AND 
GM Advanced Battery Lab Tour w/ Video Part II
I recently had the chance to tour GM’s newly opened 33,000 square foot advanced battery lab in Warren Michigan. The first video is here. This is where the Volt’s batteries are being lab tested. Other hybrid systems are being tested here as are cells from outside suppliers.
In this video we see a presentation by Dr. Ramona Ying, a GM battery lab staff researcher who has worked there since the EV-1 days.
She is showing off the cell testing side of GM’s new battery lab in Warren Michigan. Among other things displayed are two Volt LG prismatic cells in a thermal chamber.
She noted GM gets solicitations to test new cells all the time often in the wrong shape for automotive use.
GM uses a 4-phase process to evaluate cells. To date GM has evaluated 155 chemistries from 105 suppliers on paper and more than 60 actual cells from 20 suppliers. Ying acknowledges GM also tests supercapacitors.
She says that by testing 24 hours 7 days a week GM can simulate 10 years of testing in 2 years, and that the overall goal of the lab is to reduce costs for battery cars and reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
Video:
259 Responses to “GM Advanced Battery Lab Tour w/ Video Part II”
Recent Posts
- Ford Unveils Transit Connect Electric Cargo Van, Will Enter Production This Year
- Chevrolet Chief on Volt Supply and Demand
- Jaguar Says Only ‘Self Charging’ Extended Range Electric Cars Make Sense
- Op-Ed: Prius Halo Damaged; Toyota Pressured to Announce Recall on 270,000 Units Already Sold, as CEO President Finally Breaks Cover
- GM Sends Dealers 2011 Model Year Ordering Guide: Includes Volt
- GM Partners with NASA to Build Next Generation Robots
- If Electronics are to Blame for Toyota’s Vehicle Failures, What Does this Mean for the Volt?
- The Chevy Volt Fuel Tank will be Sized to Deliver 300 Miles of Gas Range
- Video: How the Volt Works
- GM CEO: Volt Will Roll out Simultaneously in US, and a Billion Dollars Couldn’t Bring it Sooner
Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts
- Volt Test Drive by Vancouver EV Association February 8, 2010VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA -- General Motors issued a very special invitation to the Vancouver Electric Vehicle Association last week to drive the... […]WopOnTour
- gasoline cars are like smoking . . . . February 8, 2010interesting article, better presenting what I've had a hard time putting into words (which is why HE's a writer and I'M... […]prowler
- A common European strategy for electric vehicles February 8, 2010I coudn't resist to cut and paste the next excerpt : Link :... […]Jean-Charles Jacquemin
- Run flat option or standard? February 8, 2010I suspect that run flats might be standard because they get rid of the space and weight taken by a spare tire and may result in less fatal accidents... […]1nk
- Engine Thermal Management in a Series Hybrid February 8, 2010I've just recently discovered how different the environments under which a conventional (even parallel hybrid) ICE and series hybrid ICE are... […]XGC75
- electric car with wind generator February 7, 2010My design of ELECTRIC CAR WITH WIND GENERATOR: http://velkovelkov.blogspot.com/ I think this conception is original and realistic. The low position... […]Velko Velkov
- Please provide complete home solar systems. February 6, 2010Please provide both a volt charging solar system and a complete whole house solar system that takes the user completely off the grid and stays on... […]1nk
GM-Volt.com is not affiliated with General Motors Company
All contents copyright 2007-2010 GM-Volt.com, LLC - All Rights Reserved
Home | Contact | Privacy Policy | About | Back to Top
July 1st, 2009 at 6:07 am
I like the fact that they are testing so many cells from different vendors. It is also great that they can test 24/7 and get 10 years of cycles in 2 years. SuperCaps too. They should have a great database started.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:32 am
Nice and informative. I am anxious to see the clip (hopefully forthcoming) from Bill Wallace specific to the Chevy Volt pack.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:38 am
I concur. Imagine the wealth of knowledge about EVs that they are compiling through this process, and how it will position them to move forward in the years to come.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:39 am
I am interested in understanding the ICE mode power.
When the ICE/Gen are operating, does all of the power go to the Electric Motor (EM) or can the EM be running and the battery be charged at the same time?
When the ICE/GEN are operating, I am assuming that the battery can be “dipped into” for reserve power for accelleration at rates beyond the ICE/GEN limits. Is this true?
Are there limitations on the power that can be added to or taken from the battery? Are there limits on the charging rate?
All of these things lead me to wonder why the engine is so big. My driving experience is that average power required by an engine is not too large. For city driving, average power required may only be 10 or 15 horse power. For instance, you may need 75 horsepower taking off and then around 5 as you drift towards a light and around 1 at the light to keep systems up. The time averaged value could be pretty low.
Similary, on the highway you may only need 40-50 HP to cruise along. This would fluctuate up and down as you go up and down hills but a time averaged value would be far less than the peaks.
If we assume that the average power is relatively small, what would stop the VOLT from having a smaller engine that only produced what is needed on average? Is there some limitation with the battery absorbing the excess and filling in the power gaps. Is this process too inefficient.
I bring this up with the suspision that an E-REV could be run effectively with a lighter (Think motorcycle engine) ICE and Generator. Lighter cars are more efficient.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:44 am
The thoroughness with which GM is going about this process continues to impress me.
It also makes me wonder about the ER-EV car Fisker is bringing to market, and the Tesla, of course. Will their battey packs hold up as well?
I can’t imagine that Tesla has put its pack through a 10-year simulation. It will be interesting to see how they’re holding up 5 years from now.
It’s one thing to build a vehicle that performs great when it’s rolled out of the factory. Quite another when it’s got five or six years of daily driving on the odometer.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:49 am
Part of the reason why the engine is “so big” (1.4L — big?!?) is that it is an existing engine that GM could use without the expense of devloping a new engine — remember, they ARE in the poor house.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:57 am
I agree. Its just that some of the discussions prior to this made it sound like the engine had to run hard. I have always thought the engine could be smaller and these “high RPM” discussions make me scratch my head.
On another note, I don’t care if my volt runs its engine at a stop light if that is the most efficient thing to do over the long run.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:02 am
Great Lyle.
Thank you, I concur with all the positive comments made above. I think such informations should increase our confidence and the overall public confidence in the EV, E-REVs, etc. produced by the new GM
JC NPNS
July 1st, 2009 at 7:12 am
Yes, efficiency is what we’re after.
Seems to me Farah recently talked about having the engine shut off when the car stops, much like many other cars are starting to do.
As for the question about where the ICE sends its power, I know we’ve had threads about this in the past, but I can’t find it right now.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:14 am
A larger engine may be more economical, both in purchasing cost and in fuel usage.
The Volt has been designed to run at 100 mph all day long, that drives the size of the genset. Aerodynamics are far more critical to long electric range than weight, weight is more of an issue for torque limited ICE engines and their fancy transmissions.
The answer to your first 3 question are: YES
The incremental increases in efficiency that you are thinking about are planned for future generations of the Volt.. at this moment the important thing is 40 miles of gas free driving, this trumps all other requirements.. the next important thing is reducing the cost to GM, not necessarily to the customer.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:24 am
There is a lot of data on the commodity cells that Tesla uses, perhaps they did not need to do their own accelerated aging tests. The large pack that Tesla uses is also stressed very lightly (due to its large capacity) in everyday short range driving.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:25 am
I agree Nuclear and FME. It’s great to see that they even have all of those varieties of chemistries to test in their lab. Wow…Choices are nice. Hoping that they can glean some great innovations from all of the information they are compiling.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:29 am
Nuclearboy,
Are you a superhero? I can see you now with your cape, the atomic icon on your chest, your dark shaded sunglasses, all glowing in the dark.
All kidding aside, I view the ICE/battery combo like a pickup truck with a plow. The hydraulic unit is essentially an electric starter motor driving a pump. Some models can draw a couple of hundred amps, more than the alternator can supply.
So when you lift the plow, the lights might dim and power is coming from both the alternator and the battery. Once the plow is lifted, the alternator recharges the battery.
So the ICE on the Volt provides “average” power to keep the battery pack at about 30% SOC. For fast accelerations or high speed climbs, the battery/ICE will provide up to 111 kW to drive the motor. As the high power demand wanes and you return to normal cruise, the power output of the ICE will adjust to meet the demand and replenish the battery to ~30%. At times, if the battery has more than 30%, the ICE may actually shut off.
With a 53 kW motor/generator, the ICE can only provide about half of the Volt’s max power. However, all of this power may be needed for long hill climbs at 70 mph. I suspect the ICE will not operate at full power very frequently, as more moderate power settings are likely suitable for most driving circumstances and are probably more efficient.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:33 am
What testing/responsibility do the battery mfg’s do/have? Are they just relying on GM to do all the work?
July 1st, 2009 at 7:44 am
When you make a $30,000 vehicle, add $10,000 of batteries then charge people $110,000 for it you don’t worry very much about battery replacement issues.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:50 am
I think GM is doing the testing so they can own the best chemistry formula and electronic control of that chemistry as well as any special packaging required for automotive applications. I think the battery companys could do the testing at the cell level but lack the experience in automobile applications to know how to package and protect the cells in such a harsh inviroment. If we drop our lap top we are quite concerned as to weather it survived. This battery will be shaken and bumped constantly.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:52 am
I think it is probable that the manufactures do quite a lot of the same testing, so GM’s effort “validates” the expected performance as claimed by the cell maker. For example, LG indicated its cells would lose about 25% of their initial capacity over the 10 year, 150,000 mile life of the battery. But GM sure needs to verify that expectation.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:53 am
I really agree FME III
Down through the last 35 years I’ve been working on GM vehicles, and have, since 1985, also been educating techs (with E-books) about GM vehicles,
GM has always been thorough with all its processes.
You always could count on GM being the industry standard for everything auto technical education.
The first 3 Vehicles I require Advanced L-1 Systems techs to have in the bays (live repair orders with customers waiting sometimes), are GM vehicles.
GM has always been thorough in supporting their products with complete displays of the hundreds of datastreams needed by techs to examine everything.
Other OEM’s hide most of these datastreams very much of the time, so that lesser-trained techs are more easily directed to the more likely datastream items (within the Genisys). Other test equipment may just “blast a random half ofeverything in front of you”, not software-wise/appropriately holding anything back by design, then that tech is far more likely to select the wrong information, come to a wrong conclusion, and install the wrong part, so that customer pays for the wrong money for something they likely did not need in a specific servicing priority.)
But new thorough learning can never take place on the vehicles which “sequester” or “hide” lots of datastreams, because you can never prove what the problems “are not” or have available “disproveability” in relationship with “problem proveability”.
GM really helps us all the very best by far, and has always been this thorough. The video above proves what has always been the case.
Have a productive day, everyone.
Off to work!.
Dan.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:56 am
I too am becoming less skeptical about GMs long term plan for electrification of their vehicle fleet.
Great article and video, Lyle.
I hope GM has learned that siding with the oil companies over the real needs of the American people has brought them nothing but ruin.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
=D~~NO PLUG=NO SALE!
Electric cars + Nuclear Power 40% + Geothermal/Hydro 10% + Solar and Wind 50% + (Coal/Gas/Fossil Fuels 0%) = American Energy Independence and Environment Protection
July 1st, 2009 at 8:01 am
Obviously, GM sees the Volt as one of the Platinum eggs in it’s ever shrinking basket. I hope that the major shareholder has a green bent to them (as I’m guessing the Govt has). I’m NO fan of govt ownership, just playing the hand we (GM) currently has.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!**********NPNS
July 1st, 2009 at 8:02 am
Excellent video, Lyle! And Dr. Ling’s remarks nicely complement those from Bill Wallace in your Battery Lab Part I on 6/22. (I guess we now have both the ‘ying & yang’ of GM’s impressive battery research & testing
(sorry, couldn’t resist! 
)
Seriously, thanks for giving us as much as you do Lyle on battery work at GM —of course, the battery isn’t everything! ….it’s the ONLY thing!
July 1st, 2009 at 8:06 am
I’m still mystified that Tesla blurts the # of cells in their battery so often that I’ve memorized it (6,831), while GM will only say vague things like “between 200 & 300 cells”. What’s so sensitive about the exact number?
(PS: Sorry I misspelled your name in the above post, Dr. Ying —I never did spell well.)
