This is Frank Weber, Global Vehicle Chief Engineer, Chevrolet Volt. I read with great interest “Dave G’s” post comparing the cost and range of extended-range electric vehicles (EREV) like the Volt to that of BEVs. While many of Dave’s numbers are estimates, his analysis is spot on and worth noting. EREVs have a distinct cost advantage – today and well in to the future – over pure EVs when vehicle range is the primary consideration.
Dave G’s Comment:
—————————————————————————————————
OK, lets look at how a 70kWh BEV would compare against a 16kWh EREV if batteries were 1/4 of the price they are today.
The CEO from CPI (the company that builds the Volt packs today) puts the Volt’s battery pack cost at $8K. He is also the one that predicts the cost going to 1/4 of what they are today in the next 5-10 years.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/02/profile-li-ion.html
Specifically, he says:
• The ratio of end-of-life to beginning-of-life is 75%.
• The AT application is sized for a 70% depth of discharge…
• A vehicle pack battery pack has non-cell costs such as a monitoring system.
These items together justify a 2.5x premium for the AT application (or approximately $ 1,000/available kWh) …
From a historical perspective over the past 17-18 years the cost has come down by a factor of 15x. In the next 5-10 years we should be able to come down by an incremental 2-4x and we will have to do that to accelerate the penetration of the technology.
So this says that the Volt’s battery costs $8K ($1000/ available kWh x 8 available kWh). We can also use the figure of $500/total kWh, since he says the total to available ratio is around 50% (i.e. 75% of 70% from first 2 points above). That means a 70 kWh battery pack would cost around $35K today. This sounds about right, since we know the 53kWh Roadster battery pack costs Tesla around $23K, and that uses high volume consumer electronic chemistry.
Now if batteries were 1/4 of today’s prices in 6-8 years, then the Volt’s battery would cost around $2K and a 70kWh battery would cost around $9K.
We also know that the ICE range extender (ICE, radiator, exhaust, etc.), costs around $2K. Keep in mind that we are talking about the wholesale cost for GM, not the retail price you or I would pay.
So the Volt’s range extender and battery pack would cost a total of $4K, while the 70kWh battery pack would cost around $9K.
Bottom Line: If battery packs cost 1/4 of what they do now, the 70kWh BEV would still cost $5K more than an EREV-40.. Since BEVs have serious issues refueling for long trips, the EREV is the clear winner for me. I don’t think I’m alone here.
—————————————————————————————————
Below are two hypothetical examples of the cost advantage of the EREV approach.
The first chart compares the EREVs and BEVs based on today’s costs. This takes the very conservative approach of assuming manufacturers of BEVs have managed to drive battery technology costs to comparative levels (red line). The cost of GM’s battery technology is represented on this line. The cost of the range-extender moves the EREV technology slightly off the cost curve. However, even with the added cost of the range extending engine generator, the total cost of the system is still significantly below that of a limited range BEV, and the benefit – in terms of range – exceeds that of adding additional battery costs (pink area).
The second chart, applies the same logic, only this time under the assumption that battery costs will decrease by 50 percent. Again, the EREV approach has a significant cost advantage. However, it’s important to note that cost is just one of the reasons we believe the EREV approach is technically better. There are no compromises associated with an EREV. It offers the benefits of petroleum-free driving while overcoming range-anxiety. When the battery’s energy is depleted from driving in pure electric mode, the engine generator produces electricity to extend the Volt’s driving range to more than 300 total miles. And it can be the primary car for customers from places as cold as Kapuskasing, Ontario to as hot as Yuma, Arizona.
My compliments to Dave for his insightful post.
This entry was posted on Thursday, July 30th, 2009 at 6:04 am and is filed under Feedback to GM, GM Q and A. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+17
Jul 30th, 2009 (6:09 am)I am LOVING seeing something like this come straight from ‘N’GM!
Akio Toyoda needs to have this mailed to him. Maybe in thousand-plicate?
NPNS!!! =D~~~
+7
Jul 30th, 2009 (6:09 am)Dave G… you’re the bomb! Now the question is, will you still be able to get your head through the door….
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (6:20 am)Yes, costs are obviously cheaper for the E-REV. Most importantly is rapid recharge. A more fair comparison is to compare the Volt’s cost with a BEV with crazy expensive rapid recharge batteries. Then again, there is no rapid recharge infrastructure.
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (6:21 am)Way to go Dave (and Frank). Lyle will need to add an extra wing on the site for “Dave’s thoughts of the day”. Well, maybe not, but it’s great to see GM following the site and replying with comments from those in the inner circle!
Congrats all the way around (Lyle too)!
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!************NPNS
Jul 30th, 2009 (6:23 am)Agreed – many thanks to Dave G and Frank Weber for this provocative conversation. This stuff is getting great!
It’s exciting to sit around and discuss this stuff on Lyle’s front lawn. I’m not sure if we are to take this more as Frank talking to us from or GM dishing out some info (logos), but I love it either way.
Up-front costs are surely a critical part of the restructuring agreement, and our beloved EREV appears to fall in line with that philosophy more so than other EVs. *Applause for GM* The Volt is becoming more real to even this distant observer every day – I can almost hear those wheels touching down on the road!
NPNS!! =D~~~
Jul 30th, 2009 (6:26 am)Off topic but of more than passing interest to readers of the blog:
When you’re done here, surf over to autoblog green and check out the details of a purportedly leaked recording of EESTOR CEO Dick Weir giving some interesting details about his product.
Sure to fuel the flames some more.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/
Jul 30th, 2009 (6:37 am)You should post over there to have them come see this post, too.
Just a thought, but traffic here is important to getting word out.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!************NPNS
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (6:39 am)You’ve got to give credit to GM for staying up to date on these blogs. It shows what kind of company they are turning into, actually looking at customer feed back. I’ve heard they have whole teams of people monitoring stuff all the time.
Good Job Lyle, Dave G and thanks Frank for the post. I hope Lutz can take after Frank and can give us some insight into what future RESS applications we might see in the future
+4
Jul 30th, 2009 (6:39 am)I knew him before he got famous..
Jul 30th, 2009 (6:40 am)Good idea.
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (6:40 am)Not just costs, but benefits too, fall on the EREV side.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!************NPNS
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (6:43 am)Reminds me of “I knew Statik, and Dave is no Statik” (Congrats to Dave – heh, heh)
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!************NPNS
Jul 30th, 2009 (6:45 am)Thanks FME III (is that FME the Third?)(g).
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!************NPNS
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (6:47 am)Done.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (6:48 am)Been a long-time GM-Volt.com silent participant, just want to say kudo’s to Lyle, Statik, Dave and everyone. And to the new GM too. Used to fill out survey cards on the GM-Card statements writing in “hybrid”, never saw much. Toyota, Honda and Ford ate their lunch because of it. Have a 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid, 2006 Mercury Mariner Hybrid, and a 1997 Chevy Silverado. HCH is good for my 108 mile daily commute.
Past GM’s reliability left a bit to be desired (had a 2003 Saturn Vue CVT for example). Wishing “new” GM success. New Camaro is very tempting but 29 mpg highway can’t compare to the HCH (had a 78′ Firebird Formula 400 4barrel that was a lot of fun, but paid for it every flll-up). Cash for clunkers is removing a lot of hybrids off the lots (Honda dealer couldn’t find one 2009 left in the State of Michigan). Chevy lot across the street had two Camaro SS’s, but no RS models.
Guess I’ll have to keep waiting for the Volt…. EREV Camaro would be awesome someday though. Honda salesman thought GM would sell more with higher mpg too.
GMTX 2652 is a GP-38-2 locomotive built by EMD, operating in the Grand Rapids-Ludington-Manistee Michigan area.
Jul 30th, 2009 (6:50 am)They are probably texting on their Blackberries while riding around in the mules (lol). Lucky dogs.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!************NPNS
+12
Jul 30th, 2009 (6:56 am)I’m glad to see Frank hitting up the site as well…and apparently making graphs to boot!
/now if he could only add some flash animation, heeh
(points to you too Dave)
Jul 30th, 2009 (6:56 am)Welcome and thanks for chiming in. Spread the word!
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!************NPNS
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (6:59 am)Kudos to Dave G on the post. Well done friend.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:02 am)And won’t that sound be the sweetest music ever!
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!************NPNS
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:04 am)Yep. Third time’s the charm.
None of my sons are IV’s, though. You need to have an estate and a title to get away with that.
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:07 am)First, I would like to thank Mr. Weber for taking the time to post here. I know you guys are extremely busy, so this is impressive. That said, I am dissappointed in the nature of your post. There are so many technical issues we would love to here about directly from you and not this marketing FUD. Not that the data used by DaveG is inaccurate. For the most part is seems accurate for the data given except the $23K for Tesla as their battery cost. The issue for me lies in the data that is missing and where the cost analysis is done. Do I, as the consumer, care what the manufacturer’s material cost is? Not really. My care is the retail cost, what I pay. The cost get distorted greatly once development costs, packaging costs, testing costs, installation costs, etc get factored in. For the consumer, it is the total INSTALLED add to the retail price of the ER equipment, ALL of it not just the well known components (e.g. generator motor, high voltage wiring, added power controller components for the generator, CONTROL LOGIC, etc). I bet the all in price, including every single soft (think 10yr battery warranty for EREV traction battery for PZEV credit) and hard cost associated with the RE is north of $10K and like you show, these costs aren’t changing much. I don’t GM to show this analysis here, but I do hope you are doing one internally that is as “real” as possible. I want GM to again be a successful company for many reasons and I hope GM realizes that there will be a market for both vehicles , EREV and BEV. EREV has an advantage for range extension, period. This is where the Voltec’s bread is buttered, not via FUD. Also, don’t forget one of the EREV’s main marketing thrusts is total cost of ownership. GM cannot does this from one side of it’s mouth for EREV’s and then spout distorted first cost arguments out of the other side without damaging the total cost acceptance.
There are a lot of other specifics I could get into, like comparing a 70KWh BEV to an EREV as a reasonable cost comparison but I am out of time. Good day and good luck!
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:07 am)Most excellent. Everyone gains.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!************NPNS
+3
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:08 am)I’m pleased that Frank Weber responded to your outstanding comments, Dave, and I want to again add my endorsement by simply reiterating my response to them when first posted……
“Dave, I want to thank you for your excellent condensation of this article — Dr Patil at CPI is a genuine authority & is probably largely responsible for winning the cell contract with GM.
I would only add that “AT” in your post means “automotive traction” and that the 3rd item in your list of four above is “Third… the AT market has more stringent requirements on the validation of the individual cells”
Thanks again for this insightful, accurate and highly credible post! Viva la EREV!!!”
PS: I want to also thank Frank Weber for his excellent elaboration on these comments!
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:11 am)I think someone should have the paramedics on call for when Dave G reads this article….. I know *I’d* need them.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!************NPNS
-5
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:18 am)Isn’t it nice that we conveniently omitted the NEVER ENDING and ALWAYS INCREASING maintenance costs associated with the internal combustion engine? This is the singe biggest disadvantage of the EREV concept in my opinion.
Why can’t GM consider offering a BEV as well as the EREV? People drove all over the United States in the GM EV1 with their 160 mile range NiMH battery pack. All it takes is planning.
The Chevy Volt is a great product, don’t get me wrong, but maybe other consumers would prefer not having to ever purchase gasoline.
+5
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:25 am)Wow, Koz, that’s a real “Thanks BUT post”. GM needs a home run on the Volt. Not a triple – a home run. That they don’t share info on the benefits of a format that eventually may become competitive isn’t shocking (to me). It just appears that your BEV bias clouded your appreciation of upper level management being sensitive to “Everyman’s” opinions. I may be all wrong on this.
JMO,
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!************NPNS
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:33 am)“Congrats all the way around (Lyle too)!”
I’ll second that!
-10
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:40 am)(click to show comment)
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:41 am)Exceptionally-helpful graphs Mr. Weber!! Thank you!!
It would also be a lot of fun to have several graphs that contrast the cost-benefits of HSD “two-block” distance batteries at their replacement costs of ~ $3500 at 135,000 miles (which is what I am seeing here in Austin for both Prius and Inight), with not only those cost-benefits as a total, but, also, there is a “threshold of discard” as I call it, where upon an owner just does not want to spend over ~$2500 to ~$2800 (for those Prius/Inight limited-distance batteries) without understanding what the cost-benefits for them will be in correlation also to “economic ownership risk” of a re-investment into their old Prius or Insight. (“Throwing good money after bad”).
Once that battery fails:
They drive their vehicles in for trade, or, they drive their vehicles into the ground (overloading many other electronics very quickly when the traction battery fails).
This is also where I strongly take issue with a generalization prevalent in America which relates to a “consumer selection indifference” that “someone, somewhere will make a competing battery for the Volt that would cost ~25% of a new one in 6 to 8 years”.
One can never separate the actual cells from the supporting electronics as many might economically-wish to believe.
As well, those electronics (and heating and cooling systems) will become fairly tired in 7 to 10 years, so, one can never “divorce” the cells themselves from the remainder of the battery assembly.
No user/owner (or independent tech shop) will be able to service the battery with reasonable chances of success.
(I require a 97% expectation of success for sequenced diagnostics in the seminars I teach).
In short, the cost benefits of the Voltec systems are most efficiently (and strictly-practically) the entire domain of GM.
Aftermarket participation in Gen 1 will not occur, so, costs for Gen 1 servicing/replacing of the pack (to 10 years/150,000 miles warranty) must practically remain in the up front costs, which I believe to be the very wisest way to protect everyone.
Your graphical presentation is really appreciated. Thanks again Mr. Weber!!
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:42 am)I don’t know what you drive for a car, but I don’t do much maintenance on my cars’ engines.
My wife’s Envoy goes about 12,000 miles between oil changes (done per GM oil life meter, use Mobil1 exclusively). At 100,000 miles I changed the spark plugs, and changed the transmission fluid. I probably have changed the fuel filter and air filter a couple of times in 7 years, so these have been low cost items.
Most of the expensive maintenance has been tires (on my 3rd set), brakes ($1000+ for rotors, pads, and labor), and other replacement items like shocks.
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:44 am)You go Dave G.
From the article…”When the battery’s energy is depleted from driving in pure electric mode, the engine generator produces electricity to extend the Volt’s driving range to more than 300 total miles.”
Oh, boy…deinitely a small tank. 260 mi. / 6 gal. = 43.3 mpg
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:46 am)I like the fact he uses the example to create the graph to illustrate a point, of why the Volt makes ‘oodles’ of sense…but smartly doesn’t get into the ‘nitty-gritty’ of the original context of where the discussion came from.
My point on the original thread, was the consequence with rapidly falling lithium prices (like the 15% per year/25% in 6 years that DaveG suggested) is that it destabilizes the market, and presents a larger and larger threat to the EREV platform. And Frank’s graph illustrates that as well.
For some reason, even though Dave was talking about packs decreasing to 25% of today’s value, Frank chose to give us a graph of 50%…to get 25%, so under Dave’s scenerio that line is halved again. You can see how as prices get cheaper the gap closes.
My point at the time, (and over the past 2-odd years here) is that the EREV never makes MORE sense over a BEV than it does on day 1 (which clearly it does for most people today), as we mentioned range anxiety is a big, big factor…especially today with really small expected ranges out of BEVs).
As time goes on, and pack prices come down, that gap shrinks, both in cost saving value and in the customer’s perceived range anxiety issues.
+3
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:50 am)Frank says:
“There are no compromises associated with an EREV. It offers the benefits of petroleum-free driving while overcoming range-anxiety.”
This summarizes the whole argument for me. I think BEV advocates are seriously underestimating the issue of range anxiety.
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:51 am)True, maint on an ICE is never ending. However, the less it’s used, the less maint it needs. There is always a bare minmum, but that bare minimum could be as low as a once a year oil change and seal check.
The EV1′s best range, according to GM, was 150 miles, best case. If you’re a hypermiler, maybe you could squeeze out 160.
I’d be happy to own an EREV. I would prefer an electric with a 500 mile range if:
a) I had enough current in my house to charge it fully in less than 12 hours (which is currently impossible, even with a 200 Amp panel)
b) There were places I could go for a quick charge of 5-10 mins.
c) It didn’t cost me 5x what I paid for my current car.
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:58 am)The MPG question is omnipresent isn’t it? I don’t expect any forthcoming answers on it…nobody releases that time of data until really close to the launch. No reason to assume GM will be any different here.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:05 am)Nice post Dave G. Additionally, it’s really great to have some GMers interacting more in here.
About the graphic, it shows the benefit of EREV vs EV Propulsion costs. Is it possible to add a similar graphic showing the maintenance cost and one for the cost of use? and a final merge?
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:07 am)Speaking of costs, it would appear that all VOLT tech developement costs up to the creation of the new GM, got buried with the old one so those costs in theory, paid for by bond & stock holders should not be passed on. With UAW agreeing to no strike for 5 years etc.. that should translate to reduced production costs locking in recent agreements. Although a highly prized trade secret, can you imagine impact of say the Volt being announced for say 35K before rebate. That would result in GM having to hire back most of the laid off UAW workers & reopen all closed assembly lines and retool for EREV’s. I think 27.5K for a Volt would result in our wait list seeming like a head of the line pass. One can dream right?
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:10 am)Of course you’re right on both points.
I’m really not that disappointed even if the MPG is 43.
I’ll be charging in my garage at night and during the day at work (72 mile total commute) for gasoline free operation.
/bring IT
EDIT: Sorry about the misspelling in the original post (DEFINITELY a small…)
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:14 am)Way to go Dave G!
This says to me that although we don’t always see it, or we may be disappointed that our question did not get answered in a live chat, that we, the GM-Volt.com community and Lyle are making a difference in getting the Volt on the road.
Thanks Dave G. Thanks GM. Thanks Lyle.
(OK, I admit it, the disappointed part above was me, but I’m OK now… really.)
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:16 am)Am I the only one who realizes that the charts, as posted, are effectively meaningless?
There are no numbers on the Y axis. A chart with only one axis labeled is about as useful as a bicycle with only a front wheel. For all we know the Y axis is “number of puppies who will be sacrificed to the altar of Anubis during production”.
Why can’t they just come out with a proper chart that isn’t spin doctored? The Volt is a brilliant idea and will stand up on it’s own. You don’t need to spin it. I know advertisers have to dumb it down for some people, but seriously… I get enough half-truths from politicians. I don’t need it from a company from whom I will potentially buy a car.
+5
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:19 am)I’d certainly echo this statement.
The amount of time they spend with ‘the public’, and the effort they are putting out to accomodate us, in both access to information and answering our questions directly is unprecedented and exceptional.
/full credit is due
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:22 am)I’m glad to see this information, but it only focuses on the upfront costs to GM to produce a vehicle. I hope that this isn’t all they care about. I believe that a true comparison involves considering operating costs for a period of time. Perhaps the EREV still wins, but when you consider that an EREV battery will see more cycles and thus degrade faster as well as all the typical maintenance required for the ICE, the BEV will at least be more competitive.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:23 am)Doesn’t “more than 300″ actually mean MORE than 300?
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!************NPNS
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:24 am)The whole electrical system in my 1960 home would have to be rebuilt to support rapid recharge as opposed to just adding a 240V circuit to the garage (for rapid-er charging over my existing 120V outlet).
Otherwise, and I don’t know how to calculate this, since it will take 7 hours to charge 8Kw, I’m guessing it would take about 61 hours to charge 70Kw, thereby rendering the car useless.
Not much of a cost advantage to me either way.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:25 am)Same for me, I’m not buying it at all for the MPG. Even the MSRP is not really the issue for me at this point, or how much sense it makes/what value it brings…I just want a flippin’ EV.
My criteria right now is a plug-in ‘EV that has 4 seats, that I can service inside its electric range’…simple. I will get ‘choosey’ with my second EV.
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:25 am)Uh Oh, it’s the phase change Statik again (lol)
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!************NPNS
+4
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:25 am)Nice to see the New GM gracing the site and even getting involved. Don’t know if I should watch what I say or start in with the requests. (Hi Guys!)
