Some expressed concern when GM’s new sales and marketing chief Mark Reuss told GM-Volt he expects pure EVs to eventually obtain a larger market than EREVs.
“As (Volt) technology flows down to BEV in what will be smaller cars to carry smaller packs, that may be the higher volume play over a longer time,” he said.
It seems likely GM is expecting multiple healthy parallel markets including those for EREVs, BEVs, and plugin PHEVs. As there are many subgroups of consumers each with their own specialized needs, offering options for all of them makes good business sense. This is especially true if costly common denominators such as lithium-ion packs can be eventually be brought to lower price points though economies of scale.
“In the end, the market will determine the winner and the technology that carries the day,” Tony Posawatz told GM-Volt.com.
“Considering the effects of temperature and the real world on pure EV’s, they will be limited for many years to come,” he said. ”The concept of E-Flex or the flexible extended range electric vehicle will be much more than a bridging strategy.”
“We are happy that the EREV will someday help to launch EVs into the market,” he added.
Of course GM is limited by production capacity which is why multiple Voltecs aren’t yet planned, and part of the reason the Cadillac Converj was cancelled.
Confirming this Bob Lutz conceded in a text message to Automotive News “the Volt and Ampera will use all available capacity for years to come.”
+9
Mar 16th, 2010 (6:38 am)Yes, it is a bridging strategy, but it is a very long bridge with many exits.
So many new technologies can and will come out of this R&D. NASA has helped us in our everyday lives with the inventions they have produced. GM will do the same as they push this technology forward. EREVs are here to stay for a long while. BEVs will need a major improvement before they become mainstream. This includes quick chargers everywhere.
Mar 16th, 2010 (6:40 am)Yes, yes, yes. Build electric drive into everything. It makes sense to advance on multiple fronts. Every vehicle can use either a full-on electric drive or a supplemental drive to help with fuel economy. Not all of those can scale using Voltec technology alone.
-10
Mar 16th, 2010 (6:43 am)(click to show comment)
+5
Mar 16th, 2010 (6:45 am)Gosh darn it. I really miss my StarTac.
+13
Mar 16th, 2010 (7:00 am)From the topic intro above:
“In the end, the market will determine the winner and the technology that carries the day, Tony Posawatz told GM-Volt.com. Considering the effects of temperature and the real world on pure EV’s, they will be limited for many years to come, he said. The concept of E-Flex or the flexible extended range electric vehicle will be much more than a bridging strategy (ie, to BEVs, PHEVs, etc).”
For me, these comments from a long-term engineer and EV “insider” at GM sum it all up.
+5
Mar 16th, 2010 (7:03 am)A car is not as simple as a cellphone. Just look at Toyota for an example. GM needs to do the Volt right. The Volt has had a set project timetable that was already considered very aggresive. And so far it has met that project time table.
+2
Mar 16th, 2010 (7:07 am)You mean you actually bought one of those? Why didn’t you wait ’til they were able to serve everybody’s needs.
+1
Mar 16th, 2010 (7:11 am)Sounds like YOU are an early adopter! (lol)
I sounds to me like GM *is* reading the site and that this was a direct response to the papable drop in morale recently. Seems like a nice thing.
I’m a bit befuddled about Max Bob’s comment at the end though. It seems a contradiction (or put the pace in perspective).
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
No ER, No Sale!
+1
Mar 16th, 2010 (7:11 am)Don’t follow this. Motorola is a horrible example of a company that lost a dominant position in a market. You think GM is doing worse?
+1
Mar 16th, 2010 (7:17 am)lol. Because it met my needs perfectly. And if they had an upgrade for it, I would still have a Motorola phone. But like SteveK9 says, they lost their dominance. Probably because they didn’t have an upgrade.
+5
Mar 16th, 2010 (7:22 am)The Volt isn’t exactly a big car to begin with. As someone that is 6’4” tall with a wife and two kids, I was kind of hoping the technology would flow up to bigger vehicles at some point.
Judging by the number of SUVs, trucks and large sedans on the road, I don’t think most people really want smaller vehicles, they only settle for smaller vehicles when gas prices and financial circumstances force them to.
-1
Mar 16th, 2010 (7:23 am)I was actually refering more to the Brick phones of the early 80s.
http://www.retrobrick.com/moto8000.html
Man they had cahunas to introduce those.
Mar 16th, 2010 (7:29 am)I’ve seen photos of Bob Lutz (who I believe is about your height) seated in the Volt’s driver’s seat and he still had headroom without slumping down. I think you’ll be surprised how big the interior really is!
+7
Mar 16th, 2010 (7:34 am)From the post: “Confirming this Bob Lutz conceded in a text message to Automotive News ‘the Volt and Ampera will use all available capacity for years to come.’ ”
Does anyone else find this dismaying?
A predicition: If the Volt/Ampera is a high success GM will find a way to increase capacity — PROVIDED that at some point it ceases to lose money with each one.
Mar 16th, 2010 (7:41 am)”The concept of E-Flex or the flexible extended range electric vehicle will be much more than a bridging strategy.”
Everyone can now celebrate by doing the “Volt Dance”!
Mar 16th, 2010 (7:42 am)ha, I never had one of those. Mine was in a carrying bag with a shoulder strap.
+2
Mar 16th, 2010 (7:43 am)Hi all,
I agree with both posts from Nasaman, and I concur with the opinion that ER-EVs are there to stay for all the good reasons given.
BTW, out of topic and only for those of you who can read French, our Commission for regulating gas and electricity markets in Belgium has published an exiting report on the effects of electrification of vehicles on the grid.
Their conclusion : a massive electrification if done intelligently can REDUCE the price of electricity trough V2G and lead to a more ecological way to produce electricity.
You may find the report here : http://www.creg.info/pdf/Etudes/F929FR.pdf
best regards,
JC NPNS
Mar 16th, 2010 (8:18 am)Ha Ha, Bag phones! It’s a wonder those didn’t poison the market so badly that nobody ever bought another cell phone.
+2
Mar 16th, 2010 (8:24 am)Agree 100%. They are committing less than 1% of their ‘capacity’ over the next 2-3 years to what most likely will be 90% of their capacity in 10 years. In 3 years expected improvements in battery technology combined with expected increased in fuel prices will already make EREV and in many case BEV cars preferable to ICE cars for anyone with access to an outlet.
I already know I will never buy another car in my life that is ICE only. In 3 years the number of folks that are in my camp will grow far beyone the 1% they are now committing.
+3
Mar 16th, 2010 (8:27 am)I took it as an expression of how popular the Volt and Ampera will be. That being said, I agree with FME III, “GM will” need to “find a way to increase capacity.”
Mar 16th, 2010 (8:43 am)JC — Thank you. Interesting report, and interesting that they are so deep into vehicle electrification in their thinking. Belgium must take it seriously. My sense is that in the USA vehicle electrification is seen more as a curiosity, maybe because there is as of now nothing available to buy.
+1
Mar 16th, 2010 (8:49 am)“Of course GM is limited by production capacity which is why multiple Voltecs aren’t yet planned, and part of the reason the Cadillac Converj was cancelled.
Confirming this Bob Lutz conceded in a text message to Automotive News “the Volt and Ampera will use all available capacity for years to come.””
Production increases have to be planned out carefully and it is very risky.. and GM is not sure of what the demand will be.
Mar 16th, 2010 (8:50 am)The brick in a bag cell phones are a great example of how battery technology and technology itself progresses at great speed when consumer demand drives competition.