July 1st, 2009 at 8:08 am
Lyle keep these type of videos coming…
Let’s hope that GM can focus on the “good enough” electrical energy storage device and still meet performance/reliability requirements (and improving for next generation). While some people may disagree, the Volt should not be compared to a space shuttle in several ways. Low volume production and over budget projects might be acceptable attributes for NASA…not a major “for profit” auto company.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:10 am
I also have given the ICE during range extending mode a bit of thought. One thing we have heard in several post is the ICE running in one of several sweet spots depending on need. I wonder if the system will be changing this pick of sweet spot as you drive to maintain the 30% soc or will the ICE be shut off some of the time during range extending because it has charged the battery enough to allow another 2-3 miles all electric. I just can’t believe there is a sweet spot for any and all conditions.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:18 am
Nuclearboy, you have asked a question that has always piqued my curiosity, i.e. how much electricity will the ICE send to the electric motor and how much will go to the battery pack in normal operation. The family zero 1.4L has been de-tuned for the Volt from 100 hp to 74-75 hp to optimize efficiency, but even at 75 hp, the average load needed to power the Volt will probably be less than 25 hp in town, and with the aerodynamic design of the Volt, it may be less than 40 hp at 70 mph, as the engineers on this site have calculated in the past. GM has repeatedly stated that the ICE will be set to run at several preset rpm levels, and unless you are doing the endlessly debated Pikes Peak drive your ICE will seldom go all the way up to 74 hp/6000 rpm, as BillR notes in this thread. But what it will do, I hope, is operate one or two preset rpm levels faster than the electric motor requires. So if your car needs 50 hp to accelerate up to 45 mph, the Volt will generate 60 hp, 50 hp to the EM, and 10 to the battery pack. If you are gliding to a stop light, the car needs 3-4 hp to power the AC, the power steering and the stereo, but instead of operating at idle, the engine will slow steadily down to 15 hp or around 1600 rpm, which will be so quiet that it won’t seem like the car is going to rabbit through the light, and 10+ hp will be charging the battery, (at 13+ kW?). It won’t recharge the battery beyond 33%, but when it does reach 33%, the ICE will shut down for 3 or 4 minutes and the battery pack will deplete to 30%, whereupon the ICE will start up and repeat the procedure.
Does anyone remember what the guesstimates were for cruising horsepower required? If memory serves, 65 mph was pretty moderate, but 70 mph and up the power required climbed pretty severely. But if the Volt can do 36 miles at 65 mph I won’t be complaining.
Another point you raise that is interesting is what will the Gen II Volt have in the way of an ICE? Family Zero has a whole range of Turbo I-4’s coming in the next few years. How about a FlexFuel Turbo 1.0L I-4, delivered about the time cellulosic ethanol may become a reality…
Wishful thinking, but it is possible.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:19 am
….One more mystery. What’s so sensitive about the nominal voltage of the Volt’s battery???
July 1st, 2009 at 8:21 am
(click to show comment)
July 1st, 2009 at 8:24 am
I would doubt that GM is ready to commit to and exact number till they are certain that their supplier has delivered the best size, shape, and energy density possible prior to the cut off date for no more changes allowed for this production run of Volts. Combine this with the strong desire by GM to deliver 40 miles BEV. If they now state 270 cells and later reduce that number to say 240 cells then the ney sayers will be harping about the Volt being cheapened.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:25 am
GM is prudent, they want to make sure the cell manufacturers are telling the truth.. very wise of them!
July 1st, 2009 at 8:49 am
I’ve never quite understood the discussion of ’several’ sweet spots. I assume the engine has ONE sweet spot (maximum efficiency). A bit simplified but: if the power output at that speed is equal to or greater than the average requirement, then since you have the battery to buffer the output, I would think that one speed is all you need.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:54 am
Go science!
I’m all for testing. But, I’d like to know what the tests show. People say that battery technology was not sufficiently developed during the EV-1 days. Is it now? Give me some assurance that electrification of the automobile has a high probability of occurring.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:57 am
Wasn’t that Part I?
July 1st, 2009 at 9:08 am
The answer to the first three questions would all be a “Yes”. The answer to the question about the size of the engine is that it’s so large because, as someone mentioned, it’s an existing engine. While a major advance in future versions of the Volt would be a smaller purpose built engine, waiting for the development of such an engine would significantly delay the launch of the Volt. The 1.4L was the best off the shelf solution.
Keep in mind that the genset puts out a maximum of 53 kW. The traction motor is 110 kW. It takes about 30 kW from the genset to power the Volt at 65 mph on a slight uphill, about 25 kW on average on the highway, and about 8 kW on average for city driving.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:11 am
Perhaps the battery would be too stressed under such aggressive load balancing. Trade offs are probably necessary to ensure the battery will last the life of the car.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:13 am
Am I the only one waiting for the rumble of another ‘test track’ car to come around to load more guests as she was talking? (I confess Ramona didn’t really hold my interest all that much, I know she isn’t working in PR, but…)
http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/02/4c/64/test-track-ride.jpg
July 1st, 2009 at 9:17 am
One thing about GM being such a large company is that not everyone understands what the secrets are and ends up disclosing things that others are keeping under wraps. For example, I’m still waiting to hear more about Lutz’s top secret transmission …. (he’ll be missed for this stuff!).
Anyway, a presenter last November said there were 288 cells. She may also have given the voltage, I can’t remember. Her presentation has been linked to before on this Board. I can’t find it but perhaps someone (statik?) can provide the cite to her presentation for you.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:28 am
Here is the presentation I mentioned.
http://www.narucmeetings.org/Presentations/Stanek%20PHEV_Nov08%20-%20final90.pdf
Nothing on the voltage but she does give the number of cells as being 288. Also of interest is that she says the cells account for 70% of the cost of the battery pack. Since LG has said the cells in the pack cost about $8,000, we can deduce that the complete pack costs about $11,500.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:30 am
http://www.narucmeetings.org/Presentations/Stanek%20PHEV_Nov08%20-%20final90.pdf
EDIT: Doh, got me by ‘that’ much, hehe.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:37 am
Thats a +1 for you.
No way LG (or anyone else) is giving GM a 10 year/150,000 mile open, uncontrolled warranty on their pack for a 3rd party application.
GM is doing that work becuase they have to. They don’t want to get their a** handed to them 5-6 year’s down the road.
Thanks to the gov’t rebate we know have a full second pack is fully priced into the MSRP…so I guess it is not totally about losing their shirts on a battery replacement in the later years, it is about retaining the customer’s money (de facto US governments money) over the 10 year/150 term.
…now after they sell 200K in the US (or they have to lower the price internationally), that is another story
July 1st, 2009 at 9:52 am
Man, you really packed um in that test car. If you get a EREV you better get one with the sunroof option so you can stick some kids up top to fit them all in.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:12 am
Give the woman a break. Public speaking is not the first thing that I would look for when hiring a battery researcher. I’d rather hear her read from her notes than listen to a trained PR guy.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:20 am
Strictly speaking, you cannot test ten years worth of wear in 2 years.
It simply doesn’t work that way. Your are instead HOPING that those
elements that will affect battery performance can be so simulated, but that’s always a guess, not a fact. Paint manufacturers do the same thing with accelerated weathering conditions, but, strictly speaking, they cannot really simulate 10 years weathering in 2 years.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:25 am
That lab looks and sounds exactly like Engineering, as I’ve come to know it!
I used to work for a large public university’s aerospace engineering department, and this is exactly the kind of thing we were training the students to do. The devil is in the details and there is no substitute for experience, which is what these folks are doing… Having been an exhibit on dozens similar tours, the folks in this videodefinitely come across as the real McCoy.
Of course, they cleaned up the lab a bit before the show, so that no suits would be harmed in the making of this production.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:27 am
US presidents simulate 10 years of aging in only four years
July 1st, 2009 at 10:31 am
I’m with you. I respect the researchers/scientists, even if they aren’t the slickest public speakers around.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:37 am
Off Topic: Every once in awhile I’ve exchanged posts with folks about military vehicles. Without inviting any political debate here, one of the problems of the Iraq war was/is that Humvees are vulnerable to improvised mines. The solutions have been: (a) retro-fitting scrap metal and use of sand bags by service members at their own initiative, with varying rates of effectiveness; (b) retro-fitting of Humvees by action of the service branches; and (c) DOD purchase of mine-resistant vehicles.
One question that I can’t answer is how many vehicles now in use by service members in Iraq and Afganistan are still unprotected or inadequately protected. However, the following link announces the award of a new $1 billion contract to Oshgosh Trucking Corp. for the purchase of additional mine-resistant vehicles. So apparently there is still a significant unmet need. The article indicates that the vehicles are expected to be deployed to Afganistan, where, as many of you will know, the Taliban has been adapting tactics from the Iraqi resistance.
The added benefit (from my selfish perspective, at least) is that this contract will provide a significant economic boost to a region of Wisconsin that has been hit hard by lay-offs over the past several years. Protecting the troops. Jobs at home. I think we can all agree on this one. Happy 4th of July!
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090701/GPG0101/90701037/1978
July 1st, 2009 at 10:37 am
I just received the 8/2009 issue of Car and Driver in the mail yesterday. There is an article on the Volt / Dodge circuit EV / Fisker Karma and the Mini E. It is a good read but I have learned more from this sight then anything I have read.
A few highlights from the Volt portion ….
-Price $40,000 – $7500 tax credit = $32,500
-They say that after 10 years and 150K miles the battery pack will still hold 12 kWh of the 16 kWh capacity. GM is talking to utility companies about using the used packs to store wind and solar energy. They are also looking into home use for energy storage with the used packs.
-motor is a 149hp electric motor but when the engine kicks in it can not supply enough energy to produce the 149hp but closer to 100 hp at 6000 rpm. They also say that the generator does not put any electricity into the battery but instead 100% of the generator is used to run the motor bypassing the battery. I guess that makes sense to prolong the battery life.
-C&D also state that the battery is estimated to cost close to $16,000. (seems a bit high to me)
-They did not drive the Volt under generator power but did say they chirped the tires and the 0-60 in 8.5 sec. seems reasonable as did the 1/4 mile in 16.8 sec. ….. top speed is limited to 100MPH.
Dodge EV …
-600 pound 35 kWh battery pack = 150 miles and 0-60 in 4.7 sec. with a 268 HP electric motor
-no generator and is to be built at the Lotus plant and then shipped to the US for the electrics to be installed.
-$85,000
-seats 2
-Dodge also has an electric mini van and jeep under development
Fisker Karma …
-402 HP electric motor = 50 miles
-2.0 liter engine, 260 hp GM Ecotec engine runs the generator.
-0-60 in 5.8 sec. 125 MPH top speed
-$87,900
-seats 4 or 5
-expects to sell 15000 a year and has 30 dealerships signed up already.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:40 am
The Prius engine seems to have several sweet spots. I’d say about 4 (including WOT, but not including “OFF”), but I need to delve into the issue more deeply to really know.
So, in the Prius, if you’re climbing a really steep hill at 70mph, the computer will put the engine at WOT and charge the battery with the excess power. When you get to the other side, you can go down the hill (also at 70mph), running on just the electric motor (to overcome the drag and friction). It’s a 2nd-generation Prius, so the electric motor isn’t very big. Also, the hill has to be pretty steep to cause this behavior.
I see no reason that the Volt running in generator-mode wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) exhibit similar behavior, though with drastically different balance (due to differently sized major-components). Of course, I haven’t run any simulations or driven a prototype, so I’m just speculating here.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:44 am
Obama has simulated 10 years of spending in 5 months. Anything is possible. Yes we can.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:54 am
______________________________________________________
Not Related
__________
Goodbye to Fuel Tax.
Hello Miles Tax.
….it’s coming folks…..the Government will be monitoring a GPS device installed in your car that allows them to track your miles driven in order to charge you a monthly Miles Tax.
Although a Miles Tax is a pragmatic Use Road Tax as the result of the Electric Car Revolution, how do you feel about the Government keeping track of everywhere you drive? I doubt the Government will pass up on the opportunity to put into a Governmental central database your movement coordinates.
Looks like the Chevy Volt is helping fuel (no pun intended) the change:
““The Chevrolet Volt won’t pay a penny of fuel tax,” Rahn said of the electric car that will make its debut next year.”
Source:
http://www.kansascity.com/business/story/1299981.html
______________________________________________________
July 1st, 2009 at 11:00 am
Hey, I didn’t beat her up, and didn’t intend for it to come across that way if it did. My apologies if it seemed that way.
