AND 
GM Begins Work at New Chevy Volt Battery Pack Assembly Plant
On Thursday GM CEO Fritz Henderson announced that GM has begun construction work on a factory in Brownstown Township Michigan in which the Chevy Volt battery packs will be assembled.
GM invested $43 million to develop the plant where packs for the Volt and “other extended range electric vehicles” will be assembled.
The 160,000 square foot facility will be landfill-free and provide 100 jobs. It is the first US based lithium ion battery plant operated by an automaker and will be part of a wholly-owned subsidiary of GM called GM Subsystem Manufacturing LLC.
Equipment installation there is already underway and series production will start in the fourth quarter of 2010 to support Volt launch. Prototypes will be built earlier next year.
“Developing and producing advanced batteries is a key step in GM’s journey to become the leader in electric vehicles,” said Fritz Henderson, GM president and CEO. “This state-of-the-art battery manufacturing site reinforces our commitment to achieve that goal and to deliver clean, fuel-efficient vehicles to our customers.”
GM VP Gary Cowger provided pack details:
- 400 pounds, 5 feet long (next generation will be smaller and lighter)
- 16 kwh, 360 Volts, over 220 cells
- 400 amp peak level
- Cells provided by LG Chem
The plant consist of three areas:
- The Battery Module Pre-assembly
- The Battery Module Final Assembly
- The Pack Main Line
The goal is to process 70,000 cells per day or one every 2.7 seconds.
Here is an animation of the Battery Pack Assembly Plant in Operation:
98 Responses to “GM Begins Work at New Chevy Volt Battery Pack Assembly Plant”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- New York Times Report on the Chevy Volt Generator Mode Driving Experience
- CNBC Test Drive of the Chevy Volt in Charge Sustaining Mode
- Chevy Volt Will be Able to Hit 104 MPH
- Chevy Volt and Battery Program Update
- GM to Announce Initial Volt Markets at LA Auto Show
- Coalition of Industry Leaders Releases Roadmap to get 120 Million Electric Cars on US Roads by 2030
- Op-Ed: GM Reports a $1.2 Billion Loss, but Has the Cash To See Volt Well into Production and Beyond
- Three Chevy Volt Paint Color Finalists Announced
- What BMW Has Learned from the MINI E Program So Far: That They May Need to Build EREVs
- GM: EVs are Cool, but EREV’s are Really Cool
Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts
- Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud? November 20, 2009This is how open minded liberals operate. "And, perhaps most reprehensibly," Delingpole writes, "a long series of communications discussing how best... […]BigCityCat
- Is the Volt Engine Direct Injected? November 20, 2009I recently read that the Cruze's engine will be DI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Cruze#Chevrolet_Cruze Obviously the Cruze's engine will... […]omnimoeish
- First Reports of the Chevy Volt's Charge-Sustaining (Generator) Mode Operation November 20, 2009The first two journalists' reports of what it's like to drive the Chevy Volt while in generator mode operation have been published. 1) New York... […]admin
- Florida giving $5000 rebate to convert Prius to plug-in November 20, 2009- Probably Hymotion - $10,400 standard price - $5000 state rebate - $1000 additional federal incentives - $4,400 final cost. Hurry because their... […]Texas
- New York Times CSM story November 20, 2009Link to the New York Times story of November 19, 2009 about a test ride of the Volt in charge sustaining... […]srschrier
- New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]srschrier
- New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]srschrier
GM-Volt.com is not affiliated with General Motors Company
All contents copyright 2007-2009 GM-Volt.com, LLC - All Rights Reserved
Home | Contact | Privacy Policy | About | Back to Top
August 13th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Good move GM!
One step closer to getting my Volt in my garage.
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
They sure do seem to be doing a lot of actual work for something that is just vapor-ware.
Just kidding of course. Are there still those that believe this isn’t going to happen?
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Yep, pieces will be falling together very quickly now. Winter 2010 will be here before we know it.
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
If the goal is to process 70,000 cells per day and it takes 220 cells for each pack, it means they can assemble about 318 packs every day.
It gives a possibility of around 82000 Voltec cars a year. Not bad for a start. Who said GM was not serious about the Volt ?
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Only 100 new jobs? It must be a highly automated process!
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Yea! go GM!
Help, me Tom Cruise with your black magic…put the fire out!
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
That was my thought too, (wow only a 100 new jobs) but it is most likely to GM’s benefit to have as much automation as possible for accuracy and efficiency reasons.
Darn machines are taking over!!! (cue Terminator music score in background).
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
It’s actually good news, as far as quality is concerned. Robots don’t do mistakes if programmed right.
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Ya, the less humans are involved the better quality should be.
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
It is great to see GM moving forward on this. It is great to have this here in Michigan.