Granted, EVs are complex machines, much more than a mobile phone, but the telecom industry proved how infrastructure grew exponentially with adoption of the technology and rising demand.
I stuck with Motorola as long as I could until my Razr paled in capability with my current Korean phone. Moto is fighting back with it’s current Droid Google phones but they aren’t available with my carrier.
BUILD IT AND THEY WILL COME.
RECHARGE! James
Mar 16th, 2010 (8:53 am)Thank you RB, diplomacy has never been one of my virtues!
+1
Mar 16th, 2010 (8:56 am)Think Plugin 2mode. But the Volt is not a real small car, When you see it, it is bigger then most people think just looking at photos. That said your right the Volt is not big enough for every family. Many people need/want a SUV or PU. Again plugin 2mode hopefully with 10 miles all electric.
Mar 16th, 2010 (9:03 am)But Range is still a problem with cell phones. If EVs are like cell phones, will EVs just drop us off or stop working when we pass under large electric wires? :>)
+13
Mar 16th, 2010 (9:32 am)No intention of thread hi-jacking here, but I wanted to share my experience driving a Tesla yesterday that a friend brought in for a quick spin. He bought it used from a guy who was a bit too heavy to fit into it and it had just 600 miles on it. It was the first time I had ever driven an EV and after Hal explained the sequence for getting into the cockpit without injuring my back, we were on the way.
I remembered when Lyle posted his video test driving a Tesla – very similar experience. I was going 50 and tromped on it; the best descriptor I can give is: Prepare for Warp Drive! Apart from all of the reasons we discuss here about why to power our personal transportation needs with electrons rather than hydrocarbons, I think when people get a taste for the drive of “a f-u-l-l-y o-p-e-r-a-t-i-o-n-a-l electric car” they’ll be no going back.
So I asked Hal how he likes it. He said it’s great, the way of the future, but he mentioned that we was out the other day driving around the S.F. bay area and became concerned about having enough charge to get home. He said, “I was ‘white knuckling it’ all the way home.” We talked about the Volt and the on-board generator and he agreed that is the way to go. After the novelty of the new toy where’s off, it’s still about getting from point A to point B as safely and comfortably as one can afford.
+3
Mar 16th, 2010 (9:47 am)As is the case with all new technology, the ideas about what direction to go in changes by the day. That in some ways is to be welcomed, but it’s difficult, after reading the comments from the last week or so, to avoid concluding that GM has no real plans for extending the Voltec platform to other vehicles and that in fact, it is pulling back from the technology.
The suggestion that this is because of capacity limitations seems a canard. What exact part of the car is capacity constrained? The steering wheel? The seats? If you assume it’s the battery, which seems unlikely — if LG Chem can build one factory why not another — then you’re left with the the argument that there isn’t enough battery capacity to build EREV vehicles so GM will instead have to build BEVs with larger battery packs! Just doesn’t make any sense.
My interpretation is that GM’s thinking has changed. They’re just not telling us the straight story. My kind guess would be that the learnings from the Volt development have suggested alternative paths. My unkind guess is that a new management group feels it necessary to pee on all bushes just so everyone knows it’s their territory. My preference would be for the former but reality suggests the latter.
+1
Mar 16th, 2010 (9:57 am)You’re preaching to the choir here. Why not tell Mark Reuss? He doesn’t seem to have gotten the memo.
+1
Mar 16th, 2010 (9:58 am)“Confirming this Bob Lutz conceded in a text message to Automotive News “the Volt and Ampera will use all available capacity for years to come.””
Sounds like not even a full BEV will hit the market from GM for “years to come”. So, what gives?
Mar 16th, 2010 (10:05 am)If you remember the first “mobile” phones were hard wired to the car trunk, which is why they were called “car phones”. This brilliant piece of marketing and product development, along with the idea of naming a product after a technology — “let’s call it a cell phone cause it uses cells” — were sure signs that the wireline telcos were players in the market.
+2
Mar 16th, 2010 (10:06 am)#14
Instead of “dismaying”, I would use the word “disingenuous”. This is a company which has been closing plants and laying off workers at top speed for years. “use all available capacity”??? Huh?
Bob Lutz, LOL.
Mar 16th, 2010 (10:07 am)#1
Says it all, IMHO. +1
Mar 16th, 2010 (10:13 am)#21
Nothing like $6+/gallon gas to focus the mind. I assume that France, given its close ties with Reanult/Nissan, is right there with them. With apologies to GWB, maybe it’s time for the New World to learn something from the Old.
+1
Mar 16th, 2010 (10:14 am)#17
Outstanding, as always. Thanks. +1
+1
Mar 16th, 2010 (10:14 am)To me this confirms that GM wants the Volt to be their emphasis in the EV market for the near term which I think is the right way to go. Its an understatement to say the Volt development has been a MAJOR undertaking. Now they need to put their energy into making it a commercial success which means not immediately watering down the EREV advantage by coming out with a BEV in the same timeframe. Let’s let the Volt and the Leaf go toe to toe and see what happens!
+1
Mar 16th, 2010 (10:20 am)No kidding. +1. No wait, we wouldn’t want to do that! That would kill jobs and hurt the poor. Better to just keep importing oil and jeopardize both national security and the economy.
Everyone wants to lose weight but no one wants to eat less or exorcise more.
+6
Mar 16th, 2010 (10:27 am)Safe to say that over time that the Volt’s battery capacity will increase, and the size/weight of the onboard generator will decrease. At some point it will become an emergency generator only powerful enough to recharge with the car stopped, enough to get you home. Not sure why so many have an obsession with the “pure” EV, maybe they like hitchhiking.
The engine in the Volt may not be ideal, but that’s what they had to work with. I’ve read that it takes a billion dollars to develop a new engine from scratch, and that’s a boring regular piston engine. The wacky Popular Science engines could take several billion $$ and several years to develop, and may not be any better in the end. GM doesn’t have the money or the time for this.
It’s easy to say, “why didn’t they build tiny cell phones 20 years ago”, but the technologies and knowledge base just weren’t there. Same with electric cars, you have to get version 1.0 done before you can start even thinking about version 2.0. Twenty years from now people will be laughing at what we consider as ‘high-tech’ today. Technology takes baby steps forward, it’s not a conspiracy to empty your wallet, that’s just the way things are — “throw out all your DVDs, Blu-Ray is here!!!”.
-5
Mar 16th, 2010 (10:45 am)I think pure EV will be the dominate platform from very early on, especially with Nissan LEAF hitting the road with 500,000 copies in a couple of years. They will doiminate followed by smaller players like Tesla Model S, Min Cooper E, Smart4TwoE, etc.
I think the real reason GM is going to make pure EV and multiple different Hybrids is to hedge their bet since nobody knows how fast the market will grow and/or which will be the most popular platform.
Personally I would like to see much more advances on the electronics side of automobiles. They can start with the ubiquitous Steering Wheel, do we really need this thing anymore since most modern cars now have Drive-By-Wire technology. I would like to Steer my EV using the Apple iPad. Don’t laugh, the iPhone has already successfully fully controlled cars in real world driving scenarios. There is no reason why I cannot steer my vehicle using an iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad, actually much better than using the old-school steering wheel. GM needs to start thinking outside the box or they are going to wakeup one day and realized they have been fossilized into the dinosaur dungeon.