I just said she didn’t really hold my interest…thats just the way it is. (I even gave her a fair disclaimor that she didn’t work for PR)
/shrug
//hugs to Ramona
July 1st, 2009 at 11:01 am
Hehe, that ain’t me. I ride alone, the family has to catch the next one.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:04 am
Good to see GM finally in the battery game. Up until this point they were a complete industry joke. They are still way way behind Panasonic / Toyota battery alliance that is cranking out more than 900,000 batteries this year alone for use in their hybrids. Once again GM, It’s about damn time
July 1st, 2009 at 11:04 am
I’m assuming you meant to say “Bush”. Wasn’t he the guy who, after turning the largest surpluses in history into the largest deficits, had his VP explain that “deficits don’t matter”. Yes he did. LOL
July 1st, 2009 at 11:10 am
I agree with all of the above. Nice comment Luke, at 10:25 am.
I can only hope that this all works out somehow. For all of our sakes.
LJGTVWOTR!! NPNS!
July 1st, 2009 at 11:16 am
Monthly sales numbers are starting to drop, first out of the gate (as always) is Ford:
(the new forum format should be good for keeping these together)
-10.7%,
That seems fairly healthy at first blush (relatively speaking), although they are now coming up against really bad, year over year numbers, so that is a mitigating factor. In June 2008, they were down 28%.
This is certainly a trend we will be seeing. The percent drops are going to be a lot lower, but they are now compounding on prior terrible performances.
As FYI, GM’s numbers have also been ‘improving’ as the get further into last year’s collapse. This month they are up against, the largest drop to date (-18.5%)
A few months history to show the trend:
January 2008 + 2.1%
May 2008 – 11.5%
June 2008 – 18.5%
Aug 2008 – 20%
Nov 2008 -45%
July 1st, 2009 at 11:17 am
Don, You must have not noticed what my user name is. If you had you will know that I am no fan of B. Hussein Obama. I just hope my great, great grand kids have a real good job to pay for this mess. Cap and trade …. what a crock.
FYI- I was not a huge fan of a lot of Bush policies either.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:18 am
(click to show comment)
July 1st, 2009 at 11:18 am
Excellent, DonC.
So the battery cost for the Volt is 709$/kWh.
Using figures for the Tesla given by its Chairman ($23000 for the pack) this boils down to 434$/kWh.
The simpler and standard chemistry used in the Tesla has the advantage of much lower price, which will give it an edge on its new Model S, and even more so because the statement by Tesla was made quite some time ago and I expect the battery cost to be lower now.
At last we’re getting a hint on the actual battery costs.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:23 am
I have a friend that runs an auto shipping business and uses a F250 that has been converted to run on WVO (waste vegetable oil). He burns about 15 miles worth of Diesel a day and 500+ in WVO that he gets for free or plays less then $.50 a gallon with no tax. He has been doing this for 2 years and has been waiting on the shoe to drop and cut into his profits. When that happens guess what will happen? His prices will go up. Just another inflation tool.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:26 am
(click to show comment)
July 1st, 2009 at 11:33 am
Didn’t Obama set a record for the biggest deficit in US history? And he did that in his first 100 days in office.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l46t_nrySg4
July 1st, 2009 at 11:35 am
Towards the end of the video the camera pans over to the right to see several battery packs on tables. The business end is pointing towards us and you can make out the connector array on the end of the pack. Is that the first time we’ve seen that? I specifically googled for Volt battery pack images a couple days ago looking for a view of this and didn’t find a single image that showed it, so I thought they might have been trying to keep it secret. Anyone got better images of that side?
July 1st, 2009 at 11:40 am
(click to show comment)
July 1st, 2009 at 11:44 am
Romona doesn’t look like a female dog to me. A little civility would be appreciated.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:48 am
“I would think that one speed is all you need.”
I agree on the surface, but there might exist many conditions where if you are always going at the “Sweet Spot”, you end up excessively charging the battery, which would reduce the number of 40 miles AER trips you get.
Also, if the Volt shouldn’t arrive home with much more than 30% battery charge. Else, you haven’t really replaced gas with electric. Even running at the “Sweet Spot”, its more effective to use a CC power plant to make electricity.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:49 am
(click to show comment)
July 1st, 2009 at 11:52 am
Aw, man! All I did was make a non-political statement about stress tests to simulate aging. I didn’t mean to invite jerky political opinions.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:55 am
Yes, I invented the battery.
What GM is doing to my invention is outrageous. They are on the wrong track completely. However, I am still waiting for my royalty check.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Tesla is also not aiming for 100% range at 10 years/150,000 miles.
In fact, they are aiming at 70%! range at 5 years/50,000 miles.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:13 pm
See what can of worms you opened? It’s all your fault Thomb.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:15 pm
(click to show comment)
July 1st, 2009 at 12:19 pm
(click to show comment)
July 1st, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Something to note is that Tesla uses the very common Lithium Cobalt chemistry for the Roadster and I believe will use the same cells for the Model S. Tesla claims thier “Energy Storage System” for the Roadster could lose as much as 30% capacity in 5 years/50,000 miles. This is obviosuly not acceptable for the Volt, and thus the higher cost to get a higher quality battery cell chemistry.
Maybe in the aftermarket for replacement of “Volt Like” autos, there will be range of battery qualities…
July 1st, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Off Topic – sort of
Hybridcars has a story saying the GAO thinks Plug-in Hybrids might not be comparable to ICE only vehicles when the life cycle costs are evaluated. But the point seemed to be that we cannot determine the life cycle costs because gas may go up a little or a lot, electricity might go up a little or a lot (and in light of the cap and trade possibility, a whole lot) and we cannot be certain we will not have to replace the battery within the life cycle.
The GAO also touts a figure of $1000 per kWh for the current cost of batteries even though GM is on the record for saying the batteries cost “hundreds less” than $1000 per kWh.
On the other hand, it seems obvious to me that Plug-in Hybrids are cost effective right now, and we are only quibbling over the size of the battery, less than 5 kWh is too small, and more than 20 kWh is too large. The Volt seems to hit the sweet spot once they up the usage window from 8 to 10.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Nice video, Lyle. Great that you were able to tour the facility. It is good that GM is including you in groups like this. Thanks.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Obama is the EVIL one. The worst President since Jimmy Carter. BTW, Jimmy Carter was by far the worst President in my lifetime which goes back to WWII. Carters big flaw was he would say one thing in Public and do the opposite in private, after doing this to numerous leaders word got out and he was no longer trusted by anyone, a completely useless president even though he was technically one of the “smartest” of all time (nuclear engineer by training). IMO, Obama is heading down the same path a Carter.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:29 pm
I disagree. Battery technology from the EV1 days is almost useless today. GM did bring forward their research on regenerative braking and lower power assesories. Battery chemistry, however, has changed and continues to change.
The technology from EV1 days is essentially a non-starter in todays world. These batteries were too heavy and did not have the longevity needed for a high volume production.
Keeping an active battery lab like this only makes sense if you think you are going to make and sell electric vehicles. Several years ago, electric vehicles were simply not practical. Now, they just might be.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Well… if the fuel taxes actually go to road repair, I would say right now he is not contributing for his fair usage of the roads. Over the long term, if many people don’t contribute, the taxes on the rest will need to go up… so people end off the same pretty much.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Isn’t Fisker using a GM ICE in their car? It is possible GM is testing batteries for the Fisker. Anything is possible. Just look at past history.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Does anybody know the rate that the ICE can charge the battery, in kw?
July 1st, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Don’t call yourself a worm
July 1st, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Hear hear! And Oshkosh makes some bad-azz vehicles to boot. Their airport fire equipment is something impressive to see in operations… same goes for their heavy construction hardware.
EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot, they make Pierce fire trucks too!
EDIT2: Oshkosh brands linky: http://www.oshkoshcorporation.com/brands/
July 1st, 2009 at 1:11 pm
What the…??!? Who’s gonna pay $85k for the Circuit when you can have a Tesla for a pittance more? Or a Volt for half the price? Or a Karma for… you get my point!
Whoa. That’s stunning news to me. I was expecting it to be more “Volt-like” in pricing. Bleah.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:17 pm
FME III:
I agree too. A good and insightful comment, IMHO. Thanks.
‘
BTW, is it my imagination, or is the level of civility deteriorating here? When I start to see words like “moron” and “stupid”, I have to wonder if I fell over into some nutso political blog. What a shame.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Hmmmm – took the words right out of my mouth.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:23 pm
That is a very asstoot observation.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Here we go, circling the drain again. Could we please not have a replay of yesterday? I mean, it’s really discouraging.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:26 pm
How about if we bring them home, where nobody wants to blow them up, and save the billion(s)? Too bad we all don’t seem able to agree on that.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:27 pm
“No Name” (R Rocketfuel , Alfred) strikes again!
July 1st, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Yeah man!
July 1st, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Yep, you are certainly right. They have been proven to last two to three years when kept inside air conditioned buildings and airplanes, carried in padded cases and protected from shocks, and kept plugged in to a charger most of the time. Oh, and they do work well when they aren’t burning. Not so well when on fire. Yeah, my check is on its way to Tesla to reserve mine right now. Good enough for me. I was planning on keeping my car on the dining room table anyway.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:33 pm
There’s that whole “blowing up” thing, too.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:33 pm
I thought the same thing. $85k for the dodge or the Karma for a couple grand more with better looks and no range anxiety.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:35 pm
“No Name”: it does no good to pretend to be holding a conversation between two of your many screen names. Unless perhaps you suffer from multiple personalities.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:46 pm
GM has not been and is not yet in the cell and chemistry business. They are in the car business. Their lab has been evaluating OTHER COMPANY’s cells. They are not responsible for the fact that the laws of physics do not change fast enough for you. Computers have changed quickly because they could gain from things being made smaller. The actual semiconductor physics hasn’t changed at all. If you want to stuff yourself into a very small car run by very small batteries and go very short distances, you can demand rapid progress. But you will have to lose a lot of weight to get it done. Those of us who will continue to live in a macroscopic world and have macroscopic brains will have to have the patience needed to see real progress, not just shrinkmanship.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Somewhere in one of these podcasts, the GM engineers explain how they do 10 year testing in 2 years. It’s by testing at high temperature.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/04/07/the-april-2008-chevy-volt-update-a-visit-to-the-battery-systems/
Since they know that batteries decay faster at higher temps, they run tests for 2 years at these high temps (in the test chambers), and extrapolate back to expected conditions.
Interesting interview.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Guaranteed. Electric vehicles travel about 5 times as far on a given amount of energy as ICE vehicles do. Since the Volt mules and IVers prove by demonstration that they can be built, and we know that prices of batteries will be dropping while the price of oil will rise, the result is obvious.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:52 pm
That’s an interesting question. What you’re talking about would be the difference in what the genset was producing in average power and the instantaneous power required by the car. That would of course vary — probably greatly — and I don’t remember GM providing even a guesstimate as to what that might be on average.
The genset can generate 53 kW so that would be the theoretical maximum but that would fry the cells. Other than making sure the number wasn’t so large it would hurt the cells, I’d guess GM would try to minimize the time during which this occurred — by dropping the RPMs — rather than worrying about the number itself.
But that’s complete conjecture.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:53 pm
I understand why GM is doing the testing. My question is testing by the manfacturer. I have yet to read an article about LG’s tests results on the Volt cell, only articles on production capacity.
Sidenote: What will GM do with the mounds of data they have accrued from all of these different battery technologies? Seems like a valuable asset.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:53 pm
What is the voltage of an individual LG cell? I believe that I’ve heard pretty consistently that the pack voltage is 300 VDC. This suggests that 288 cells would be arranged in a series-parallel network to achieve this end voltage.
Most Lithium cells I’m familiar with have potentials in the neighborhood of 3 VDC, but I haven’t heard the figure given specifically for these.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Looks like you “bad boys” from the Great White North will have to petition GM to supply the first 10,000 Volts to Canada instead of California or Florida.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=aKecgoGFIH7Y
Or perhaps this has been part of your sinister plan all along, Dr. Statik!
July 1st, 2009 at 2:05 pm
IIRC, in Part I of the battery lab video, it was mentioned that the voltage for a single cell was a little over 3.5 volts.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Why bother joining the cut-throat battery business? Let them all fight it out, then just take the best tech.
GM doesn’t make their own tires, wheels, seats, um.. well almost everything except the sheet metal, etc. They are more of a car designer/assembler than a “manufacturer”. That’s what suppliers are for.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Don’t forget to factor in how much these companies have downsized since a year ago too. The real # will be the net/bottom line for the month. Were enough cars sold to break even for that particular month?
July 1st, 2009 at 2:11 pm
You are so bright. Let us see your new cell chemistry. Or are you the one selling those mail order degrees?
July 1st, 2009 at 2:12 pm
The only way to know with certainty that something is going to last ten years is to wait ten years. However, you can devise tests which allow you to make some pretty well-educated guesses.
