
Jun 22nd, 2009 (3:24 pm)Here’s another EV to the list…
“smart gives electric drive version the green light”
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/06/22/smart-gives-electric-drive-version-the-green-light/
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (3:26 pm)First, I like your comments.
Second, it would be nice to have some kind of “comments read” or “comments unread” designation.
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (3:28 pm)I completely agree on the Reply. I do not really like that part. the Thumbs up/down helps me determine if a comment is worth spending time on when i missed a ton of messages throughout the day.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (3:35 pm)yeah… i see those letters, and i know you have said what it means… can you remind me?
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (3:38 pm)As mentioned earlier, there are thoughtful posts that might get “negativized” because they might say something obvious, but unpopular. Political posts will get a lot of votes one way or another. Statik haters will not like his medicine. Collapsing comments might not allow a robust debate.
Can we give a comment “ignorant” points? To give an ignorant point, one must provide a reputable citation that proves a statement ignorant.
/I know, wishful thinking.
(Quote)
+2
Jun 22nd, 2009 (3:39 pm)not that I would buy one, but the more EVs, the better.
(Quote)
+3
Jun 22nd, 2009 (3:39 pm)I don’t know why you would want to do that. As someone pointed out yesterday, statik almost certainly would have reaped many thumbs-downs for his 2007 prediction that GM would collapse before the Volt saw the light of day.
And he was right.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (3:43 pm)I am using Mozilla Firefox with Adblock Plus… I am do not get to, nay, have to see the advertisements.
(Quote)
+3
Jun 22nd, 2009 (3:46 pm)“The battery will be mounted under the car”.
All the more reason to have a minimum ground clearance of at least 7″.
You don’t want to pull out of the Chevy dealer with your new $40,000 car and hear a bottoming out scrape on the exit ramp. Your chin will start to sweat wondering if the battery had been damaged. This is a serious concern.
Give the Volt 8″ of ground clearance. Or simply offer a Volt “RAV-V” and address the hauling demands as well.
=D~
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (4:08 pm)Howdy Cap’n, I’m pretty sure they are liquid cooled.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (4:12 pm)I’m pretty sure Lyle recorded this one.
The onboard condenser mic’s on most camcorders are at best OK.
/Thanks for some great info Lyle!
(Quote)
+4
Jun 22nd, 2009 (4:12 pm)Lyle,
This new format is extremely terrific!
With the new continuity directly at a post, new learning takes place immediately, less mis-posting due to contextual errors from scrolling way up and down (if we have to go off to work then come back).
This is so extremely valuable, it has an intellectual and factual synergy (absolutely no pun intended), that greatly magnifies the entire content of this site.
As I believe that it is this site that is the very central historical focus and benchmark for this incredible green electric motoring transition and evolution, now more than ever, each entire topic is worth reading two or three times in a row to process all the valuable information.
Now, just not any statement can be thrown out here, because the poster will have their “toes held to the fire”, yet, be able to clarify right on the same post without the rest of us hunting for the clarification.
Other sites will copy your terrific idea it’s so good.
Dan.
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (4:25 pm)A fellow Marathon runner! I’ve done 28 of the events and I am impressed that Lyle is doing this. Says worlds about Lyle about his stamina, focus and perseverance!
Best Regards! Higgins
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (4:27 pm)I never thought of that.
I’ve had mufflers sheared off when my car dropped into ice ruts caused by thawing/freezing cycles on uncleared backroads. Perhaps there could be an optional removable belly pan for dealing with rough terrain.
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (4:30 pm)Your SWAG is way better than my WAG!
(Quote)
-1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (4:33 pm)What you want to bet GM has not thought about this either. Just one of those things the consumer will have to “suffer” the cost of once you own it. Not covered under warranty.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (4:37 pm)The pack is mounted between the wheels not behind so it’s unlikely to be badly scraped under normal circumtances I would think.
Now the chin spoiler and the rear bumper, that’s another story!
I want a ground effects package on mine, just like Cap’n Jack’s!
(OK I’m joking… he can have that one to himself…)
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (4:38 pm)The thing is that at night, you can not always tell how deep a puddle is, and, if there had been ” roadway undermining” where there are small or large sections of the roadway that have been greatly weakened or had been carried away by a resided torrent causing an “over the road” “gully-washer” (under that dark surface of residual water).
You would be reassured to know the Voltec battery pack is water tight.