+1
Mar 16th, 2010 (10:48 am)OT, but the current “Automobile” magazine has an interesting artiicle on the Tesla. Even more interesting is a sidebar on charging stations in California, and a website showing their locations, many of them free. http://www.evchargermaps.com.
Also, they independently drove it 200 miles on a charge in Michigan, at an ambient tempreature of 37 degrees F., albeit by using VERY careful driving techniques, althoug cruising at 70 mph on the freeway portion.
Pretty encouraging, actually.
Mar 16th, 2010 (10:53 am)#39
As a pretty old school vintage racer, I started to sneer at this. But then I remembered my younger son when he was so engrossed with his GT II, or whatever it was, racing video game. I finally got him a steering wheel, gas pedal, brake, setup for Christmas, thinking to make it more realistic for him. After trying it for awhile, he stopped using it. He could do faster lap times using the buttons on the regular game controller, LOL. So maybe there’s something in what you are saying.
+1
Mar 16th, 2010 (10:58 am)#40
Wow, it even put up a linky (sorry statik) for me. Way above my pay grade, LOL. Anyway, check it out. There must be 1000. Who knew?
Mar 16th, 2010 (11:05 am)Tanks RB
I appreciate your sentence about USA, I would have written it about Belgium a few weeks ago but things are going faster here now. I think the USA have shown the way, without the Volt, Betterplace, and a lot of other initiatives in the US, Belgium wouldn’t be so advanced.
best regards,
JC NPNS
and thanks Eco-Turbo, @24 don’t worry, in my profession I know what is meant by direct speaking and I can stand it.
Mar 16th, 2010 (11:10 am)Many thanks Noel, I spend all evening yesterday to redo their computations and I agree with them, if the electrification of car is done with intelligence and cooperation between stakeholders it could cost as low as 46€ of electricity costs to do 15.000 kms, that is 62,5 $ (at the current exchange rate) to do a little more than 9,000 miles.
Best regards,
JC NPNS
Mar 16th, 2010 (11:13 am)Hopefully, that means that they’re trying to minimize excess capacity for all their lines in the future. Unused capacity is a waste of money and resources.
That’s the problem with the auto industry, by the way, if they want to make money they have to be able gauge demand years ahead of time. Because the capacity is more expensive than the actual production.
Mar 16th, 2010 (11:14 am)By the way, to add to your argumentation, a BMW has more electronics than the space shuttle.
As said by one BMW representative at the Geneva Show.
JC NPNS
Mar 16th, 2010 (11:18 am)Cool, soon the young people will be able to text, play a videogame, surf the web, talk on the cell, and *drive*, all at the same time!
Sorry, just kidding I am an old fart (45). I just know I couldn’t talk and drive in the city at the same time. Also my beloved ’92 Saturn got wiped out by a young guy talking on his cell (I stopped at the intersection for the fire truck, he didn’t).
Mar 16th, 2010 (11:36 am)I can imagine the knowledge of these types of cars increasing from people saying “what are they” to “give me one” in a few short years… as you say only 1% of production capacity… and surely 10% of the public will want one very soon, rising to >50%. I recall how DVD was the fastest growing consumer product… plugin hybrids / range extenders will be just as successful. I dont plan on buying a regular car ever again.
+1
Mar 16th, 2010 (11:40 am)ps. i have a brother in Manchester, England, 200 miles away from me in Reading, England… I don’t see him regularly, twice a year, but I want the option that my car can get me there without stopping… the plugin hybrid, or better still, the Volt style car will still allow me to get there. I can’t see a battery / electric only gar ever doing this job… the Lake District, 250miles away. Scotland, Devon, 300-400 miles away, a car needs to be able to do that in one trip.
Mar 16th, 2010 (11:52 am)The chemistry is exothermic so there will be plenty of heat and cold ambient temperatures shouldn’t affect battery performance per se. The bigger problem is getting rid of the heat produced by the chemical reaction when the ambient temperatures are elevated. For a variety of reasons cold ambient temperatures will, however, affect the amount of energy needed to move the car, so your EV range will be shortened. But that’s not really a battery issue.
Having spent last weekend watching BMWs being pushed out of shallow ditches on no-big-deal dirt roads my question would be why you’d want a rear drive car in a place like Michigan in the first place.
Mar 16th, 2010 (11:59 am)GM and other manufacturers are close to having the car drive itself in rural and suburban areas, so the idea would be for the car to drive while you do whatever you want to be doing. Sort of all the benefits of a train without the drawbacks. Just sit back and nap!
I may have mentioned this before, but an exchange student, when seeing an old LP, once remarked: “I’ve heard of these but I’ve never actually seen one.” Give it time and young people will be saying, as you insist on taking the wheel: “We’ve heard of someone driving but we’ve never seen anyone actually do it before!”.
Mar 16th, 2010 (12:03 pm)If the EV Technology could by standardized, couldn’t we have “Battery Stations” where you would pull in and change out your battery? Similar to batteries on construction equipment and hand tools. A quick charger probably isn’t going to happen in the near term, but range extending energy stations are a possibility.
My local gas station is considering just such an approach, but the battery form factor is too large a variable at this point.
Mar 16th, 2010 (12:04 pm)You’re actually agreeing with Noel. He says there is plenty of capacity. You’re saying there is too much capacity. Basically you’re agreeing with him that there is plenty of capacity.
I mean, really, when has the auto industry been “capacity constrained”? What part or parts exactly are going to limit Volt production? Noel was being kind when referring to the jabber about capacity constraints as “disingenuous”. Complete and utter BS would be a more earthy way to describe it.
+1
Mar 16th, 2010 (12:10 pm)#52
Paging Mr. Agassi! Mr. Agassi!
-1
Mar 16th, 2010 (12:14 pm)#53
Well thanks, LOL. +1
Actually I was searching for a better word, and you jogged my memory. I read a quote somewhere just the other day wherein the person said some words to the effect of “Disingenuous is too generous, a more appropriate word would be duplicitous.”
Mar 16th, 2010 (12:15 pm)Given Mr. Lutz’s comment – the Volt and Ampera will use all available capacity for years to
come” – we are driven to ask why? If the bridge is short then capacity suitable for EREV technology should not be expanded because it will be shortly abandoned. It looks to me, as I peer into my foggy crystal ball, that a very different energy storage device is expected, one that would not use very much of the battery production facilities being built for the Volt/Ampera.
Where did I go wrong?
+1
Mar 16th, 2010 (12:17 pm)I really did hit the +1, but somebody beat me to it with a -1 about 2 seconds before. At least I kept you even. That ‘s what you get for agreeing with the dreaded Noel, LOL. Maybe it was Bob Lutz, LMAO.
Mar 16th, 2010 (12:19 pm)I thought that was the most interesting part of the article as the fact that the market will choose the winning technology is almost always the case.
Here’s what will be interesting. It’s 2 years from now, gas is about $3.50/gallon. GM is able to sell 50,000 Volts and Amperas a year (do we know how Volts and Amperas will be divided up?) and Nissan is cranking out 200,000 Leafs a year (worldwide). GM might try to increase output, but only if it suits them. Does GM think the same way electronics makers do where market share is more important than anything because inevitably the costs come down and make systems profitable, but the only way to do that is through economy of scale and just waiting for parts suppliers to get more competitive and cheaper. This isn’t really the way it works with cars usually, so GM might not think that way.
Mar 16th, 2010 (12:29 pm)At the time, the “brick” seemed like Science Fiction. Come to think of it, so does the Volt. Kind of makes you wonder what the highways of the world will look like in about 30 years.