These folks seem to be pretty well-educated
.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Sorry, about the delay, I was out celebrated ‘Canada Day’
Looks like Fritz Henderson is now officially the same CEO as the last CEO when he was testifying in court the other day about the progress and sale of assets to the ‘new GM’ It actualy makes me a little sad…I liked him.
———
From YESTERDAY:
“…Henderson wasn’t phased by his lengthy stay on the stand, answering questions quickly and directly for the most part, making eye contact with the attorneys.
When asked about the current condition of GM, Henderson testified that the automaker’s June sales were “slightly better than expected” excluding fleet sales, which he partly attributed to the company’s progress toward an exit from Chapter 11.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=54&articleid=20090701_54_E2_GnrlMt61891&rss_lnk=5
—————-
Well, guess what? Not so much, eh Fritz? GM was off a whopping 33.4 percent (on the back of last Junes 18.5% drop) and worse than last month, which was a easier comparison.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Thanks, I remember that there was a “Part I” but I think I was too busy to watch at the time.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:17 pm
You probably should keep quiet about still being here. The money you might get from royalties would never cover your lawyer fees for all the lawsuits from PETA over what you and that Galvani fellow did to all of those frogs. It is probably best to just let that past remain past. The world has changed a bit since your day.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:20 pm
I don’t believe wars are going away anytime soon. In the meantime, let’s equip our soldiers with the best stuff available.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Details on GMs -33.6 percent drop off:
“176,571 Total Deliveries Were Down 33.6 Percent Compared With A Year Ago”
http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewmonthlyreleasedetail.do?domain=3&docid=55358
————–
This is also my favorite time of the month when we get to read super-optimistitc marketing maven Mark LaNeve, who never has anything bad to say, and always gives us rays of sunshine:
“We’re pleased with our retail performance for the month, and it shows consumers’ strong attraction to our products…”
“The reinvention of GM remains on track and we have compelling new offers in July, including 0 percent financing for up to 72 months…”
“Our outstanding products continue to compete strongly in the market,” LaNeve said.
(Again, Mark continues his record of not mention even one bad, poor performing thing at GM…he is so far out there, it is awesome to read)
———-
They also release Q2 actual production numbers…394,000 vehicles, over 3 months, down 53% from last year. June’s production was only 88,000, down 74%.
So they are saying everything is great…but only produced 390k for 3 months, and 88,000 in June (of which almost 10,000 of them were pre-sold/alotted Camaros)
July 1st, 2009 at 2:22 pm
+1 for inventing an amusing homonym.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Other news:
Chrysler -42%
Sold 66,324 units, droppping them a FULL market percentage point in share this month…ouch.
http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/01072009/323/brief-chrysler-group-reports-june-2009-u-s-sales.html
July 1st, 2009 at 2:28 pm
You need to take in consideration of the BMS electronics and comm port used to communicate with the car’s computer. Not “Just” the cells. Price the batt pack then compare.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Well “shrinksmanship” isn’t all bad, LOL. I read an article several years ago where the author calculated the savings in fuel if every car occupant in the country lost a certain amount of weight. 10 ponds person equated to several million gallons a year, if memory serves. This could be potentially even more effective in an EV world, JMHO.
There is a big article on the MSNBC news page today about the epidemic of obesity in the US, and its disastrous health impacts.
Talk about a win-win, hehehe.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Anyone can easily tell by looking at the deteriorating condition of our State roads that all State fuel taxes are going into the State’s “general fund” and is being used (redistributed) for social(ist) programs instead of road maintenance.
The same is happening with the Federal fuel tax and highway system. What about all that “stimulus” money for “shovel ready” infrastructure projects?
Oh well, that went to special interests… (suckers)
milage tax is about tracking and control just like a national ID card.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:32 pm
You’re wrong. The cells have, in fact, been tested in laptops… but on a completely different charge/discharge cycle, and without all the wires associated with six and a half thousand cells interconnecting them.
The basic technology doesn’t change, but the loads, the charging cycle, the temperature conditions– these all change. And if Tesla isn’t testing all this, they’ll never survive outside of California.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:33 pm
June Car Sales Numbers: Ford -10%; GM -33%, Chrysler -48%, Toyota -30%, Honda -30%, Nissan -23%. (Sorry, Statik, I just noticed that you covered some of this above.)
Link to article. Interesting info. at the bottom about promotions. Rosy projections about Ford expanding production later this year.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ford-posts-lower-sales-increases-market-share?pagenumber=2
July 1st, 2009 at 2:33 pm
That’s like saying HP has a bunch of idiot engineers because they didn’t design their own x86 and IA64 microcode or make their own CPU’s.
Getta clue hommie!
In your train of thought, you’re an idiot because you didn’t build or design your car.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Nuclearboy,
Looking back at the EV1’s chassis vs the Volt’s chassis you can see the similarity between the two. The Volt design is certainly based on the EV1. It is amazing just our similar the two look with all the sheet metal removed. Yes, battery and quite a few other advances make the two much different, but you can tell that the Volt is the child of the EV1.
Edited: I should clarify my statement. When speaking of the EV1, I was speaking of the one under “development” that had an ICE to power the wheels just like today’s volt. It never made it out of the factory, but it was tested, I do believe.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:34 pm
I suspect that as you look at the various iterations of the Volt battery pack, you’ll find some with around 200 cells… and some with around 300 cells.
They may not know the exact production count yet, although they should have that information “soon”.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Toyota also put up a really bad number: -32%
SAN FRANCISCO — Toyota Motor Corp. on Wednesday reported its U.S. sales fell 32% to 131,654 cars and trucks in June. Sales of cars declined 36% last month to 84,212 while light truck sales slumped 23% to 47,442.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/transportation/toyota-june-sales—units/
Always of interest, (and thankfully ending all the, “look at the Prius numbers this month…Americans don’t love the Prius anymore posts”), the 2010 Prius started to hit dealerships this month, and not surprisingly the Prius sales did a about face into positive numbers…up 6% (from over -40% last month) with around 13,000 units sold (12,998 vs 11,765 in 2008).
Now, with Toyota reporting full worksheet of orders, and capacity maxed out through the end of the year, this will be up 30-50% every month this year going forward.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Yeah, and an extremely ass-toot observation too !!
+1 for sure!
July 1st, 2009 at 2:40 pm
How does Detroit look v. Tokyo, if you look at sales by company today v. 3 years ago? What does this tell us about future production levels. Also, my perception is that Detroit was running a never-ending cycle of incentives that pulled demand forward into early this decade. Does this partially explain the current down-turn, and what does this tell us about future sales?
July 1st, 2009 at 2:43 pm
I think that this is a great discussion thread, and probably some of the same discussions that the engineering team had (or are still having).
In short, we may never know the answers to all of these questions. Much of the content here would probably be considered the intellectual property of GM and would not be available to anyone who is not liscencing the technology for their own automobile production line.
The heart of the questions is, will the VOLTEC technology work as configured. I think the answer to that is an unquestionable yes.
Another question that is raised is — can the VOLTEC system be improved over time with purpose built engines and better battery technology. I think we have a big yes once again.
By the way, I would rather have CNG provided from american wells over Ethanol in my next generation Volt. After that, I’m holding out for Hydrogen Fuel Cells.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:43 pm
What, not “dawgski” any more? Have you returned from the Motherland Comrade?
July 1st, 2009 at 2:43 pm
There is no doubt some law firm would be happy to do a class action lawsuit on the part of some poor unhappy owner because his pack did not get to the mileage GM promised. I would consider it a terrible thing if GM did not test these batteries like they are doing. I suspect they will test them much further than the 10 year/150,000 mile warranty claim.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Here are the bulk of the numbers
BMW -20.3
Chrysler -41.9
Daimler – 26.4
Ford -10.7
GM -33.4
Honda -29.5
Hyundai +17.6 <————
Nissan -23.1
Porsche -66.0
Subaru +3.4 <————–
Suzuki -78.0
Toyota -31.9
VW -18
(Still a few out there not reported)
And that talk about the SAAR getting back over 10 million? Not even close. Looks like about 9.6 if my math is right.
Disclaimor: I believe Subaru didn’t adjust for selling days, so it is either +3.4 or -.7, but still really good. /Nice to have one really hot seller. I also had difficulty splitting the Hyundai number, so I’m not sure if that will hold up in the long run. At home they were +5, and 17% overall, so I just put that number up. (It looks like it may have been 9% in NA…I dunno, I don’t care that much to work on it)
July 1st, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Yeah, I was trying to avoid getting too political about this information. It’s tough to do with this topic.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:46 pm
I would be surprised if LG Chem were to publish their test results. I am sure they are testing the packs, just not as much as GM is doing. Theirs may be more towards “fit and finish” quality control testing vs long life in extreme environments. GM and LG Chem probably have agreements on what each are required to do.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:49 pm
I have heard this “siding with the oil companies” theme for most of my adult life. I have yet to find any concrete evidence of them siding with anyone but their own self interest. The auto companies advance their products based on technology changes, not based on some collusion with an oil company. Do you have any proof of collusion? If so, I am sure all of us would like to see it.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:50 pm
These numbers are really confusing. Looking at the report on the AP wire even makes it worse. These are month to month compared to last year, right? So, as you say, these numbers compound onto whatever the equivalent drop was 2007 to 2008, right?
AP says nothing about that, so it is really hard to put these numbers into a meaningful frame of reference. For example, what is the total drop now from 2007, the last more or less decent year. 50%? Higher?
On the other hand, the AP story reports that the “seasonally adjusted” rate of industry sales equated to 10 million/year for the first time this year. So that sounds encouraging, right? But how can it be, in the face of the monthly results?
Very confusing. Intentionally so?
July 1st, 2009 at 2:52 pm
To answer both of you last questions. Simply, competition. That is the only thing I can figure. They don’t want to give anyone in the U.S. or around the world any information that might come back later to haunt them. I can’t say I blame them.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:59 pm
______________________________________________________
The 10 Year GM Battery ….that’s a long life in Battery Years:
GM is correct in doing simulated battery wear testing because it does help verify battery tolerances. On the other hand, simulated wear testing is not a substitute for real-world wear testing over 10 years. The simulated wear is a best effort to predict real world wear. Ten years is a VERY long time to simulate wear with regards to a battery…it is very different than simulating traditional mechanical wear of a part….less predictive…
Ten years is a long time to except any battery chemistry to last, If GM pulls it off w/ the Li-Ion chemistry that will indeed be impressive.
Several automakers including Toyota have questioned GM’s approach of attempting to utilize the Li-Ion battery chemistry to last 10+ years. GM’s critics claim that Li-Ion inherently degrades quickly even in ideal conditions (that Li-Ion will degrade with time even if sitting on a shelf at ideal temperature & trickle charged to maintain an ideal SOC).
Solid state batteries (such as ultracaps) are better suited to last 10+ years but unfortunately ultracaps do not pack the necessary density/performance/cost ratios required for a primary EV battery…not withstanding the Fantastic Cheese utlracap claim.
An alternative approach that deserves consideration is to utilize less exotic battery chemistries that deliver the necessary density/performance/cost ratios required but with a shorter life cycle (~5 years). Dramatic advances in less exotic battery chemistries such as lead acid may make that possible. An example is the Fire Fly Battery: http://www.fireflyenergy.com
In other words, perhaps treat the EV battery more as a perishable component of the car similar to how a standard crank battery is treated. There is not an expectation for the crank battery to have a useful life of 10 years. Think of what the cost differential of a 5yr vs 10yr crank battery would be….4X or more? Does it make sense to pay 4X the cost to get twice the life?
Also a consideration is that lower cost batteries that are replaced more often (~ 5 years) may better address the possibility that battery technology (including quick charge options) will significantly advance every 5 years. A computer today made 10 years ago (even if operating as well as at the time of initial purchase) would today be of little value (or a liability) because of relative obsolescence; batteries might share a similar obsolescence dynamic.
______________________________________________________
July 1st, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Or they could just use a different mechanism for the tax. Like the odometer-reading in the car, which is already covered some fraud-protection laws.
IIRC, Oregon has been looking into this kind of thing, but some of the proposed solutions have been a tad 1984-ish (with 2009 technology).
July 1st, 2009 at 3:04 pm
$11,428.57
July 1st, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Aw man, I was first told 400VDC then 336VDC….
Which is it for the batt pack?
