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. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
+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~~~
(Quote)
+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….
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
+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
(Quote)
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~~~
(Quote)
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/
(Quote)
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
(Quote)
+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
(Quote)
+4
Jul 30th, 2009 (6:39 am)I knew him before he got famous..
(Quote)
Jul 30th, 2009 (6:40 am)Good idea.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (6:40 am)Not just costs, but benefits too, fall on the EREV side.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!************NPNS
(Quote)
+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
(Quote)
Jul 30th, 2009 (6:45 am)Thanks FME III (is that FME the Third?)(g).
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!************NPNS
(Quote)
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (6:47 am)Done.
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
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
(Quote)
+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)
(Quote)
Jul 30th, 2009 (6:56 am)Welcome and thanks for chiming in. Spread the word!
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!************NPNS
(Quote)
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (6:59 am)Kudos to Dave G on the post. Well done friend.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:02 am)And won’t that sound be the sweetest music ever!
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!************NPNS
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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!
(Quote)
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:07 am)Most excellent. Everyone gains.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!************NPNS
(Quote)
+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!
(Quote)
+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
(Quote)
-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.
(Quote)
+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
(Quote)
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (7:33 am)“Congrats all the way around (Lyle too)!”
I’ll second that!
(Quote)
-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!!
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
+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?
(Quote)
+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?
(Quote)
+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…)
(Quote)
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.)
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
+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
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:23 am)Doesn’t “more than 300″ actually mean MORE than 300?
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!************NPNS
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:25 am)Uh Oh, it’s the phase change Statik again (lol)
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!************NPNS
(Quote)
+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!
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
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?
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
+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
(Quote)
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
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
+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?
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
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).
(Quote)
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:48 am)But does Static believe?
I hope this link to EEStor info is real!!
(Quote)
-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.
(Quote)
Jul 30th, 2009 (8:54 am)Don’t worry fredevad, that stress twitch will go away in no time, it’s “hardly” noticable…
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
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).
(Quote)
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:06 am)How can we know the true benefits without knowing the MPG in generator mode?
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
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
(Quote)
-1
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:20 am)EEStor somehow manages to creep into every thread.
(Quote)
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
(Quote)
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:21 am)Great.
Sounds like an old DOS function…hehe.
Thanks.
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
+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
(Quote)
+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 …
(Quote)
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:28 am)LOL! well it IS powered by magic afterall…
(Quote)
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:29 am)The trouble is, I can’t believe till you believe. I can get close but no cigar, [smile]
(Quote)
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
(Quote)
+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.”.
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
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?
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
-7
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:37 am)Monkey Math + Marketing = FUD
(Quote)
+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).
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:43 am)Thanks Tag!
I didn’t know that. I’ll have to try it out.
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
-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.
(Quote)
-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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
Jul 30th, 2009 (9:55 am)Ditto.
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
+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
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
+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!
(Quote)
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
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:10 am)LOL…..Hope springs eternal —– and hype flows ad infinitem!
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:12 am)Good 2nd quarter Statik?
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
+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!
(Quote)
+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 …
(Quote)
+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?).
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
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
(Quote)
+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
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:28 am)Now that Dave is famous, perhaps he should open a BBQ restaurant.
/sorry
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:36 am)That was a great explanation. Thanks from everyone!.
(Quote)
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
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:40 am)Test….
H( . y . )TERS!
Hey, it worked…
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:41 am)Test…
H( . y . )TERS!
(Quote)
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:42 am)Test…
H( . y . )TERS!
(Quote)
+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).
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:46 am)lol…
You probably never shoul’ve told me this….
The ICEAge is over, Embrace the VoltAge!!
(Quote)
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:46 am)I’m here for you buddy!
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
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
(Quote)
+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??
(Quote)
+3
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:57 am)Dear God, what have we done ….
(Quote)
Jul 30th, 2009 (10:58 am)Excellent post Jackson. I agree with you on all counts. Well said.
(Quote)
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).
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
+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
(Quote)
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:14 am)Test
Dang, didn’t work…
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:15 am)Very interesting read, EVO. I take it you are committed to electric drive? Heeh, as Statik would say.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:18 am)lol….
I wonder if this works on the VoltAge site.
BRB….
(Quote)
+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?
(Quote)
-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.
(Quote)
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:20 am)EEStor – it never stops giving.
(Quote)
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
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:31 am)EEStor FTW !
(Quote)
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:31 am)Created a monster(s) we have!
H( . y . )TERS! er, I mean,
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR***************NPNS
(Quote)
+8
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:32 am)Is it wet under the bridge?
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
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
(Quote)
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:38 am)Plus installation – whatever that cost is.
(Quote)
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
(Quote)
+3
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:40 am)Yeah, that’d be a very long bridge!
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR***************NPNS
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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…
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
+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.
(Quote)
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:48 am)Firefox returns a blank comment with that combo. Or I am doing it wrong.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:55 am)I thought US engineers and scientists use metric? It’s the laypeople who still use miles?
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:58 am)Agreed. Thanks Dave G. I’m very impressed.
(Quote)
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:59 am)Errr, maybe we’ll just punch each other in the shoulder and have a couple beers…
(Quote)
+1
Jul 30th, 2009 (11:59 am)Nice one, I would agree with this math. Too many unknowns though
.
(Quote)
Jul 30th, 2009 (12:00 pm)Firefox returns a blank comment with that combo. Or I am doing it wrong.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)