While working in a technology field, whenever some new breakthrough came down the pike to amaze us geeks, I always made a point to remind myself: “In just a few years, this will seem terribly quaint.” I think this will also apply to the electrification of transportation.
Working in a technology field as an older person, I would frequently be laughed at for saying “megabyte” instead of “gigabyte.” I always told them, “Just wait. Your day is coming; kids will make fun of you for saying “gigabyte” when you meant “terabyte” ( … and after that comes “exabyte” … )
+2
Mar 16th, 2010 (12:33 pm)I agree with you frequently.
But in this case…I know that the auto industry has suffered from over capacity for years. But I’m hopeful that that will change. And that they’ll start building capacity in line with future demand. From a business perspective, they’re probably better off with too little capacity than too much.
A car company has to create capacity for each individual line. Which means that sometimes they can’t meet demand for individual products. When that happens, like with the Camaro, it can take a while for production to catch up with demand. I expect the situation to be much worse for the Volt.
Mar 16th, 2010 (12:40 pm)For a different point of view:
http://depletedcranium.com/why-vehicle-to-grid-is-a-horrible-idea/
I don’t always agree with this guy, but he is on the money here.
Mar 16th, 2010 (12:52 pm)I think you’re right:
http://www.ceramatec.com/technology/ceramic-solid-state-ionic-technologies/advanced-energy-storage/solid-electrolyte-batteries.php
Mar 16th, 2010 (12:57 pm)No he is not.. if you carefully read it all he does is put up straw man arguments and then shoots them down. Not going to waste our time refuting each point by point. Put up a post in the forum and then maybe.
+2
Mar 16th, 2010 (1:01 pm)What a roller-coaster ride! Keep getting alternate messages from GM. One post talks of expansion of Voltek technology and the next about how limited and cautious their approach will be. If I get anything from this it is that GM needs to have a year of selling Volts behind them before they can confidently gage the market going forward.
I believe GM needs to move faster, not slower, but then I have nothing to loose. I believe Chevrolet should bring out a pure battery version of the Volt. This should not require much engineering effort. The idea is to a, give the consumer a choice, and to provide competition with Ford Focus EV and Nissan Leaf. Is battery capacity really the thing stopping this approach? I think so. GM does not want to commit to increased battery orders from LG at this time, but how much lead time does LG Chem need to ramp up production? This is all a chicken and egg problem. I have said before, that I think Chevrolet should start taking advance orders for the Volt. With deposits in hand, they will have a firm prediction of demand. If they were to offer the pure BEV as an option, then they would know the demand for this also.
-1
Mar 16th, 2010 (1:06 pm)As volume goes up unit costs go down. So if you think demand is for x units then why would you build capacity for 1/2X?
While everyone would agree that temporary shortages at first would be normal, he’s talking “years and years”. You only get to that result if you purposefully hold supply below demand. IOW the lack of capacity is not an exogenous variable, and the only reason you are capacity limited is that you’ve chosen to be. That I think is what Noel was pointing out.
+1
Mar 16th, 2010 (1:17 pm)I don’t agree with all his points either, but I don’t think we are anywhere near ready for V2G. Extra charge-discharge cycles will shorten the life of the battery. Who will pay for this? If I were deciding GM policy, using V2G would void the battery warranty.
+4
Mar 16th, 2010 (1:24 pm)Not having read the linked article, I notice from the URL: “vehicle-to-grid-is-a-horrible-idea;” a sentiment I happen to agree with. There are several overwhelming problems with V2G:
1) The lifetime of your expensive EV battery pack is measured by the number of charge/discharge cycles it can sustain. The power company is going to shorten the life of my pack with daily load-leveling cycles for it’s own convenience? I don’t think so. I don’t think that any power discount they may offer will quite cover this imputed expense.
2) If you charge at off peak rates to commute to work, won’t you be required to plug in at work in order to supply power back to the grid at on-peak rates? Will power discount incentives take this into account? If you use an EREV, will you be forced to use gasoline to get home? If you don’t, can you get home?
3) Most EVs will be unplugged at the time they will be most needed; as commuters drive home for the evening. Many say that “people can change their schedules,” but this sounds like a stretch for the kind of scales required.
4) Many of us celebrate the return of the EV as a means of achieving consumer freedom from Oil Companies. If you have to suffer a financial loss, and re-arrange your life around the requirements of the grid, haven’t you lost more freedom?
5) If the battery pack is owned by the power company (through a lease), the extra cycles incurred in V2G might not be an issue: if they shorten the pack’s life, it’s their problem. However, the idea of owning a car while leasing it’s battery is not a very popular one.
6) If Electricity providers buy used EV batteries outright in a decade (when they will still have some useful life left), they will be entirely captive to the Utilities 24/7; and may even store more energy for the grid than when they competed with the car owners’ needs to go somewhere. It would also allow for two additional revenue streams: (i) to add value to the batteries’ lives, post EV; and (ii) to provide a single source of completely shot batteries for a recycling industry (which might not otherwise arise in response to thousands of smaller sources).
7) Adding storage capability from several distributed points will add less complexity and expense to the grid than adding that storage from every garage in a city, or a country.
The electric power utilities and it’s customers will be better served by an energy storage system designed for, and professionally managed by those electric power utilities themselves.
Giant format batteries need not compete with EV packs for resources, as many chemistries impractical for mobile use (high temperature Sodium Sulfur, for example) could be ideally suited for grid load-leveling.
V2G is the EPRI equivalent of Automakers’ & Oil Companies’ Hydrogen. They shouldn’t even waste our time with the idea’s promotion.
Mar 16th, 2010 (1:31 pm)Camaro?
Mar 16th, 2010 (1:32 pm)Speaking of messages.
I got a direct email from a marketing guy in gm using his actual gm email address. He wanted to know if I was interested in test driving a Volt in NYC. I replied back that I couldn’t make that trip, but, I would be interested in Dallas. He replied that they have something in the works for the Texas State Fair (in Fair Park in Dallas). He said he found me on their voltage web site.
State Fair starts on Sept 24th.
That’d be cool.
Mar 16th, 2010 (1:35 pm)Oops, missed as I was writing my unabridged rant. I agree, V2G ought to void the warranties of all EV manufacturers. Maybe that is what it will take to finally get Electric Utilities to abandon this ridiculous idea.
Mar 16th, 2010 (1:38 pm)I agree V2G seems like a bad idea.The ability to use it as backup power for the home during outages? Brilliant.
Hey Zach, have you heard the latest on Toshiba’s SCiB battery? It seems so promising, yet the only American application I can find so far is a Schwinn electric bicycle.
http://green.autoblog.com/2007/12/11/toshibas-new-scib-battery-charges-in-5-minutes-releases-march/
IF YOU BUILD IT THEY WILL COME
RECHARGE! James
Mar 16th, 2010 (1:42 pm)Right on? Some good points made here but overall except for the paragragh on themodynamics, the straw man of burning gasoline to create electricity, and the enormous cost of preparing the grid, it seems to be cartoonishly simplistic IMO.
+1
Mar 16th, 2010 (1:45 pm)Here’s a followup from last year (it looks like things have hotted-up considerably since 2007):
http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/04/15/scib-update-toshiba-develops-worlds-most-powerful-li-ion-battery-for-cars/
There still isn’t any real description of how it is supposed to work.