July 1st, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Ahhh yes. The old “Auto Companies are in bed with the Oil Companies” conspiracy theory. If this is true, then why would Big Oil let GM and Chrysler go bankrupt? It would be to Big Oil’s advantage to keep them alive and well. No one can ever reconcile that little detail. But it does makes for good fiction.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:14 pm
I do believe this is a government designed vehicle for inter-state highway use. You can tell because there is no steering wheel.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Versus 3 years ago? Here are the ‘players’ numbers for May 2009 compared to over 2006 numbers.
GM 20.5 vs 24.3
Ford 16.8 vs 16.4
Chrysler 8.5 vs 12.9
Total 45.8% vs 53.9% (-15%)
Toyota 16.5 vs 15.4
Honda 10.8 vs 9.1
Nissan 7.3 vs 6.2
Hyundai 4.0 vs. 2.8
Total 38.6 vs 33.5 (+15%)
——————————–
Haven’t got all the numbers in on how Detroit auto did (relatively speaking) for June, it looks like the overall landscape is going to be down somewhere around 26-28% when it is all said and done.
Obviously, Ford is the best of just about everyone (and by a good margin…other than Hyundai, who is giving away cars right now ($9K, 0% financing and a gas guarantee? yikes)
Ford at -10.7% certainly pickes up market share here this month, while Chrysler dropped a pantload, and GM gave some ground. I think overal they are mostly unchanged this month, maybe the domestics gave away a fractional number. The big 4 importers were probably marginally up overall.
The domestic share just has to continue to fall. You see it this month with Chrysler. They aren’t building cars, they are closing dealerships.
As for GM they are really piling cash on the hoods again, now they have this 0% 72 month sale going as well. I think that is a mistake…they don’t need to raise cash right now, and they have to reset their image of being America’s discounter of cars.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:16 pm
And, no, Statik. You didn’t beat up on her. We just have some pretty sensitive people on this site. They take things a little too seriously sometimes. We all know you have a heart of gold. That’s where you are getting your down payment money, right?
July 1st, 2009 at 3:19 pm
That is all it takes sometimes. Just make simple statement. You will notice that I am not commenting on the political side of this at all. I want to stay out of it. But I feel your “pain”.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:20 pm
When was the last time you bought a $30,000 car that beat Porsche 911’s on the track, blew away Ferrari’s from 0 to 60 mph, had an aluminum frame and carbon fiber body panels, was twice as efficient as a Prius when driven moderately and used no gas while getting it’s power from a lithium ion battery pack.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:24 pm
k-dawg said:
Don’t forget to factor in how much these companies have downsized since a year ago too. The real # will be the net/bottom line for the month. Were enough cars sold to break even for that particular month?
——–
This is a good point, and unfortunately there is absolutely zero way to peg what exactly the bottom line is this month. There is so much going on, so many one-time items, so many random cash transactions…who knows.
This quarter (just ended) is a total wash, and real transparency will be next to nothing for the next couple months (at least).
Much like in the past, I put no faith in anything that comes out of their mouths, much less their ’statements.’ The game here now (as it was before) is told through cash…how much they have, how much they need, and how fast it is leaving their bank account.
As long as the gov’t is topping them up, giving them breaks, doling out massive DoE loans, etc…it will be hard to get a handle on it. I’d say a couple months after they get the 10-odd billion from the DoE, and all the rest of the ‘inflows’ are accounted for, we will get a real good ‘feel’ for it.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Plus, what car is going to be running 24/7? When you add up all the hours it comes to 17,472 hours of test. If you drive constantly for 2500 hours at 60 mph you get 150,000 miles. So, they are actually testing for nearly 8 times that.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:28 pm
I’m not a expert at building cars, but if I was in the position of buying a hundred million or more of something for vehicles that have my warranty on them, I would test them regardless of how thorough the battery company’s original tests are.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Noel Park
You and I must be able to agree on that. Let’s bring the troops home. I would rather fight them here in the states. Shorter supply routes. Less cost to re-supply. Urban blighted areas would be some of the battle grounds so they would get rebuilt quicker than they do now. Heck, the advantage must out weigh the disadvantages 10 to 1.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:34 pm
N. Riley agree completely. Having to pay for class action attorneys, your attorneys and the warranty costs to bring each and every car in and repair or replace faulty cells, instead of getting the benefits of a new “green halo” drive train is not worth skipping some steps to save some time or money.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:34 pm
MarkinWI
The military needs to replace vehicles because they wear out, they get blown up and the war in Afghanistan requires a different type of vehicle. Plus we are turning a lot of vehicles over to the Iraqis and the Afghans. Whether these are “gifts” or not, I don’t know. The afghans don’t have any money to purchase much with. The Iraqis have a tremendous job ahead just rebuilding what was destroyed plus what needed to be built or rebuilt before the war (which is a lot). I saw a documentary on the Afghan war’s need for a different military vehicle. It was interesting and I could see where the requirement was quite different. Terrain is completely different.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Off topic (sort of):
Check out this month’s issue of Design New’s cover story.
http://www.designnews.com/article/277418-Drag_Racing_Goes_Electric.php
Fun article
July 1st, 2009 at 3:36 pm
I missed yesterday. But, it seems like Evil Conservative and I had a little mutual, good-natured ribbing. I’m done, and I’m not mad.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Yeah, started flying back on Monday, but didnt arrive home till 2:30AM Tuesday. Yesterday was rough at work. I’m all Russia’d out. Its good to drink Diet Mt. Dew and eat Combos & Doritos again.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Yeah, we knew this was coming. Look to see a minimum scale with different levels your mileage will fall into. That way they get you to pay a minimum even if your car sits in the garage most of the month. Really cool and really evil at the same time. I am sure I could name a few people who are going to love this idea. Not going to matter to me. I will give up driving completely by that time.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:48 pm
I see you’ve never worked as an engineer.
You seem to be advocating a disease that can permeate world-class engineering establishments called “not invented here syndrome”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here_syndrome
This kind of thing has led to a lot of interoperability problems in the computer industry. For instance, in the late 1990s every high-end workstation manufacturer made their own keyboards with nearly identical key layouts — but different plugs and electrical protocols. This led to $100+ keyboards when you could go down to your local computer shop and pick up a PS/2 keyboard for $35. Fortunately, we’ve moved on, and everyone uses USB now.
Silicon Graphics (now SGI) is probably the poster child for this. And the world passed them by, and they’ve been bankrupt twice, despite having brilliantly designed and beautifully implemented technology. Their Altix system is a perfect example of what happened when they decided to move on — they used Intel processors and in-house glue-logic. They focused on what they do best, and used parts that were what other people do best. The machines are just as beautiful under the hood, but a lot faster and much more useful. There are lots of other examples, but it seems to be getting a little bit better over time.
I caution you against calling engineers “dumb” for using external technology. It’s often better performing and cheaper use someone else’s already-refined component, then it is to try to replicate a whole research-and-development operation in house, just to prove that you’re “smart”. It’s almost always smart to use existing solutions for solved problems, so that you can focus on the things that make your design special.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Yeah, what is happening is the year over year percentages have to get better, because they are coming up against worse and worse last years numbers.
In GM’s case:
January 2008 + 2.1%
May 2008 – 11.5%
June 2008 – 18.5%
Aug 2008 – 20%
Nov 2008 -45%
So a +10% in january, is nothing at all like a +10% in november.
By the time we hit the fall, if GM is putting up numbers that are say +2%, thats sounds really good (especially considering the numbers we have seen the last 12 months or so), but it is actually terrible, because that means they are clipping at a terrible, unsustainable pace.
As for that AP story…many of them were ‘put in the can’ last night. Ford always releases early, and drops the biggest hints. So when their better than expected rumors started to circulate, everyone started to do the math, and forecasted too optimistically right across the board, and came up with a rebounding SAAR, well over 10 million.
Like this story from Edmunds: http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2009/06/25/467191.html
In reality, the SAAR is still firmly in the 9 million range, and everyone is just changing the fine print in their stories today…but sticking with the optimistic tone to save face.
Here is the current AP story, you’ll notice no mention of the SAAR, and they are sticking with the same silver lining bias, even though the facts no longer back them up. (They do however, mention that sales are down considerably year over year, and worse than last month):
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-auto-sales-declines-show-apf-3898877852.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=&ccode=
The guy, who said things were getting better and predicted the 10 million SAAR yesterday at Edmunds, now says this, “It is unlikely things will get any worse,” said Jesse Toprak, executive director of industry analysis for the auto Web site Edmunds.com.
/journalistic integrity FTL…if your wrong, just say it (everybody makes mistakes)
July 1st, 2009 at 3:49 pm
99 years of building cars and one year of ruin! Life, as are engineering, economics and manufacturing, is full of trade-offs.
Those trade-offs seemed to work out ok for most GM people for most of their careers. Of course there are the prominent exceptions like Roger Smith being on the wrong end of Michael Moore’s viewfinder and Wags hitting the buzz saw of carpacolypse 2008-2009.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Maybe they should be comparing against another base year besides 2008. Say a year where sales were still respectful. That would show this year’s sales figures in a truer light. Would it not?
July 1st, 2009 at 3:51 pm
So, that is why my back has been hurting a lot lately. Damn it, I’ve been raped!
July 1st, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Thanks for the backup Neal, I really wasn’t trying to offend.
Sidenote: I have 3 crisp ‘Benjamins’ all ready to plunk down whenever GM is ready.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:52 pm
“+1 for inventing an amusing homonym.”
————————-
One from me also.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:54 pm
They even farm out some of the sheet metal work, don’t they. Small parts only.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:55 pm
It’s all good Thomb.
Ps-I was out yesterday too.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:58 pm
I believe we saw a report on the number of patents issued to GM for battery cell and battery pack designs. It seems that the majority of patents covering the compete backpack is held by GM. GM has very serious chemical engineers that are working along side LG Chem and other companies in coming up with battery chemistry and cell designs. GM is a very technologically knowledgeable company. They just don’t know how to deal with unions, make bad PR decisions and a host of other things. But they are not like you stated.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Statik, Now can you tell me how many blue cars were sold this last May compared to May 1976?
Just curious as you seem to have all the numbers.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:11 pm
I’ve involved with these kinds of tours. This kind of speech isn’t supposed to be inspiring, or entertaining — though it never hurts, if you can pull that off.
The speech has only one mission: to convince the suits that you’re seriously into this business, and capable of doing more. The easiest way to accomplish this is to give them just a little bit more detail than they’re comfortable with. Then, if you’re lucky, they’ll leave with that impression — and their specialist will stick around to talk shop for a little while.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Please join us in the present, we’d all like to welcome you to the year 2009.
Even the NiMH battery in the 1999 version of the EV-1 and in the RAV-4 EV up till 2003 was perfectly capable of 120+ miles range on all electric drive.
Granted, those weren’t huge vehicles but I’d say a Hummer H3 is a sizeable vehicle. Raser Technologies converted one to a hybrid with a serial hybrid drive the same as the Volt and using Lithium Ion. http://www.rasertech.com/media/videos/project-review-100-mpg-phev
and http://www.rasertech.com/download/14/
Or how about a full-sized Dodge Ram crew cab pickup that can also be used as a backup power generator. It can power your entire house and 6 of your neighbors. http://www.rasertech.com/media/videos/rasers-extended-range-electric-fleet-truck
July 1st, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Looking at the Tesla folks writings on development history for their Roadster, no battery manufacturer would talk to them at first, due to their initial small scale. In fact they couldn’t even sustain an extended telephone conversation with most battery wholesale shops when they started out.
With Daimler’s backing, the model S coming up and a continuing need for the 6831 cells in every roadster sold, I would imagine they could get LG chem to take their phone calls now, if for nothing else, than to at least get pricing info for prismatic cells.
All in stark contrast to GM’s calls to battery manufacturers leaving the manufacturers dangling from a rope until GM people decided who would build a new prismatic cell factory.
One reason GM may not give much battery info is they have the ability to change cells, mix and match cells, change suppliers, change cell chemistries or change other variables because they have the testing capability and an expanding database to support those decisions, and the scale to call the shots with any supplier.
Announcing specifications and changing them constantly would not look good. And the one thing we are sure of here is the tech is changing fast, which will lead to changes in the battery packs whether they are announced or not.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:19 pm
One more thing they said about the Volt.
Version 1.2 (or second generation) will have a button to hit if you are closed to your destination (1 mile or less) to keep the generator from starting up. This would let you from time to time run the battery down below the 30% mark.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:22 pm
I agree. GM carried forth much from the EV1. They have many “lessons learned.” Clearly they know how to build an EV.