Congrats Lyle, this looks like a turning point or a milestone even. Next step: monetize with a site merchandise store. Pink ties for everyone!
+3
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:25 am)Over time, as battery costs fall and ranges increase, I expect that BEVs will make more sense to more people, but will remain a niche compared to the EREV. The final nail in the coffin of the EREV will not come until your average joe can pull up to a charging station and receive an 80% to full charge within 5-10 mins.
For most people, as Frank rightly mentions, their vehicle of choice must be capable of operating as a sole vehicle. That means working equally well for the daily commute here in wintery Ontario, as well as being capable of taking that extended drive to Grandmas, which happens to be in Vancouver, and everything in between.
I maintain that EREV is the solution until 300 mile BEV ranges are standard AND 10 min/80% or better quick charging becomes a reality. Otherwise, EREVs will dominate by necessity, although the genset will also likely evolve to be powered by biofuels or hydrogen.
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:29 am)Yes it certainly does.
I was just being overly conservative (pessimistic?).
NPNS
How come I can’t get my letters to be bold, italics, etc. in IE8.
Should I use Firefox?
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:33 am)Mostly I want to say WOW great job DaveG. This is interesting because it shows that no matter what any BEV with more than 100 mile range is a waste. So only place for a BEV is as a very limited city driver.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:36 am)Just put a “Shift-commma”, then the letter B and then a shift-period after it eg Greater than symbol-B-less than symbol. Substitute an i for italics or a u for underline.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!************NPNS
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:38 am)Steve,
A one wheeled bicycle is very useful. It’s a unicycle.
I do get your point, just trying to soften things.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!************NPNS
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:40 am)I think that BEV cars have a niche place and will always unless something like the EESTOR ultra capacitor turns out to be real and not vaporware. The BEV would be ideal for a 2nd commuter car (although it would most likely be a bit pricey) that does not need to be used for extended driving. You’d simply have to plan things a bit as to which car you use for what purpose.
I am retiring in 3 years 3 months (not that I’m counting or anything) and will be moving to a large retirement community in Florida that seems to use Golf Carts as the 2nd car within the community. I’d prefer (if I could afford it) to have a small city BEV to fulfill that function and have my Volt for my ‘main’ car.
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:42 am)Because to do so they would have to release the price of the Volt.
But that is what your looking for. Right?
+5
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:43 am)Dave G’s comments were very informative, and it’s great that Frank Weber adds his post to give a follow-up endorsement, and especially that he adds graphs. Enthusiastic thank yous.
Speaking of graphs, I thought the most important region is the left half, or maybe left quarter, as that is where we are today. The relationship of graphs 1 and 2 along the left vertical line at 50km doesn’t look to me to be quite right. The EV line does go down in graph 2 compared to graph 1, but does it go down by half? It is a detail but an important one, as it affects where the EV and EREV lines cross. It may be that they should cross further out to the right.
And of course Dave G’s post was discussing a decline in battery cost by a factor of 4, so should there be a graph for that? It seems to me that if there was, the crossover point (where EV rises above EREV) will be still further to the right.
None of this is to contradict the basic excellent point that at some range EV will cost more than EREV, but what that range is where EV becomes more expensive seems to remain unclear.
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:44 am)You’d drive your daily commute using less than the 70Kwh rating on the battery; gradually accumulating charge through the week. This energy ‘nest egg’ is what would get you through an infrequent, longer trip.
However, I agree that this would be a pain in the butt to keep track of, and removes all spontaneity from your driving life (especially with no infrastructure for >220V charging).
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:48 am)But does Static believe?
I hope this link to EEStor info is real!!
-4
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:50 am)IT all comes down to will I lose money buying the first gen Volt. Right now at 40-43k MSRP, the answer is yes. The battery price must fall what they expect. As it is, and many here might know this, hydrogen as an engine choice will appear as a profitable tech at the same time.
So, a Volt in 7 years running hydrogen and electric would be cool until pure hydrogen engines could be manufactured.
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:54 am)Don’t worry fredevad, that stress twitch will go away in no time, it’s “hardly” noticable…
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:54 am)GM’s biggest issue is that being governmnet owned they have lost 30% of the USA as a market and lost loyal GM buyers. So the Volt is going to need to be better than Honda and Toyota cars to take buyers from them.
The % might keep going up too. I do hope government owned stock is sold off to the public, or the new GM will be in big trouble when election time hits.
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:55 am)Dreaming is GOOD!
I bet you are right in line with Frank and the rest of the team on the cost cutting measures too.
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:57 am)GM has so far (wisely) refused to divulge either the tank volume, or the charge-sustaining mode mpg; so you cannot infer one figure from the other (both are rough estimates).
Yes, Tag; “More than 300″ could mean upwards of 400 for all we know.
+3
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:01 am)I very much appreciate these graphs and continue to look at them carefully. On the first graph, I was looking at the relationship between the EV and EREV graphs at 60 km, where the circles are.
Now I know that there is no vertical calibration and much of the discussion is about GM’s prices, but suppose the vertical axis is calibrated as retail prices. If the EREV circle is at $41K, then the EV circle is at about $37K. That seems overly high to me for a 60 km EV, based on what we have heard. Maybe the EV line needs to be shifted down some.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:01 am)Congratulations, Dave G for being a big part of today’s discussion. We have long recognized your invaluable insights and now it seems Frank Weber has also. Job well done.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:02 am)I would also like to see a couple of other graphs.
One against an ICE only showing 20,30,40 mpg.
And one against the Prius and Insight with daily driving ranges of 40,50, and 60 miles showing no recharge for the Volt and then with recharge.
AND YES MY OBJECTIVE IS TO SHOW THE TROLS THAT THE ADVANTAGE IS E-REV.
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:05 am)“How come I can’t get my letters to be bold, italics, etc. in IE8.
Should I use Firefox?”
No, you should learn about html tags. A browser uses ordinary text characters to control things like italics, you just have to insert them manually.
Unfortunately, any attempt to give you an example will be interpreted by the browser as a text-style change, and will be invisible to you. If you have a “view source” option on your browser, you might get a glimpse of some of the syntax (don’t be overwhelmed by all the stuff that goes into justifying columns, inserting widgets etc).
OK, I’ll take a quick wag:
Let’s pretend, for the purposes of demonstration, that the braces “{ }” are the same as greater-than and less-than.
You could use the greater-than and less-than symbols kind of like parenthesis or braces. When you do this in an html-interpreted file, the contents can be a control character.
If I were to write (remembering our imaginary substitution),
{i}Wow{/i}
The word Wow would appear on the screen in italics. The control symbol in this case is “i”; use of the symbol at the beginning of the word turns italics on; “/i” turns it off. You can bracket the text this way also with “b” “/b” for bolded text, or “strike” “/strike” for strike-through text.
There are other tags you can use, but they aren’t supported here (it’s the prerogative of the site owner what tags are allowed).
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:06 am)How can we know the true benefits without knowing the MPG in generator mode?
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:12 am)With the state and limited quantity of battery technology today, it makes NO sense to me to have a large majority of this limited battery capacity sitting around unused in BEV’s protecting them from coasting to a stop. Exactly how much is THAT helping reduce the use of oil?
It makes WAY more sense to use voltec technology and use up most of that battery capacity on a daily basis. I would even argue that the volt should only be used by people who intend to regularly drive 40 miles a day, at least. Any less, and that precious battery resource is being unused and wasted. Not to mention that the EREV controls the longterm damage done to the battery by limiting how deep it is discharged, allowing the battery last longer, thereby getting even more “bang for every battery buck”.
This is just a no brainer. Always has been.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:17 am)I echo you Bill, a modern engine just doesn’t require all that much maintenance.
Jabroni,
GM is going for the mass market.
The plain and simple truth is that most people will not buy a battery only vehicle.
Even on this an electric car enthusiast site, the folks who are willing to go BEV and not EREV are a subset of the group.
Until large capacity batteries are nearly free and float in the air, the EREV has the upper ground over the BEV.
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:18 am)Yes, I can see your points. But how to redesign the chart to express it properly. It seems to me that both EV and EREV should start with a base cost of the vehicle alone (maybe the same cost factor), then rise vertically to a cost level representing the added cost with battery (EV) and generator (EREV) and proceed from that new cost point. The cost line for the EV would look similar to the EREV’s starting point then go across and up as miles per charge increases.
Regardless, the cost of EV only vehicles will still be more costly as you try to increase miles per charge. Until battery cost is no longer a large factor. When that will be is anyone’s guess. Not anytime soon, I am sure.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:18 am)Agreed, but as I recall, hasn’t Weber (or some other senior Volt official, I don’t recall for sure) said something about ER-EV being a bridge to the time when batteries are good enough to make BEVs practical? Surely, cost will play a big role in reaching that pont.
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:19 am)Jackson,
Thanks for straightening that out. I’d forgotten to instruct about the “/” to turn off the formatting. Senior moment (yet again).
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!************NPNS
-1
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:20 am)EEStor somehow manages to creep into every thread.
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:20 am)Frequent refreshes work wonders (sorry Tag).
By the way, I find that when I use “u” for underline, it appears in the preview (‘please wait, your comment is posting’) but not on the actual comment when it appears.
I’d like to appeal to Lyle to allow the “u” tag (in his spare time, lol), so that nasaman and I can have more text variations to emphasize with
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:21 am)Great.
Sounds like an old DOS function…hehe.
Thanks.
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:22 am)At this point in time with current battery technology, you are correct. But all factors never remain stable as new technology will push the envelope further and further. In either case, it is all good. Whether we drive in the future using EREV to go 1,000 miles or using a fully electric vehicle is of no consequence at this time. It is just not possible with today’s technology.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:24 am)Congrats on the retirement. There is NOTHING so luxurious as “time” – not HAVING to be anywhere at any particular time is priceless.
JMO
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!************NPNS
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:26 am)I’m thinking that you’d have to stretch that graph pretty darned far out to the right to see the point where BEVs would cross below EREVs.
Also, don’t forget that research isn’t standing still. As time goes by, less and less Lithium will be needed to store a fixed amount of energy; also, the proportion of available to total power is certain to improve past the present-day 50/50.
Also, once demand for Lithium begins to rise, efforts to locate the raw ore will increase from the current “meh, what the heck can we do with this stuff” phase to “Lithium wildcatting.”
Let the need get great enough, and they’ll start extracting it from the oceans …
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:28 am)LOL! well it IS powered by magic afterall…
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:29 am)The trouble is, I can’t believe till you believe. I can get close but no cigar, [smile]
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:30 am)“It would also be a lot of fun to have several graphs that contrast the cost-benefits of HSD “two-block” distance batteries at their replacement costs of ~ $3500 at 135,000 miles (which is what I am seeing here in Austin for both Prius and Inight) ”
Dan, I think you exaggerate wildly, here is a quick example of a used battery off ebay, $550.. new ones are about $2.2k from Toyota..
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/04-08-Toyota-Prius-Hybrid-Battery-VERY-CLEAN_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp3286Q2ec0Q2em14QQhashZitem1e577c8555QQitemZ130316797269QQptZMotorsQ5fCarQ5fTruckQ5fPartsQ5fAccessories#ht_500wt_1157
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:31 am)It is a good dream. If it were only to come true, GM could rule the auto world once again. But, as with all dreams, you wake up and say to yourself, “Now I wish I could remember that secret formula I created in that dream. It seemed so real.”.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:33 am)I definately am wearing a “Tag” hat on this point, I think the genset economy is going to be closer to 60 mpg.
+3
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:35 am)“IT all comes down to will I lose money buying the first gen Volt. Right now at 40-43k MSRP, the answer is yes. ”
You will lose money buying any new car, just get a 2 year old Corolla and save a ton on cash.
+3
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:35 am)Jabroni-
You should buy a new car. Take advantage of the cash for clunkers or something. Any car made by any manufacturer in the last 10 years is pretty darn maintenance free these days. Use synthetic oil and you can go even longer between maintenance intervals.
I think you are kidding yourself if you think that a BEV will be completely without repair bills. Particularly in the first generations. The weak points are battery packs and controllers. Under harsh and extreme conditions electronics fail. While a BEV should be much less prone to breakdown as a conventional ICE car, there still will be problems.
Maybe the E-REV is not for you and you can wait for offerings from Mitsubishi and Nissan, but for dare I say millions of Americans, the range extending feature of the E-REV is going to be well worth the minimal routine maintenance that will be associated with it. The Volt and cars like it, will not have to be relegated to just a commuter car, but will be the primary car.
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:35 am)Notice how (German born) Frank uses kilometers and not miles?
Eat hot lead, you non conforming US b**tards, heeh. Maybe you, Liberia and Myanmar should join the rest of the world someday!
/Wiesbaden & metric FTW, eh Frank?
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:36 am)So many problems to overcome to get to a rapid recharge environment (70kwh+). I don’t look for solutions to be found to these problems for many more years. The best we can look forward to for some time is the overnight charge or a shorter 240V charge in 3 – 4 hours. We just have to wait to get new technology developed to get us onto the path of really rapid recharge.
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:36 am)It would also help the BEV’s cause if a battery chemistry is developed which is less sensitive to heat and cold.
Probably on the way, but don’t hold your breath.
-7
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:37 am)Monkey Math + Marketing = FUD
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:38 am)If EEStor is real, they could put a half kilowatt hour ‘buffer’ between the Lithium Ion battery and the drive system. This is likely to cost less (at least at first) than building the whole pack out of EEStor capacitors, but would allow an EREV’s battery to last as long as a BEV’s (and with increased performance).
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:38 am)Maybe that should be: “I knew Dave, and Statik is no Dave.” Congrats to Dave, Lyle, GM and our Statik.
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:38 am)I have been thinking about a quick charge system and the thought that keeps coming to mind is saftey. When I fill my car with gas I have no fear even tho there are RARE happenings when a fire starts. But I think my fear of electricity with thousands of volts during a quick charge would result in me making sure nobody was in the car or even near it during quick charge.
Irational I know but I have seen things fry during a short.
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:43 am)Yeah the graphs do have that standard GM powerpoint look to them, which is a little distracting. Also agree that the Volt is a brilliant solution but do think that they need to spin it. That’s just sales and marketing, and I give them kudos for doing this.
I do think it may oversell things a bit since if people aren’t driving more than 100 miles the right hand part of the graph isn’t meaningful.
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:43 am)Thanks Tag!
I didn’t know that. I’ll have to try it out.
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:43 am)It’s pretty well understood that anyone stepping up for the Gen 1 Volt is “taking one for the world team” and will pay more than later adopters.
——————————————————————
The only way Hydrogen production will ever make sence is if someone (maybe you Adrian) comes up with a SAFE inexpensive “home size” ‘H2 distillier’ that can be sold in volume.
Run the things off solar and or wind.
The absolute lack of infrastructure and the near insane cost to build one is the reason H2 is halfway onto the reject pile.
(A couple H2 stations for movie stars just doesn’t count.)
I understand the cost to build your beloved fuel cells is dropping and that’s GREAT!
But if there is no fuel for the cell it’s pointless.
-7
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:44 am)GM’s China sales have increases 70 percent. Suggest GM rapidly move more U.S. production to China mainland to increase profit margins. No growth projected in USA for the foreseeable future. On the downside, most of GM’s sales are from cheap (less than $5K) low profit minivans. Also Volkswagen is poised to rapidly overtake GM in China sales because its technology and quality is so much better (this according to Shanghai-based Ping An Securities Co. analyst).
Come on GM , if you want to become profitable start moving those USA jobs to China ASAP !!!
Even a caveman could figure this out.
-5
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:49 am)Dan Petit: “their replacement costs of ~ $3500 at 135,000 miles (which is what I am seeing here in Austin for both Prius and Inight),”
Do you get up extra early to make sure you get stuff wrong?
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/10/prius-battery.html
Gen 2 Prius battery: $2299. The local dealer has sold a lot of Priuses (about 30/month for a long time) and has never replaced a battery. Go figure.
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:52 am)Statik? Is that really you? Are you trying to butter-up GM to get to drive one of the IVers? If so, good luck.
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:55 am)Ditto.
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:57 am)How far do you commute each day Mark?
Unless you have a VERY long commute (there are a few people who drive CRAZY distances everyday) NOT using gas for the first 40 miles is the benefit.
In my case, the genset would not start at all most weeks Monday-Friday. My old Malibu would have used at least half a tank (20 litres) in that time.
The genset mileage is irrelevant, and THAT my friend is the benefit of Voltec.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:58 am)You are right the without values for the vertical portion of the the graph it is meaningless. Fortunately, we can make estimates. The first graph is called “current costs”. We know that the ICE component of the Volt is somewhere around $2K. That makes each line of the graph to be about $4K. That is a pretty rough guess.
Just for fun, however, let us suppose that each grid line is actually a dollar. That would make the EREV costs to be $2 vs $1.80 for the BEV. If you have a 450 Km BEV, according to the graph. the costs would be $11. While the arguments for the EREV would still be true the costs to the customer for either system would be so low as to be meaningless. Then other considerations will have to come into play.
That, however, is not our situation and the $4K estimate feels pretty close to the truth.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:05 am)Battery for a House, but still worth looking at
http://www.popularmechanics.com/home_journal/home_improvement/4326258.html
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:08 am)If people drove all over the U.S. in EV1s they must have had a nearly unlimited time frame to do so. Going from LA to New York (lets say 3,000 miles) at 150 miles per charge with a 8 hour recharge (if it could be done in that time) would take 20 stops for recharging. That is just one way. If they drove all over the U.S., like you said, they must have taken a month or so off for the trip.
I just don’t remember ever hearing about any cross country trips from anyone who owned an EV1. Maybe so, but I just doubt it.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:08 am)From my wheelchair at the retirement home I will be known to say loudly and often, I knew DaveG and Statik, and you sir are neither!
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:09 am)Any more complements and I’m going to need a bigger hat (lol)
Thanks,
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!************NPNS
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:09 am)Don’t forget the problems and challenges involved with on board hydrogen storage.
Actually, a new reactor design might thermally dissociate water (which would be cooled by using it to boil water for steam to run turbines); but even in that hypothetical future, you still need a way to get the hydrogen out to the people who need it.
Best bet is probably some photochemical system which goes directly from sunlight to hydrogen without taking a detour into electrolysis.
BTW, except for the hydrogen part, there is already something out there which does something similar: biofuels.
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:10 am)LOL…..Hope springs eternal —– and hype flows ad infinitem!
+3
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:12 am)Sorry! Try as I might, I just can’t imagine it. I will try later. Maybe. If I am not too busy. If not today, maybe tomorrow. If not tomorrow it will have to wait until next week because I spend time with my grandchildren on the weekend. Gosh, I just don’t know when I am going to find the time. But I promise I will one day soon.
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:12 am)Good 2nd quarter Statik?
+5
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:14 am)Hey Jerry, I’d bet that there are a few million Chinese and Indians that can do your job better and cheaper than you do, thereby yielding higher profits for your employer. I look forward to the day when your boss recognizes that.
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:16 am)That’s the part I’m not worried about.
The charger will no doubt have ‘handshake’ (self test) capability ensuring the proper line connectivity before the supply line charges (powers up) fully.
Now how much “Shell” or whoever is going to CHARGE me for that service is what worries me!
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:16 am)I don’t think it’s irrelevant in the all-important arena of perception.
Wouldn’t that make the Volt a killer app? Go 40 miles on <$1 of electricity, then give Toyo a run at 60+ mpg …
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:18 am)Oh my, we’re getting good at picking aren’t we? Yes, you have some very valid points:
1. Since you would be able to use a much higher percentage of the pack with a BEV application the point representing for the EREV would be further off the line to begin with. In essence, the cost of the EREV would not be the cost of the BEV’s battery pack + the cost of the genset. It would be the cost of the BEV’s battery pack X (1.3) + the cost of the genset.