I’d like to think that we’d see this in a US-made car first, but I have my doubts that it will be used in anything other than a Japanese make.
Mar 16th, 2010 (1:55 pm)The Camaro is just typical of a new hot model. No big deal. And there wasn’t a shortage of anything. GM just decided not to add a second shift at Oshawa, probably because it figured that that once the initial rush was satisfied one shift would handle the demands just fine. (GM also had a bankruptcy to go through so management might have had reason to be more conservative than usual).
And what were the big waits for the Camaro? Three months? if that’s the wait for the Volt then I don’t see any issues. But Lutz is talking about demand exceeding supply “for years and years”. That’s something entirely different.
Mar 16th, 2010 (1:56 pm)… and from 7 months later:
At this point they were revealing “Lithium Titanate:”
http://green.autoblog.com/2009/11/16/report-toshibas-scib-battery-will-find-a-home-with-five-automa/
They’ve signed an agreement with Volkswagen and 4 other automakers.
EDIT: I wonder if this would make a good substitute for NiMh in 2-mode and HSD-type hybrids? According to some comments, the strengths are long life, rapid charge, but relatively poor power density.
+1
Mar 16th, 2010 (2:02 pm)Because you’re not sure what x is? And since building capacity for 2x is very expensive, you’d rather err on the side of building 1/2 x?
I think Lutz is saying that they’re going to keep on needing to build capacity since demand will continue to grow. And they’ll have bottlenecks on a regular basis as a result. I wouldn’t read anything into it other than he’s being optimistic.
His other point is buy now! Supplies won’t last! Or at least, put a deposit down the minute GM opens up the official wait list…
Mar 16th, 2010 (2:04 pm)There are upsides as well. Namely, I don’t need a $13,000 generator when I already got one on wheels. Street power goes out *a lot* in Texas.
V2G can not only smooth power on the grid itself, it can smooth your own usage. This is more important to me than buying+selling power back to the grid. They only reason you need the grid connection is to make it easier to smooth your own power.
The guy in the article is saying that the power company would need control over all these tiny generators. It’s not a generator. It’s a battery. With a proper control system (local not at the power company) it would be no different than a solar installation today. Basically, you’re back-feeding the meter. The grid wouldn’t know the difference other than you are using less net power than before (which translates to less that they need to build capacity for).
When electricity is 50c peak and 5c off-peak there is plenty of room for negotiation.
Mar 16th, 2010 (2:21 pm)Not sure if you read this, but at 480v, with a cord that’s 4 inches in diam. – it could open the premise of electric filling stations – like current gas stations dotting the landscape. 5 minutes to a full charge.
I’m in.
Here’s some more information on the battery’s makeup: http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20071212/144076/
Interesting dialogue on it’s application and use:
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/blog.php?
Did GM act too soon in selecting LG as it’s battery partner?
IF YOU BUILD IT THEY WILL COME.
RECHARGE! James
Mar 16th, 2010 (2:40 pm)Wow. Cool link. Thanks!
Mar 16th, 2010 (2:41 pm)2nd time’s a charm, lol – Just found out my second link didn’t work – Here’s the right one – very interesting. Not sure if you read this, but at 480v, with a cord that’s 4 inches in diam. – it could open the premise of electric filling stations – like current gas stations dotting the landscape. 5 minutes to a full charge.
I’m in.
Here’s some more information on the battery’s makeup: http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20071212/144076/
Interesting dialogue on it’s application and use:
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/blog.php?b=11
Did GM act too soon in selecting LG as it’s battery partner?
IF YOU BUILD IT THEY WILL COME.
RECHARGE! James
+3
Mar 16th, 2010 (2:54 pm)I’ld describe it as too much ineffective capacity rather than simply over capacity. In a sense this is just samantics and the net result is over capacity but one describes the situation more completely than the other. Their legacy costs forced large capacities and large cash flows. If the product was effective enough and kept market share from the competition they would not have such an over capacity problem. If the competitors had increased their capacity regardless and the industry would still be suffering but that would most likely not have happened or at least not to the extent it has. Since last year’s bankruptcy they are in a position where they can cut capacity to be more in line with profitable sales and avoid fleet sales along with other things.
Back to the topic of Voltec, BEV and capacity. I don’t think GM is looking to restrict capacity for capicities sake on models they foresee as being profitable or ones they want to see grow into profitability in the near term. GM’s may indicate they don’t see profitability in a term near enough to plan for more internal capacity than 60K Voltec. It could also indicate that is all their commitment with LG plans for as well. I’m thinking both. GM got their bailout and gas has settled in around $2.70/gal. The economy is going nowhere in a hurry. They have their commitment to try to bring Voltec production to 60K and that is all they are willing to bite off at this time. Contrary to the complaints of DonC and Noel, I think this is as about as straightforward as GM has been on this topic for some time. I’m actually pleased by the tone of their comment just not the content. I can understand their business decision but it is not the type of bold decision making I’ld like to see and am hoping for from them. The market could move very, very fast if EV’s take hold. The automotive manufacturing dynamics of 2010 is a lot different from the 1960. GM’s decision would be a great one for that time. In this age of more capable automotive globalization, government involvement, and growing asian countries eyeing the automotive market GM may not have time to react. They need to anticipate and out-innovate the competition.
Locking themselves into only 60K of voltec production and only one model for the near future is overly conservative, IMO. I believe the “cat is out of the bag” now as far as EV’s are concerned and somebody(s) will lead this market in the near term. 60K won’t do it.
Mar 16th, 2010 (3:06 pm)Regarding SCiB battery: “However, because it is possible to expand the cell’s DOD (depth of discharge) to about 80% without greatly deteriorating the cell, the size of the system can be as small as that of conventional Li-ion secondary batteries developed by other companies for hybrid cars, the company said.” — from Toshiba
I can see why VW and 3 other car companies have signed up! German car companies have been lagging behind in the electrification of the automobile. Perhaps this is their way of trying to gain an advantage.
Toshiba has been hyping it’s nano technology lithium batteries for electronics for awhile – claiming 5 minute recharges. If this is real – this is seriously fantastic.
IF YOU BUILD THEM THEY WILL COME
RECHARGE! James
Mar 16th, 2010 (3:15 pm)Just a reminder that Dan Petit has informed us that there will be a Volt in Austin the weekend of May 14-16, 2010 at the auto show sponsored by the Austin Automobile Dealers’ Association. Google Maps tells me that’s 3.25 hours from Dallas. I’m going to be in Dallas that weekend and plan to zip down to Austin on Sunday the 16th.
http://www.autoshowaustin.com/index.htm
Mar 16th, 2010 (3:24 pm)The argument you are making is more in favor of an in-home, non-mobile power storage module than it is for V2G, whether you realize it or not. I think home E-storage has much more potential promise than the vehicle-as-load-leveler. You would help the grid get through peak load simply by servicing your own load from stored electricity (without selling any back to the utility). Of course you could back-feed the meter, though without incentives there wouldn’t be much point (If the utility wants to give homeowners an incentive to install home E-storage, some kind of arrangement could be struck to benefit both parties: The homeowner would get financial help to buy a battery which the Utility then doesn’t have to; but home storage is useless to the homeowner if he or she has a limited degree of autonomy and control over how it’s used).