Proud Member of the Angry Mob!
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
What is the mile per Kwh of the battery?
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
This has nothing to do with this thread, but I’ll throw it out there anyway. In the Seattle area, a popular afternoon radio talk show is “The Dori Monson Show.” Yesterday they had a one-hour segment on the Volt – probably as a result of the “230 MPG” publicity.
In listening to most of the segment – and this is bolstered by other comments from media types I’ve heard – I think that GM has a PR challenge in two areas: Cost and environment.
Take the cost factor. Just about everyone I’ve listened to gets immediately down to the “meat and potatoes” of the equation, which is the added cost of the Volt over a similar sized car, and the number of years it will take to break even (if that is even possible). That was evident on yesterday’s radio show as well, from both the host and the guest callers. NOT ONCE WAS THERE ANY MENTION OF THE DRIVING EXPERIENCE. There are many reasons for buying a Volt even at $32,500, but surely some of them have to be the near-silent and ultra-smooth ride, along with the slam-you-back-in-your-seat kind of torque, no? I hope that GM will address the uniqueness of the Volt’s driving experience in upcoming advertising.
Another thing I hear all too often when it comes to the Volt (and all other plug-in electric cars, for that matter) is that we are just moving pollution from the tailpipe to the electric power plant smokestack. As I stated before, this is not as black-and-white as that. Both coal and nuclear power plants are categorized as “base” generation plants. They are not designed to be throttled back and forth to meet demand (as they essentially heat huge boilers), and pretty much run at capacity 24/7/365. Because electric cars will mostly recharge at night when demand is low, they will be taking advantage of power that would otherwise go to waste. I think that GM could make a commercial or two highlighting this fact. They could also address concerns over recycling used battery packs at the end of their life, as that is also something I hear often.
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Pete:
I am not getting your math…..
318 packs per day X 365 days per year = 116,070 packs per year.
Why would you have the plant only working five days per week???
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Not as much traffic as 230 mpg. Guess the plain nuts and bolts aren’t so interesting. It’s that infrastructure thing!
OK Jay, ’splin to me how they’re not on schedule
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
I agree. If G.M. had no intentions of making this a long term commitment, they would outsource the battery construction.
Many of the major automotive components that go into any car, American, Japanese, or European, are outsourced to suppliers. Almost the entire electrical system, all interior soft components, switches, instrument panels, you name it, are outsourced. If G.M. is building a plant to manufacture this specific component, it seems to me they are 100% behind the concept of electric,and partial electric cars and they want to keep the technology in house. Otherwise, it seems, they would just be wasting their money, (and our tax dollars).
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Yeah haven’t we had enough humans screw up GM anyway!
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
For GM. For me it’s like waiting for Christmas when I was a kid. It seems really really long.
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
I agree, GM is going to have to really ramp up the marketing and education department. There are a lot of ignorant people out there spreading bad information.
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Lyle, didn’t you mean Brownstown Township?
(aka Downriver)
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
The benefits of the EV drive is something that Frank Weber constantly talks about. He seems frustrated that it gets lost. We’ll see if Maximum Bob manages to get the word out on this one.
The idea that we’re just moving pollution is just wrong. But it’s hard to know what to do. As shown by the notion that health reform includes “Death Squads”, whacked out notions without factual foundation persist and even thrive in many parts of America. If someone wants to believe something they’re going to believe it regardless of the facts. This is probably more true for the talk show radio viewership than any other demographic I can think of. The average talk show listener is around 72 years old, and no doubt the entire idea of EVs strikes many in the demographic as alien and therefore threatening.
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Has anyone been able to get the animation to work on this thread?
Even with a full T1 line for access, I can’t get it to do anything…
Bummer.
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Ha ha. Yeah he left before he had to eat all those words! (But he’s definitely missed).
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
It’s about damn time. It will still be tough to catch the mighty Toyota who is way ahead in battery tech with their partners.
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Tony Posawatz did a segment on CSPAN today. He is an articulate spokesperson. Probably the best GM has in this medium.
GM has a good crew though. Lutz is great on the web because he’s FAST and spirited. Lauckner is great because he seems to enjoy himself and loves the questions. Ceisel is really nice, earnest, and informative. Weber is best in more structured formats. And John Beriesa comes across as your run of the mill really smart mover and shaker — he actually makes me think that hydrogen may be viable (then I wake up).
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
(click to show comment)
August 13th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
(click to show comment)
August 13th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
He did say he’ll come back for a beatdown if it ships ontime.
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Hahah, don’t forget that Third Shift is never as efficient or down-time free as First or Second.
In reality, assuming this plant will be operating (at peak) around 70% of the time is pretty generous. I think its more like 50,000 a year with 80,000 being stretched to bursting.