2. The chart doesn’t make allowances for fast charging (OK it’s not here). If it did then a BEV with a battery pack sufficient to power the car for 100 miles would also be sufficiently large to power it for 500 miles (just like an ICE car that goes cross country doesn’t cost any more than one that goes to the grocery store down the street).
3. The chart is somewhat inconsistent with GM’s 40 mile claim. IOW if the Volt is designed around the idea that it will cover 80% of a daily drive, then comparing it to much longer distances doesn’t make much sense. If you want to go 500 miles with any consistency then it’s probably not the right car and you should get a Jetta TDI.
4. It ignores running costs. If it costs $.02 to go a mile in EV mode and $.12 per mile to go ICE mode, then, if you consistently go 500 miles a day, the total costs of the two technologies would be much closer than suggested by the chart.
5. As you note it ignores maintenance costs, though I’m not sure they would be significant.
6. It sort of misses the point that you couldn’t really have a BEV with a battery pack that would power the vehicle for 500 miles. Even for a small car like the Volt the pack would have to be around 150 kWh, which would weigh what, 3000 pounds? What kind of “EV mileage” would you get going to the grocery store in that thing? And what would the 0-60 times be, 45 seconds?
7. It doesn’t point out the BEV would have more storage or could be smaller with the same amount of space because of the spaced needed for the genset.
The Volt design is brilliant. No question about that. And I don’t need to be convinced that the EREV design is way better than the BEV. However, the graph, when illustrating one reason why it is, seems to run the risk of overselling that point and confusing the main selling pitch of the EV 40 mile commute. It might be better if the graph to the right was eliminated and it topped out at 250 km (150 miles since that’s about all anyone would want from a BEV. And maybe miles would be better in NA?).
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:18 am)Any power that goes unused after your commute will be added to on the next night’s charge: using less power. I’m thinking the Volt’s power management system will know if you’ve only expended 30 miles of your AER, and only puts 10 miles-worth back into the battery.
It’s total cycles that’s important for battery life, not how they are used.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:19 am)Mark, the true benefits are that you can drive about 40 miles using no gas.
And that there is no range anxiety doing so.
It is not clear to me what further embellishment is needed.
+3
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:19 am)You must be on the West Coast, no-name. We never see you in the East until it’s almost lunchtime.
Either that, or your mama lets you sleep late.
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:22 am)I thought the genset was the whole selling point of the Volt. How can that be irrelelvant.
I find it odd that almost the majority of people on this site says they will almost never use the generator. Why get a Volt then. It seems they would be a perfect candidate for a straight BEV.
I do drive long distances everyday, therefore I seem like a logical candidate for the Volt. Yet no one wants to discuss the MPG in generator mode. To me, that is still the number #1 issue.
+3
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:23 am)Put up as many “EREV vs BEV vs Prius vs Uncharged EREV + Maintenance cost – Non Drivetrain maintenance cost * Government rebate^2″ Charts as you like. Here in the UK I care about one thing, and one thing only.
Petrol costs $6.55 per US Gallon.
My 5 door family size “sedan” (Vauxhall Vectra) gets 31 MPG(US). that’s $0.21 a mile.
The ampera gets me the same size car, the same praticality and better looks for $0.02 a mile electric, and if 43mpg(US) is right for ER mode (which seems realistic) $0.15 a mile. I’ve worked it out, my work commute is exactly 8,500 miles a year. Ampera – $170. Vectra – $1,785. My pleasure miles are around 9,000 a year, around half of which will end up in ER mode. Ampera $765 ($90 in electric, $675 ER), Vectra $1,890. a $2,740 a year saving, more if charge ports appear at work or elsewhere (they will) and more given my road tax will be cheaper. an even greater saving when petrol goes back up to $8.43 as it did last summer. The price premium will be swallowed in a couple of years, and if i keep it for ten it will completely pay for itself. This car is going to DOMINATE the european market.
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:24 am)From my wheelchair I’ll say that I’ve known both of them, Ma’am and you are neither of them!
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!************NPNS
+8
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:25 am)I’m a daily BEV user. BEVs don’t make a great straw man for EREVs, do they? Try pure ICEs for comparison for better win?
The graphs:
* Ignore the higher maintenance and the many, many other oil/gas related personal and social costs and inconveniences of anything with ICEs.
* Show clearly that right this second, BEVs are lower cost than EREVs for ranges of less than 75 miles and at half the cost, 100 miles, which covers 80% or more of all US daily driving, so they are ideal for high population local area lower speed fixed route delivery services (mail, florist, bakery, produce, etc.). This explains why BEVs will be so popular for local commuter vehicles (Zero S, etc.), small business local hauling and delivery and recreational and off road uses (Zero X, etc.) and why common ranges for todays BEVS include 100, 60 and 40 miles, to slowly increase as power pack prices slowly decrease. On propulsion cost alone, my BEV daily driver (motorycle) for my 26 mile commute was the correct choice for me according to the GM graphs above, though that’s not why I chose it (highest performance and multi-functionality for the lowest vehicle lifetime price was my criterea – I never expected in advance that the answer was going to be a high performance all electric motorcycle for me).
If you want a single enclosed vehicle right this second that does it all as close to existing transportation as possible, with all electric drive and an electric range that covers 100% of daily use plus infrequent irregular use (long, high speed travel), an EREV is now the obvious the way to go, made mainstream by GM. Kudos to GM for good thinking on how to transition to all electric drive as seamlessly as possible for us Joe Sixpack 40k car buyers. Huge kudos to GM for being somewhat transparent and forthright, for calmly and somewhat reasonably supporting and advocating their vision and standing behind the Volt – it only succeeds if they MAKE it succeed.
Both BEVs and EREVs clearly have a long term and substantial role in US transportation. There’s no need to try to put a negative spin on BEVs, as Starcast does, in order to support EREVs (following the GM graphs, at a quarter the cost of power packs, BEVs are lower propulsion cost than EREVs at the 125 mile range, for example, etc). EREVs and BEVs are complements at this stage of the game and support each other. Indeed, there are valid roles for all sorts of types of hybrids, plug in (parallel and dual mode) hybrids, EREVs and BEVs, though the 100% electric drive of the latter two clearly offer permanent performance and luxury advantages.
Having said all this, both Dave G and GM completely miss the point.
The real contest for market penetration is not between EREVs and BEVs, as they complement each other and only have partial overlap, it’s between all electric drive, including EREVs like the Volt, and pure ICEs. Show us some graphs on that one. Perhaps some torque curves a la:
http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/acceleration_and_torque.php
just as valid for the Volt, if not as extreme,
or some decibal readings differences.
What makes me willing to spend more than on a pure ICE vehicle to get a Volt includes:
Instant, strong, uninterrupted and near linear acceleration available at all times, with maximum torque at 0 rpm and up to about half of the maximum speed, for superior performance, especially in poor road conditions.
Near linear decelation available, thanks to regenerative braking, that’s a safety feature in poor road conitions and saves brake wear and tear for lower and less maintenance costs.
I suggest a cute little safety test on black ice with three vehicles next to each other – one with regen braking and two without. At speed, in neutral, and at the same time, on the regen equipped vehicle, lift the foot off the accelerator which engages mild linear regen at the same time one without the regen has the foot lifted from the accelerator (pure coasting) at the same time one without the regen has the brake stomped on and held fully down. See which one stops first without skidding or sliding. It’ll be the the regen equipped one every time.
Luxury quiet and non jerky operation.
Those are all qualities inherent in 100% electric drive with regen braking. I wouldn’t consider the Volt for one second if it didn’t have all electric drive. With it, I’m willing to pay a premium (to a point) above an ICE (or a parallel hybrid) to get those superior qualities, regardless of its range extended mileage or fuel efficiency.
The extra range and fast refueling option of an EREV is frosting to me. It’s the 100% electric drive that’s the cake to me, with the extra weight of the ER generator a small bite out of the cake to get the frosting. Once you’ve tasted electric drive, you won’t go back.
Show us why we want to buy the Volt rather than a pure ICE Hyundai Elantra, up front price considered, and then I’ll start to be impressed by the communications.
The bigger challenge is for public/commercial recharging to make what already works well fall off a log easy. Obvious front line candidates for public/commercial recharging stations are:
Churches
Public (gov’t ,education)/Corporate parking garages
Mall/shopping center parking garages
Restaurants (want more of a top off to your power pack ? – order desert and coffee). There’s a MCDonalds in NC that already has a station.
Sure, in the long run, we could see fast recharging, swapping, in road on the fly recharging, non-power pack at vehicle energy carriers, etc. for electric drive. It’s the all electric drive that matters and Volt’s got it.
/ EV ramblings off
+4
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:26 am)I agree. I’ll say it again, for about the 100th time. My wife WILL NOT consider a BEV. Game over for me. Plus which, I actually sort of have to agree with her.
As so many have said, maybe in 20 years. As if I’m going to care, hehehe.
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:28 am)I think we just got some more information about the mpg for the Volt in extended range mode. Frank Weber says that “When the battery’s energy is depleted from driving in pure electric mode, the engine generator produces electricity to extend the Volt’s driving range to more than 300 total miles.”
We can assume that over 300 miles means the range isn’t 350 miles or over 350 miles. Otherwise he would say that. So the total range would be between 300 and 350 miles. Let’s just say 325 miles. Subtract the 40 miles of EV range and you end up with 285 miles. On a six gallon tank that’s 47.5 mpg. Close to the published computer simulation number of 50 mpg. Could be more. Could be less. But that seems to be the ballpark.
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:28 am)Now that Dave is famous, perhaps he should open a BBQ restaurant.
/sorry
+4
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:30 am)I would rather buy 100 km BEV than 64 km AER EREV (like Volt), since I drive less than 100 km per week (and I am not burning any gasoline now
I don’t want to pollute atmosphere).
I hope GM/Ford will produce some BEV in 5 years or so, because Toyota/Hyundai are ugly.
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:32 am)Great point. I’m not sure at what distance the line is crossed between it being better from an energy standpoint to drive a Prius. I don’t think it’s 40 miles though it would for sure be 5 miles.
That said, I would still drive the Volt with a five mile commute. Way cooler tech.
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:33 am)Mr. Weber,
I agree with the intelligence of the Volt approach for most people. But something that strikes me about these graphs is how the “Propulsion Cost” axis would be more accurately labeled “Propulsion Equipment Cost” since it ignores the cost of fuel. Over a 450 km (270 mi) trip with a 40 mile battery, the driver would burn 230 miles of gasoline (5.75 gallons at 40 mpg), which translates to $20 at $3.50/gal gas. I imagine the electric cost for a similar 450 km trip would be closer to $4-$5 or so. If the driver takes one such trip a week, this translates to an annual fuel savings of $780/year by driving a BEV. If long mileage days are even more frequent (taxis, delivery vehicles, transit buses, etc.) the fuel savings are even higher. Granted, there is still a range limit issue. But if the BEV reliably return to a “homebase” where night-time charging is guaranteed and it is likely that they will not run out of battery charge in a pinch, and the economics can actually become favorable.
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:36 am)That was a great explanation. Thanks from everyone!.
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:38 am)I give your concept a plus, but that plus is canceled out by the fact that Maxwell has real products on the market now
+3
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:40 am)This reminds me of Jean-Charles Jacquemin’s prescient comment, so many months ago, to the effect that the web, in all of its manifestations, was going to allow the ordinary people of the world to work together to have more control of their lives and futures.
If responsible GM decison makers have actually started to pay attention to GM-Volt.com, let alone to actually respond and communicte with us, it is a striking confirmation of Jean-Charles’ insightful thoughts. It is very encouraging, not only for the Volt and GM, but for its potential in so many other areas.
Well done to Dr. Dennis for his groundbreaking efforts, to GM for responding, and to each and every one of you who have participated so effectively. It gives me new hope that this stuff may actually work.
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:40 am)Test….
H( . y . )TERS!
Hey, it worked…
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:40 am)I’ve seen studies, now four or five years old, that conclude the differences in maintaining a BEV and an ICE vehicle aren’t that great, mostly because, as you mention, the ICE vehicles have gotten very good.
That said, there are plenty of non-powertrain components on a car that can fail. Let’s hope the Volt has above average reliability.
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:41 am)Test…
H( . y . )TERS!
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:42 am)Test…
H( . y . )TERS!
+4
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:44 am)Compare the cost of the Volt to a highway-speed-capable BEV and you’ll see why it seems like Christmas morning to all the “don’t use a drop of gas” people.
In the back of my mind, I think maybe a third of them would go flocking to the first 100 mile BEV that costs less than a Volt the instant it was available.
I find the generator to be more relevant, perhaps; and I still think that an EREV100 would be superior to a BEV100 because
1: It will run like a normal car in all weather (the engine is a source of heat in cold climates, prevents the A/C from stealing all the power in hot ones)
2: It will be an “only” car I can take anywhere at anytime with zero notice (this is a must in real-world situations where you find out a parent or child has had an accident and is in the hospital, the detailed list would be endless)
3: Flexibility. I’m not grounded if a second Hurricane Katrina cuts fuel deliveries to Atlanta, nor if there’s an ice storm this winter that knocks out my electricity (happens more often than you’d think, Yankees).
Yes, a public recharging infrastructure could change this somewhat, but in this case, I think the horse comes before the cart. A strong EREV market may make (standard rate) public charging venues appear, and they must appear before a BEV even begins to make sense for most drivers.
If you really think that BEV is the ultimate answer, the EREV is your friend (I think that the other 2/3rds of the ‘no gas’ people have fully realized this).
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:45 am)I wonder if Jerry knows Jack Russell? Or maybe I should send Jake to pay him a visit too.
On the way to work today I was struck by the large recent increase in “For Lease” signs on big box warehouses along the SoCal freeways. Maybe we should take Jerry’s advice and then just put up a great big “For Lease” sign on the east coast facing the Atlantic and another one on the west coast facing the Pacific.
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:46 am)lol…
You probably never shoul’ve told me this….
The ICEAge is over, Embrace the VoltAge!!
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:46 am)I’m here for you buddy!
+3
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:51 am)Thanks for that hard dose of reality, Flan.
Unlike the US, it appears that Voltec will make a strong economic case from day 1.
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:55 am)Interestingly here is a review of Mazda RX8 hydrogen drive, one thing that jumps out is the HP drop. in gasoline mode its 210, in hydrogen, an anemic 109.
http://en.autos.sympatico.msn.ca/GreenCentre/article.aspx?cp-documentid=20875580
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:55 am)I started to imagine that chart with a Prius on it and…………. I forgot, what was I doing again??
+3
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:57 am)Dear God, what have we done ….
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:58 am)Excellent post Jackson. I agree with you on all counts. Well said.
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:00 am)They’re too big and expensive.
In reality, I think such a buffer will end up being made using MIT’s “energy channel” Lithium Ion technology (or something similar).
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:01 am)OK, guess I didn’t finish my thought there well.
Of course there is a point where the battery range averages down and the genset economy comes into play.
Jackson is right too that the perception of the economy is extremely important as well.
BUT what I’m saying is lets say you drive 60 miles a day.
(I’m guessing because you didn’t share the distance.)
Through the week you’d drive to work full electric and 1/3 of the way home before the genset kicks in. You have driven 60 miles on 20 miles worth of gas. Even if the genset mileage sucks, which I doubt, you still average a very good mileage figure.
In my case through the week the genset wouldn’t fire up at all most weeks Monday to Friday, however on the weekend I can go to the Mountains or wherever with our 1 ‘good’ car. (The Volt)
The trick and the reason I will go with the Volt is the ‘most weeks’ bit, there are no range worries with the Volt, a quick call redirecting your days plan and extending your drive is not a ‘get stranded’ situation.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:02 am)Suprise post from the best known pro toy troll on GM-volt.com
I would if you have the data to back it up, but personally when I tried, it kept appearing ABOVE….
sorry Charlie..the graph seems starkissed
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:14 am)Test
Dang, didn’t work…
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:14 am)Congratulations to Dave G and Frank Weber for an excellent thread today.
However, one aspect of the situation in 6-8 yrs has not been accounted for. I agree with the estimates of 25% battery costs but would like to indicate that battery energy density (Wh/kg) is going to increase rapidly. Assuming the base stats of the Tesla of 53 kWh and 120 Wh/kg leading to a battery weight of 450 kg, this figure would be reduced considerably. The latest values for energy density are over 200 Wh/kg which is a factor of 1.7x the Tesla figure.
If we assume that in 6-8 yrs the factor is conservatively 3x, then the weight of the 53 kWh pack reduces to 150 kg.
It is important to know that the rate of energy dissipation at lower speeds (city driving) is proportional to the mass of the car. At higher speeds aerodynamics become important.
For a car with, say, 1000 kg (2200 lbs) weight, the reduction of about 30% would lead to a range increase to 290-300 miles (from 220 miles of the Tesla). Consequently, the 53 kWh pack instead of the 70 kWh size should be used. Using the other figures of Dave G this leads to a difference of 2.6 k$ and not 5 k$.
Both battery cost reduction and energy density improvement will slowly tilt the balance in favor of the EV.
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:15 am)Very interesting read, EVO. I take it you are committed to electric drive? Heeh, as Statik would say.
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:18 am)lol….
I wonder if this works on the VoltAge site.
BRB….
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:18 am)Dave’s Restaurant where the food is “finger licking good”! Want a recharge with that order of ribs?
-9
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:19 am)Absolute Rubbish. Anyone can create and manipulate selective numbers to support an agenda. Good Stuff for GM Sheep to feed on.
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:20 am)EEStor – it never stops giving.
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:20 am)Jackson,
Is the MIT energy thingie (technical term) the nano tech one developed there, or something else.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!************NPNS
+3
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:26 am)I wanted to add something…thinking about the recent months with the doom and gloom swirling around due to the bankruptcy etc., today’s post by Frank to our group was like a big dose of warm sunshine. Seriously, that really made my day to see a member of our group acknowledged and validated like that.
Still brings a smile to my face.
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:31 am)EEStor FTW !
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:31 am)Created a monster(s) we have!
H( . y . )TERS! er, I mean,
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR***************NPNS
+8
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:32 am)Is it wet under the bridge?
+3
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:32 am)Good points. My 2 cents, I believe the charts are ther only to illustrate a concept/idea. A real data chart would have numbers on the Y axis. That’s a big pink area, but what are we really talking about without the numbers…. $1000? $10,000? $100,000? However, i understand the point Frank is making.
However i believe this chart is only discussing the initial cost to buy the vehicle. If Frank (or someone at GM) has free time, why not do a life-cycle cost chart, say over 10~15 years. You can use variable rates for the price of gas & electricity, or leave them the same. One thing i think you will notice is that as battery prices come down, gas prices go up, and electricity prices stay the same, the longer the car range, the cheaper the BEV will be vs the ICE or EREV. I know that the battery technology & pricing aren’t there yet, and gas prices are still pretty low, but there are other life-cycle costs to include, such as oil/fluid changes, filter changes, and basically any ICE maintenace that wouldn’t be seen in a BEV. I think this is important information to consumers. Also, in general, ICE repairs are going to cost more than electric motor repairs. Typically in electrical systems it is actually cheaper to just replace the electronics vs. in the case of an ICE, say paying a GM certified shop technician $70/hr to put a head gasket, or whatever.
I guess what i’m trying to say is, long story short, there’s a lot of other cost/variables than what is shown on the chart, but i understand the points Frank was trying to make. Now do a life cycle cost analysis.
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:34 am)Muddy
I’ll sleep well tonight then. No, wait, that didn’t sound quite right….er, just thanks.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR***************NPNS
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:38 am)Plus installation – whatever that cost is.
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:39 am)Re Jackson and H2 storage, it needs 5K to 10K PSI in the “gas tank”. Tough to do at home.
Why the heck are we talking about hydrogen anyway? I think someone important posted today.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR***************NPNS
+3
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:40 am)Yeah, that’d be a very long bridge!
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR***************NPNS
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:41 am)not to put myself out on a limb, but i can see rapid charging in the next 20 years. i guess i dont know what you specifically mean when you say “many years”. I guess we’d have to define “rapid” too.