In the event that the grid goes down, you would probably need an expensive automatic cut-off switch to prevent stored power going out on the lines (which would presumably be under repair). On a seldom-used emergency-only basis, I’d much rather see a capability allowing a Voltec generator to make home electricity as needed (in much the same way as a Honda portable generator, but with the advantage of size, convenience, and the schedule of maintenance-runs to keep it conditioned. This would make start up a much less problematic proposition than for the typical seldom-used small engine).
Some of the items on my V2G hit list may have (probably dubious) solutions. However, the problem with Vehicle-to-Grid which is never going away is the regular need to unplug the Vehicle from the Grid. The primary purpose of an EV is the ability to go somewhere using electricity; to fulfill this function makes it useless for meeting peak grid loads (and if plugging in at the destination, it may mean not having enough charge to get back).
Grid leveling and electric transportation are very different needs, requiring very different solutions, IMHO.
Mar 16th, 2010 (3:26 pm)Lithium Titanate batteries were invented some years ago by http://www.altairnano.com/
Do you remember Phoenix cars? http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/ They had a contract with Altairnano and went through bankruptcy to get out of it. Altairnano’s batteries were impressive from the long cycle life and safety viewpoint but extremely expensive and overweight. Toshiba may have reduced the cost, but they will still be low ED. This is not a battery break-through, only a marketing announcement.
Mar 16th, 2010 (3:38 pm)Please do not judge the Volt until you have had a chance to experience it. I saw a guy that was very close to 6’4″ get into a Volt with ease and did not have to duck in the least. I got into it after him and I felt like I was getting into a cavern. Also the Volt looks even better than the pictures when you are very close to it.
Mar 16th, 2010 (3:45 pm)Honestly not until gas stations have the ability to fully recharge my 400 Mile BEV in 5Min. or less will I EVER buy a BEV. That’s a LONG way to go.
Get the VOlt on the Road and well go from there. Baby steps, learn to crawl before you fly. People cry and whine too much.
NPNS
Mar 16th, 2010 (3:48 pm)I will never buy an only electric car. I don’t live in a large city and have to drive over 100 miles at least 2 twice a month. We are many years away from when we can live with only all electric cars.
I do wonder how long it will be until the Volt will be sold in smaller markets.
Mar 16th, 2010 (4:00 pm)Might be so that even cost/benefit research would demonstrait EREV advantage over BEV because of lack of infrustructure and large related investment cost. At the same time functionality of EREV will be higher for many years to come. In case BEV price would be reduced dramaticly vs EREV – some consumers might serifice limited functionality. But in reality that is not a case.
Mar 16th, 2010 (4:00 pm)Hi Zachary I do not have the time to translate the whole article but all those points you mention are well taken into account and still V2G INTELLIGENTLY MANAGED is useful for both the customer and the society.
Best regards,
JC NPNS
Mar 16th, 2010 (4:30 pm)JC, I don’t know how you can come to that conclusion. I understand the statement about intelligently managed as the plan includes the vehicle owner being able to state a time (such as 5:00pm) that they want their car fully charged. The utility company then uses V2G, but insures that the car is ready as requested. My issue is that cycling the battery reduces its life. If you own a BEV and expect the battery to last 8 years, how many years will you be willing to sacrifice to make a few $ selling power back to the utility?
Mar 16th, 2010 (4:32 pm)Since I can’t read the article, I’ll limit my response to these two points:
Many of the problems I pointed out in connection with V2G would be solved or greatly helped by leasing an EV’s battery from the power utility. However, leasing an EV’s battery separately from the car is an extremely unpopular idea in the US. This factor was enough to force Nissan to change it’s plans for the US Leaf release. For this and other reasons, what’s possible in Europe may not be readily transferable to America.
Most of the peak power problem V2G is meant to address can be accomplished as well, with less complication and overall expense, by purchasing EV batteries at the end of their useful EV lifetimes (they will still have a lot of capacity left, just not enough to be practical for a vehicle). The problem for the utilities in using old EV batteries is the need to wait 10 or more years until a decent number of units become available. Since it may take a decade or more to prepare V2G for widespread use anyway, utilities and governments might be better served to save their funds for the purchase of used EV batteries, or develop their own form-factors.
Mar 16th, 2010 (4:34 pm)I wish it wasn’t the case, but I think the V2G potential is the only reason we have a Volt to talk about. Please don’t forget that a V2G vehicle can also be G2V, so nobody has to go home with less charge than they want to.
Mar 16th, 2010 (4:41 pm)OK. I can see how you might interpret this as Lutz being optimistic. And he probably is being optimistic since the Volt is his baby. But the capacity argument just rings hallow. Adding shifts does not require a billion dollar investment.
And even if it did, the fact is that if Whitacre and Reuss were optimistic then we’d have more capacity. You build the capacity based on what you expect demand to be. Seems to me that they’re more interested in sending US taxpayer dollars to Europe than they are in building E-REV vehicles here. The amount they’ve pledged to send to Opel in order to placate the German government would fund at least quadruple the capacity for the Volt. I just get the feeling that the new team wants to reinvent the wheel since they didn’t get to invent it the first time around.
While it’s fine for GM to do what is best for GM there are limits. Seems to me that one limit is that you can’t have the US taxpayers bail you out and then take the money and fund excess capacity in Germany.
Mar 16th, 2010 (4:52 pm)In order for BEVs to become less expensive than EREVs, the cost of the battery packs will need to drop considerably. BEVs would have to offer a much higher range at a cost which is less than the cost of the EREV’s smaller battery + the cost of it’s engine. However, these economies would also benefit the EREV: the solution in a future model might be as simple as adding more all-electric range.
In addition, as batteries improve their energy density and cycle-lifetimes, it may become possible to meet an EREV’s range-extension requirement with a smaller engine (which is also lighter and less expensive). The EREV will be difficult for the BEV to beat for many decades, perhaps for over half a century (only widespread rapid charging has a chance to do this, and it may take 50 years for EV penetration to reach the point where this is economically feasible, all technological requirements aside).
In other words, I agree with you.
Mar 16th, 2010 (4:55 pm)Seems we are not looking out than just EV and range extender.
http://green.autoblog.com/2010/03/16/valentin-technologies-releases-teaser-images-of-170-mpg-ingocar/
seems a good read ( another way and achievement of 170 miles per gallons using hydraulic-fluid drive ) .
Mar 16th, 2010 (5:06 pm)V2G might have had a minor supporting ‘sales’ role during GM’s BK, but today it is mainly the electric power industries (which stand to be the main benefactor) promoting it. I won’t say that it is completely impractical, but I strongly suspect that V2G will have very limited application; perhaps in captive fleets with a narrowly defined mission / usage window (such as mail or package delivery).
The V2G / G2V scenario (where you select a time to have full charge) assumes that nothing unexpected will crop up to change a typical driver’s plans; the scenario of “always ready” is a prime scenario in support of EREV.
V2G / G2V will add cycles to a battery pack, even if you are correct. For me, this adds support to the captive fleet / delivery vehicle scenario, where such costs become part of the overall business / mission plan behind the fleet.
Finally, all the connections and electronics necessary for fleet vehicle V2G would be centralized in regional / area charging facilities at lower cost than the equivalent spread out all over the countryside to widely separated, individual vehicles.
Mar 16th, 2010 (5:09 pm)This is all theory. They have yet to build a prototype. They do not claim to have a better ICE engine, just a near-perfect transmission and brake energy re-capture. The wind loads and rolling resistance will remain the same. What they claim is that stop-and-go is the same as continuous drive. So drive for 170 miles only one acceleration at the start, and one deceleration at the end. You recover the energy at deceleration you used at the start. So how did you go the other 169.8 miles on only 1 gallon? And besides, I don’t believe that a hydraulic pump and accumulator are anywhere near 100% efficient.