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
It’s 50/50 that the current test battery will be raised a notch by next summer. Technology is moving too fast to be content with what was possible a year earlier.
From what I have read, it looks like NGMCO plans on making the EREV battery smaller and lighter over time rather than powering up to 70 mile range.
Is this the right way to go? Use of a smaller battery may accommodate a 5th person in the vehicle. And it will mean dropping 80 lbs (not a big deal).
Is it better to maintain the battery size for a few years and upgrade performance? I would like to see NGMCO offer an EREV truck in 2012. Same size battery, bigger electric motor. Upgrade the stock 150hp to 180hp.
Then in 2013 proceed with the smaller battery for the gen 2 Volt. Followed by an AWD truck in 2014. I would like to see the AWD set up with electric motors front and rear. Both being 100 hp. This is plenty for the Escalade and Suburban and crowd.
Also offer one towing specific work horse model and call it The Bison.
yes we can?
=D~
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
I hear you Don C.
On a similar note, it strikes me as amazing that people still buy foreign cars and send our money overseas when Ford and GM make cars that are now at least as good and in many cases better than anything on the planet.
People get stuck in time and it takes years, even decades, for them to catch up to what the truth is.
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
The price point of the VOLT makes it obvious (to me) that it should be marketed as a “Luxury and Performance car that just so happens to run on electricity”… and “by the way, it also has its own on-board generator”. A simple explanation to the basic operation of the vehicle. That’s all a TV or radio ad needs for the most part.
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Here’s a question that may have been addressed previously, but since we’re talkin’ batteries here…………
The Volt is advertised as providing 40 miles of gasoline-free driving. The ICE kicks in when the battery is 70% depleted is that right? So, when that happens, will I have gone 40 miles or does the battery have the “capacity” of taking the Volt a total of 40 miles?
Seems like it should be the former, yes?
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Hahah, I find that pretty funny.
The Seattle Area is powered in large part by Hydro Electricity. I think the State of Washington is
Hydro > Nuclear > NG > Coal > Wind > Other Renewables
Your suggestion is good.
In the Seattle Area, a commerical promoting that
A.) The Lithium Battery Pack is recyclable
B.) Carbon Emissions per Mile in the Seatle Area will be 1/5 to 1/10 of a Prius
would go over well.
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
40 miles uses 8 kWh.
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
I forgot to add, “that also gets an EPA Annual Driving Average of 230 Miles-Per-Gallon” (your mileage may vary)…
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
GM will need to address some base issue arguments against electric being propagated where petrol is just being replaced by dirty coal.
To add to coffeetimes’ comments, some other points rarely mentioned, are:
1. if all cars were electric, we would actually be able to go jogging/live in the largest cities without damaging our heath due to smog,
2. Removing dependence on foreign oil,
3. Not all power comes from coal; much of it comes from renewable energy with plans to increase this,
4. Power generated from coal is still much more efficient than petrol, with plans to capture carbon emitted by coal stations (though I’m personally not convinced by carbon capture technology yet).
if we don’t start this revolution to electric, we will never get there – I often see mentioned on this site – every journey begins with the first step (or as Mao put it, “qain li zhi xing, shi yu zu xia”).
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
50K sounds low, and 120K sounds high – I work in an industry that typically supplies part to the auto industry.. And while they most likely will start at 5 days, clearly the would ramp up to a 7 day schedule as the volumes increase.
Even at 7 days, I would doubt your going to get all 365/year – typically, sites are closed 12/25, and 1/1 – as those are typically triple time holidays – Most car assembly sites (that I’m familiar with) also typically take a 2 week summer shutdown – that works out to about 349 work days. Also, my experience is the 3rd shift is the MOST productive, no engineers in the way to try and run experiments, they just let the equipment run and make parts..
Finally, I’m not assuming much downtime (Like “steel” – 30% downtime on automated equipment is WAY high, things are typically in the >95% range for uptime). But there will be some select losses, I’m sure they do QA tests, and I’m guessing the 70K cells/day is the input rate, and there will be some fallout for bad parts, failed assemblies, etc – Lets give them another 95% select rate, as it’s mainly an assembly operation, not process – and the cells should have passed outgoing QA at LG in Korea.. Roll that all together…
349 x 318 x .95. (uptime) x .95 (select) = 100K parts/year – give or take 100 parts
Very much inline with the stated goal to ramp up to 100K/year volts, after 2011 – This tells me to ramp beyond that, they are going to need to add a second line
Seems like the 100K year (or 8300 volts/month) is pretty much what they are sizing the battery assembly operation at…
Just my nickel experience in manufacturing, and the numbers seem to fit the backwards calculations to meet the upper bounds of the expected production volumes.