480V, 3phase, at 200amps would charge in 45 minutes. That’s pretty quick. You could stop and get lunch & a charge.
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:42 am)“Oh, boy…deinitely a small tank. 260 mi. / 6 gal. = 43.3 mpg”
——————–
I think it is more a case of GM just not saying what they plan to offer. Even if the 43.3 MPG is true, that is still mighty good gas mileage for the vast majority of drivers. Not as good as a 2010 Prius, but still good.
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:42 am)LOL! It’s funny, I didn’t notice it was in kilometers… it was just easy to read! We’ve been metric long enough here in the great white north that I have to convert TO metric to get my head around the numbers…
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:43 am)Mark M
I am ever the optomist regarding the 50 mpg in range extending mode based on the great milage I get with my 99 Buick Park Ave on a road trip. I drive for mpg and strongly believe that GM can build a computer program that will be much more effective than me at generating additional mpg.
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:47 am)Well said Don with one small exception.
We use Metric here in canada… pretty sure Mexico does too.
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:48 am)Firefox returns a blank comment with that combo. Or I am doing it wrong.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:55 am)I thought US engineers and scientists use metric? It’s the laypeople who still use miles?
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:58 am)Dave G… you’re the bomb!
We can all second that! It’s great to see Frank Weber making an appearance and commenting. Kudos to Lyle for doing such a great job with the site and Dave G for his comments.
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:58 am)Agreed. Thanks Dave G. I’m very impressed.
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:59 am)Errr, maybe we’ll just punch each other in the shoulder and have a couple beers…
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:59 am)Nice one, I would agree with this math. Too many unknowns though
.
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:00 pm)Firefox returns a blank comment with that combo. Or I am doing it wrong.
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:01 pm)OK. Thanks to Jackson’s comment below. I looked at the page source and found the answer. I was doing it wrong. Shout out to you Jackson.
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:01 pm)Punch, towel snap, it’s all good. No beer though, with all these reality inducing drugs, I’d need to pass on that (lol)
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR***************NPNS
+3
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:02 pm)Dear Mr. Weber,
Please forward your 2 Powerpoint slides over to the Marketing Department. Have them add a simplified version of your outline that you posted here. Ask them to put it all together in a new magazine ad with Megan Fox in a hot looking lab coat and a pointer stick. [she would be more of an attention getter that Mr. Lutz in a pink tie]… Finish it with a nice photo of the black VOLT (though I would prefer Victory Red) and… Ta-DAH!!!!
There is no better time than the present to start getting the word out.
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:03 pm)Looks like the other doesn’t allow HTML tags. This site only allows basic but it’s a smart thing.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:04 pm)Not that it means anything, but that’s the answer I got from the GM rep at the New York auto show. 40-50mpg.
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:04 pm)Very interesting!
The 200 f operating temp pretty much means a static installation to be well enough insulated though.
However as someone who has been looking at home solar/wind systems this could be a fantasic breakthrough!
I’m thinking the home battery would ‘dump’ charge to the Volt before I went to the ‘outside’ line.
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:06 pm)TOTALLY OFF TOPIC:
Have we ever polled how many countries and/or states we represent here? I know we have Canada, the USA and NZ. Is Jean-Charles in France? I’m in the geographic center of Penna. We ought to start a list (or maybe a thread, Lyle).
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR***************NPNS
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:06 pm)Not magic…unicorn horns.
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:07 pm)The point I am trying to make is that you can’t just go to Walmart in 2009 and buy a Li-ion 50+ kW battery. Maybe you will in 2029. Right now, that battery takes a lot to produce it, and there are precious few being produced, relatively speaking.
If the true purpose is to reduce our dependence on oil, why would you take that valuable battery and use it 5 miles a day? And leave the rest of the capability unused? Using the volt as the example, it would take you 8 days to go 40 miles and displace about 1.5 gallons of gas. In my case, I drive 100 miles a day. I would drive 40 miles one way on electric, charge during the day, drive 40 miles more going home electric. 80 miles a day electric, 20 gas. In 8 days, I would displace 24 gallons of gas using the same car as you. With a BEV, where you need all this extra battery capacity to prevent you from calling a towtruck, the useage is worse. It is a waste of battery resources, in 2009. One day when 200 mile range batteries are on the shelf in walmart, it won’t really matter. Right now it does.
If you just want to drive electric and can afford the car, its your call certainly. But clearly someone that drives 5 miles a day is not making the best use of a valuable asset. That battery.
IF…. the REAL point of driving electric is to reduce oil dependence. And isn’t vanity or ego.
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:07 pm)70kWh BEV? Who puts in a 70kWh battery? Even the Tesla Roadster’s massively over-sized battery is only 53KWH.
Most BEVs will be 100 mile range vehicles with batteries in the 20 to 35 KWH range. (The Aptera may come in slightly lower due to hyper-efficiency.)
EREVs are the way to give long range. But for a short commuter . . . BEVs are better.
+3
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:07 pm)Your 100 km a week translates to 20 km a day. (assuming no driving on the weekend)
A Volt burns no gas at all in this scenario.
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:07 pm)Rest assured the Volt will be a home run. You don’t need to worry about that. BEVs, PHEVs, and EREVs all have their advantages and disadvantages. I think his point was that it’s a mistake to pit one against another given that at the end of the day they can all make a contribution to a common goal.
Personally I don’t think that BEVs are viable at the moment, except for an expensive car like the Tesla Roadster or a very efficient vehicle like the Aptera (which can go 100 miles on a battery pack not a lot larger than what you’d find in the Volt). But they do have some advantages, and as the cost of batteries comes down they could work for some people.
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:08 pm)I think I’m past the point of no return on that one. (=
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:09 pm)More optomism!
I would not be surprised if this GM developed software even monitors my driving in real time and optomises the extended range control for how I am driving on this trip.
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:09 pm)About 1.2%…same as last quarter (could have been 1.3%…but I foolishly bought some ill-timed options ‘for fun,’ that I had to clear out of under water)
/wild man, lol
-2
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:10 pm)Whoops! Sorry Canada. (NAFTA notwithstanding, Mexico isn’t in NA, is it?).
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:12 pm)I’m in Southern California. Home to one of the highest densities of “commuters” in the state.
Also, now home to one of the highest densities of the unemployed; bankruptcies; mortgage failures; unqualified “clunker” trade-ins, and Starbucks Coffee Houses.
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:12 pm)Being the cheap bastard I am, we came up with a crazy Idea brought up by a few other buddies of mine. When I make my DIY conversion, someone suggested that I add a few more KW to the pack so I can fully charge at work (for Free) then plug it in at home and power my house on it till 30-25% SOC. Of course I will need an auto transfer swicth similar to a solar circuit. Theoretically it should last at least 6-8 hours. Then use the 30-25% SOC to drive back to work and “Fillerup!”.
lol, man, drunk dudes come up with crazy sh|t!!! But It will work.
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:13 pm)I thought unicorns were magic.. my mistake, I stand corrected!
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:14 pm)For now.
Technology advances. Economics change. And the interaction between the two is often hard to predict.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:20 pm)I think it’s the greenie equivilent of a 455 big block!
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:21 pm)Re N Riley’s comments on how the graph might be drawn:
Doing it the way you describe would be more informative, and I think it would be better. Maybe next time
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:25 pm)My daughter lives in NYC and you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a Starbucks.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR***************NPNS
+3
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:31 pm)The Prius is a great car for a reasonable price, but it doesn’t deserve a special line on the chart, because it gets all of its energy from gasoline. Sure it uses less gasoline than most other cars, but when cars with plugs are part of the conversation, I consider the Prius to be a cleverly built conventional car.
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:31 pm)It is on my map.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:34 pm)I was thinking the same thing… when you punch in your destination in the NAV the car KNOWS you will be going up a ‘good’ mountain pass here and it’ll be flat there…
I’m still pushing the 60 mpg range as completely possible.
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:35 pm)Or exactly like a snippet of modern HTML.
<b>bold</b>
<i>Italic</i>
You can also do unorderd and numbered lists, and links.
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:35 pm)Just as random FYI:
Toyota had a press ditty on this not that long ago. The older ones are 2,200ish (can’t remember exactly), the 2004 and newer are $2,588 (called the NHW20, these batteries are superior than the originals, 1/4 the weight and a third more juice..expected lifespan on these is 180-200K). The average shop time install is 2 or 3 hours. I’ve heard anywhere from $170 to $330 . (You can also get these batteries at discount as well for $2,100, if you have the will power to hunt it down).
Of interest: There is a $200 kickback out there on the old pack, if your crafty you can get some of that action.
Sidenote: For many the warranty is 10/150, in CARB states: New Jersey, Connecticut, Oregon, Arizona, Washington, Rhode Island, New York, Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Florida, Colorado, Utah, and of course California (did I miss any)
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:35 pm)Hi Tag,
We’re probably not far from each other if you are Central PA. Maybe we’ll pass each other on the way to getting our Volts serviced some day!
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:39 pm)Right now EREV is cheaper. But I would still want an EREV even if a BEV was cheaper. For that to change–fast charging stations would have to be readily available. And they would have to iron out the temperature requirements.
The point at which I think the general population (at least those who don’t live in the far north) might be willing to go with a BEV in spite of these issues is when batteries become so cheap, that BEVs with a 350 mile range at 70 mph at with the air conditioning on are half the price of a 100 AER EREV.
And based on his charts–that’s not going to happen anytime soon since even when they drop by 50% the EREV is still cheaper.
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:40 pm)If you’re near me, I’ll stand out because I’ll have a CAR (lol). I’m in Lock Haven on the beautiful West Branch of the Susquehanna river.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR***************NPNS
-1
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:42 pm)Lets ALL try out our HTML skillz.
/so l33t
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:43 pm)Scientists yes, Engineers no.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:44 pm)You’re not making any sense. The jobs are created by the given vehicle demand. If the Chinese market is growing, they can step up production in China to meet the demand from the Chinese market. But that has nothing to do with the jobs in the US, which is geared towards the US market.
+3
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:45 pm)I wonder which is worse, to desperately want what GM is saying to be true and believing it or to desperately want everything GM says to be a lie and believing it to be so.
For me the choice is easy, I find optomism to be pleasing and pecimism to be, well depressing.
-10
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:46 pm)(click to show comment)
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:48 pm)It even keeps with the Pirate theme!
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:49 pm)… there used to be a chain of BBQ restaurants called “Famous Dave’s.”
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:51 pm)Hence the problems NASA has experienced…
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:52 pm)Yes.
That’ why I don’t need any gasoline engine in my car.
-5
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:55 pm)Introducing the illusive Chevy Volt.
Today a $40,000.00 car with the price of its materials increasing daily.
FF to November 2010:
Purchase your $4#,###.## Volt at a select Chevrolet Dealer near you. Hurry before the next price increase takes effect…
+3
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:01 pm)I’m with you. The U.S. should go metric.
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:03 pm)Holy Text-Styling Batman, you opened up a whole new world to me.
Thanks.
From the looks of things you seemed to have helped others as well.
I don’t feel so stupid.
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:03 pm)Relying on my memory is really dangerous: but I recall something first about silicon nanowires in the cathode which would allow more energy to be stored for a given amount of Lithium (which is one reason why I keep going on about that); then, much later, the “energy channel” battery which basically improves the way energy gets into and out of the cell (resulting in high power surges from fewer cells; though not as much energy overall as the LG pack). Initial results were comparable to ultracapacitors in terms of power and cycle-life.
The latter cells are reportedly being developed to market by A123.
Somebody straighten me out – ! (I’m sure I butchered that somewhat, too lazy to google right now.)
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:05 pm)Still is. I’ve been to two of them in the Puget Sound (Seattle) area. Yum, but I wouldn’t want to make it a frequent stop if I still wanted to tie my own shoes (or see them over my belly).
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:07 pm)Dang, now that was funny.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:09 pm)Back in my software designing days, we’d be flow charting our logic and when we came to a particularly tricky area where we weren’t quite sure how it was going to play out, we’d insert a box in the diagram that simply said “Magic happens here.” I suspect that is how the blueprints to Zenn’s upcoming CityZenn looks in the area of battery storage.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:14 pm)Hey…where is Dave G anyway.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:18 pm)I would venture to say that for a short commuter, a cheap, fuel efficient gas car is better.
At least until 50kW batteries are produced by the millions per year and/or gas cars disappear.
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:19 pm)Tag – TN now. Have established the household for good (after several corporate moves) in the Volunteer State. Previous stop (20+ yrs) was PA…eastern edge of “Dutch Country”. Your state was a good place to live and raise a family.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:22 pm)I’ve been a fan of sodium sulfur batteries for years; if they’ve come up with one that operates below 200 degrees F, that’s a major breakthrough.
I haven’t really given up on the idea of putting such batteries in larger vehicles (such as trucks and busses), but the danger here is that the batteries could “freeze” and become useless until re-heated (expensively) by hooking them up to the grid until they get warm again.
200 degrees F isn’t that far off of normal running temperature for an internal combustion engine.
…is anyone else thinking what I’m thinking?
Cap’n, are you drunk enough yet to follow this – ?
It seems like a “low-temperature” salt battery could be a match made in EREV heaven; if the temperature dips in the pack, run the engine until it warms up again (but plugging it in will keep it warm without extra current if it hasn’t already ‘frozen’).
Energy densities for other versions of this battery are easily comparable to Lithium Ion (and there’s no shortage of Sulfur and Sodium).
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:22 pm)Noel,
Very well put and I feel the same way as you and Schmeltz. The door is cracked and that beam of sunlight is warm on our (prison pallor) faces. I’m the eternal optimist and *I* didn’t see this coming.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!***************NPNS
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:22 pm)Once battery prices drop sufficiently and charge capacity increases then I could see GM offering a BEV Volt. All they would have to do is junk the ICE and replace it with a bit more battery and a software upgrade.
In short the voltec system is flexible and possibly future proof. They could even replace the ICE with a HFC but let’s not go there.
+3
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:29 pm)Warning: Topping off your power pack at a BBQ joint may decrease your range.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:29 pm)Fair enough, and if you never have a reason to go beyond that range then a BEV may very well work for you.
I’m bettng your scenario is more unusal than usual though.
Once you start running kids to their activities in the evening (band, dance, football, hockey, take your pick) you will start hitting battery limits and wishing for that EREV.
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:32 pm)A trolling you do go….
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:32 pm)A trolling you do go….
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:33 pm)i’ll tell you, just looking everyday at sites such as Technology Review, Science Daily, Green Car Congress, Alternative Energy News, etc. – it’s enough to make your head spin in terms of trying to figure out which upcoming technologies will fly and which ones will never get off the ground. Just a few days ago, a company called Joule Biotechnologies, Inc. had a press release for their SolarFuels project.
From GCC: “Joule says that its direct-to-fuel conversion requires no agricultural land or fresh water, and leverages a highly scalable system capable of producing more than 20,000 gallons of renewable ethanol or hydrocarbons per acre annually. Such yields would far eclipse productivity levels of current bio- or renewable fuels.”
Then you have IBM getting serious about lithium-air batteries:
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22780/
And on and on. Having said that, I haven’t seen too much to lead me to believe that hydrogen will be a serious player in future automotive fuels.
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:34 pm)LOL!
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:34 pm)Very correct.
+3
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:35 pm)EVO – is that EV Only?
Note that the graphs are in km, not miles. 75km is 46 miles, so the break even point between EREVs and EVs is a lot lower than 75 miles.
Also, note that maintenance costs for the ICE in an EREV will be much less than for an ICE only car, since the ICE will not be running most of the time.
If all cars were EREVs and everyone used ethanol for the range extender, we would essentially eliminate gasoline. EREVs can replace 80% of our current gasoline consumption. Ethanol can replace up to 35% of our current gasoline consumption, without any affect on our food supply.
http://www.coskata.com/EthanolFeedstockPotential.asp
80% + 35% = 115%, more than enough to completely eliminate gasoline.
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:36 pm)Your example fits my description pretty close. With technology, a decade is a long time.
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:37 pm)WAIT A MINUTE!!!!
Hold on a sec, I just actually looked at the graphs….
I am assuming the comparison is on the Volt.
I know that a BEV will have a much deeper DOD, probably in the 70% range. The Volt is in the 50% range on avg by design.
So let’s assume they BOTH have a 16KWh batt pack. The EREV green line should start at 30% of the GRID SCALE above the BEV line. Why? becasue by design the EREV will use only half of the pack.
The intersect points should be closer to the 130KM point AND you can’t compare the “Range Extender” numbers beyond the capability of the lowest metric, the BEV. Anything beyond the lowest metric is apples and oranges. That’s like comparing a standard ICe to a BEV per their range.
Quote from thread:
“However, even with the added cost of the range extending engine generator, the total cost of the system is still significantly below that of a limited range BEV”
OK, then Post the cost of the Genset!! How much is the ICE and how much is the Generator and how much is the 3Phase Full wave bridge rectifier, regulators and other power electronics required to manage and maintain charge by controlling current AND Voltage to protect the batt pack from getting over 1C of surge from the genset along with sensors and breakers and interface applications developed to “Monitor” all of the above for the “Range Extender”. Sheesh, what do we have to campre in $$$ that you offer? Nothing, so going beyond the metrics of the battery performance per a dollar is senseless.
All the graph shows is the “Range Extender” allows you to use Gas and the BEV stops where it stops. Doesn’t everyone already know that?
On the second graph, I don’t know why they even moved the green line. There is no competition for LiMn cells so is there really going to be a price reduction on a “Niche” chemistry/cell? I could be wrong, but they (LG) have a contract now and what incentive does LG have to reduce the price if no one else sells this specific type of LiMn @ power/kg per an unkown cell AH rating. I’m sure GM told them they can’t deviate from that because that is what they engineered the batt pack around.
There is no mistake though on how the EREV can trvel further, thus eliminating “Range Anxiety”.
Did you get the idea that I think the Graph’s are Skewed?
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:38 pm)Added weight and all that!
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:38 pm)High hoe a cherio a trolling you do gooooooooo…….
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:38 pm)High hoe a cherio a trolling you do gooooooooo…….
+3
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:39 pm)You’re BOTH right. It’s powered by magical unicorn horns. The horns of non-magical unicorns will not work.
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:39 pm)I was thinkin the same thing. This is his kind of stuff.
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:40 pm)Yeah! People used to ask me how our computer did all those things I would program it to do. I would tell them it’s all “Magic and Mirrors”.
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:42 pm)That’s beautiful country there Tag. My wife is a graduate of LHU and she loved her time there in college. Sometimes we camp at Little Pine (near Waterville). Just a real nice area, especially in the fall with the foilage along I80. Enjoy!
We’re North of Harrisburg in the country. We probably have more cows then cars!
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:42 pm)Too bad, my friend. I am still holding out hope I will bet one next spring to use for a couple of months. Well, a guy can hope, can’t he?
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:42 pm)I really don’t have issue with what you are saying at all, sounds fairly logical. The only problem I see is that they haven’t confirmed the tank, if anything they ratcheted up the doubt on it recently.
More often than not we assume it is 6 gallon, because originally it was a double bladder 12 gallon one. However, when they decided to tell us the double tank was scrapped, they very deliberately wouldn’t answer our next question of, ‘is it 6 gallons then?’
Just little over two months the author of this post himself (Frank Weber) told Lyle in a interview, “the gas tank will be between 6 and 10 gallons”
And, on Lyle’s May 29th, 2009 interview with Andrew Farrah, he had this to say on the tank, “I’m still balancing (the decision). I can trade off fuel tank size for other things. As we’re taking the vehicle through this critical phase of development this calendar year, there’s a strong likelihood I’ll still be making changes to that variable.”
http://gm-volt.com/2009/05/26/volt-chief-engineer-on-chevy-volt-gas-tank-size-and-stale-gas-management/
I think we all agree that 6 gallons is the likely absolute floor, but between Weber and Farrah it sounds quite likely that the pack will be larger. I think you have to allow for upwards of a 8 gallon tank here, which would be around a 36 MPG figure (assuming your 325 range)
The ranges:
6 gallon (325 miles total) = 47.5
7 gallon (325 miles total) = 40.7
8 gallon (325 miles total) = 35.6
9 gallon (325 miles total) = 31.6
10 gallon (325 miles total) = 28.5
Not saying your wrong at all.