+1
Mar 16th, 2010 (5:12 pm)Convergence and simplification are at work here as well.
I don’t need an expensive switch to disconnect grid power. There’s a 200amp manual one there already. Having V2G (or V2H) set up through the existing charging connection makes emergency power simple.
Step 1: turn off street power
Step 2: plug in the Volt
Step 3: relax. Volt’s got ur back.
Not only is the Volt potentially an emergency generator, it could also be a whole-house UPS! Sags and spikes in power are more damaging than complete power outages.
My wife’s car only moves between 3 and 3:30pm weekdays and church for 2 hours on Sunday. The rest of the time it just sits there and could be doing something useful. There are loads of other retired in my neighborhood that also don’t drive during normal rush-hour times. Lots of them are disabled and can’t go without power for long without dire consequences.
If I was selling these things with V2G it’s a no-brainer. “Never go without power again” is a heck-of-a selling point.
+1
Mar 16th, 2010 (5:25 pm)I followed the whole thread and it was an incredibly interesting, *ever so gradual*, drift off topic. All very interesting info and all *just* a teeny bit farther afield (g). Not in any way a negative thing – just a very informative ride. All areas about which I know little, so I benefited a lot from hearing the different views – that’s also why I had little to contribute. Just thought that the almost imperceptible drift was kinda cool and worth noting.
Be well,
Tagamet
No ER, No Sale!
Mar 16th, 2010 (5:36 pm)This approach is called “mechanical regeneration,” and also includes pneumatic, pneumatic/hydraulic and other non-electric schemes for recapturing lost braking energy.
The case for mechanical regeneration can be very compelling.
First, consider a conventional hybrid: When slowing down, momentum is captured (with losses) as electricity in a generator (usually the vehicle’s motor, acting as a generator). This electricity is stored, as chemical energy, in a battery (with more losses). When starting off, chemical energy is converted back into electrical energy, which is converted back into mechanical energy again (with the same train of conversion loses going back in the other direction). As a result, a store-and-release efficiency figure of 30% – 40% is considered excellent (and makes a 25% – 30% improvement in mpg over a non-hybrid).
Now consider a mechanical hybrid. Momentum (which is mechanical energy) is captured by a hydraulic motor and stored without conversion losses as pressure in an accumulator. Releasing this pressure back through the hydraulic motor (again with no conversion losses) can lead to a store-and-release efficiency figure approaching 90%. This is how you get 3-digit mpg in an otherwise conventional-looking car, with no electricity.
At this point, one might wonder how the original Insight and Prius ever took off; but like many simple ideas, the actual implementation has turned out to be considerably less so. For one thing, it’s not hard to imagine how much all of the high-strength steel and hydraulic fluid required weighs (and costs). There is also the direct (and maintenance) costs of all those moving parts. This has kept the idea mostly in the realm of large commercial vehicles such as delivery vans (FedEx and UPS have both expressed interest in different forms of the technology).
If Valentin technology has economically compressed reliable mechanical regeneration into even a regular-size car, it’s significant news. If mechanical regeneration can be stuffed into a small enough space, for a low enough cost, with a great enough reliability, I would fully expect it to be used even in electric cars. I know that sounds absurd given what we’ve seen up to now; but consider that what 80% – 90% efficient regeneration does for miles per gallon it can also do for miles per kilowatt hour. No, I don’t consider it likely.
My instincts tell me not to place too much on just this announcement; but definitely keep an eye open for further developments.
Mar 16th, 2010 (5:58 pm)GM has a problem on it’s hands. The Volt is turning out better than expected. Have you ever seen as many demo drives will all participants praising a vehicle? Even the popular new body style Camaro had a fair share of complaints from early test drivers.
I see four ways GM can benefit from this clear winner.
1>Produce 200,000 per year (worldwide). Making money on accessories and halo effect.
2>Produce a family of Voltec vehicles that satisfy the off road, luxury, sport, and people mover markets. Try to dominate the electric vehicle market.
3>Sell the technology to other companies that wish to run with it. Provide batteries to them.
4>Limit production and price each vehicle high. Hope people buy the Cruze.
What do you think?
=D-Volt
Equinox AMP conversion ~ $50,000 (02/25/10)
Mar 16th, 2010 (6:04 pm)Yes.
It will take at least 10 years to achieve fully.
No.
Just No.
Circumstances require GM to “hope people buy the Cruze,” but they are limited by public perception and arguments against the Voltec approach as to what they can charge per Volt. Hopefully, they will proceed to option #1 as soon as possible (200K in 10 years may mean 100K in 5-6).
Mar 16th, 2010 (6:04 pm)I concur.
Mar 16th, 2010 (6:05 pm)The described hydraulic system has oil pumps that are attached to the wheels and motor, tubes joining them and an accumulator. Pumping oil through the tubes creates friction released as heat. Turning pumps creates turbulence in the oil also creating heat. Compressing the gas in an accumulator creates heat and accumulators are rarely well insulated, so this heat is lost too.
Zachary, your claim that there are no losses in a hydraulic system is simply not true. If it was so perfect, then all cars to-day would have hydraulic transmissions as this is not new technology. Transmission of force by hydraulics (such as applying brakes in a car) is very efficient, but transmission of motion is not. Many people do not stop to think about the distinction.
Mar 16th, 2010 (6:18 pm)What? It will take 5 years to double production from 60000 to 100000! Does anybody know if the 60k figure is based on one shift or three? If it is on one shift then 180k would be possible without any additional capacity. If the market is there (I am sure it is) and GM is willing, they could build an additional line for the Volt at Hamtramak in one year. Or is your position simply that the market won’t exist for that time period?
+1
Mar 16th, 2010 (6:22 pm)“Now witness the power of this fully charged and o-p-e-r-a-t-i-o-n-a-l electric car!”
“It will be more than a match for your pitiful little van!”
Mar 16th, 2010 (6:28 pm)Mechanical systems are subject to mechanical losses and inefficiencies. This is why I did not say that mechanical regeneration is 100% efficient (“…approaching 90%”). Efficiency losses encountered when transmitting a force from one place to another pales in comparison to the losses incurred in the conversion of one force (mechanical) to another (electricity).
Mar 16th, 2010 (6:30 pm)GM announced 60k Volt per year only (120k including Ampera?).
GM states that this approach is a “no”.
______________________________________
4>Limit production and price each vehicle high. Hope people buy the Cruze.
The new “Corvette”?
=D-Volt
Mar 16th, 2010 (6:33 pm)GM’s announced production plans for the Volt call for 8000 – 10,000 the first year, and 60,000 for each of the following two years. Sure they can do what you say, but will they? For the past couple of weeks the main topic of speculation here has been that GM would pull back from Voltec after 3 years.
And let’s not forget the rest of today’s post, either. GM is also likely going to promote two-mode, plug-in two-mode and at least one small BEV over that same timescale.
Mar 16th, 2010 (6:36 pm)Quite some time ago, we were told this was for one line (I believe three shifts) at the Hamtramak plant. There are a maximum of three lines, but the other two are devoted to other vehicles besides the Volt.
Mar 16th, 2010 (6:42 pm)Well, there’s no pleasing some people, lol (specifically, you and Ron H).