GFA
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
If some GM people read this :
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety that the 2010 Kia Soul, Toyota Prius and Honda Insight have all earned the group’s coveted Top Safety Pick Award
This is the right opportunity for GM people to learn: Putting more steel does not translate to safety. Read this with 2010 camaro failed to get 5 star rating. Find what different they are doing and do the same ( if you cant do a better job ) but resutls are needed. Try to apply on volt and make sure you are there as Top Safety Pick.
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Hi David, according to information provided by GM, the number of kWh available for use to drive the vehicle is limited (by software design) to 8 kWH. But this number is a little fuzzy, because if the battery charges to 85% of charge, then depletes (charge depleting mode of operation) to 30% state of charge before the ICE comes on, the actual window is 8.8 kWh. All these questions will actually be answered once GM allows an independent evaluator to evaluate the Volt for 100 plus miles, so both the AER and charge sustaining mileage can be measured.
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
I would agree with your calculations for mature process, factory, and work-force.
“Also, my experience is the 3rd shift is the MOST productive, no engineers in the way to try and run experiments, they just let the equipment run and make parts..”
Maybe I should have phrased that better. In my experience, the majority of downtime causing events seems for some reason to happen during Third Shift. However a mature process, factory, and workforce should eliminate that problem.
Unfortunetly, the majority of my manufacturing experience is based on more custom work than this Battery plant will eventually be.
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
GM’s battery plant announcement provides some juicy tidbits for those of us who like to speculate about the battery pack’s design.
This is the first time, to my knowlege, that GM has said that the “cells are processed and installed into one of three battery modules which ultimately come together to comprise a single battery pack.” Also, “There are a series of cells in each of the battery packs modules” and “the pack is 360 volts”.
If you take it that each cell operates at about 3.7 volts (per http://www.compactpower.com/lithium.shtml) there are probably 96 cells wired in series in each module to produce the 360 volt pack voltage. (To be more precise, 360 / 96 would be 3.75 volts per cell.) If there are 96 cells per each of the 3 modules there are 288 total cells, which is significantly more than the “more than 220 cells” stated in the GM press release, but we have prior statements from Frank Weber ( http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/10/31/test-drive-everything-youve-ever-wanted-to-know-about-the-chevy-volt-we-think/#more-51380 ) “more than 250″, Bill Wallace ( http://evworld.com/EVWORLD_TV.CFM?storyid=1716 at 6minutes 10 seconds) “closer to 300 than 200″, and Mary Beth Stanek ( http://www.narucmeetings.org/Presentations/Stanek%20PHEV_Nov08%20-%20final90.pdf at slide 15) “288″; so I think the total cell count of 288 is the real number.
The 3 modules of the pack presumably occupy 1) the area in front of the “2 beam” notch, 2) the the area in between the “2 beam” notch and the crossbar, and 3) the crossbar. (Note: it doesn’t look like these areas are as equal in size as you would expect.)
Finally GM says “The batteries current amp peak level is 400.” The product of 400 amps and 360 volts is 144 kilowatts which is about right to go with the traction motor’s rating of 110 kilowatts and some less that 100 percent efficienty of the inverter’s conversion of DC volts from the pack to AC volts to the motor.
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
If I were GM, I’d target regional audiences in terms of Volt advertising. For example, as you said, hydropower constitutes 75% of the electrical power generated in the state of Washington, and Seattle City Light owns their own Ross Dam generation complex making for dirt-cheap residential power. For this market, I’d talk about how cheap it was to charge up each night. In markets that used coal as their primary electrical generation plants, I’d hammer home the “nightly recharging using otherwise wasted energy” message.
But for all US markets, I’d advertise that this is an American designed and built car that uses American energy as its primary fuel. I’d love to see a Volt driving by OPEC’s headquarters building in Vienna, Austria with the passengers’ butts all sticking out the window mooning them!
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
If you believe the J1711 Spec is accurate for you personally, there is declining returns on increasing battery size.
For example, moving from a 16 kWh (8kWh) usuable battery to a ~30 kWh (16 kWh) 100 mile AER battery will only raise the Volt’s J1711 number from 230 MPG to 367 MPG. The end cost of this move would be a upfront cost of ~12,000 + (at current prices) and lead to a reduction of only ~ 25 gallons of gas a year.
I think far more likely is GM is hard at work finding a Higher Power battery with High Durability to do a AER 30 or AER 20 Car. These cars would return J1711 results of ~90 MPG and ~120 MPG
I would take a savings of roughly 8,000 up front (40 AER–> 20 AER) at the expense of ~100 gallons of gasoline a year.
I personally see the application especially to light duty trucks. Say A 20 AER and 30 MPG type light truck using the same 16 kWh as the Volt would return J1711 numbers of 50 MPG AND 25 kWh/100 mile which looks great compared typical light duty trucks in the ~20 MPG range.