…I’m just saying
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:43 pm)“with Megan Fox in a hot looking lab coat and a pointer stick.”
She’ll get my “Attention”!!!!
Megan, I’ve been a Baaaad boy…….
+3
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:44 pm)I think 40 miles is a “sweet spot” which was picked as the best point, statistically, to make a go of a car like this. If it takes off, you won’t have to look far to find lower AER vehicles of this general kind.
Given the work to lighten and lower the costs of the batteries, I doubt the lower AER variants will ever be much more than cost-busters. I couldn’t get much excited about plugging in every night for a measly five miles (I think the PHEV10 Prius from Toyota is likely going to run into this sentiment as well).
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:46 pm)Ditto, mainly the unknown is the gas tank. BIG unknown and has the greatest numeric affect in the formulas.
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:49 pm)UGH. Let’s not.
PS. Embedded CSS styles get stripped, dang it.
PPS. All this talk about “tags” in here… don’t worry Tagamet, you’re still the original GM-Volt “Tag.”
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:50 pm)Could a BEV turn out to be a good “kid’s car,” instead of Grandma’s old junker? The lack of range may actually be an asset; preventing “road trip” parties. Just let them know that if they get stranded on the side of the road (especially where they shouldn’t be), it will result in a grounding (and not in the electrical sense).
/removing tongue from cheek
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:51 pm)OK. So, where does the “smiley face” come from. A link? Or keyboard combo? I am quite dumb on HTML coding. I am like a monkey. Show it to me and I can mimic it from then on.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:53 pm)Awwww…
Group hug.
Get picure out of head…
Get picure out of head…
Get picure out of head…
Get picure out of head…
Get picure out of head…
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:54 pm)You are wise as well, old man.
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:55 pm)The things you would do to get the tie
-4
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:55 pm)Sloppy Post. I could fart, create a post like that, and be back before the smell was gone.
-1
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:56 pm)EDIT, moved up into the thread string.
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:57 pm)This whole thread seems a little wacky/suspect to me.
- $2k for the whole genset (exhaust, accessories, radiator, fuel tank etc. etc. . . . etc. . . . (gm cost, or not, that’s wacky) )
- unlabeled graphs that don’t even start out on either axis with a “0″ segment, (pure marketing stuff from a laserbeam focused engineer(?))
- at “today’s cost level” the graph show a 250 km (134 mi) BEV propulsion system at 4x$ that of a volt ?
- I’d much rather have Mr. Weber just give me the “known’s” . . . . not highly speculative and (arguably) innacurate marketing spin.
– Volt or no volt, GM needs to get busy with a BEV offering, there is a place and a market for them.
/This IS the “new GM”. . . . right?
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:58 pm)Marietta, GA. It’s a fact around here that if you live anywhere within 50 miles of Atlanta, you tell people in other parts of the country that Atlanta is where you’re from (so just put my pin in the map there)
We aren’t as bad as SoCal with commuter-density, but we are consistently high on any list for “road rage.”
Georgia currently leads the country with it’s jobless statistics (or they were claiming this last week in the local media).
I went through Pennsylvania once, up near the lake. Pretty country.
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:58 pm)In warmer climates like with Dan Petit and his heatwave this could be a real possibility for use in heavy trucks or busses.
Keeping something at 200F in Canada in the winter on something mobile is a very energy intensive proposal. You would need a really large insulating ‘blanket’ to have a chance at keeping it warm enough.
However in a stationary installation, you could go underground and your insulating layer could be as thick as you like/need.
I do wonder how fragile these batteries are since the cost seems to be so much less for these cells.
Jul 30th, 2009 (1:59 pm)Dimitrii said:
“I hope GM/Ford will produce some BEV in 5 years or so, because Toyota/Hyundai are ugly.”
===============
Well, wish granted. Ford said they will have a BEV Focus with 100 miles range out in 2011…and 4 electric cars total (various platforms) out by 2012.
They already put out 500 million or so to do the plant conversion. They plan to produce about 10,000 a year, but said they will produce more if ‘demand is there’
Seems reasonable to expect them to follow through…after all they just got 5.9 billion in DoE loans, and are already back in line for 5 billion more in ’round 2′
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:00 pm)The stress on an ICE in an EREV is so much less demanding that the maintenance will be even less than the minimal maintenance of an ICE in a car now.
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:01 pm)He commented today near the top, he’s just likely still in shock and isn’t terribly chatty.
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:02 pm)Anything to help you and Nasaman get your thoughts across to the rest of us. Thanks again for the HTML help.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:05 pm)I have come to a conclusion that I am too damn lazy to add HTML tags….
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:05 pm)You found another toy to play with, haven’t you Capt Jack?
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:07 pm)Jackson,
Think what you may have let loose on the world. Capt Jack with HTML coding knowledge! You may certainly regret this.
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:07 pm)EXACTLY!!!
Twisted minds think alike.
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:08 pm)All of these genset-mode MPG guesses make me wonder about the real efficiency of the Volt’s ICE —> generator –> electric motor —> drive wheels vs. a conventional ICE –> drive wheels approach.
Like Einstein would say, let’s do a mind experiment. Bolt a conventional 1.4L 4-banger ICE with clutch and tranny into a Volt chassis and body and measure performance and mileage. Compare that with a modified Volt – one with only a small load-buffering battery, meaning that it would always be running in generator-mode – and measure performance and mileage.
I would think that the conventional ICE drive would give you more performance and mileage, because you’re using the direct power of the ICE, whereas in the modified Volt, you are exchanging one type of power for another (and you always lose something in every power exchange). I just wonder how big the difference would be.
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:08 pm)I am sure it will. Give ‘em hell Capt Jack.
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:08 pm)I think he meant the jobs in China are making a profit for GM while the jobs in USA are not (they are losing money from some of the models). So GM should close money losing factories in USA (lost jobs) and create more factories (new jobs) in China to meet foreign demand then overall GM as a whole would finally return to profitability. Let’s face it $14/hr for the USA union job cannot compete with China’s labor cost (i would guess maybe $2/hr in mainland maybe less).
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:11 pm)At the time, the kWh figure (and the range it produced) itself on the BEV was jejeune to the excercise of displaying the trendline of the economics of scale on the two platforms.
Besides that, when I tossed out the 70 kWh pack suggestion, I also gave a range of 300 to 400 miles (which depends on the driving)…which would seem to be inline with what you are suggesting.
Here is the original reference:
Statik said:
July 28th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
“I have a $100 that says a 16kWh pack won’t be 25% of what it is today within 6-8 years….Further to that, if the price did plummet that fast, you can be assured the death of the EREV platform would soon follow. That kind of pricing means you could have full BEVs sporting 70+ kWh packs on the cheap. I assume you extapolate it falling even furhter as time goes on as well.
70+ kWh packs translate into monster ranges, (even using DonC’s conservative ‘math,’ heeh). When electric ranges start hitting numbers like 300 and 400 miles, the EREV platform is in serious peril. Personally, I think it is 15-20 years before we start seeing anything like that kind of distance out of a afforable battery pack.”
———————-
———————-
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:12 pm)Tag, maybe you can borrow Dave G’s after today. If I were him my head would be swelling today, for sure. Its all good.
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:12 pm)North America, until you get to Central America (Belize, Honduras, Nicaragua, costa Rica, Panama…did I miss any?)
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:13 pm)There is that, Bob. However, there are a couple of factors which prevents me from dismissing the idea:
1. If the molten salt battery pack is made as nearly spherical as possible, there will be minimal surface area to insulate. The larger such a pack is, the less heat transfer there will be (this is why I mainly think of these in trucks and busses).
2. There are some pretty decent advances being made in the art of insulation (including, but not limited to: aerogels, radiant barriers and even dewars).
3. The difference between the optimum temperature for a Lithium pack and ambient winter temperatures in someplace like Yellowknife may not be all that much higher than the difference between optimum temperature for this new battery and summer in the Deep South (it’s the difference between the temperatures that is relevant), so this may not end up being as difficult as you imagine.
As to fragility, at temperature the electrolyte is a liquid, but beyond that I couldn’t comment. Vaguely similar thermal batteries have been used for years in military applications which involve a lot of transport and vibration (ever wonder what powers the electronics in a missile?).
Sorry if this seems like a slam, but I’m really starting to get excited by this.
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:13 pm)This is why most local governments are beginning to formulate “appropriate” tax schemes for the onslaught of EVs in the future. This would keep EV thievery such as this in check. I am all for a green tax of some sort because of the massive infrastructure costs to support the move to green. Somebody has got to pay, and it should be the early adopters without a doubt.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:15 pm)It seems to me were I in a position to control information, I would ‘let’ everyone keep saying 43 mpg until it’s time to make the ‘real’ marketing push and THEN reveal the real number.
(closer to 60 mpg)
<:-) complete with TAG hat!
-1
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:17 pm)We enjoy using our ‘human’ units that depend on human dimensions like the length of the King’s arm, the size of his foot, the spacing between his knuckles. We don’t like those antiseptic ‘scientific’ units like those other people.
-10
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:17 pm)(click to show comment)
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:19 pm)There is the other side of it though.
If they told us then we couldn’t have fun speculating and complaining they haven’t told us anything!
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:20 pm)CA claimed 11.2% jobless a few days ago.
We’re screwed.
But they passed a phuked up budget for the State.
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:20 pm)There are going to be plenty of places to charge. A few days ago I saw three electric golf-carts plugged into outlets at the front of a Publix in St Petersbug. The drivers were buying groceries inside. Does that Publix understand that its customers come in golf carts? Well of course. The same will happen elsewhere.
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:21 pm)Its complicated.
The issue for Engineering is that a large number of machines, guidelines, mechanics, designs, etc were originally done in “English” units. I think in the United States Engineering community, the age of the industry is really important for determining if it follows English or Metric and the amount that is globalized. I’ve worked with a few dozen companies, and its really mixed as to what the standard is for thier engineering.
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:22 pm)I agree about the “why the heck are talking about hydrogen anyway” comment. Why waste time and money on something when we can better spend our money developing electrical systems to create, deliver and utilize the power of the sun, water, wind and the atom. Research can continue on track to some extent with hydrogen, but it is not anywhere close to being a valid source of fuel for us anytime soon.
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:22 pm)“I’m in Southern California. Home to one of the highest densities of “commuters” in the state.”
OMG, he’s not lying. I-5 from Valencia to Anaheim sucks big time a$$. WTF!?!?!?
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:23 pm)Another example of GM being intentionally selective in their comparisons.
Initially I gave Frank some slack and assumed he really was only comparing the cost of the pack and was therefore justified in ignoring the many other factors. He also pigeon holes the initial conversation by writing “when vehicle range is the primary consideration”. Taken at that, Frank has made a strong case for both a hybrid and an even stronger case for a pure ICE as compared to the Volt (apparently smaller battery = better).
But soon he departs by writing plainly incorrect and misleading things that go beyond the battery. Things like, “There are no compromises associated with an EREV”. Frank, I know your own baby is always perfect in your own eyes, but don’t forget how you came to have this child in the first place.
As for, “And it can be the primary car for customers from places as cold as Kapuskasing, Ontario…”. “can”? So could a bathtub with four tires and pedals. But it shouldn’t. Between the Volt having to use electricity to heat the batteries, to needing to have an ICE running to generate cabin heat (I don’t imagine the batteries will last long with the heat on), to having the ICE run to keep the batteries warm when you can’t plug in… many people could be running the Volt mostly on ICE for most of the year. What sense does a Volt make in such circumstances?
Did I at least point out ONE valid compromise there?
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:26 pm)Calgary
We’re going through the little City becoming a Big City traffic pains.
Gone over the million mark in the last few years… Some days the commute is pretty slow.
The view of the Rockies is quite fantastic. It’s about an hours drive west of Calgary to get to the edge.
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:28 pm)Agreed, there is a market for them. I will buy a BEV. It’s looking like from Nissan, but it could be GM if they made one. Why not make a BEV and Extended range version? Hell, throw a battery pack in a Cobalt!
I don’t have range anxiety, and I don’t want an ICE in my car!
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:29 pm)What if the after-market comes up with an add-on range extender ICE for a BEV that is either legal or semi-legal (illegal, but no one cares)?
If that’s possible, would a BEV + add-on ICE be cheaper than an OEM EREV?
That would be a huge migraine for GM…
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:31 pm)Wholy crap.
I’m becoming . . . . a pirate!
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:33 pm)Yo hoe yo hoe, a Priates life’s 4 me….
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:33 pm)This is a program which interprets the ascii-symbol “smiley face” from a few years ago into actual smiley-faces. A lot of site-hosts use it (but many don’t).
Just type: colon, hyphen, close parenthesis and see what happens.
NOTE: There must be a space separating the ascii smiley from any other text, or the software won’t pick it up. Most of the “emoticons” you remember from email have actual counterparts:
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:33 pm)I’m not sure what’s so hard to understand here.
Sure, you can compare the kWh to kWh, but that’s not the entire cost of an E-REV. That’s only part of it.
For argument’s sake, let’s stick with the 500/kWh stated up there.
As others have stated, 70kWh is pretty high. Tesla is only using 53kWh..
So let’s go with that. $26.5k for BEV battery (53kWh), $8k for EREV battery (16kWh)
Now, if you want a fair comparison, you have to keep in mind that the BEV’s storage is only batteries. The E-REV’s components also include the range extender and associated costs. Add $5k for that (it may cost more, who knows?)
So initial costs, excluding body, electric motor/drivetrain, etc.
We’re talking only electricity sources.
Our “longer” range EV (vs 100mil/160km models to come in near future) costs $26.5k to start, EREV $13k.
Now, let’s say we drive 25 000 km a year. That sounds pretty average to me, at least for people around here who commute.
All electric, you’re looking at ~2c per km. So $500 a year costs to drive. After 10 years, you’re looking at $31,500 total cost for propulsion.
Now, E-REV. Since the first 65km is battery only, i’m going to do an equal average. There are 260 “work days” in a year, excluding holidays and such. Since it’s very hard to average everyone’s driving habits, lets just go with work commuting for the numbers. So lets take off 10 days for holidays, and we have a nice even 250 days for 25000km (100km a day – basically how I estimated the number)
So that’s 65km a day @ 2c + 35km a day at 7c.
After 10 years, the two are very close in terms of overall costs.
BEV: 31 500 and EREV 28 375
However, there are a few flaws in this comparison that we can’t possibly account for.
1) gas prices. In 5 years time, who’s to say gas wont be 3x the cost it is now? If that’s the case, EREV becomes far more expensive.
2)what sort of fuel economy will the range extender actually get? (and real-life here)
7cents is based on current gas prices locally to me (~$1/L) and about 34MPG (a reasonable highway rating of today’s engines)
3) costs for maintenance of an ICE range extender are not included. No one knows what those will cost, but it’s certainly higher than the (essentially)$0 of the BEV’s propulsion system.
4) this doesn’t take into account wear on batteries reducing range.
If mileage is less than my estimate, of course you wouldn’t be bothering with EREV as you don’t need the long distance. And you wouldnt be buying a large-range EV, but rather something with that 100-160km range. (half the cost right there)
And if you have a longer range (but still within the 200 or so range of the BEV, your costs would be highly dependent on the price of gas and efficiency of the range extender.
If I double the numbers, so we’re going 200km a day now, the BEV ends up costing 36 500 and the EREV 37750
However, your BEV would probably wear out much faster, using nearly 70% of it’s true capacity now. This also makes the EREV more susceptible to price changes. If gas costs rise by 0.5 cents/km per year in the last 5 years (again, who knows what will happen?)
With that “guesstiminflation” EREV and BEV still remain neck-in-neck at 10-year costs, especially if you factor in maintenence costs of the ICE.
Of course, if gas price skyrocket, then BEV is the clear winner.
If gas prices plummet (why do I doubt that…?) then EREV is the clear winner.
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:38 pm)I tried the “unorderd and numbered lists”, it didn’t work.
How do you get the Smiley?
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:40 pm)I already do
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:42 pm)Edit mode kicked me out before I could fix it.
EREV costs are actually significantly more for the 200km scenario – a whopping 45875 (not 37750 as stated above) as I was still using 65% electric 35% gas in the formulae.
And even if your battery wears out, I would imagine it wouldn’t cost more than the $9000 difference in 10 years. Again, they break even. And your 10 year old BEV would have a new lease on life with a fresh battery (perhaps even more range?). Your EREV would still have the same old engine and battery, though.
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:45 pm)No. The only valid compromise I see between the Volt and an ICE is the value of any amount of AER for the initial price. But you didn’t point that out.
As for the rest of your comments, we don’t know the frequency with which the genset will come on in cold weather so that issue will have to be revisited later. One assumes the savings of a plug-in will at least cover the conversions losses of a more frequent genset use.
Love the Volt, but with my short commute the savings don’t offset the initial and ongoing expenses even at European gasoline prices.
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:46 pm)kdawg, I think its interesting that you feel electricity will stay the same price. More realisitically, Electricity will raise in price, at a higher rate if we (as a society) insist on “100% clean” sources such as Wind and Solar.
The primary advantage of the EREV system is that until a battery charging/switching concept is invented that works in the real world, the EREV is essentially an emergency policy. I think a very valid question is “what would you pay to be able to refill you electric car in 10 minutes to travel another 200+ miles?” Even if the cost with an EREV system is 5,000 dollars more than the same range BEV, thats only 40 dollars a month (assuming 10 year ownership) for this policy… Personally, even if my electric car had a range of 200 miles of BEV, I would be tempted to purchase an EREV type system (maybe with a much cheaper, lower power, etc version to bring the premium down since I expect to rarely use it…). Then there is the question, if you had such a system what is your lower threshold of adoption for BEV? I know personally, I would want a BEV with at least 150 miles of range for a Single Car situation. However, with some kind of “limp home mode”, even if it was only able to give me 40 mph speeds, I would be more comfortable with 75 miles. And the Full power EREV system, I would go all the way down to 30 miles (my daily communte and ~60% of my miles is round trips less than 30)
So I guess what I am getting at… a “life cycle cost analysis” makes sense if your comparing apples to apples. But BEV versus EREV in long term operation are drastically different. EREV gives greater utility than even 1,000 miles BEV…
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:47 pm)“I don’t have range anxiety, and I don’t want an ICE in my car!”
Same here. The 40AER is 20 more than I need for my commute.
Just drop the “T” pack in a Chevy Spark with a range of 50AER and call it done. I’ll buy it, as long as it is affordable.
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:50 pm)Statik,
While I agree with all you said, I would go one step further. It doesn’t really matter if battery cost comes down to 25% or 10% of today’s estimated Volt battery cost. What does matter just as much (really more to most) is extending the range of the battery without increasing the size and weight to accomplish the goal. You can have a $15,000 EV capable of highway speeds with the capacity to carry 4 or 5 people with luggage and if it only goes 100 miles you still have the reason for EREV. Range anxiety will always play a major role with a fully electric vehicle without a range extending generator until you have a system that can carry the EV for a very long way at a comparable cost to regular ICE vehicles (or cheaper). If the batter cost does come down, the EREV would be cheaper also and still give you range without anxiety.
Both will play an increasing role in our transportation planning, but EREV will be the choice of the majority for the foreseeable future.
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:50 pm)Well…we try to use metric as much as possible. It is generally the tooling/manufacturing people that mess us up and force us to use imperial units.
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:52 pm)I’m pretty sure the Volt set up is more efficient.
However, the Cruze should serve as a decent analogue to test your theory out. They are very similar cars, same platform, and will offer the same engine.
Of course the Volt is 600lbs heavier, but you could always throw some ‘fatties’ in the back of the Cruze. Maybe only 2 fatties though, you have to allow for the affect of the lower CdA on the Volt.