I was responding to Arnold above who seemed to insinuate that GM should have been developing a battery lab all along. I was pointing out that GM had no business doing this until electric cars were more likely to be produced and that since batteries are in rapid development, the old data from EV1 days are not too useful.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:27 pm
This is part of what I was getting at. I am wondering why the engine cannot generally run at one maximum efficiency point too. Of course we don’t want to charge the batteries with the ICE. If the charge starts to go up beyond some predetermined point, the ICE could shut off for a while.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:27 pm
It has been so long since I have had a “Benjamin” I had to google it to be sure you were talking about a 100 dollar bill. Not that is how bad I am off lately.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Even going the full ten (non-simulated) years won’t give you the rich results of ten years of mass production volume. Surprises will pop up at scale, rendering your your small scale tests to a nearly anecdotal level of information. That is why the Synergy Drive was the gold standard of performance for parallels and unless others get going fast, Voltec will be far ahead and building on the REEV / EREV experience.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Wow, just by looking? You are good!
July 1st, 2009 at 4:39 pm
I’m willing to bet when the results in November show a 2% rise that the pundits will say, “See I told you so, we’re out of the woods and the bad times are over.
Never mind that it’s equal to a 44% drop from 2007!
July 1st, 2009 at 4:44 pm
“How about if we bring them home, where nobody wants to blow them up…”
No offense, but I wish it was that easy. Unless we stop the fanatics who want to kill our soldiers, they will be able to fulfill their vows to come here and kill us at home. Like combat veterans of the past, our soldiers are making the sacrifice to keep us safe. It’s sad that it’s necessary, but I have a lot of gratitude for those who volunteer to do it.
However, without all that oil money, Islamic extremists would be about as big of a threat as Robert Mugabe.
So … Save a soldier; buy a Volt!
July 1st, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Nice, I’d like you to do my cost accounting from now on!
July 1st, 2009 at 4:51 pm
I guess the ‘collapsing’ posts were a good idea Lyle.
(=
July 1st, 2009 at 4:59 pm
“… the Government will be monitoring a GPS device installed in your car …”
Not only would GPS allow the government to charge you taxes by the mile driven, but they would know if you were obeying the speed limit, if you were just leaving the bar, if you were attending a politically-incorrect meeting, etc.
Of course, this sort of fascism only works if people don’t adopt electronic counter-measures, and I still have faith in American ingenuity.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Cool! EVs are taking off fast!
July 1st, 2009 at 5:05 pm
ESPECIALLY if they aren’t the slickest public speakers around, IMHO. I have already heard enough spin from armies of PR flacks, and politicians coached and scripted by same, to last me 1000 years.
Statik’s characterization of Mr. Henderson’s remarks below, just for a start. Or Mark La Neve, LOL.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:21 pm
I was wrong! From Yahoo Finance today!
Top Stories
Some optimism for US auto market with June sales- AP
After a yearlong free fall in the American car market, the decline of sales slowed in June, offering hope to automakers that the bottom has been reached and more shoppers may slowly start returning to showrooms soon.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Threeve
/and I wagered…. $Texas
http://adam.id10t.org/albums/album71/threeve.jpg
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b210/lackey17/will_ferrell.png
July 1st, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Fight who here in the states? Last I heard, Osama and his boys aren’t even in Afghanistan any more. And how many divisions does he have anyway? So who’s coming? The Taliban? How are they going to get here, fly over in their C-17s? Or maybe Afgahn Air, LOL.
Do you think that Karzi is running the country? Or ever will be able to? Are we rescuing the poor women? Stopping the drug trade? I don’t think so.
I cannot understand what our “war aims” are. IMHO, we are going to bleed there for another few years, squander another few hundred billion dollars, and then declare victory and march out. Just like we did in Viet Nam, and just like we are getting ready to do in Iraq.
As to “Save a soldier, buy a Volt.”, I could not agree more. The record will show that I have said basically the same thing here about 100 times.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:31 pm
The name says it all. Thanks Lyle for the new collapsing comments feature.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:45 pm
I hope the 30KWh and 25KWh are for harsher conditions than what you are referring to or there is no way they will be 40AER highway EPA or 50mpg.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Welcome back ski-less k-dawg.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Yes but thankfully it is by a small number of people.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Actually the Tesla pack is actually a lot more expensive. The Tesla pack will last three or four years. The Volt pack should last ten years. A valid comparison would use the cost of two or three Roadster packs and one Volt pack. So more like $1200/kWh versus $700/kWh.
Tesla uses off the shelf batteries but they’re not well designed for autos and the chemistry is very suitable as well.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Everyone should remember GM’s claims about proprietary testing procedures and that they have been testing batteries since before the EV1 program. While it is certainly true that the LG battery chemistry is different and this particular cell only started testing at GM in late ‘07, the precedures they are using are probably more than 10 years old. This gives them a history over time of how the accelerated test procedures compare to the real world results for different cell chemistries. So, even though they are not cruising through completely chartered waters because of the new cell chemistry, they aren’t crusing blind either.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Winters in “California” ( http://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/?p=55 ) car builder country?
Actual Photos of diesel electric hybrids in winter in California ( http://www.trainarts.com/gallery-pages/reno-snow-fun-train-key-holiday-sierra.html )
July 1st, 2009 at 6:28 pm
All this testing and facility money as well as payroll money has been wasted. Just as soon as EEStore comes out with their product in a few months…
OK OK, just joking. A little light-hearted humor.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:30 pm
I will be willing to bet Satik’s benjamin and a few of my own that the Volt’s generator does put some energy into the battery. It will be a balance between ICE efficiency, overall efficiencies and quietness of operation. GM has said this many times and in many different ways. Car & Driver just got this point wrong.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:31 pm
I agree, exept that ignores the concept of Battery Life. I think GM, due to warranty concerns, will attempt to limit the total number of battery cycles. So even if we set the limits at 40% and 30%, they are going to want to have as few 30%–>40%–>30% cycles per drive possible. I am not entirely happy about this approach, but since it could potentially save on battery costs its not a total turn-off.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:32 pm
In the next 5 years or so …. I hope that GM’s advanced battery lab will be testing some of these new “lithium-AIR batteries” that IBM (and their new government/academic partners) are working on now.
The link is on the Grist dot org website. Can’t post it in here because of the monitor filter or whatever.
“He mentioned that his Silicon Valley lab was working on a new battery technology with the potential to extend the range of electric cars to more than 400 miles per charge and make it possible to use the batteries to store electricity generated by solar power plants and wind farms.”
“If lithium air proves feasible and cost-effective, it could ice the ICE (internal combustion engine) and turn intermittent renewable energy sources into 24/7 power plants. The net-zero home could become a reality with solar panels on the roof and a bank of lithium air batteries in the basement to provide power when the sun isn’t shining.”
July 1st, 2009 at 6:35 pm
I think that this negative towards the use of li-ion in cars is being countered by GM by giving you more battery than is utilized up front and over time software is likely to expand the operating perameters of the battery to maintane similiar useable energy.
So even though the battery will be degraded the amount of energy the battery has available will remain similar.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Glad to have you back. Are you going to give us a report on the car scene in Russia?
July 1st, 2009 at 6:52 pm
See you can’t even get one negative Statik, and here you thought you’d bring the whole system down.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Luke, I agree with you exactly.
Bad commentary installed here provides all with a great conversational starting point.
One of the great things about America, is that all ideas can get equal and fair consideration by a highly ethical firm like GM.
You never know from where some great and fantastic practical concept will come from!!
One of the things about Austin, is that a great number of new patents are filed from new ideas and concepts formed here.
Another thing observed here in Austin, is that new ideas and concepts often come from people who think differently than everyone else (they have to, to be able to conceive new ideas from new ways of thinking).
This is why we have a saying here: “Keep Austin Weird”.
People who think differently are concentrated here more greatly than elsewhere in Texas because of the very large percentage of university students and grads/post grads here. Living here in Austin is never dull. The general populace here is always interested in hearing about new ideas without exception.
Media here (except PBS) seem always to be the very last to “get it” technologically.
But GM is open to the submission of new inventions/battery chemistry submissions for possible contracting, which is about as American as you can get. The video of the lab with the explanations of how the phases of submitted battery testing occurs, prove to us all that GM does it how America always did it.
You could never submit a battery for testing to a Japanese company or a European company and expect a fair appraisal of your work.
So, when we get an adverse comment installed onto this site, the opportunity is definitely ours to explain the proof as to why GM is what the spirit of America is all about.
Dan.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:56 pm
There is an interesting new post on “allcarselectric.com” regarding the sales of the Prius vs. the Insight. Prius ~12,000/month, Insight ~2,000/month.
A cautionary tale for all of the others trying to get in the game, IMHO. Gas mileage rules. At $40K, the Volt “range extender” had better equal or exceed the Prius’ gas mileage.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Lucky you.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:07 pm
If my starter battery was over 350 lbs, took up the entire center of the car and cost $11,428.57, I would insist that GM treat it exactly the way they are treating the Volts traction battery before I could feel comfortable buying that car.
Changing the traction battery chemistry to something less exotic is not going to change the requirements except for needing a lot more space and weight reductions to accommodate the battery.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:25 pm
I can only assume I’m loved to be hated.
BTW…I just gave you a -1, hehe. (we’ll see if that puts me solidly into the ‘red’)
(=
July 1st, 2009 at 7:34 pm
If they even got 60% of the packs past 10 years/150K miles, I would consider all their testing work here a raging success. Even keeping 80% of them on the road for 7-8 years, would be a great sucess in my opinion.
I really can’t imagine a 288 lithium cells (16kW) being more than $2,500 in 2020 (not allowing for inflation).
July 1st, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Sure, 6 years later let’s give our troops the proper supplies and equipment they need to survive the war for oil.
How about this: let’s get off or addiction to oil and we can finally bring our troops home.
=D~~ NOmoreOILwars
http://www.endoil.org/site/c.ddJGKNNnFmG/b.4090073/k.67F7/Costs_of_Consumption.htm
July 1st, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Interesting about the pricing on the Chrysler EV, I hadn’t heard really any good indication of pricing on it. I will have to read that article the next time my wife is annoying me in Wal-Mart.
$85,000 seems high, I would have guessed more like $57,499.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Yeah, they kept the same theme from yesterday and when just Ford was out, but just edited the content. The AP lead story got updated/rewritten at least 4 times today, lol.
——————-
Now they are up to:
“Auto sales show signs of stability after tough year, but most June sales still worse than May” as of 2 hours ago.
DETROIT – U.S. car and truck sales showed signs of stabilizing in June after a year of sharp declines, but every major automaker except Honda Motor Co. reported lower sales than in May
http://finance.sympatico.msn.ca/investing/news/businessnews/article.aspx?cp-documentid=20618636
July 1st, 2009 at 7:48 pm
The Tesla pack is warranteed for 5 yr/ 100,000 miles I believe (maybe they changed to 3). If so, then the comparsion would be 2 packs to one. Ultimately packs prices should and will come down to $/(KWh output(lifetime)).
July 1st, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Are we agreeing or disagreeing? I would like one of those Raser trucks too. I don’t think big vehicles will disappear. I think they will go into hibernation until they too can be economically electrified. But I don’t think any of the many one-off technology demonstrator vehicles will have a battery pack with a lifespan anywhere near what the Volt should get. None of those small shops has the resources to devote to the battery engineering the GM has put into the Volt.
I was a bit wrong earlier when I said GM has not been in the cell business. They did own Ovonics for a while when they thought they would have to make a lot of NiMH batts for California. NiMH did make some pretty good EVs too. But they would never have gotten affordable because of the high Nickel content. Also, their cold temperature performance is supposedly quite poor. But then a series hybrid with NiMH might have worked. But that is now history and it is clear that new generation Li batts are quite a bit better than NiMH. GM won’t buy another cell manufacturer until after it is clear who the long term chemistry winner will be.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Let me rephrase my question.
Does anybody know the maximum rate that the ICE can charge the battery, in kw. (I added the word “maximum”.)
Lyle, can you please find out? (Reminder: When you did your mule drive, you uncovered the maximum rate the batteries will recharge while plugged in. My question is entirely different.)
Another relevant reminder: A GM engineer has already said (sorry, no reference handy) that it’s possible to quick charge the Gen 1 Volt batteries, but this feature will not be part of the Gen 1 Volt. I’m conjecturing that he was referring to plugged-in charging, not ICE charging.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:40 pm
This makes sense. One would have to wonder how much charging is OK. Clearly with regenerative breaking, their are intermittant charges added to the battery. Is there a region of the battery cycle (state of charge) that can handle these frequent ups and downs?