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
The goal of GM for the Volt project, which they claim to be meeting in their last press release
Is the for 10 years/150,000 Miles, A driver with a full battery can drive 40 miles smiliar to the EPA City Cycle before the ICE starts.
It seems as a side effect, A driver with a full battery can drive 40 miles similar to the EPA HWY Cycle before the ICE Starts
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
I do wonder why an existing factory wasn’t recycled. Many factories are essentially large boxes, and it is the equipment that is inside that really counts.
Maybe there were more tax breaks to building new than recycling old?
I guess this was answered many months ago when Lyle posted about breaking ground on the new factory.
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
It doesn’t work for me either . Damn it .
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
I think your putting the horse before the cart, right?
Promised dates are nothing new for GM. You do not get the luxury of getting me to swallow unproven promises, after eating lies for so long.
I am very hopeful, that GM can meet or even come close to meeting its delivery dates. But lets not throw Bob Lutz a party quite yet.
If anyone has some “splannin’ to do” its GM for all its past mistakes.
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Wow. Your cool!
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Interesting that the batteries will supply peak current of 400 amps. So, with 360 Vdc batteries, you get instantaneous power capability of 144 kW or 192 HP, which ain’t bad for a small car. The great thing about electric is the torque at low speed.
I wanna see someone peel off a set of tires! Now that would get people interested!
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Which matches up with the production capacity of 60,000 per year.
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Wow, this thread is custom made for Tagamet.
I can see initially see batteries getting exported for the Opel Ampera as well.
As to the Version two being smaller and lighter. Expect to see a five seat Volt with this version.
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
If you notice there isn’t much room between the two rear seats. I think I’d rather have that nice console, complete with cup holders, than an unusable fifth seat. YMMV.
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
It seems the EPA has decided that 50 miles in the “magic number”. What car manufacturer could resist the temptation to up their AER to 50 miles and gain an EPA rating of 1000 MPG or more!
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
I liked T1 the best. T2 was much better than T3. Arnold was starting to look old by T3
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
The Volt wont charge to 85%, it will charge to 80%. But if it did, then the RE would kick on at 35%. Regardless, tHe design is to use 50% of a 16Kwh battery… that’s the window. 8Kwh for 40 miles
I think a better question is how/if/when will that window open up over time.
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
You know GM is guaranteed to sell at least a few Volts…… to their competitors, who will tear them apart to learn all of these details.
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Greg Ciesel replied to my question on this on the GM site. He said that the future designs may not be a T-shape, and that the new Buick is actually going to use a rectangle shape.
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
DonC and Koz,
I just hope that statik is keeping a list of all of the alias’s he’s using.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Donc,
Nice assessment of the PR skills of the staff. I think Lutz and Weber show the most passion – especially about the intangibles. They’ll ALL need to get on the stump now to get the good word out!
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
I created a thread in the engineering forum a few days ago to address this very question:
http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3211
Briefly, I think the Volt will stay in Charge Depletion mode until it delivers 8 net kwHours from the pack. If you drive gingerly with the A/C off you’ll get more miles, if not, less.
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Dave K,
I think I’d shave a year OFF your projections and give it an 80% probability. Then again, I’m an optimist (too).
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Steel,
Your approach would save more gallons of fuel, but narrow the field of prospective buyers (maybe). I guess it depends on your daily commute and size vehicle needs.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Here’s the plant
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=brownstown+township,+mi&sll=42.23716,-83.131485&sspn=0.368567,0.869293&ie=UTF8&ll=42.161399,-83.238258&spn=0.023063,0.054331&t=h&z=15
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
No luck with the video on my machine either. GM had the same problem initially, when they faked the moon landings. They’ll work it out.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
I hate to say this, but my upgrade was to the T1……
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Tag:
It is pretty boring, but I found it on another site….
http://gmtv.feedroom.com/?fr_story=77811b257600d3b357c6d89b304264fd081d6fe2
(Quote)
August 13th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
I emailed the animation to my gmail account and it works from there. It basically opens the ‘real’ url that way. I suspect that there is a component missing to play from gm-volt.com.
There’s some really wacky electrics out there
http://www.plasmaboyracing.com/reviews.php
(Quote)
August 14th, 2009 at 2:16 am
So wait. GM is getting $106,000,000 from the Federal government to build this plant, yet they are only spending $43,000,000? Where’s the remaining $46,000,000 that was specifically set aside for this plant going?
http://www.detnews.com/article/20090805/AUTO01/908050382/1025/Big-3–Michigan-win-big-in-battery-grants
(Quote)
August 14th, 2009 at 4:51 am
I don’t believe it’s vaporware, but to play devils advocate it was the taxpayers that built this battery center. Not only because they got bailed out but because they got all that battery money from the FED recently. Yes there’s still risk but a lot of it lies with the taxpayer at this point.