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:54 pm)Right, and then all of the laid off auto workers, and all of the other people who lose their jobs in the “ripple effect” will run right out and buy the cool new cars imported from China.
There’s an end to it somewhere. Will the last one to leave please turn out the lights?
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:56 pm)No name, you really need to take your stick and go find yourself another anthill.
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:58 pm)Hey, look who joined us…gratz on the fame my friend!
Sidenote: Now all you need to do is parlay that into a movie with Brad Pitt too. (=
Jul 30th, 2009 (2:58 pm)No more than the rest of us.
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:00 pm)MuddyRoverRob said:
“Once you start running kids to their activities in the evening (band, dance, football, hockey, take your pick) you will start hitting battery limits and wishing for that EREV”
===========
Hm… good point. Since I’m not even married, I never thought about such option. But, such things can change very quickly
2 statik
This is good news
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:02 pm)Tag:
Thanks. I was just thinking that you are really on a roll here the last few days. For a while there you were pretty quiet, and I know that a lot of us were concerned. Now you seem to be back with a vengance, LOL. I’m really glad to see it. It makes the blog a lot more fun.
And I would make you a small wager that even the dreaded statik would secretly agree.
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:02 pm)Not a slam at all.
I was thinking crystaline salt which is very brittle and would definately still be solid @ 200F. If they have a way for it to be liquid then the fragility concerns would be much reduced.
You might be right about the newer thermal insulators, but as a lifelong northerner I have a great respect of the cold and how it can ‘eat’ heat energy.
In the better safe or sorry ideal, I’ll bet on the cold winning everytime.
When I was in the airforce I was posted to Cold Lake.
Somebody got the bright idea to convert our brand new 1987 Chevy 4×4 one ton crewcab to propane to save money… That truck was lost to us for 6 months of the year because the propane system couldn’t operate in the cold.
The batteries used in our stuff were either dry, lead acid, or gel cell.
I’m excited about the possibility of a large capacity affordable battery cell too! Although I think it’ll be much more likely to be used stationary here that doesn’t diminish its usefullness.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:03 pm). . . and I’m sure you’d enjoy all of that, especially the last part.
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:03 pm)Oh man, I hate to think what’s next!
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:04 pm)Hmm. I’m not so sure. Let’s say I’m working out on an exercise bicycle, and the belt is connected directly to a propellor operating as a fan. Next, I have an exercise bicycle where the belt is connected to a generator, which powers an electric motor that turns the propellor/fan. If the RPMs that I pedal at and the resistance are the same, are you saying that the propellor will turn faster in the electric motor version? Because if that was the case, then why not convert ALL conventional cars to an ICE/genset/electric motor/minimal load-balancing battery setup? I’d think that the added weight and cost of the genset and electric motor would be offset by not having to use a clutch/transmission.
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:07 pm)Jack Russells were bred to go down fox holes and drag out the foxes which the hounds had driven “to ground”. I’ll bet they would be pretty effective under bridges as well.
Sorry. The poor guy had no idea what he was starting when he dreamed up the “Jack Russell” cover name.
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:08 pm)DonC,,
From my viewpoint your analysis of the chart equals Dave G’s analysis of yesterday. (Already seems longer.) While I can’t dispute or substantiate all your points, I find them fascinating. Great job. Now let the fur fly from others who may disagree.
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:09 pm)An unknown making this even more ‘murky’ is that in the genset the little 1.4 can run at optimised speeds which ‘should’ greatly improve efficency.
There also is the lack of transmission in the voltec drive so you eliminate those gear losses.
I think at the very least it’s going to come out at a draw, but am leaning toward the genset dwelling 1.4 being significantly better.
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:10 pm)Statik he’s singing your song (pink ties).
-1
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:11 pm)I hate the smiley faces, that is why I have patented the reverse smiley, it never gets pixelated. (=
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:15 pm)Yeah, us too. And the worst air, BTW. So come on electric cars!!
Tag’s right about the Starbucks though. We were in NYC last week and took the Grayline open top, double deck, bus tour of Manhattan. Laugh all you want, but it’s a great way to see the place. If memory serves, the guide said that there are 288 Starbucks on Manhattan, for the highest density in the country.
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:16 pm)The way I hear’d it, “North America” is everything north of “Central America” and attached to the predominant western-hemispheric land mass.
Since the north(western)-most border of Central America is comprised of Mexico’s borders with Belize and Guatemala, that makes Mexico part of North America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_america
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_america
Sorry. This post wound up being a little pedantic.
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:17 pm)Why don’t you like internal combustion engines?
Liquid fuels have way more energy density than any battery, including EEStor. The combination of EREVs and ethanol can easily replace gasoline, without any affect on our food supply.
As Ulf Bossel says:
“Heavy duty and long distance transport by land, air and sea will be powered by ‘the last drops of oil’ or hydrocarbon biofuels”
http://www.efcf.com/reports/E17.pdf
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:20 pm)Test
Goitit…
Thanks
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:20 pm)Not true! All my Electrical engineering is done in microns (er, micrometers: 1/1000000 of a meter officially) and nanometers (1/1000000000 of a meter.
And for the “bigger” numbers, there’s a difference in how inches are sliced up. Civil engineers typically slice inches up by powers of 2 and Mechanical engineers typically slice inches up by powers of 10.
For anything smaller than mils (1/1000 of an inch) I suspect it’s pretty universally metric these days, though. (Um, does anybody out there use microinches for anything anymore?)
And yes, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Volt.
I could tie it back in by wondering if the oil drain plug will be english or metric, assuming almost everything else will be metric. Oooo, spark plugs will probably be english, too.
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:20 pm)Jackson:
Same here. We live in a little city called Rancho Palos Verdes and our business is in Bellflower. But we just shrug and say “LA”. Or, as Mayor Villaraigosa says it, “Elay”.
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:23 pm)Call for Jake!!
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:23 pm)It’s really handy if you happen to have a foot the exact same size as a “foot”. I can pace off all kinds of stuff with great accuracy. The metric system is harder because I don’t have anything the size of a meter on me. At least nothing I can reveal in public.
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:24 pm)“So could a bathtub with four tires and pedals.”
For all you know this could be your Nissan.
You have to credit GM for its transparency.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:25 pm)Cue MuddyRoverRob and CaptJackSparrow please.
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:28 pm)>> Cap’n, are you drunk enough yet to follow this – ?
LOL! You guys are a hoot.
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:28 pm)Ordered List:
Test
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:29 pm)Best and Worst Day Ever at GM-Volt.com:
“Hi, this is Bob Lutz, here is some info for you:”
—-
2011 Chevrolet Volt
MSRP: $41,450
AER: 41/city 37/highway
MPG 45.7 (epa tested)
Cd: .268
CdA: 6.3ft²
Weight: 3,497lbs
Onstar: Forced
Finance or Lease: Both
Cupholders: Way too many
Solar Panels: No
Rollout: California, New York, DC, Florida
Nationwide: June 2011
Worldwide: Jan 2012 (see our website for list by country)
Pre-orders: Yes, April 1st, 2010 (@ fastlane for link)
Pre-production fleet to public: No
2011 Production Run: 11,542
2012 Anticipated Production Run: 35,000
Release Date: November 28th, 2010 (Yeah, I know its a sunday. We are making our dealers open for it, we can make them do what we want them to now)
My personal phone number if I missed anything: 313 555 4723
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:29 pm)Imagine what a deal a Volt/Ampera would be for him, once the price drops (say) 33%… due to economies of scale, cheaper cells eventually, and so forth.
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:33 pm)Which way is your compass needle pointing, Captain?
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:35 pm)Are the Flames (Hockey team) still there? You know where they came from, don’t you?
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:37 pm)Congratulations, Dave (I wanted to type it to your ‘face’)
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:40 pm)“Why don’t you like internal combustion engines?”
They are dirty, overly complex, hard to maintain, oh and a little thing called pollution…..
The combination of a BEV and the solar array on my roof can easily replace my need for gas or ICE engines.
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:41 pm)I wonder what the kwh equivalent of 6 gallons of gasoline/E85 would work out to?
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:46 pm)It strips it out! Gah!
For those who are new to mixing HTML together, I’ll mention that every forum (or forum-management packaged) draws the line differently when it comes to stripping out HTML. Of course, there is a lot of nasty things you can do if you can post HTML on somoene else’s site. One innocuous thing would be if I were to refer to a large image from a small server on a high-traffic blog, I could cause enough requests for that picture to overwhelm a server. And that’s just the beginning.
Of course, I never remember which site does what, and I sometimes end up with strangely formatted comments….
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:46 pm)It doesn’t matter if the government didn’t own any of GM. It would still have to be much better than a Toyota or Honda vehicle to turn sales away from them. The Volt (and other GM vehicles) can’t be almost or as good as a Toyota or Honda. To sway the public they have to be better.
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:48 pm)Your argument proves too much. Imagine a yellow line for a Honda Fit, well below the blue line for the Prius, extending and extending far further to the right.
There is always a cheaper car till maybe you get to the Tata Nano.
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:52 pm)lol….
Yeah, what he said.
My personal goal is to have a BEV or the Volt and use the following years Rebate to help pay for a Solar package. This way I don’t pay to “Fuel up” my car.
Got kind of tired of making a weekly deposit to the OPEC folks.
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:55 pm)By itself it wouldn’t mean much of anything, but in conjunction with other information it’s suggestive. We have the statement from the web site that the computer simulation gives the mpg as 50. (Computer simulations are always a bit optimistic, don’t know why but they always seem to be). We have Frank Weber saying the range should be over 300 miles. And we have the GM representative at the auto show saying the mpg will be 40-50.
Taken together all the pieces start suggesting that 40-50 mpg will be the number. At this point my guess would be about 46 mpg. Time will tell though.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:55 pm)Imagine a chartruse line at the bottom labeled walking shoes…. Just above that a pale magenta one labeled Bicycle…
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:58 pm)I think the price of gasoline/oil will go up much more than electricity. There is only 1 fossil fuel source for gasoline, granted biofuels do hold some promise. However, electricity can come from a multitude of sources. Its very flexible, thus the phrase E-flex. For example in the US we keep finding more and more natural gas, and finding more ways to get more out of old places (your winter bills should be lower this year). Natural gas can be used to create electricity. Then there’s nuclear, and renewables/wind/solar, etc. So with all the different supplies, i think electricity price/cost is much more stable than oil.
I’ve listed these before, but i’ll post them again. For me to buy a pure BEV, i would need 250 mile min range, in -20 degrees, going 70mph (whatever battery/technology that requires, thats what i want). It has to charge in the time i sleep, or about 8 hours. It has to cost $40,000 max.
I’d like to see a 10-year life cycle cost of an EREV, a BEV, and an ICE next to eachother. Most equipment that companies buy, they do a life cycle cost analysys to see what they are really buying for X amount of dollars. I’d like to do the same thing w/my car. Even throw in resale value at the end, or scrap value.
Jul 30th, 2009 (3:59 pm)As long as they are not being an a$$ about it differing opinions are always welcome.
The possibilty of replacing the genset with either batteries or an alternative (Mr Fusion for example) has been discussed many times.
Arthur, I think were such a car built they wouldn’t call it Volt, it would be a separate model.
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:00 pm)Thar she blows!!!!!!!!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:01 pm)BEV vs EREV useful life expectancy
===========================
In the BEV vs EREV debate there is also the vehicle’s viability as the batteries age. Currently the average ICE car in the USA is on the road for 17 years. Most new vehicle purchases probably are not concerned with this.
In years 10 to 20 a BEV’s range will drop significantly and will have more limited use. A vehicle with only half the range will cause much greater range anxiety and be more likely to be scrapped sooner due to lack of potential buyers willing to suffer “enhanced range anxiety”.
On the up side, an BEV would only need the battery to be replaced (as long as the power electronics hold up) and then it is significantly reconditioned.
An EREV with a AER of 20 miles won’t likely get scrapped until the other components make it not economical to repair. The ICE life expectancy is greater than an ICE only car. So EREV can probably limp along for longer without major part replacement. 20 miles AER with no range anxiety has a reasonable second hard resale market.
Thus the expected lifetime of an EREV for average Joe (not BEV purist) is greater without investing in a major part replacement. Also if an EREV battery is replaced it would be smaller and cheaper to replace (a major consideration on a 10+ year old car). So owner of an old EREV is encouraged to put new life into a 15 year old EREV rather than scrapping it.
So I suspect that EREV wins on likelihood of avoiding the scrap yard for more years. Another environmental plus.
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:06 pm)“crystaline salt ”
Hey, I know what that is.
It’s that crystal stuff around the ring lip of a Margarita glass!!!
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:07 pm)Well stated.
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:07 pm)The torque isn’t anything special, either at 103 ft-lbs.
My Jetta TDI had only 90-ish hp, but with 155 ft-lbs of torque it felt quite powerful in everyday driving. It would climb steep hills without downshifting or loosing speed, even at high speeds (80+mph). Even though the RX-8 is very different vehicle, the size and weight of these two vehicles are in the same ballpark, so I’d guesstimate that an engine with the same specs would produce a drivable vehicle.
Of course, the Jetta TDI is optimized for high-speed highway travel, not autocross — so it wouldn’t be for everybody. Still a pleasure to drive, though!
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:09 pm)We are all still hoping GM has been under promising and will over deliver on the Volt.
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:12 pm)I have to agree. Excellent post. Well said.
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:13 pm)in 2010 the EREV formula is 8Kwh (usable), 1.4L engine, 6 gallon? gas tank
in 2015 maybe 12Kwh usable, 1.2L engine, 4 gallon tank
2020 maybe 20kwh usable 1.0L engine (if any) and 1 gallon tank
I didnt run the numbers or actually do any math.. just trying to say i think the batteries will get bigger in KWH (not so much size) as the price and energy densities increase and therefore the engine and gas tank could be reduced as technology marches on. I’m not going to draw a powerpoint graph for this
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:19 pm)It is important to know that the rate of energy dissipation at lower speeds (city driving) is proportional to the mass of the car. At higher speeds aerodynamics become important.
For a car with, say, 1000 kg (2200 lbs) weight, the reduction of about 30% would lead to a range increase to 290-300 miles (from 220 miles of the Tesla).
For the Tesla there is no speed at which rolling resistance is the major source of energy loss. At very low speeds it’s drive train losses. At other speeds it’s a combination of drive train drain losses and drag. Rolling resistance is only important for a very narrow range of speeds.
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:20 pm)You can place the “For Lease” signs right next to the “For Sale” signs that have been in place for about 30 years.
-1
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:20 pm)So? At the 400km range mark, the Volt has gotten 85% or so of its energy from gasoline.
Admittedly, it did get perhaps 10% of its energy from coal and maybe the remaining 5% from something benign.
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:21 pm)I can certainly envision a portable genset that plugs in to a 2″ receiver hitch, and a 100A power cable — post-crash fires due to being rear-ended while carrying an externally-mounted fuel-tank be damned…
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:25 pm)Quite right, I don’t have those experiences (and don’t much want them — Southerner and all that).
I do wonder if some of this new technology will stand some regionalizing. Some would have put the electric car into a regional niche (Kal-ee-foh-knee-ah) until recently.
There’s that example of the propane powered truck from your Air Force days. They tend to work very well, around here.
Given that the molten-salt thingy would most likely be used in a large-ish truck or bus, maybe there’s room in the “heat belt” for such a technology (garbage trucks and city busses seldom venture cross-country).
In the meantime, these do offer a good match in-between the tractor-trailer sized sodium sulfur batteries being developed for utilities, and used Volt batteries for a stationary application.
-1
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:25 pm)DonC: “Imagine a yellow line for a Honda Fit,…”
Exactly. The entire idea of this comparison is of limited value.
And, considering where the Fit and Prius fall on that chart, it’s also not a great way to discuss the Volt. Sure, all the True Believers on GM-Volt are going to look at it and nod their heads approvingly but well-informed people who happen by, especially those who can do math, are going to look at those charts and laugh.
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:27 pm)Yep!
That would sure screw up the conversation!
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:28 pm)Statik, you’re supposed to use a smiley-face when you’re kidding, even your lame one: (=
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:31 pm)Love the direct GM post!
I have one question, do these charts price $/available kWh, or $/total kWh?
I ask only because of the Volt’s large difference in actual vs useable capacity.
Thanks!
(Edit: I realize the charts are in mileage and not kWh, but I’m just curious to know if they properly factored in the cost of a 16kWh battery when it only takes 8kWh to go the 40 miles of full electric range, if that makes sense)
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:31 pm)Here’s hoping you are correct. I just hope GM will increase production to keep up with demand here in the U.S. and abroad. Good luck with your Ampera. It’s a great looking car.
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:32 pm)“she would be more of an attention getter than Mr. Lutz in a pink tie”
I hereby nominate you for the great “Understatement of the Year” award.
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:34 pm)Yep, the “Saddledome” sells out season tickets every year… there is a extensive waiting list.
The move from Atlanta was a long time ago, but fear not I see an old Atlanta jersey from time to time.
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:36 pm)Sometimes it sucks to be predictable…
my wife has it down to a science… sigh
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:39 pm)1. No. I said several complimentary things about EREVs in my post and plan to purchase one if it ever becomes available for purchase by retail customers.
2. km or miles doesn’t change the results from anything I said at all. Just change where I said miles to km (except for my 26 mile commuite, which my current BEV more than adequately covers).
3. The GM (and your original) comparison was between BEVs and EREVs, not EREVs and ICEs. Indeed, that was my complaint of your and GM’s thrust. Your most recent note above is was I wanted, a start to the lists of how EREVs are superior to full ICEs. Thanks for taking BEVs out of the maintenance comparison, as mine has cost $30 in 18 months of use, for new brakes (I ride hard) and the drivetrain has only one almost frictionless moving part.
3. Ethanol is completely off topic, but since you raised it, depending on what the source of the ethanol is, there may be more efficient uses of the source than as liquid fuel in personal vehicles, at least for corn.
http://www.reuters.com/article/mnGreenAutos/idUS7504032220090729.
For cellulosic ethanol, which you and coskata emphasize, you get no argument from me, except that ethanol has lower energy content, so your extended range mileage would be poorer that if you used biodiesel in a diesel range extender, which would cost more up front, though. Biodiesel is more available than cellosic ethanol at the moment and I’m practical, and willing to switch to whatever makes sense, so long as it includes 100% electric drive for the vehicle performance and luxury win. I guess I’ll wait to hear from you how Brazilian cane ethanol rates between biomass electric to electric drive and liquid fuel in generators efficiency, but you’ll have to factor in the wacky US tarriffs on that one. I suspect that ethanol could provide more fodder for a separate site blog than the GM Volt site offers. In the meantime, electric drive is omnivourous. Let it eat whatever energy source and use whatever energy carriers you want it to.
Since my daily driver for my 26 mile commute is a BEV that uses 100% wind power, I really have little current personal interest in gasoline or ethanol. I suppose I’ll keep up to date, though, for when I get an EREV. As you can imagine, I plan to use the ER part of it as little as possible.
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:42 pm)Well just because he says more than 300 miles does not mean it is not more than 350, 375, 400 or 425. That is still in doubt. Words mean something, but they can be used to say something without telling the real truth and not be untruthful. We just don’t know. Yet.
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:44 pm)Good idea.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:45 pm)Yes, I used the vote counter to number my points.
-2
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:45 pm)With the current chemistry, gas prices and total lack of rapid charge infrastructure BEV are out of the question as mass vehicles. One can make a case for EREV but it is currently not the cost savings. Even with the massive goverment subsidy EREV will likely never catch up with a small diesel. Hybrids with a small robust batteries start to make more economical sence but just bearly. Again the reason to buy EREV is clearly not to save money. The future is still bright for BEV but I would bet it will not be Li based. There is something about the volt concept that looks like an attempt to build a steam powered airliner. The technology is almost there and it looks technically possible, but the engineers have to jump through so many hoops, it is just amazing. That is exactly what makes it so interesting to follow.