The good news is that GM can cylcle these things to death and simulate anthing that is possible. They have smart engineers who we hope will optimize these things. That is one purpose of this battery lab I am sure.
To my original post, I still like the idea of a BEV with a small (say 1/2 liter) ICE that will kick on and get me home when I run out of juice. I would even be willing to slow down going up pikes peak. (Just like I would have in my old Ford Escort).
July 1st, 2009 at 8:40 pm
You’re lucky only your back’s affected.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Zing! Ya had me going for a minute there.
Seriously though, I hope they “have something” there. But given how long it’s taking to reach the market, I also doubt it.
Are “hope” and “doubt” necessarily at odds with one another?
July 1st, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Wars won’t be going away, no. The military plays an important role for our society, and I concede that we do need it.
But invading countries that never attacked us, based on false pretenses? I think we can and should do without that.
I seriously considered joining the military several times, back when I was naive enough to think that it was going to be used primarily for defense, and not for adventurism. Several of my friends did join. They aren’t exactly volunteering their opinions, but I think they’ve been royally screwed over. This being a representative republic without a draft, I’ve been taking out my anger in the voting booth.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Last I heard, this proposal didn’t make it past the public-comment period — and for good reason.
I’d rather pay taxes to my home-state for miles driven on out-of-state roads than have one of those devices installed.
But, really, how different is this than OnStar? I’m not having OnStar installed in any vehicle I own, either, and for very similar reasons.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Honda can’t seem to get the Insight right. First it was a two seater. This time around they sucked too much content out of the car in order to get the price down. Not only is the mileage worse, but performance and ride are also second to that of the Prius’.
I believe however that the Insight has/is doing well in Japan. Plus it did cause Toyota to cut the price of the Prius.
I’m hoping GM doesn’t scrimp too much to keep costs down. There is a line you don’t want to cross.
To your point about gas mileage, one interesting thing in tech, and the Prius and the Volt are tech, is that the big benefits accrue to the number one entry. Number two gets to pick up the crumbs. Right now the Prius is the best. But when the Volt hits the streets it is going to be number two. That may result in lower sales numbers than you would otherwise expect.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:24 pm
My 30KW, 25KW comment in response to DonC’s comment about power draw for a couple of conditions.
With regards to your max charge rate, I don’t think GM has answered this. I imagine GM’s comments regarding possible quick charging is based on the LG cell capabilities that aren’t being tapped for plugged charging but probably are for regen. I supposed you mean safe charge rate that doesn’t significantly reduce battery life. I think there has been speculation 5-6C which would be 80-96KW. Since they are allowing peaks of 120KW for discharge, 80-96KW seems plausible for short bursts of regen braking. It would be interesting to know if they have different max regen capacities for different situations, such as short bursts of breaking on level ground versus prolonged breaking down a sleep decline.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:39 pm
The Tesla pack is expected to lose 30% of its juice after 5 yr /50,000 miles. This seems a tad optimistic for the Li-ions. AFAIK the basic warranty for the battery pack is the standard 3 yr/36,000 miles. You might be able to up that to 4 yr/ 50,000 miles, and you can definitely buy a replacement battery for $12,000 which will be delivered to you seven years after the purchase.
FWIW Tesla says it costs them $36,000 for the battery pack. Either they expect prices to come down by at least 30% over those seven years or they use a very high discount number.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:02 pm
I was wondering if GM is going to issue/administer the battery warranty (keep it in house) and if so, where does the $10,000 in battery warranty costs go if the warranty is never exercised ?
Deferred profit ?
July 1st, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Prius ~12,000/month
That should be 13,000 since the actual quantity was 12,998.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:31 am
______________________________________________________
Question:
What would you choose (if assuming the two batteries were similar in size/weight/net-usable-power)?
a) Traction Battery @~$11,000 w/ 10 year life.
b) Traction Battery @ ~$4,000 w/ 5 year life.
_____________________________________________________
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:08 am
Tough call
If I pick the 4K battery pack will that be GM’s cost and $8500 at retail for me? Can you get a car w/o batteries to put your own first choice of battery into?
Would any car besides trucks or SUVs even have enough interstitial space to allow that $4000 lower energy density battery fit in somewhere? W/O a lithium chemistry they will definitely not be the same size and weight!
Can I let someone like Coulomb Technologies or Better Place take the initial risk by first renting one to me and later buying myself a cheap one when new processes and greater economies of scale come into play? Will they have utility companies and power providers subsidize my up front costs to enlarge the market and get their own lower priced used batteries for their own use at some future date?
I was reading the specs for one of the city cars sold in London and they offer battery choices. The Li Ion choice results in faster cars with greater range.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:11 am
Hi Shaft and Koz. I believe the answer to your question has already been answered in earlier posts from Lyle. The answer is the genset will NEVER recharge the battery. The best you can hope for is a steady 30% SOC until you reach a plug.
The whole point of the Volt is it REALLY IS an electric car. If the genset recharged the battery you are using fossil fuel to recharge the pack. That goes against what the Volt is all about. Power from the grid can be green; from the genset it’s fossil fuel. This is what sets the Volt apart from any other hybrid and what many people really don’t grasp. The Volt not only is the first car where you might never burn gasoline again, even if you do it is at a minimum level, BY DESIGN.
I’d have to go through the earlier posts to find the actual statements but I believe it was a GM engineer or project manager that explained how the Voltec system worked.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:28 am
If I paid $40,000 for my Ford Escort I would not want to have to slow down for anything!!!!!!
Is that why they call it the arrogance of wealth?
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:44 am
Very interesting. If the ICE can charge the battery say 10 or 20 times faster than plugging in, I can understand better how the Volt’s performance can be easily maintained over a wide range of driving conditions in charge sustaining mode (i.e. ICE running).
Forget the Pike’s Peak problem for now. Assume the car is in charge sustaining mode. Say the driver floors it up a long hill and uses up about 0.5kwhr from the battery in the process to assist the ICE. Then the driver returns to normal (flat road) or less than normal (downhill) average power consumption. The ICE now has a ton of spare capacity. I can see that the ICE will replenish the battery with the 0.5kwhr in less than a minute, whereas it might take 10 minutes while plugged in!
Neat. I hadn’t quite appreciated that before.
Not only that. But I now see far fewer situations where the ICE will have to scream away at 4000RPM to generate maximum power. It seems to me that those kinds of situations would rarely be seen, even in fairly heavy driving. The car would rely on the battery to meet periodic bursts requiring extra power, and very quickly replenish the electrons when things return to normal.
Lyle, please pump GM more on this question. And try to do some of your own tests when you get your next test drive … we hope a real Volt in charge sustaining mode!
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:09 am
KentT,
What Koz and I mean is that when the car needs more oomph that the ICE cannot supply, because it is underpowered, it will draw down the battery below the 30% SOC. After that, the ICE will charge the battery back up to about the 30% SOC. In other words, in charge sustaining mode, the SOC will vary continuously above and below some setpoint depending on the driving scenario. (That’s why they call it charge sustaining mode!)
In this sense, the ICE will indeed charge the battery. Koz and I recognize that the ICE will never fully charge the battery. But it will partially charge the battery to ensure the SOC is always around the setpoint.
When you do find the reference, you will see that this is more or less how it works.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:56 am
President Obama means well with his ideas of health care reform. In his TV meeting of 07/01 he talked about shifting money to fund uncovered people. He came right out and said that the rich will need to pay more.
One thing Obama isn’t concerned with is that nature works on a system of recycling. Strong live, weak die off. This is normal and natural.
Okay, we somehow share the wealth and offer medical insurance to everyone. This includes street drunks, drug users, people who eat steak and potatoes until their belt bursts… ect. They all live 5 years longer for the effort. They have 5 more years to use State and Federal hand out programs. If they make it to age 62, they further bankrupt Social Security.
Good intent, bad idea.
=D~
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:27 am
Exactly. This earlier post of an interiew Lyle had with Adrew Farah goes into some detail how the Volt can draw “extra” from the battery when needed.
http://gm-volt.com/2008/09/02/the-pikes-peak-question-chevy-volt-and-the-infinite-hill/
This chart given by GM also gives some idea of how there power control strategy will work:
http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2008/112_0804_chevrolet_volt_update/photo_03.html
Shaft, I believe you are also correct in that the Volt will rarely run at max output (53KW). GM has basically said this, plus that won’t provide max efficiency. I believe they will use the battery to minimze generator noise and maximize efficiency by changing ICE output slowly and less often by meeting “running” average power needs. Mr. Pasawitz said as much in this post:
http://gm-volt.com/2009/05/04/what-will-the-volts-generator-mode-feel-like/
The Volt could recharge it’s battery quickly to the charge sustaining initiation point (my terminology) on those occasions the SOC is forced below this point. I don’t think they will intentionally run the generator on high to achieve this as quickly as possible, however. They will probably use the most efficient setting based on their algorithm that still has a net possitive power output from the generator. This will use less gas and be gentller on the battery.
Many people have expressed concerns about using the battery more agressively within the charge sustaining band (@10% of battery capacity). They feel GM will minimize to extend battery life. These “microcycles” seem to have little effect on the NiMH batteries used in Hybrids. It would be interesting to find out if LG’s chemistry will similarly be affected. From my miniscule understanding of cell chemistry, I would guess a Li battery of the Volt’s size being used in this manner would have even less effect than Hybrid’s battery use have on their small NiMH batteries. Thus, I believe GM will use the battery fairly agressively within the charge sustaining band to maximize ICE efficiency. The difference in MPG for charge sustaining mode could be about 10mpg.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:38 am
You might be right, but I would be surprised if real world is only 3 yrs/ 50K miles average. I’m typing this message on my Motion tablet. It’s SANYO battery is light years better than the crappy cells earllier Dell’s used but it is 5+ years old and has about 50% capacity. These cells are probably 2-3 generations older than Tesla’s. If you look at the generations of LiCo cells, you’ll see the cylce life creep up to about 1000 cycles today from less than 500 a few years ago. The abuse the SANYO pack receives is severely more than Tesla’s pack will see. Tesla’s cycles will mostly be small, the cells are environmentally controlled with glycol cooling/heating, the cells will be individually monitered, etc.
Time will tell but I would be surprised if the average pack life was less than 5 years/ 100K miles. That said, the hotter climates will be on the short side of the range.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:41 am
Here you go:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/photos/opening-of-the-new-gm-battery-lab/2069279/full/
Note the “360V” label. If it’s true that there are 288 cells
(per http://www.narucmeetings.org/Presentations/Stanek%20PHEV_Nov08%20-%20final90.pdf slide #15)
and that the cell voltage is “a little over 3.5 volts”
(per http://gm-volt.com/2009/06/22/gm-advanced-battery-lab-tour-wvideo-part-i/ at 6:40) then the best guess I can come up with to get the pack voltage to that 360 volt neighborhood is that there are 3 stacks of 96 cells in the pack. The cells would have to be at 3.75 volts for 96 of them in series to be 360 volts.
Who knows if any of this is close to the real pack design? It’s fun to guess until GM gives us the real info.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:49 am
I really am reticent to wade into these waters on GM-Volt.com cannot resist. So, what is your GOOD idea. Should we create a system that selectively rewards those “deserving” of health, including the crooks, the Madoffs, the entitled, etc? Or one that has the absolute best medicine and care in the world but only the very rich or the underprivaledged can use it? Everyone else in between is mostly stuck with uncaring, mediocre health care whose choices are primarily driven by what an HMO will cover?
Our current systems is a disaster and I can afford it. I have not spent the time to follow what the politicians are currently talking about doing, mostly because that would be like trying to swim in quicksand but I am happy they are talking about it. Also, one of the fundamental ills with the systems was properly identified as out of control costs. As long as this is thoughtfully addressed, we will end up with a better system. I cannot imagine one worse.
And if the “better” system means that some “less” deserving people also benefit along with the rest of us “more deserving to live” people, I’m good with that! Never did like Logan’s Run anyway.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:53 am
Take a look at my reply to Chris C. @21 above. GM hasn’t said what the pack voltage is but the label in the photo
( http://www.autobloggreen.com/photos/opening-of-the-new-gm-battery-lab/2069279/full/ )says “360V”.
I would like to know the real answer myself.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:55 am
I agree. At 40K I want to be able to keep moving. I was thinking more of a cheaper EREV design for the masses.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:04 am
The arrangement you discuss seems to be what I would expect as well.
As far as the individual cell voltage, CPI gives a value of 3.7 volts for the LG Chem Li-Ion cells.
http://www.compactpower.com/lithium.shtml
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:14 am
Our current system is not a disaster. People spend 4-10 years in medical school to qualify to provide services. They are well paid and do excellent work.