(Quote)
August 14th, 2009 at 5:30 am
kubel:
This plant is only one of a few projects GM is doing with that money. Another is an advanced battery research lab at the University of Michigan.
Cab Driver Says:
If you take it that each cell operates at about 3.7 volts….
===================
IIRC the LG cells will be updated before production starts to ~4.2 volts due to a running change in their innards. LiION’s are moving fast, so who knows what will happen before the end of next year?
Hell….for all we know EESTOR might upset LiION’s apple cart and Volt will get an ESU a small fraction the size of the current design.
Don’t laugh – that leaked recording of their founder discussing the tech in what was supposed to be a privileged conversation had some very, very interesting nuggets in it.
(Quote)
August 14th, 2009 at 6:33 am
100 jobs – this is at least 5.5$ per hour (or how much is min us salary now?)
Compare this to Chinese workers, who are happy to work for 100$ per month (!)
Automation is the only way for developed countries. In long period of time, robot cost even less then Chinese worker.
(Quote)
August 14th, 2009 at 6:37 am
Thanks for this excellent hypothetical “tear-down analysis”, complete with references!!!
(Quote)
August 14th, 2009 at 6:40 am
So it is 16kwh, not 8?
100 mi/25 kwh x 16 kwh = 64 mi???
(Quote)
August 14th, 2009 at 6:42 am
ps. “us” is US, my typing mistake, sorry
(Quote)
August 14th, 2009 at 6:42 am
DocM: Do you have a link or source for that 4.2 volt cell upgrade? I’ve never heard of it and I’ve spent way too much time on the web reading up on variations of lithium ion cells. The cell voltage is determined by the combination of cathode and anode materials: respectively lithium manganese oxide and graphite in the case of the current Volt cell.
I’ve read of several lab experiments that are aimed at improving the energy density of Lithium Ion cells by a factor of 5 or more, but these experiments are all projected as being 5 years or more away from production.
Do tell if you remember where your info came from!
(Quote)
August 14th, 2009 at 7:12 am
You’re welcome.
By the way, did you see my thread from a couple days ago ( http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3218 ) reporting that when I asked Frank Weber if the 12 volt battery could start the ICE he said no, since there’s no 12 volt starter motor?
I’m dissapointed they didn’t choose to include a DC / DC converter to step up the 12 volts to 360 volts to be able to run the inverter to the generator to start the ICE if the battery pack fails. This is a significant shortfall of the functional redundancy you’ve been preaching for so long.
(Quote)
August 14th, 2009 at 8:11 am
As you say, “….there’s no 12 volt starter motor”. I fully understand your concern, but I don’t fully share it because years of doing FMECA (failure modes, effects, criticality analyses) on high-reliability batteries have convinced me a FULLY discharged state (or shorted condition) is simply not a credible failure for a Li-Ion battery designed to supply up to 400 amps momentarily. [All cells will be by-passed to handle open-circuit failures and the design should tolerate several shorted (or dead) cells.] In any case, the traction battery should always have plenty of “oomph” to spin the ICE even after suffering every credible failure mode I can think of.
As to the battery ever reaching a fully-discharged state due to extended storage (i.e., multiple months or years), or simply to long-term non-use UN-plugged, being unable to crank up the ICE will be a fairly minor issue. The major concern would be that the traction battery may have been been permanently damaged —perhaps so badly that it won’t even hold a charge. Tow truck time!
In any event when the battery reaches a ~30% SOC in normal driving, the ICE/GEN is always started to sustain that SOC. But in the unlikely event the ICE/GEN should stall or die, a 30% SOC leaves more than enough to restart it —dozens of times.
/An interesting related question might be, “Will it be possible to ‘jump start’ a stranded Volt?”
(Quote)
August 14th, 2009 at 8:20 am
My comment on my question at 8:11 above: It should never be necessary to “jump start” a Volt, because it’ll be harder to strand a Volt than to “stop a Trane”!
No kidding!!!
(Quote)
August 14th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Good! It is about time. I hope that once the operation is in process that GM uses the facility wisely.
(Quote)
August 14th, 2009 at 10:19 am
>> “Bring yourself up to the 21st century man.”
#1, A T1 beats the livin’ snot out of dial-up, which a lot of people are still stuck with, due to lack of alternatives.
#2, A T1 is superior to many lower-tier DSLs, 2-way satellite, and cable modems. All of these are the CHOICE of many people, because their cost/value proposition.
#3, it’s not as if the man can deploy his own telecomm infrastructure. Maybe a T1 is the best he can get, given his location and services available.