If you live out in the country in Texas this is what happens frequently here on Texas country roads. (Especially with the new “rain bombs” of many very very sudden inches of rain per hour in the same place.)
Perhaps this new phenomenon of concentrated rainfall is a possible new thing from hotter atmosphere.
Also, it is just one of those things that you would want to know when you buy your Voltec vehicle.
Dan.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (5:13 pm)I can’t take credit for either one. For a long time Tagamet used to end his comments with “Let’s Just Get The Volt’s Wheels On The Road!!”. Someone (no names please) shortened it to LJGTVWOTR!! Saving keystrokes, LOL.
Someone else started “No Plug, No Sale!” and it got abbreviated the same way.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (5:18 pm)So basically there is good and there is not so good. It seems somewhat out of character for BMW to screw up a detail like having approved charging cables ready to go at rollout! I’m sure somebody had a red face over that one!
It does however sound like they have kept the ‘fun’ aspect of the mini intact, and that is a very good thing!
For my useage/state of mind the Volt is still definately the way to go, but it’s great to see more and more cars hit the road!
/I’m glad you were able to get power at the office to make commuting possible!
Thanks for the daily read Lyle!
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (5:19 pm)I agree the battery might be shipped back to GM testing labs to work out the fault, but they would simply replace it at the dealership. I can’t see dealers overseas shipping the battery back to the US and having you wait 2 to 3 months for the battery to return.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (5:24 pm)You may be right, but I for one want a good look at exactly how that battery pack is mounted.
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (5:35 pm)_____________________________________________________
I prefer the prior old-school last post goes to bottom style; it was KISS.
This new imbedded comment style has the benefit of keeping related comments grouped but at the high cost of making it much more work for a user to come back to an active article thread and see what comments have been added since the last visit.
__________________________________________________
(Quote)
+6
Jun 22nd, 2009 (5:36 pm)For those of you who can’t see it directly, Lyle’s support page is
https://www.kintera.org/faf/donorReg/donorPledge.asp?ievent=313393&lis=1&kntae313393=8CE6A892DBD94778AC47327EB8CAF914&supId=259196787
We are off to a slow start, but we can do it.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (5:41 pm)So a 16KWh pack with 200 cells means each cell is 80Wh or 24.2Ah at 3.3V nominal. Impressive.
I fear the stupid, irrelevant question asked by one of the reporters. While the guy was speaking about the cell he asked “How many Volts?”. I’m sure that will end up in a publication somewhere as, “Chevy is building a 3.3V electric car”.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (5:47 pm)I think 155 is remarkably low. Look how big that thing is and the fact that it has to manage cooling, cell life, and the health of each cell. Now think about how many parts are in your cell phone. I bet it’s a lot more than 155.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (6:13 pm)I guess that’s one reason why Tesla chairman Musk is so smug these days.
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (6:16 pm)______________________________________________________
How will a 2015 i-MiEv @ MSRP $21,000 impact the GM Voltec Program?
“Mitsubishi To Slash Price of i-MiEV in Half By Mid 2010s”
Source:
http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1021670_mitsubishi-to-slash-price-of-i-miev-in-half-by-mid-2010s
______________________________________________________
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (6:16 pm)As Arte Johnson used to say, “Veeeerrry interesting”!
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (6:18 pm)For a battery pack with cooling, balancing, submersible, 250+ cells, etc. 155 unique parts doesn’t sound so bad.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (6:23 pm)Don’t forget it’s 8KWh in plus 8KWh (or thereabouts) per full cycle plus all the microcycles under ER mode
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (6:26 pm)The i-MiEV is awesome in every way possible, and will totally obliterate the Volt. I suspect with this news GM is already planning a board meeting to cancel the VOLTEC program all together. (Shameless attempt for negative reviews)
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (6:27 pm)Statik haters
That’s clearly an oxymoron!
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (6:29 pm)I thought CJS was signed up to canal test it after a Hooters induced DWI outing
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (6:32 pm)Holy crap! Even my broke azz, furloughed, trailer park maggot self will be able to get one. is $21K the fully loaded one? I want the no frills bare bones, base model, crank the windows up/down model.
I still think there’s a market for the Volt. It’s for those with range anxiety.
(Quote)
-1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (6:32 pm)Wahooooo….Tag is back!!! The bankruptcy skies must be starting to clear.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (6:35 pm)Jason Hendler
I owe you an apology. On one of Lyle’s posts I was typing something to the tune of 1st doesn’t really matter when no one had posted. When yours came up as the first post mine was after yours. After re-reading the post it looked like I was criticizing you and that wasn’t my intent. Mea culpa.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (6:35 pm)I’ve seen 400V posted in comments but only remember 300 something from GM. Maybe the kings of links can find a recent one with info from GM (Fritz and Lutz comments don’t count for tech info).