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:46 pm)Still playing around, I see.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:49 pm)That explains all those existing and new BEVs used for something other than a very limited city driver.
/sarcasm off
Please, please do more research before you use the word only.
My detailed response with large lists of exceptions was removed from the post. I had probably exceeded my blather limit for the day.
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:49 pm)Mr. Weber,
Just leave out the charts and have just Megan Fox in the ad. Put a GM logo on the page, if you want. Or leave the logo off. Doesn’t matter. We will be only looking at one thing anyway.
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:51 pm)Central Mississippi for me. Ya’ll come!
Jul 30th, 2009 (4:58 pm)DonC says that for the Tesla there is no speed at which rolling resistance is the major source of energy loss.
————————————–
Rolling resistance may not be a major source, but it is nonetheless a significant source. For a car with the weight of the Volt at 70 mph it is going to be about 70 wh/mile, as compared to your SWAG of 300 wh/mile in all. Granted 70 is not the dominant number, but it is not to be ignored either.
Jul 30th, 2009 (5:00 pm)Diagnosis, replacement labor, verification of no consequential items are also part of the repair bill guys. We are not changing out “D” cells in a flashlight.
Jul 30th, 2009 (5:15 pm)Currently the average ICE car in the USA is on the road for 17 years.
_________________
Regional differences vary dramatically and the use of the vehicle is extremely misleadling.
Roughly 90% of the vehicles here in the Minnesota are no longer used as daily commuters beyond year 10.
-2
Jul 30th, 2009 (5:17 pm)we don’t know the frequency with which the genset will come on in cold weather so that issue will have to be revisited later.
_______________
Dodging the bullet, eh?
Since the requirement is to keep the battery-pack warmed to at least 68 F degrees, that frequency is far more often than many want to acknowledge.
Jul 30th, 2009 (5:27 pm)Thanks and you really like the LONG odds on the statik bet (just kidding, we appreciate each other.
Sometimes my bucket is full, sometimes going on empty, but as had been said many times, it’s all good. And even when I’m quiet, I’m here. If I read too much my lips get tired, so I take a nap (g).
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!***************NPNS
Jul 30th, 2009 (5:40 pm)N. Riley,
Funny, I never would have pegged you for a southerner! Worked with a woman up here that went to Ol Miss. Never thought much of southerners after that (lol, just kidding). I went to grad school in Ky and practiced in Omaha, so we have a couple more regions covered.
PA is a GREAT place to raise kids. Sarah Palin could be governor here. More bear, trout and deer than people and the only thing we have a million of is mosquito s.
Just got back and see 379+ posts. Is that a new high?
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!***************NPNS
Jul 30th, 2009 (5:46 pm)Thanks for the help Lyle, I got a little carried away there.
I wish that all the ancillary costs beyond the replacement battery itself were not showing up as I scan all these Priuses and Insights, but they unfortunately are absolutely there, even verified by the dealerships.
It is not at all like I don’t want more efficient costings for these vehicles, but, when the owner has not any idea whatsoever that their very high tech vehicle is self destructing, it makes in nearly impossible for anyone to know when to intervene in time.
We used to have very loud buzzers, chimes, etc, go off when there were very expensive damages in progress. But not anymore. No independent shop I’ve served wants you to have large repair bills that have you in high stress in accommodating, (the ones that have me come in and train their techs are the honest ones, it seems to me).
My goal here is to relate to OEM’s these sorts of problems out here in the real world, so that there is greater chance that you will have a very unpleasantly loud chime that expensive damages are in progress or are pending. (Owners in the past wanted the car “fixed” by disconnecting the loud chime!)
The comparative costs I was asking Mr. Weber to help us contrast, relates to are how strong are the benefits in dollars saved all around for HSD etc, as compared to what I estimate to be an astoundingly efficient set of compounded savings as will occur with Voltec to also include maintenance savings as well as fuel savings. But alas, this may be asking for too much too soon due to the need for the prudent maintenance of competitive edge.
But when the Volt comes out, I really believe that most people here will realize my intentions have only been for the best in helping the motoring public become savvy regarding these extraordinary economics that I am pretty sure will prevail with Voltec.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (5:47 pm)Do not taunt my reverse smiley face.
It is the epitome of pwnsauce.
(=
——————-
This thread is going to have 450 comments…200 of which on HTML and smiley faces. Remember when we were so proud of how mature we were here? Good times. We may be getting punch-drunk.
/I’m sure Frank Weber is impressed
Jul 30th, 2009 (5:48 pm)Dave said to tell everyone that he’s gone catatonic and will post again soon.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!***************NPNS
-1
Jul 30th, 2009 (5:51 pm)You mean you can’t see THAT?
It is glorious! True web 2.0 stuff.
/I especially like the waterfalls, that was a nice touch
-1
Jul 30th, 2009 (6:04 pm)The Wait List Data, oops…I mean ‘Want’ List Data page gives you a pretty good breakdown:
http://gm-volt.com/wait-list-data/
Top 10 Countries:
United States of America 20153
Canada 1380
Germany 105
Turkey 85
United Kingdom 76
Australia 75
France 48
Brazil 35
Belgium 32
Netherlands 30
Sidenote: We have 1 from Anguilla.
…and I don’t know who that dude is, but he/she is totally not getting a Volt. (pop 14,108). The whole darn island is only 16 x 3 miles in size, get a scooter or golf cart or something…maybe do some walking.
People who have wicked nice beaches like this, don’t deserve Volts anyway:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/data/ct_articleimgs/353-anguilla.jpg
http://thierrydehove.com/wordpress/axa/new-photos-from-anguilla01.jpg
-1
Jul 30th, 2009 (6:09 pm)Gratz on the Superfund site Tag:
http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/npl/PAD003058047.htm
(just kidding…I’m sure it is very pleasant)
Jul 30th, 2009 (6:12 pm)45 minutes isn’t exactly a rapid recharge, and it doesn’t compare well to filling up your gas tank in 3 minutes. A 3 minute rapid recharge of the 53 kWh Tesla would require a 1 MW connection. That sort of technology might be 50 years off.
Jul 30th, 2009 (6:15 pm)By increasing the battery size to increase the distance only makes it less efficient per kwh because of the extra weight the car has to carry around. At a point, it becomes counter productive. The Volt has an will continue to have the superior technology even for when the batteries get smaller.
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:05 pm)Mark Bartosik:
Before I start my diatribe, I just want to say for the record, I don’t care about people and their cars 10-15 years down the road, and it doesn’t factor into my car buying decision on a new car one way or the other.
—————
…however
That average age metric you are quoted is pretty ‘skewed’ by non-operating cars still on the roles, and ones that don’t do so much driving, and by the amount of driving ‘older’ cars (10+) actually do in their later years.
I think your better off going with the average mileage of a car over its lifetime, which is right around 160,000 for the US (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), 125,000 in the UK, 115,000 for Canada, Europe 105,000, Japan 75,000.
So, if you get a 10 year/150,000 full warranty on the pack, (which most do because CARB states cover more than half the population…and many EV manufacturers are making it blanket across the states), under a BEV scenario, which as you know is a very simple set up, and the pack is really the only expensive component, you are covered for up to 94% of the average car’s life, on the FULL capacity of the pack. Only the last 10,000 or so you are on your own.
Whereas, the ‘extended range’ part of the EREV, is only covered for 5 years or 100,000…but as we know the ‘average driver’ only puts about 15,000 per year (according to the EPA)…so the likely warranty coverage is only 75,000 on average…leaving 85,000 miles of ‘you pay for everything’ driving.
In fact, because the BEV is warranty to be performing to spec on mile 150,000….it is likely to last considerably further than the national average. The ‘degradation’ you speak of starts from 100% of capacity on mile 150,001. Whereas, the ICE of a standard car has been ‘privately’ maintained for 85,000/5 additional years…and likely has not been given the same repair care that having warranty would have gave.
I’d rather buy a 10 year BEV, that just had a fully certified warranty battery check-up that performs to spec, than a EREV with no OEM documentation on the ICE for the past 5 years.
And if DaveG is right and 16 kWh packs are less $2,000 in 2020, I’d easily take the BEV, because it has very, very few working parts in relation to a EREV…and even fewer that need to be maintained. It is a simplistic setup.
For $2,000 you get a very reliable car, that could operate another 10 years, 100,000 miles with little worry/maintenance…the ICE in the Volt (and all the related workings) would be barely hanging on, and would be in the shop constantly.
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:06 pm)Yeah, me too.
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:11 pm)If we’re all wearing pink ties, Statik will get confused and befuddled… Like Two-face did at the end of that one Batman flick, when Batman throws a few dozen “lucky coins” just like Two-face’s up in the air.
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:19 pm)Add Switzerland into the list
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:27 pm)Ethanol has about 2/3 the energy of gasoline. A gallon of gas contains about 33 kWh of energy. So six gallons would be (6) X (32) X (2/3) or 132 kWh.
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:32 pm)Charlie H,
Imagine a line on that chart for a Corolla, which is a lot cheaper than the Prius.
Now imagine that the price of gas goes back up to $4/gallon and you get a $7500 tax credit for the Volt. After 10 years, the total cost of ownership will be about the same for the Volt, Prius, and Corolla, but the Volt will use a lot less gas, which means less money for terrorists, more economic stability, less global warming, take your pick.
With a typical driving pattern, assuming you only charge overnight:
Vehicle ……………… Gallons per year
Volt ………………….. 37
Prius ………………… 228
30 MPG car ………… 380
20 MPG car ………… 570
Assumptions:
Prius: 50 mpg
Volt: 40 miles all-electric range, 50 mpg thereafter
The Chevy Volt’s Electric Range is 40 Miles in Both Highway and City Driving
http://gm-volt.com/2009/04/24/the-chevy-volts-electric-range-is-40-miles-in-both-highway-and-city-driving/
Typical driving pattern:
• 30 days at 8 miles per day
• 50 days at 16 miles per day
• 240 days at 30 miles per day
• 30 days at 60 miles per day
• 3 days at 450 miles per day
11,390 total miles per year
More info here:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/GallonsPerYear.xls
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:39 pm)WTF? Before the 40 AER you jerkwad, it’s a BEV. It’s not too hard to just REM out some code to disreguard the Genset. Fukin moron. Such flexibility is the genius of the Series hybrid because when the latest and greatest batt tech comes out you can just……..
Aw fukit, you’re an idiot, just wasting my time when I can be drinking my MGD.
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:44 pm)That wasn’t water that fell off her….
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:49 pm)For most drivers, Volt MPG won’t have much effect on gas usage.
With a typical driving pattern, assuming you only charge overnight:
Vehicle ……………… Gallons per year
Volt 50 MPG………… 37
Volt 43 MPG………… 43
Volt 38 MPG………… 48
Prius ………………… 228
30 MPG car ………… 380
20 MPG car ………… 570
-1
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:52 pm)I think the PHEV10 Prius from Toyota is likely going to run into this sentiment as well.
____________________
No, it won’t.
Measuring capacity in terms of distance doesn’t even make sense.
Those extra kW deliver an efficiency increase from the non-plug 55 MPG to a plug-in 70 MPG. Understanding that plugging equates to that gain is very simple… and we have already become accustom to routine plugging with other daily devices.
Of course, you’ll have to plug Volt in daily anyway.
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:53 pm)“As long as they are not being an a$$”
Bro, he/it’s an A$$!
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:53 pm)Of course, if the aim is have the max range, the EREV will always be cheaper. However, if there is a point where the range is enough, BEVs might still turn out to be cheaper. Also the maintenance issue with the EREV is still there. I think eventually people can make do without the ICE and move over to BEVs as batteries prices go down and rapid charging infrastructure gets installed.
In Dave G’s comment, if the premium is only $5k to get a 300 mile range EV (70kWh is good enough for that) vs a 40 mile EREV (+ range extender miles), I’m not so sure everyone will pick the EREV, especially if people are used to the plug and rapid charging is available (we are talking about the future here).
-1
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:59 pm)—
over pure EVs when vehicle range is the primary consideration
—
But is it the primary consideration ? Should it be the primary consideration ? How about renting when on long trips instead of buying all that machineray and weight ?
Range anxiety is similar to Iraq WMD. The response is similar – let us not hesitate to kill if it can reduce a bit of my anxiety ….
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:59 pm)There are a number of issues with your numbers but the quick and dirty shorcut would be as follows:
For the Volt gas would cost about $.055 per mile ($2.50/gallon and 45 mpg) while electricity would cost $.03/mile ($.15 per kWh and 5 miles per kWh). This means you’d have to drive 520,000 miles (858,000 km), or 34 years at 25,000 km/year, to make up for a $13,000 cost difference.
You can play around with these numbers but basically, with gas prices at current levels, EVs (and EREVs) don’t pencil out on a dollars and cents basis. Then again if we all did it this way Lexus, Mercedes, and BMW wouldn’t exist, and we’d all be driving Civics, Fits, and Corollas
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:02 pm)I dunno man, I kind of like doing the fart thing just as I walk out of an elevator….
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:21 pm)3 minutes is faster than I can fill my car w/gas.
If you want something that quick, now we are talking battery swap.
there will have to be compromises, but also benefits.
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:23 pm)Welcome Switzerland! My daughter’s best friend is from there (she was a foreign exchange student). I’m glad that list wasn’t comprehensive.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!***************NPNS
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:24 pm)Then AHHHnold said:
“It’s not a tumor… Come with me if you want to live.”
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:38 pm)Gee, statik, real nice of you to point that out. Besides it saves on nite-lights when the kids themselves glow.
Be well anyway,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!***************NPNS
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:43 pm)I would think that the BEV would not be a great choice for someone that keeps ONLY ONE vehicle until refueling time becomes comparable to an ICE. Even if it covers greater than 95% of your driving needs…it only takes one or two times stuck without energy to fustrate most people.
Range anxiety is real… believe it or not.
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:48 pm)In Penna, we STILL have no state budget. What a mess (but the countryside is glorious).
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR**************NPNS
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:55 pm)I think 45 is very optimistic, and is probably going to be like every other EPA rating out there – not repeatable in most real life situations. (We’re assuming the volt actually gets higher than usual fuel efficiency because of the constant RPM’s.. It may not. All we know is that it’s supposedly >30.)
)
Even still, I can guarantee gas prices will not remain stable over 10 years time, so your values are most likely severely underrated. (If you honestly think gas will get cheaper.. you’re REALLY optimistic
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:55 pm)john1701a
“Roughly 90% of the vehicles here in the Minnesota are no longer used as daily commuters beyond year 10.”
I’m really interested in where you got this information. I’ve never seen a stat like that. Is there a link, or study, or is this just your perception?
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:02 pm)I know you’re kidding, but the only effective way to deal with trolls is to starve them – with prejudice.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!***************NPNS
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:03 pm)The amount of energy in a gallon of fuel is irrelevant in this comparison if you have no efficient way of using it.
ICE’s are only around 20% efficient, and the human body isn’t much better at just under 40% efficient.
So your 1 gallon of gas being 33kWh is more like 5 gallons used by an ICE to get that 33kWh.
(So your 6 gallons in an ICE are roughly 40 kWh)
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:27 pm)Actually, I’ve heard conflicting information on the relative energy density of ethanol and gasoline.
We all know that today’s flex fuel cars get more MPG from gas than E85, but someone said this is because the ICE in these cars is designed for gas, and if an engine was designed specifically to burn ethanol, it would get as good or better mileage than a comparable gas engine. IIRC, the issue had something to do with ethanol needing a much higher compression to be efficient.
I’m not an expert on this, and not many other people talk about these kinds of details, so I don’t really know what to believe here. Has anyone else heard anything about this?
As for your main point about BEVs and EREVs together competition against regular cars, yes, I got it. For commute-only cars, a BEV-80 may make sense. My only issue is that many folks seem to treat the EREV as a temporary solution, and I see it more long-term.
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:34 pm)19th Century: Coal & Wood
20th Century: Coal & Oil
21st Century: Biofuels and Batteries
22nd Century: Hydrogen – ?
23rd Century: Diolithium Crystals
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:43 pm)Noel Park
Good call, predictable as summer rain in Colorado!
___________________________
True That
“Hey dumbass, the Volt is a SERIES HYBRID, you cannot just “junk the ICE”. What a stupid statement. Is everybody on this site a tard.”
_______________________
Are you including the writer of the sentences above? How would you describe a series hybrid as operating?
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:44 pm)I like your style!!!!
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:47 pm)Way to kill it, guess everybody else logged off huh?
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:52 pm)Yes and gas (or bio-cumbustible fuel) wiil cost what by then?
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:55 pm)My friend at Austin Energy told me the other day that they are going to build a “concentrated solar” power plant out in West Texas (at Marfa), where there is rarely much rain (sun-obstructing clouds). These plants are cheap to build, and, what happens is that essentially the sunlight is reflected onto an oil-filled tower by mirrors that are constantly aimed at the tower.
(The superheated oil then is sent to produce steam to power a turbine generator).
But maybe there could also be a portion of that heat to maintain sodium-sulfur batteries. It would be interesting if someone made a compact horizontal-trough solar concentrator to do something like that for small farms, etc.
Solar concentrated ammonia refrigerated AC might also be a design worth considering. While it takes awhile to get going, (an hour or so based on my observations of the ammonia/water refrigerator in my old RV), if one of those could be made to perform some baseline minimum refrigeration for even dehumidification, it might be worth cost-effectiveness consideration if it could be made to last long enough, like 20 years.
(A turbine-generation setup would be cost-prohibitive on a small scale unfortunately).
But hey, if we’re going to become more “toasty” by global warming or far more sunshine, we might as well make it go to work for us.
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:57 pm)Where the heck is DaveG today?
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:02 pm)There’s going to be a new paradigm. You won’t go to a special establishment just to get propulsive energy, you’ll get the energy at other places you go to anyway; restaurants, shopping centers, town centers, malls, transit stations.
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:03 pm)ICEs have been great and still will be for many applications, but if a battery will suffice then why buy an unwanted ICE with it. 40 miles of range in a BEV won’t work for me but it will for some.
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:03 pm)True that, wild indeed, a man who fears no beta!
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:07 pm)Thank you, thank you all
/got something in my eye
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:11 pm)I bet that the size of the gas tank will “actually” be between 6 and 10 gallons. That means I bet it will be 8 gallons. Possibly 6 usable, keeping 2 in reserve for fuel pump cooling. The dash reminder light to come on when the tank can accommodate 6 gallons at pump click-off (from dash reminder light coming on), but actually 8 gallons usable in all (to absolute empty) including reserve.
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:16 pm)The only thing missing from Dave’s post was maintenance costs of EREV vs BEV.
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:16 pm)There’s this new fab thing called “insulation,” you should check it out.
-1
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:17 pm)I don’t think it will cost GM $8 for the Volt’s battery, I think it will
continue to cost nearly twice that.
The Volt is not petroleum free, that is a lie. The advantage of EVs over EREVs is that they are petroleum free, of course BEVs are not the way to go because the battery technology isn’t good enough to compete head to head with the ICE.
I reject the assumption that battery cost will come down at all in the
next 5-10 years. More likely than come down, it will go up as it gets
harder for various reasons to retrieve Lithium. Just because we can retrieve Lithium from the ocean does not mean that we will or that it will be cheap to do so.
I support GM trying to commercialize a fuel cell vehicle by 2014.
I do not support further development of hybrids and EREVs.
Fresh water shortages are a serious problem world wide. Lithium mining exacerbates the fresh water shortage problem.
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:24 pm)“fears no beta and…”
And no Whine before it’s time…
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!***************NPNS
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:36 pm)Well, at least you didn’t name it specifically.
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:42 pm)Hmmm, you noticed that too?!?
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:55 pm)VERY well said !!!!!
GO BEV !!!
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:57 pm)Ditto, but please, leave out “the thumb.” Thanks.
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:03 pm)FYI–even in Alaska, it’s a lot colder in the winter than it is during the summer. And most drivers don’t switch their cars every season. So, even if your theoretical driver mainly uses the ICE 25% of the year, that still leaves the other 75% where he or she will drastically reduce his or her gasoline usage.