-1, thumbs down for you… for being a bandwidth snob. Boo!!
(Quote)
August 14th, 2009 at 10:27 am
“Ain’t Bad” is an understatement!
IIRC, my SL2’s were around 124HP (at optimal RPMs… not instantaneous!) and I had no problem driving them in a “peppy” fashion*.
Heck, 192 HP @ 0 RPMs sounds nearly insane (in a -very- good way!) to me, given how I drive.
* = “God Bless, and we’ll miss you, 5-speed manual transmissions!”
(Quote)
August 14th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Do you ever wake up on the right side of the bed?
(Quote)
August 14th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
>Because electric cars will mostly recharge at night when demand is low, they will be taking advantage of power that would otherwise go to waste.
I keep hearing this chestnut but I don’t believe it — have any reputable links? This “wasted power” would create a fantastic amount of heat, where are the “power disposal plants” which dispose of it? Remember conservation of energy and the first law of thermodynamics? It has to go somewhere. “Capacity going to waste”, now yes, that one could be true.
Oh and don’t forget the 30% (approx) losses between the power plant and your house, funny how folks forget that little detail.
I’m not anti-electric, it will have its place, but I hate to see people posting junk science. Don’t even get me started on hydrogen, ethanol, 230 mpg, etc. People, lithium and hydrogen are *elements* they can’t be “used up”, except in the sun and in H-bombs, in the case of hydrogen.
My first (and perhaps last) post here, hopefully I didn’t screw up… (strange there’s no password though?)
(Quote)
August 14th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
What you say makes good sense. Let’s hope your right that it will be extraordinarily rare for the battery pack to be so wounded as to be unable to start the ICE.
As to jump starting, it seems to me that the same lack of a 12v to 360v DC/DC converter means that the Volt could only be jump started by an external 360v source (another Volt?).
(Quote)
August 14th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
“4. Power generated from coal is still much more efficient than petrol, with plans to capture carbon emitted by coal stations (though I’m personally not convinced by carbon capture technology yet).”
Sorry for the late reply, but this caught my attention
If we look at the efficieny path for Coal to Wheels we have 4 factors
Power Plant Efficiency * Distrabution Efficiency * Charging Efficiency * Drivetrain Efficiency
For Petrol Engines, we go from Oil to Wheels, we also have 4 factors
Refining Efficieny * Distrabution Efficiency * Engine Efficiency * Drivetrain Efficiency
The US DOE provides the following
Coal Power Plant Efficiency, on average, currently 0.33
Refining Efficieny * Distrabution Efficiency, current .825
Electric Distrabution Efficieny, current .925
Telsa Claims thier Drive Train is .92 efficient
Test results for a A123 Lithium Plug-in show charging efficieny of .84
Automatic Drivetrains are between .8 to .9 (high quality CVT). I am going to go with .85, High Quality, Single Clutch/Fluid Lock, standard transmission
Thus Electric Efficiency Path
23% Efficient at turning Coal Chemical Engery into Forward Motion. (High Quality CC NG or Fuel OIl Turbines is much better at 37-38% efficiency)
Petrol Efficiency Path
Engine Efficieny * .7. Thus average engine efficienys of ~32% are equal in terms of energy usage to Coal Engergy. Hybrid Automobiles are a good example of this. Toyota Prius is ~30%+ efficient over the EPA cycles. Regardless, this is feasible.
So it can be argued that 50% or more of Coal plants —> Volt is less efficient that a Strong Hyrbid Option
However, I think, in the US anyway the electric efficieny path, could instead be a “fossil fuel efficieny path”. US on the whole generates ~ 50% of power from Coal, 20% from NG, 20% from Nuclear and 10% from Hydro, Wind, etc.
(.5 * Coal Plant Average Effiency + .2 * NG average efficiency + .3 * 1 for Nuclear, Hydro, Renewables that use no Fossil Fuels) * Distrabution Efficiency * Charging Efficiency * Drivetrain Efficiency
Given DOE (This would be power sent to distrabution/energy in) estimates of .33 for Coal and .4 for NG, I get a US Fossil Fuel efficieny of ~.39
A Toyota Prius is ~.23 and a typical 30 mpg C-segment car is ~.14
So in the US, if your concerned about Fossil Fuel Usage, an All Electrical Approach is more than 2.5 times as efficient as a typical petrol car and 70% more efficient than a Strong Hybrid. CO2 emission numbers would be even better. (Natural Gas emits far less C02 than Coal or Gas)
A Volt, using the SAE J1711 driving spec, is about 0.34 Fossil Fuel Efficient (UF ~ .7, so .7 * .39 + .3 * .23). An efficiency gain of nearly 50% over a strong Hybrid and more than 2 times as efficient as a typical C-segment car.
Quite an achievement in my mind.