The public works for a living. We get health coverage through our employer.
In 2002 I was out of work for a short time. One of the biggest motivations to get back to working 40 hours was the need for health coverage. Without this added incentive, I may still be spending time on the beach and taking $1000 a month from a Federal program.
Good intent, bad idea.
=D~
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:16 am
This information that GM is discovering in their battery labs is highly valuable.. they are not going to give it away for free. They may even put out dis-information.
They would keep the supplier name (LG) secret if they could get away with it.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:21 am
Hey, don’t knock the mail order degrees! I have a B.S. in B.S.
Anyway, Ms. Cee should know that many more people would be up in arms if GM attempted to own the battery tech. After all, it didn’t work out too well for America the last time.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:27 am
“Invading a country that never attacked us” was not the problem, the issue was staying afterwards to rebuild it. That ruined the hint we were trying to give to terrorist states.. we then ended up with carebear Obama and he is not going to scare any future thugs…
The point of the military is to intimidate possible enemies, and thus avoiding war. Reagan had it right with “Peace thru strength”
“si vis pacem, para bellum”
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:53 am
Battery leasing is the answer.. treat it like fuel
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:55 am
repay the taxpayer
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:04 am
I posted a few comments here while i was over there. In summary, I saw a lot more Chevy’s & Fords than I had expected. there were lots of old rust-bucket wierd Russian cars too, but then I would see a Lamborghini, Mercedes, Landrover, stretch Hummer, Mustang Cobra, Corvette, etc. So there’s lots of $ there to be spent. I could see the Novy Russkies (New Rich Russians) buying EV’s just to be the cool kid on the block. Or a Telsa to blow people off the line. There were tons of crotch-rocket motorcycles flying around at double the posted speed limits most of the time. They like speeding, that’s for sure.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:15 am
I have to agree with Don, Honda really got it handed to them by the Prius again. I don’t think necessarily the Insight is a terrible car, it does what it was intended to do, and at a cheap price. It is just that the Prius is so much better, bigger, faster, more efficienct…and now almost the same price.
That is really the bottom line here on sales. The Insight had a really nice start, thanks to pre-orders and no Prius being available…but this isn’t going to be a two horse race, they already shot Honda’s horse about 100 feet out of the gate.
As for Prius vs Volt…I’m just too tired Don, lol.
/have a good one
Sidenote: I would expect once Toyota gets everything rolling at full capacity and has a few more weeks to get 100% distribution going that the monthly numbers for the Prius will locked in at the maximum capacity for the rest of the year. 15,000-16,000
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:48 am
LOL. Celebrity Jeopardy … good stuff.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:44 am
Thanks for the references, Koz.
I’d still like to know more about the ICE charging algorithm. I guess we’ll have to wait until Lyle tests it.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:13 am
I still can’t figure out how that equates to 600,000/year. Of course math never was my strongest subject. How I fumbled my way through calculus is still a source of wonder to me.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:17 am
That’s why there is a ~ in front of the number. i was working from “memory”. The Honda number is a bit low to make up for it. The headline of the article referred to Prius selling 6x Insight. I mean, if you’ve got ‘em down 6 to 1, who needs to quibble about 998 cars, LOL.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:19 pm
The MRAP covered by this contract is being used in both Iraq and Afganistan.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Well I cannot agree with you and believe those that would agree with your assessment are part of a miniscule minority. I have health insurance, I carry health insurance for my employees, I am actively invlolved in our health plan and carrier decisions. I have family members that are doctors. I could go on and on. Decent family coverage is $15,000-$18,000 per year and that is without heavy utilitzation. How is that not a disaster for our economy. Although it sounds like this will surprise you, many, many full time workers are not employed. This is just to get coverage. Now go to a hospital and get treatment. Go to a doctors office if you have 3 hours to waste for 3 minutes of consultation. Yes, we have some fantastic doctors, medicines and machines but that doesn’t mean the rest of the healthcare system is not a HUGE mess.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:48 pm
i did not really want to reply to your comment, but I will. I agree with everything you said. Let’s bring all the troops home from every where. I don’t see why we should have any outside our borders. Not even the Marines at our embassies. The local police can handle all the problems that might arise there. It is just a criminal problem, after all. Once we get all of the troops in country we need to reduce the force down to just what is necessary to react to internal needs and threats. That should not be more than about 50,000 soldiers. We should disband the Marine Corps since we should not ever send any troops abroad as a first strike force. We really only need about a 50 ship navy with no more than 2 carriers. We have the Coast Guard, after all. The Air Force needs only about 10 long range bombers and no more than 100 fighters. If we don’t disband the National Guard, we don’t really need the U.S. Army. I just don’t see where we need to keep a ready force at all. No one is going to bother us. Not in today’s world. It only takes two guys pushing buttons to send Missiles flying. Why do we need the ballistic missile forces at all. Just wire them directly into the White House so the buttons can be pressed from there. There are plenty of employees in the WH that can press buttons. Why pay for all of those Air Force officers to sit around waiting to press a button that will never need to be pressed. Silly waste of taxpayer money.
You see. I really am not to far away from your view points. We can work together to solve all of our major differences in the world. Military forces are so last century. We have the proper people in congress in leadership positions and in the White House (finally) to accomplish many of these tasks that just seemed so unassailable before. Now almost anything is possible. All we have to do is believe in change.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Well, sarcasm aside, what we’re doing now is unsustainable. Unless we control it somehow, the Military Industrial Complex will bankrupt the nation. Thus it has been in every great empire in history, and thus it will be here if we don’t find a better way.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:20 pm
It is my understanding that the MRAP used in Iraq is capable of operating on the roads there—but most of the roads in Afganistan are dirt. A new smaller MRAPII (????) is being built to operate there.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:29 pm
The Military Industrial Complex was not the cause of the Roman Empire’s collapse nor the British Empire, nor the French Empire to name just a few. Spending in congress is unsustainable also. I don’t see anyone really getting upset about that. Incidentally the United States does not have an “empire”.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Bob G
I agree, more or less. Mostly more. We have spent tons of money for oil from foreign sources when we have an adequate supply within our borders and offshore. I work for an oil company and I have seen the maps with oil reserves marked out ready for congress to OK drilling. The democrats and the environmental lobby have tied the oil company’s hands for a long time. Plus if we could have built the kind of nuclear power plants that were requested over the last 3 to 4 decades, most of our energy could be coming from electricity and not oil. I am all for generating more and more power from solar, wind, ocean and river currents, hydro-electric dams, nuclear plants, natural gas (but as little as necessary to balance things out) and from clean coal technology. The cap and trade bill before the senate will bankrupt many businesses in the U.S. and send thousands to the unemployment lines. Manufacturing plants WILL move operations outside our borders. We will put our manufacturing base at a huge disadvantage in world trade. Some of the democrats supporting this bill has called it the greatest revenue generator ever devised. Revenue for government that will have to turn around and spend it to support the ever expanding unemployment lines. Obama said today that he believes the unemployment figure would not exceed 10%. In February he said his economists said with the passage of the stimulus bill it would not exceed 8%. Many other economists said it would not stop at 10%. Obama is going to be proven wrong again. His spending and taxing is going to cause massive unemployment well over 12% and likely approaching 15%.
Sorry if I offend some of your sensibilities, but I am not in the mood to be nice tonight. I feel the need to say what I think and report what I read and hear. So that those who disagree with me will know, I am signing off for the night.
Noel,
I think a lot of you. I like most of what you say. But you live in a realm that does not quite exist in the real world. Maybe things will turn around and be like you want. I did say that there are leaders (???) in Washington who have been waiting for exactly the right conditions to exist to bring about the world that you may desire. Just hold on to you hopes and aspirations. If these people make through the next election cycle next year you will get your type of world. Good luck to you. I hope you and yours fair well in the future.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:20 pm
“Auto sales show signs of stability after tough year, but most June sales still worse than May” as of 2 hours ago.
Maybe I’m way too jacked up on caffeine from my tea, lol, but aren’t those two mutually exclusive ideas in one sentence. Twice!!!!
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:57 pm
It has taken 300 years for the health system to arrive at it’s current form. This encompasses the clinics, the co-pays, the ER’s, the rehabs, and the hospitals.
In this 300 years time society has made small changes to refine and improve short comings within the medical service system. This is done month to month and is aimed at providing a better medical future.
Health providers make up 1/6th of the GDP of America. Many hard working, well schooled individuals along with bio medical and pharmaceutical companies are doing well within the medical provider community. They have earned the high pay. They are not average, they are above average in intelligence.
People who want to be covered by medical insurance either work for an insurance provider. Or simply buy insurance. Others pay full price as they go.
Obama’s new system is installed. Companies no longer need to provide medical insurance to their employees because tax dollars will pay for everyone’s medical bill. Then companies will pay their employees more because they don’t have the burden of providing the health benefit, right?
WRONG! The owners of companies, the ones who pay for free community medical coverage through higher taxes, will buy boats and vacation on Lake Mead.
Society, in whole, has an incentive to be strong and to improve by having to struggle a little and work for what we attain. As I said in a prior post. The new system is incentive for dodging having to work at all. And an incentive for self abuse as American Medical Response will always arrive (for free) to pick losers off the floor for another CT scan and week long hospital stay.
I worked for a company (15 years ago) which went from Health Net insurance to a budget fly-by-night plan. My dentist of 10 years, schooled at a credited Southern California University, was replaced by a dentist from India. The first time I walked into his office I was greeted with, “You here for a root canal?”. I replied, “No, I need a routine yearly check up please”.
Good intent, bad idea.
=D~
July 3rd, 2009 at 6:19 am
This will be a source of nitpicking for many decades to come.. how do you measure the cell voltage?.. it ranges all over the place. How is GM rating the pack?.. its a big secret that will be used in future advertising.
Freshly charged to 100% lithium-manganese cells are 4.2v, but under load they soon drop to 3.5-3.6 volts and stay there for a while… BUT GM is not charging these cells to 100%, voltage will be lower.
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Well I agree with you on many issues as well. I think that you will note that I have said so many times. Views of the real world are in the eye of the beholder. Here it is clear that we will not agree.
I will leave you with two words – Chalmers Johnson.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
I don’t know enough about Chalmers Johnson to make an intelligent reply. What little I know is that he is an expert in many areas of governmental affairs and world situations. His “opinions” of f global empires are just that, opinions. Educated opinion, I will admit. I don’t know that he is right or wrong. To many people his opinions would have the “ring of truth” to them while to others they would most certainly not. I don’t know where I stand in relation to his opinions. I just don’t know enough. I suppose I could throw out a name that would be in opposition to Johnson’s that you might not know anything about and we would be at the same point again. No need to do that.
Let’s just agree that the world needs real statesmen who can accomplish what no one else has been able to do before. Bring ever lasting world peace. (And not through a world government. Most of us are not yet ready for that idea.) I don’t see any real statesmen on the current world scene. Nor do I of any waiting their turn at governmental authority. The world can certainly use some true statesmen and a lot of improvement in all areas. Education, health, government, everything. A lot more freedom for many of the world’s people would go a long way towards helping to improve things.
July 7th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Mr. Riley, you are certainly entitled to your opinion but I must disagree with you about the potential of “drill, baby, drill” to get us out of our current energy trade imbalance (getting 2/3 of our oil from foreign sources, unfriendly nations).
President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s gave the US oil companies whatever they asked for. The oil companies have tens of thousands of square miles that is given to them for oil exploration and drilling. Instead of drilling and pumping us out of foreign oil dependence they have pushed the country even further under the control of foreign oil dictators. Meanwhile domestic oil production has declined over the same period.
I feel sorry for you that you believe the fairy tale told by the oil companies. If they could have drilled us out of this mess then why have they not done so over the past 30 years? The fact is most of our huge oil fields are drying up and whatever new fields they find are much smaller and therefore will be used up that much sooner.
I’d love to keep my head stuck in the sand and hum a happy tune to drown out the numerous and well documented facts pointing to the end of oil here in the US far sooner than the middle east. But I know that doing so will just be passing the hard choices along to our children (not our grandchildren – we don’t have that much time IMO).
We need to tackle the problem of our oil dependence before it becomes life or death for our children and their families.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
>>> NO PLUG=NO SALE! <<<
Electric cars + Nuclear Power 40% + Geothermal/Hydro 10% + Solar and Wind 50% + (Coal/Gas/Fossil Fuels 0%) = American Energy Independence and Environment Protection
… and JOBS FOR AMERICANS