But more typically, I live in New York. And we occasionally hit -10 degrees farenheit. (-12 degrees C.) It’s not normal. But it happens. And I don’t want to have to worry about my car not getting me home on those days.
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:20 pm)If we use the numbers thrown out here concerning technological breakthroughs and costs that drop like a stone with respect to batteries, biofuel will cost $1/gallon. (You can actually buy E100 for $1/gallon now so I guess we’re there).
-2
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:39 pm)You mean hydrogen? Hydrogen is a clean energy carrier that
will revolutionize transportation. If that weren’t the case, then
neither the Honoeye Falls research facility nor the $250k Chevy Sequel fuel cell prototype would exist. When these fuel cell cars aren’t hand built anymore, they will get a lot cheaper.
A factor of 10 cost reduction would be enough for these cars to become affordable.
Between reducing the amount of platinum in a fuel cell to the amount
in a catalytic converter and production line assembly, fuel cell cars
will come down in price. The cost only needs to come down by a factor of 10.
Not talking about fuel cell cars in a comparison of EVs to EREVs doesn’t make sense. Only fuel cell cars offer a practical path right
now to producing popular vehicles that can go hundreds of miles on
a fill without harming the environment. The energy density of batteries is simply too low right now for BEVs to be practical where EREVs don’t retire the internal combustion engine. EREVs are an unnecessary intermediate step between ICEs and fuel cell cars.
As far as where does the hydrogen come from, 95% comes from methane reformation because that is a good way to get hydrogen
and steam reforming methane is a good place to start. For one thing, methane is a more dangerous gas than CO2 in the atmosphere. Methane traps more heat than CO2 does. There is
a decent amount of domestic natural gas that isn’t used yet and
the ocean is on the verge of releasing a lot more. Tapping the methane in the ocean before it reaches the atmosphere is a good idea.
Reforming methane isn’t the only option. There are experiments using laser light to split water with the goal being to find out how to use sunlight to do the same thing.
Hydrogen carrier development is going forward with hydrnol becoming a very promising one even if it can only be used
with hydrogen fueled internal combustion engines.
People who knock hydrogen ignore that it takes 300 billions gallons of fresh water to produce the gasoline for all the light duty vehicles in the U.S. In contrast, 100 billion gallons of water could be electrolyzed to produce enough hydrogen to power that many fuel cell vehicles. Furthermore, hydrogen is used to remove sulfur from crude OIL, so why if you are producing hydrogen already go further to produce gasoline.
Ammonia could be introduced as an emulsificant in gasoline now and most cars on the road could burn it. This isn’t a solution, but
it is a much cheaper way to clean up automobile exhaust than hybridizing cars is. Legitimate hydrogen on demand systems should be highlighted by the automakers and added to the next round of cars and trucks.
Not giving hydrogen any attention is foolish. Yes it is politically popular because of Obama and Chu to ignore hydrogen, but that doesn’t make it wise to do so. Congress restored funding for the department of energy’s hydrogen research and development programs. If Obama keeps screwing up, I hope his opponent in 2012 wins. I didn’t vote for Obama this last round and I won’t vote for him in the next.
There are many practical ways to store hydrogen in a solid. These
solid storage systems tend to be too heavy for use on an automobile but they could easily be used in conjunction with a hydrogen pipeline system. There are many underground caverns
that could house a solid that stores hydrogen.
My recommendations are as follows:
Convert trucks to work with hydrogen via a hydrogen on demand system or use hydrogen/ammonia as an emulsificant in diesel.
Replace cars and light trucks with fuel cell vehicles.
Build more natural gas distribution infrastructure and hydrogen pipelines at the same time.
Build hydrogen stations that can refuel 1000 fuel cell cars a day.
Fund the GM fuel cell program through 2015.
Catch up with Europe, Japan, and Canada with regards to fuel cell vehicles or we will be buying fuel cell vehicles from foreign nations.
-1
Jul 31st, 2009 (8:53 am)I wish I had kept up with the forum. This is a, ah, measurable topic of worth for me. Metric is so out of touch with the human condition, the human relationship of perception but metric is FORCED upon the public with POLICE STATE tactics that would make any dictator smile and nod with approval. Napoleon for starters.
Just the simple effect of temp is weirdly contorted to the confines of a narrow band of human hospitable temp in the ridiculous centigrade vs the reasonable Fº. 100º here is hot for humans and 32º is cold with 0º being fridged. I laugh at how the sheeple that use centigrade have to conform to such contortions made by some scientists. Might as well use Kelvin… . Soo, poo to GM and it’s kilometer listing.
Have to run off to work to help pay for the mess here, Higgins & The Lads
Jul 31st, 2009 (10:43 am)I compared ethanol to biodiesel, not to gasoline.
Jul 31st, 2009 (11:00 am)CHEERS!
Jul 31st, 2009 (11:08 am)I’m sure you guys have the opposite problem a lot of the year, keeping stuff cool enough.
Just for the record we are supposed to see 30c this weekend, which is a ‘normal’ day for a southerner, but is pretty toasty for a place where almost nobody has AC!
I understand that the newer propane systems DO work fine in the winter now, but they sure didn’t in the 80′s!
The prospect of a say 100 kwh sodium battery for a small off grid farm for cheap sounds like a dream come true!
Wind and solar charged…
That’s our 5 year plan
Jul 31st, 2009 (11:27 am)Drop costs by a factor of 10…
$250k Chevy Sequel fuel cell prototype
Michael I give you credit for being so focused.
The interesting thing is that your own post backs up the simple fact that widespread hydrogen power isn’t happening anytime soon.
Jul 31st, 2009 (2:16 pm)Thanks, Jackson.
Jul 31st, 2009 (2:16 pm)Well, PBP is going to put up half a million battery swap out stations right? So none of this conversation matters at all.
(=
Jul 31st, 2009 (2:20 pm)I like the TAG hat. Cool.
Jul 31st, 2009 (2:20 pm)Michael Robinson::
la la la la la la la
… I can’t hear you
Look at what one sentence brought on, heeh.
/have a good one (=
Jul 31st, 2009 (2:33 pm)Tag,
I had several good friends in the Marine Corps from Pennsylvania. They could not believe I was from Mississippi. I assumed they just did not know anyone from Mississippi (1962 -1966) at the time. I have never been to your state, but I have always wanted to come through that way. I do plan to do it one of these days.
You know, in today’s world, especially the U.S. and Canada, it is hard to tell just where a person is from by the way he states things on a blog site. Even in person, sometimes, I have a hard problem. After a while you realize it doesn’t matter anyway. What does matter is what they say and how they feel about things. And there is generally plenty of room for different opinions. It’s mostly a good world we live in. We just have to stop and realize it sometimes.
Jul 31st, 2009 (3:45 pm)Where do you get from what I wrote that widespread hydrogen power isn’t happening anytime soon anyways? At $250k, the prototype Chevy Sequel fuel cell car is only 10 times what the average person is willing to pay for a new SUV. The year 2015 is only 6 years away, which is less than a decade away. In Europe, hydrogen refueling infrastructure is being built unlike here in the U.S. where we just don’t get it. Hybrids are expensive, an extra $8k for a battery is a lot of money. If ammonia is introduced as an additive in gasoline, hybridization becomes unnecessary to reduce emissions and improve gas mileage. Putting ammonia in gasoline
would reduce emissions over the largest swath of vehicles quickly.
At most, some vehicles will need slight adjustments to handle the
higher octane ammonia.
Hydrogen is produced already in the U.S. to remove sulfur from crude OIL and for fertilizer production among other things. There are already 300 miles of hydrogen pipelines that are mostly used
by refineries. Hydrogen isn’t used for power, but it is used in this
country.
Hydrogen power is happening in test fleets already and has been
happening for quite some time. Make no mistake, hydrogen power is not just a fad. Hydrogen will link transportation to renewable energy. Imagine for a moment electrolysis using electrical power
collected from solar panels in death valley. Or how about a natural
gas derrick out on the ocean equipped with a windmill steam reforming the natural gas. There are an increasing number of ways to get to hydrogen. The problem is a lack of will on the part of politicians like Obama, not a lack of technology.
Jul 31st, 2009 (3:52 pm)Amen on all points! Some caution must be exercised though or someone may just post a link to a toxic dump and leave the impression that that’s all there is to your home (ahem).
I-80 runs right through our state, east to west and I’m right off exit 178. Come on up (if you’re in a Volt I’ll have the 220V warmed up).
Be well,
Tagamet
PS Thanks for your service!
LJGTVWOTR!!*******************NPNS
Jul 31st, 2009 (4:18 pm)“(Eighteen years later, prices are in the range of $750 to $1,000. By comparison, a lead-acid battery in a conventional car costs less than $100 for that much capacity, although it is much too heavy to build an electric car around and not durable enough.
Now the Energy Department has a new goal: $500 by 2012.”
“But when it comes to a genuine mass market for an affordable plug-in hybrid or all-battery car, ‘we don’t quite know how to get there,’ said Mr. Miller, of Ford.”)”
Plug-in-hybrid and all battery cars are not affordable. Research to
get a $150 kwh battery started in like 1992 and as of today there isn’t one. This whole discussion of what is more affordable, an EREV or an EV, is kind of stupid considering that non of the above is affordable. A fuel cell EV on the other hand is close to being affordable and there is a clear path to make it affordable.
Ford seems to be one of the few outfits that is NOT building a PHEV or EREV if that’s what you want to call them. I think Ford
is correct to not build one. A fuel cell Volt with a smaller battery makes sense. A gas/electric hybrid Volt does not.
Jul 31st, 2009 (8:34 pm)You mean if you made the Hyundai Elantra Hybrid LPG a serial hybrid or Volteced the GM Spark LPG?
Aug 1st, 2009 (6:51 am)Yep, its sort of creepy.
I think the big change is when he used to say GM wsa going under we didn’t know what that meant for the Voltec program and the Volt itself, so it was a bit of shoot the messenger, we don’t wanna hear bad news!
Now, of course, we know the Volt is coming no matter what, so there’s no need to burn Static at the stake cause our toy got taken away.
/Oh and congrats to Dave G. Good to see someone with MY initials being recognised.
LJGTVWOTR
NO plug, NO sale.
Aug 1st, 2009 (6:57 am)Good to see you NZDavid
Your initials ring the clarion song for the huge tidal wave that WILL inevitably come (God willing). Thanks!
Be well,
Tagamet
NPNS!!
Aug 1st, 2009 (7:04 am)Fresh water shortages are a serious problem world wide. Lithium mining exacerbates the fresh water shortage problem.
Are you nuts? As far as Lithium goes, it is mined from VERY concentrated salt water brines, so it’s useless for drinking anyway.
There is simply not enough gas to reform to get the required amounts of H2 from so water is the next choice and there’s simply not enough because H2 production exacerbates the fresh water shortage problem.
Aug 1st, 2009 (7:47 am)Tag, I was being sincere in my praise in GM’s efforts to reach out to this site but also equally sincere in my criticism of Mr. Weber’s post. He is the Global Vehicle Cheif Engineer, Chevy Volt and Marke Laneve (and this one is for Staik) Vice President, Deceptive Marketing Strategies. My bias is towards EVs. I praise the Volt and EREVs as easily as I praise BEVs. I believe the long term benefits of EV propulsion are ubiquitous and anything that gets us to those benefits faster, EREV and BEV, are a good thing. Both types have the market strengths and I think a more balanced EV marketing approach is better for both of them. That said, even if they chose to market against BEVs in a forthright manner with logical and complete argument, my only objection would be that I believe they would be shooting their EREV in the foot by doing so. My strong objection is from the use of misleading information (intentionally or otherwise) and it basically undermines their total cost of ownership argument in the process. Duh and double duhh? This is just bad, bad all around IMO.
Tesla’s was the fist blog I followed and I posted to. In ’06 I lobbied them to create smaller battery w/ genset option for their second generation car, what has become the Model S. I also posted this in Jan ’07, shortly after the Volt concept intro:
“Martin’s mostly spot on. as usual. GM’s Volt sure sounds good at first glance and actual production of a car at least close to this prototype merits strong support. Even if the Volt never gets built, the support and attention is great for Tesla and all other companies advancing electrically powered vehicles. The Volt’s raw specs and general concept would be a great leap forward from what is mass produced currently. Just as Martin pointed out, I too can’t understand why GM would introduce the Volt as a Chevy. They readily acknowledge production, whenever that may occur, would start small. If GM is truly committed to producing this car, it would be a lot more sensible for the first model to be a Cadillac. Heck, even the design fits in better with Cadillac’s current models. They could build it a lot sooner fitting into a $50,000 price rather than $25,000. Also, if GM really wanted to make this car one would expect they would use commercially available technology and build around that. Even if this meant fewer electric only miles and/or fewer battery cycles. The lasting impression for me is that this was a concept car they were developing for a fuel cell vehicle and did a fairly recent switch to take advantage of the current spike of interest in electric vehicles and reducing dependence on foreign oil. Hope I’m wrong and they really are committed to building this “non-hybrid (wink, wink) range extender”.
I do disagree with Martin regarding the 40 mile pack being less valuable than a 250 mile pack. It depends on the car’s design and it’s intended purpose. Yes, the lifetime range will be significantly less but so will the price and the weight. The battery/genset concept is to use both sources. The driver it makes most sense for would still travel 10,000-20,000 miles from the generator, so the pack would be replaced 3 or 4 times to travel 120,000 miles. How much less would a 40 mile pack be? If Tesla’s philosophy (which seems logical) regarding battery development is accurate, then each subsequent pack will cost less per mile. Even if the cost doesn’t come down, I’ld rather have my money in the bank rather than in a battery pack.
Let’s see” $500M… hmmm… should we give it away in the hopes that the handful of recipients will develop a product for a market that barely exists or do we incentivize that market to grow. That could be a $5,000 tax rebate for 100,000 vehicles. Additionally, redirect $500M from hydrogen development and setup realistic electricity storage device development contests.
Doesn’t the Volt’s genset specs seem a bit overly optimistic? ”
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog2/?p=46
I was wrong about some of the specs like pack life because GM has basically built 2 packs worth of capacity into it and they have used higher cycle cells. I happy to be somewhat wrong about this and GM’s ultimiate commitment to bring the Volt to market (many kudos to Lyle here). I still disagree with some of their decisions about the Volt but overall they have done a pretty good job with it (IMO).
Aug 1st, 2009 (8:01 am)I’m anxious to hear what you have to say about today’s post (Saturday). Good reply, BTW
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!****************NPNS
Aug 1st, 2009 (8:05 am)Yes, that was the most important part of my point. Perhaps it was somewhat obscured by my rancor over what I feel is basically decptive marketing in the guise of engineering post.
Obviously, I disagree about the viability of BEVs or I should say I would add some that broadens your point a little. Certainly BEV’s by themselves for most markets are not viable as mass produced products. For the automotive industry and the scale that “real” mass production is at, @50+K vehicles per year to get competitive economies of scale, EVs (EREV and BEV) will have to start out as relatively niche products. But it is a little different for GM and Voltec platform. They can very easily and with relatively low cost create BEV variations of their EREV product. I think GM is better served by using this as a competitive advantage in the BEV market rather than putting out FUD to try to kill the BEV market in the cradle. Like you have said several times, EV’s (EREV and BEV) are really about matching the battery capacity to the consumer’s needs. The viability of either product is dependent upon this and matched correctly there are markets for both, albeit most BEV markets will probably start smaller.
For me, the ideal is:
1 80 mile BEV + 1 120 mile BEV + 1 generator trailer (whole house backup)
Aug 1st, 2009 (8:15 am)Thank you for taking the time to suffer through and and your response.
On to the Post de jour.
Aug 1st, 2009 (8:48 am)Lol, no suffering involved. It’s all good.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!****************NPNS
Aug 1st, 2009 (10:51 am)RB back again “briefly”. Someone gave me a negative vote but dared not inter a discourse/debate with me. Voted from Momma’s basement. Seems I recall Nazi rocket scientist, Werner Von Braun, using English measurements and the Apollo Program being English built. Landing on the Moon using meters or yards for that matter would be ludicrous as feet are instantly a mental cue as to real position in real time. What is not real are the metric police state types that insist on making the world conform… seem to recall the same group wanted degrees of angle, time… to be, whatever metric. Oh, and the same types came up with a “universal” language. And if you scratch the surface you have ONE WORLDER”S seeking to dissolve nation states. Ah, the delightful image of supreme leadership from the Hague. Did we not fight Hitler to avoid the supposed world “domination” of some supreme leader?
When the Nipponese had the atomic bomb dropped on them, it too was, English built. It is a silly misnomer to say that English measurements cannot be applied to create great things. The Pyramids were certainly not metric, nor English but will long outlast most of what man has built. The house I built in Colorado, will eventually be destroyed by forest fires was built by fractions of feet and inches with fractions being a natural way to measure!
Oh well, I wanted to get my two farthings in!
Apollo is barking! Heard his name. Zeus is chewing on a metric ruler, some fatty from the Hague, that is. How he got him I don’t know but he is a most unwelcome visitor.
Regards! Higgins & The Lads
Aug 1st, 2009 (10:55 am)Nicely done, want to send this to my e-mail site.——–H
Aug 1st, 2009 (2:03 pm)Very insightful comment. Thank you for it but you should not stress out about which of the many, many technologies that could drive our economy forward will win in the end. Any one of them could take over the market eventually.
But it doesn’t really matter which technology gets us off our oil addiction. Today’s lead acid batteries could be used effectively to build an EV albeit with limited range between plugging in. Anything we do that gets better than that is just gravy.
Aug 1st, 2009 (2:22 pm)It is harder to electrolyze fresh water than it is to electrolyze salt water. Hydrogen can be extracted from natural gas which there is plenty of considering that every time a marine animal dies it sinks to the bottom of the ocean and decays. Hydrogen production takes 1/3rd the amount of water that gasoline production takes, so our current production of gasoline is much harder on fresh water resources than hydrogen production using electrolysis.
Most of the planet is covered in salt water, so there is plenty of salt water to extract hydrogen from.
Use a hydrogen carrier like hydrnol or magnesium hydride slurry, you can store and transport hydrogen easily.
Batteries will NEVER compete with the internal combustion engine and a hybrid, even a series hybrid like the Volt, is not a solution to end dependence on foreign OIL. Fuel cell vehicles will compete, they will compete by 2015. Because a fuel cell car needs a small battery, a nickel metal hydride battery will work.
Nuclear shiips out on the ocean could produce more than enough hydrogen by electrolyzing the salt water storing it either in a liquid or solid hydrogen carrier. Don’t like nuclear? Another option is
wind powered ships (Germany does this). Don’t like that? How about solar powered ships?
Aug 1st, 2009 (6:01 pm)Dan Petit, purveyor of fine, fact-free FUD.
The biggest Toyota dealer in MN has replaced ONE battery. They’ll hand a new one across the parts counter for $2299. You’ll have to wait, though, as the low demand means they never stock them.
The most amusing part of your post though, is that you follow up on your “batteries are epensive and fail regularly” meme with a paragraph lauding the Volt, which will feature far more expensive batteries of a new type which have not been proven with long service on the road. Too funny.
Aug 3rd, 2009 (9:45 pm)It seems as though many overlook the fact that a BEV, without fast recharge capability, simply cannot be compared to the EREV,
on the basis of cost or anything else, since the BEV cannot perform all of the functions required by its owner. It has added costs that must be paid, in many forms – the extra car required to do what the BEV cannot do (go on a trip, or drive around town for an extended
non-stop period), or buy that extra parking space and insure, maintain that extra vehicle. When those costs are calculated in, the differences and inferiority of the BEV on a costwise (and every other) basis are enormous. And those folks who manufacture the”costs to the environment” argument are ignorant of the fact that a 40 mile ranged EREV can easily obtain at least 95% of the gas avoidance of the BEV, even if the BEV owner’s gas powered backup car’ gas consumption is not included. End of discussion, folks. Goodnight Gracie.