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (6:40 pm)On a serious note, this is the advantage to building your own batteries. Future battery prices to commerical consumers (like GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc) will come down based primarily on two factors, volume and demand.
By Mitsu building their own packs they can eliminate one of the criteria for cheaper packs that GM can’t….demand.
For example, LG Chem is going to charge GM ‘fair market’ value for their lithium cells, and as long as demand is high, GM is going to pay that premium. GM will still get a really good deal based on high volumes, but they can never eliminate the lithium premium and/or profit margin of a third party in the mix.
Mitsu is investing in their own infrastructure (multiple battery plants thru their subs. GS Yuasa), and will net progressively lower costs on the pack going forward.
The only disadvantage to building your own is if you bet on the wrong technology and find yourself producing a obsolete product (like when EESTOR nukes everyone with their uber-caps)…and it also makes it much, much harder (and costlier) for Mitsu to abandon making electric vehicles. (should they need to)
—
Sidenote: I’m still not thrilled with talking pricing at all on the i-MiEV. There is so many rebates in Japan, you can’t tell what the real MSRP would be in North America, so it is pretty hard to come up with a calculation of what a future price would be.
For example, they ‘retail’ for 4.6 million yen (which is around $48,000), but no one pays that, you get the consumption tax off and a pile of other rebates, which actually makes it about $31,000 to the consumer. So you can spin it anyway you want (depending on your bias)…I want one, but I’d still prefer to just wait and see what they come out with, they have given zero indication so far. As for ‘half price’ to the consumer in the future…I’ll believe it when I see it.
/for now, I’ll happily pay FULL price, and you can keep the big discounts…when can I pick it up?
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (6:40 pm)Hey, in th picture above, that gap on the batt pack just to the left of the green goblin guy, what does it accomodate in the car?
Just curious…..
A really deep cup holder or a mount point for carcus1’s pole for his strippers?
AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Serious though, what’s it for?
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (6:47 pm)Don’t play coy. You know it is loads simpler in production and lights years simpler in test, control, and packaging. Aside from battery development, an EV for GM would be cake and the battery development cost could be written off to the EREV program.
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (6:53 pm)I like it overall too. Much easier to reply to comments. I was concerned about keeping up to date on a thread since all new comments aren’t at the bottom but the grouping helps. You can scan down pretty quickly and pick up the new comments once you get familiar with the format.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (7:01 pm)AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
I couldn’t get the waitresses to come with me.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Sing it with me……
So bye-bye, miss american pie.
Drove my chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
And them good old boys were drinkin? whiskey and rye
Singin?, “this?ll be the day that I die.
“this?ll be the day that I die.”
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (7:02 pm)You’re confused on the facts dude. 600+ production delivered since officially start of production Dec ‘07 or Jan ‘08. Tesla missed their announced fall ‘07 start of production but you could cut them a little slack for that consider all they have done to spur the current EV rennasaince. What do you think happens when a Tesla cell fails (a: not much)? What do you think will happen when a Volt cell fails (30x loss in battery capacity compared to Tesla)? I’m not saying 6000+ cells is a better or worse design but there are advantages to both.
Tesla is by no means a high volume production operation but I don’t understand the distortion of the facts and the disdain so many show them.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (7:03 pm)Way back in January 2008, Lyle asked Jon Lauckner (GM’s VP of Global Program Management); “What comments can you make in regards to the battery running without cooling?” (http://gm-volt.com/2008/01/22/one-on-one-with-jon-lauckner-vp-of-global-program-management-part-1/). Mr. Lauckner replied:
“Now you know why when we see the results we are particularly encouraged. If you could keep the cells close to that magic 20 degrees C (70 degrees F) with the cooling system running, that would be good, but when you can run the battery severely and you still don’t have temperatures shooting off the map, that gives you more encouragement…So there’s some extremely encouraging results.”
So, GM ran batteries without cooling and the batteries exceeded expectations. With more battery technology development, maybe the necessity for cooling systems will diminish. Even if an EV needs a cooling system, it could be electrically powered; i.e., no ICE needed.