(Quote)
August 14th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
That is an easy mistake to make, but the true answer is one of the reasons why the Volt is so brilliant.
The usable capacity is only 8KWhr since you only cycle 50% of the total 16kWhr battery capacity initially. This means the battery degrades much more slowly over time than if you tried using it all (like some EVs do to a certain extent). This means that you will still retain at least 8 KWhr capacity after 150 k miles and won’t have to replace your battery or expect any degradation of performance over its lifetime.
(Quote)
August 14th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
And I’m sure the average employee on the battery assembly line will look exactly like that leggy blonde at :18. Lol. I’ve never understood why people in preview videos aren’t representative of the actual people who will be using the building.
(Quote)
August 14th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Can i jump start another regular car w/my Volt? Does the 12V battery have the CCA to do it? Are the terminals accessible?
(Quote)
August 14th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
I suppose you could “jump-start” the volt, but not in the traditional sense. Buy one of those little 110 V inverters that run off of 12V instead of jumper cables
Plug it into your jumping car’s cigarette lighter socket (which no longer actually contain cigarette lighters anymore) and plug your volt into it to charge at 110V.
when trying to jump start a regular car as well…
The volt would have to have a way to limit the charge rate because most of those units won’t put out 10A, more like 2 or 3. Anyway, then you wait for awhile (possibly a long while) until there’s enough charge (don’t know yet how much that is) for the volt to be able to power up and start the ICE.
This assumes a lot of things such as being able to limit the charge rate and that the battery isn’t completely kaput. But you have similar issues (kaput battery
(Quote)
August 14th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
That 144kW output caught my eye. If I recall correctly GM was making some noises that they thought they could get the converj to accelerate more quickly with the same drivetrain as the volt just by changing the programming. It would seem there’s enough extra power there available from the battery pack at least to do that if you can handle the extra power everywhere else. Probably that boils down to handling more heat… Interesting.
(Quote)
August 14th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
A robot wouldn’t have made that mistake.
(Quote)
August 14th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
I can’t find the original information I was basing this on, but after looking around a bit more, you are probably correct (and thanks for pointing that out!) I may have been confusing waste electricity with unused generation capacity. Here’s a link that talks about that:
http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/605.html
The money quote: “”We were very conservative in looking at the idle capacity of power generation assets,” said PNNL scientist Michael Kintner-Meyer. “The estimates didn’t include hydro, renewables or nuclear plants. It also didn’t include plants designed to meet peak demand because they don’t operate continuously. We still found that across the country 84 percent of the additional electricity demand created by PHEVs could be met by idle generation capacity.”
(Quote)
August 14th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
But it was the voters who voted in the Congress that gave the blessings to the 2 FMs (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac) to do the things that melted down the credit system… and they did that while GM was figuring out how to bring a Volt to market.
(Quote)
August 14th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
I don’t know about the CCA rating, but if you check out this very cool animation of how the Volt pieces go together ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7T0m1Z2FO4&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eyoutube%2Ecom%2Fwatch%5Fpopup%3Fv%3Dg7T0m1Z2FO4&feature=player_detailpage ) you can see that the 12v battery terminals should be accessible by removing the floor of the rear storage area under the hatchback.
There’s a lot of other stuff to be learned from the animation too. Have fun!
(Quote)
August 16th, 2009 at 12:51 am
Really late, but this needs to be addressed
“Oh and don’t forget the 30% (approx) losses between the power plant and your house, funny how folks forget that little detail.”
The DOE estimates the Transmission and Distribution Network in the United States is 92.5% efficient. Go check out the DOE site. 30% is just scupper wrong. Now if you meant the US system produces more than 30% of the power that is consumed… I think you just proved the point you were arguing against.
And let me just add. Lithium can be used up. The entire store of easy to mine Lithium could someday be bound into batteries current in use. I guess someday we might have a peak lithium theory.
(Quote)
August 16th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Seems we know a lot about the Volt but not so much about the American Auto industry and it’s competition. Our government is lending money to our auto industry… unlike banking they have plans to pay it back. The taxpayers gave the banking industry something like 800billion dollars to cover loans that should have never been given and I don’t see plans to pay it back. Our auto industry was hit with banks that were going under and couldn’t lend money and a world wide drop in auto sales of 40 percent. The Japanese routinely “bail out” Japanese industry (our competition) but I never see that in the press. Did you ever wonder why, after more than 15 years of making the Prius, hybrids only make up about 1% of the cars Toyota sells?
The Voltec is not a hybrid… it’s electric drive. It’s the best technology to date.
(Quote)
August 17th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Good news! Bring it on.
(Quote)
October 2nd, 2009 at 2:17 pm
YAY!!!! What now, Toyota!?
(Quote)