(Quote)
+3
Jun 22nd, 2009 (7:12 pm)Lyle, if you could put a maximum negative rating of -10 on only the very first post of the thread before it collapses…that would be great. The power to eliminate the nonsensical first posts would be nice. (I’d like to commend Rocketsciece for not writing ‘First!’ on this thread…although -1 for spelling science wrong)
Sidenote: I’d also like to request my negative ceiling be put to at least -100, just so everyone gets a fair chance to vote thumbs down on me before it disappears, lol
(Quote)
+2
Jun 22nd, 2009 (7:24 pm)A car manufacturer producing their own cells is like a computer manufacturer making their own processor, except without the pull of all of the legacy application that lock users into your tech. GM’s decision to build the packs and source the cells is absolutely the right way to go. Just look at all of the different Li techs that are in production now and all of the “breakthroughs” we here about almost every day, and that is just Lithium tech.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (7:37 pm)Here is some contrary information. Doesn’t he say when pressed that the number of cells is “closer to 300 than to 200″? (That may be in another video of his presentation but he definitely said this). The second piece of information, which is consistent with the number being “closer to 300″ is the presentation Statik mentioned. In that presentation, made last November, the presenter said the battery pack would have 288 cells. (You see the 288 number a lot of places but I think this is where it originated).
Without knowing how many modules there are, isn’t it hard to know how the modules are wired?
(Quote)
+1
Jun 22nd, 2009 (7:54 pm)I think a simple solution is to have a different color for new posts… maybe 5 or less minutes old.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (7:56 pm)If some cells are connected in parallel, what happens if a cell fails? Failure examples:
1. a short circuit develops between the cell’s two terminals.
2. the cell just stops producing electricity
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (7:58 pm)If some cells are connected in series, that implies that a cell will have very high current flowing through it. Is that correct?
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (8:01 pm)LOL, just consider me one of those “little green shoots” the business guys are talking about.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (8:02 pm)In slide 15 of this link I posted a few days ago, GM indicates that the cells constitute 70% of the cost of the battery pack.
http://www.narucmeetings.org/Presentations/Stanek%20PHEV_Nov08%20-%20final90.pdf
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (8:03 pm)The rumor is that tomorrow DOE will announce loans to Tesla, Nisan, and Ford. (Chrysler and GM not eligible because of the bankruptcy).
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/06/22/doe-expected-to-announce-first-atvm-loans-tuesday-ford-nissan/
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (8:09 pm)It’s damn near impossible when they give conflicting number of cells and operating voltages for the batt pack. If in fact it is 288 cells then there is no combination to achieve 400VDC with 3.5VDC cells.
Breakdown…
Pack 1?
3.5VDC * 288 = 1008VDC
Pack 2, two packs?
3.5VDC * 144 = 504VDC
3.5VDC * 144 = 504VDC
Pack 3? three packs?
3.5VDC * 96 = 336VDC
3.5VDC * 96 = 336VDC
3.5VDC * 96 = 336VDC
Any more splits and there’s no possible way without using a “Buck Boost” method.
It just doesn’t add up with what they are saying. Of course it does if the batt pack is actually only 336VDC and not what was originally stated as a 400VDC 40AH pack. This would also mean that eacd pack in the three pack has the ability of 5333.33KWh all parallel each other for the 16KWh pack and each pack is rated at 13.333Ah
So basically, we really don’t know Jack Sh|it about it then huh?
lol……just give us some consistant numbers here GM!
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (8:11 pm)And they are right.
Be well,
Tagamet
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (8:13 pm)I’d really thought that they had said that it was liquid cooled (not in the video, but over the last year).
Be well,
Tagamet
(Quote)
-2
Jun 22nd, 2009 (8:15 pm)As Static alludes to, the price cut includes incentives and so forth. Given the time frame is five or more years out, halving the price of the battery pack, which is what GM thinks it can do more quickly, might result in cutting the price of the vehicle after incentives by half. Hard to say though unless you know exactly what they’re talking about.
On whether to make the battery pack, I think Koz is right that GM is much better off leaving battery manufacturing to the battery folks. Vertical integration comes with many problems, and owning the IP for the battery control control and maintenance should provide more than enough value added IP.
(Quote)
Jun 22nd, 2009 (8:15 pm)Not necessarily. Compare 2 examples.
In the first example, suppose one cell produces 4 Volts (approximately) and may have 0.1 ampere flowing. If that one cell is connected to the outside world, the cell is providing 4 time 0.1 = 0.4 watts
In the second example, suppose 100 such cells are connected in series, and then to a different load.