120K, roughly, is 3 years’ production. I was hoping Voltec production would top 100K annually after another 3 years.
… FOR NOW.
And of course, 100K is too little for Ron H.
Sheesh!!
Mar 16th, 2010 (7:00 pm)Listening to industry leaders predicting what demand will be like for any particular technology reminds me of the nightly sparring that goes on at CNBC (Kudlow Report, for example). The norm is guys and gals, all with experience and some success in the financial business, ripping each other’s theories and prognostications.
So who really knows what the EREV, BEV, PHEV, etc demand will look like. But it sure is interesting to see the building of capacity in batteries, charging stations, vehicle production lines and so on…when not all that long ago we were happy to look at a concept vehicle.
Its going to be an exciting few years coming up…not just the uniqueness of the products, but what they imply for the economy. It really will be interesting, fun too, to see the general public adapting to these new vehicles.
-1
Mar 16th, 2010 (7:05 pm)Hi Zach #112 …
It’s less of a matter of feeling pleased or not. More of a fact based observation. Seems GM keeps back sliding into the “let’s just burn a little oil all of the time” mindset.
After the billions in loans acquired by displaying a Voltec mule before Congress. And the statement from Fritz Henderson stating, “Volt is a priority even through the restructuring”. To the current mindset of, “One Volt car and a bunch of 2 mode hybrids coming your way very soon”.
It’s reality, face it.
=D-Volt
Mar 16th, 2010 (7:08 pm)I think a car comes off the production line every three minutes, so I would guess a two shift production run. Three shifts is very unusual.
To make a difference the Volt will need to be competitively priced and produced in numbers similar to pickup trucks. Do you think Moore’s Law could be applied to production?
-2
Mar 16th, 2010 (7:26 pm)Don’t forget the $2.6B for Opel to save German jobs. Given that a quarter of that would easily double Volt production it seems the electrification of transportation is taking a back seat to the interests of the German government. Nothing wrong with the German government driving a hard bargain but why US taxpayers should fund German plants is beyond me. If the Germans want the plants to stay open then maybe German taxpayers should fund this?
+1
Mar 16th, 2010 (7:39 pm)In 2007 the Volt was pretty much the only game in town. Seemed it HAD to be the leader in the personal electric car market. It was inspiring and provided the needed redirection the public wanted away from Arab oil gluttony. But it wasn’t here yet. So people broke from America and bought Asian hybrids and micro cars. Because for them, “tomorrow” was not only today. But it is all of the time.
Without naming brands, the 2012 model year brings at least 6 very strong EV/EREV models to the marketplace. In addition, 4 or 5 conversion shops are offering new-car EV starting at $29k.
Management decisions of the next 6 months will be pivotal to the survival of GM/NGMCO. From what we’re seeing now. I give them a 45% chance. There is no time left to talk about bridges to the place you will someday go. Tomorrow has arrived. It happens to be today.
=D-Volt
Mar 16th, 2010 (7:43 pm)Future alone will determine what is reality.
I hope I am not the only one startled by the irony of this personal role reversal. I’m usually the one reading the riot act to GM …
Mar 16th, 2010 (7:48 pm)Even “One Volt car and a bunch of 2 mode hybrids” exist only in the future at this point; and I would respectfully suggest that only future events will determine what the reality turns out to be.
I hope I am not alone in experiencing a sense of irony at this personal role reversal: I’m normally the one reading GM the riot act!
Mar 16th, 2010 (7:51 pm)Which raises a very pertinent question. What sort of interface cable or device is needed between the public AVCON charging stations and the Volt? [I know nothing about AVCON except that it is conductive as opposed to the old inductive EV1 paddles. Is it AC? DC? What voltage and amperage?]
Mar 16th, 2010 (7:56 pm)I hesitated to comment on that, for fear that you’d stop! (lol)
Be well,
Tagamet
No ER, No Sale!
Mar 16th, 2010 (7:56 pm)… Okay, I’m starting to have trouble posting again …
-2
Mar 16th, 2010 (8:01 pm)hi Zach #119 …
If we lived in a vacuum I would agree with future events determining reality. I wish we were still in early 2008 with the Volt set to be released in 6 months. I respectfully suggest that we are in the future now.
=D-Volt
+1
Mar 16th, 2010 (8:07 pm)Hey Micheal,
I’ll be glad if you can make it to Austin on Sunday the 16th to see the Volt. I am still planning to help visitors from this site when they come to Austin, and am still planning a small BBQ for that Saturday, and another for the following Sunday.
I will re-affirm here the BBQ plans/locations as the time gets nearer. LRGProVolt from the Lower Rio Grande Valley (TX) is also mentioning he’s going to come to see the Volt as well.
Anyone else out there coming to Austin that weekend?
Mar 16th, 2010 (8:18 pm)The Spirit is willing, but the checkbook is weak. Have a great time though! Don’t forget – lot’s of pictures!
Be well,
Tagamet
No ER, No Sale!
+1
Mar 16th, 2010 (9:07 pm)I am planning to use what will amount to a very effective V2G strategy when I get my Volt. At least that is what it will look like to the power company. We have a large solar array on the roof, and since I am retired I could use our own “free” electricity to charge the Volt during the day. Instead, I will buy electricity at night from the utility to charge the car, and “sell it back” to them during the day. Not so incidentally, I have been monitoring my usage, and based on the past twelve months I will be buying that electricity at night rates averaging $0.13/KWH and selling them peak rate electricity averaging $0.25/KWH. The company (PG&E) has tiered rates by usage, and these are marginal rates based on our actual usage allowing enough extra to cover the miles I am currently driving.
Mar 16th, 2010 (9:17 pm)So, if your thesis is that the Volt was conceptualized solely to help GM achieve a favorable bankruptcy outcome, I think it’s just possible that you are right.
However, if that was the case, I think they’ve outsmarted themselves. The fire that GM started in desperation to light it’s way through dark days now shows signs of raging out of their control.
I’m not one to play the Pollyanna, as regular readers will attest; but I honestly feel that we are, at this moment, on the cusp of several possible futures. In one of these the Volt will grow far beyond whatever was originally intended (and whatever is currently planned). In another, your worst fears are realized. You cannot know, with the certainty you display, which way it’s going to go; in fact, neither of us may know until the end of the announced Volt production run; in three years’ time.
We have a long wait ahead of us; even the planned roll-out and production is proving to be an intolerable wait. I suggest that perhaps you should consider taking a leave of absence for a time; but by all means check back from time to time.
Believe me, I know what it feels like to become discouraged over the Volt’s future.
Remember, there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum.
Mar 16th, 2010 (9:40 pm)That ad picture space/& listings just above the “Leave a Reply” box really distracts from the reply process, and is not a good place for an ad or anything else. Perhaps it might even cause an off topic segway tendency.
Instead, they ought to be to the very right of the reply box, not just above it, which I wouldn’t mind at all, even if I accidentally clicked onto something. What do you think about that Tag?
+2
Mar 16th, 2010 (10:22 pm)Possible buy hardly probable. Much more likely GM decided to develop the Volt and then, facing the need for government dollars, used it as a reason why the dollars should be forthcoming. That’s OK but it’s way too late for them to pull back unless they want to whack everyone off.
Could be elder abuse but someone needs to slap Whitacre upside the head. He’s not going to have a C Michael Armstrong to bail him out this time. He’s going to have a Carlos Ghosn who eats his lunch. (Completely OT: People want to know why Citi is a disaster. What would you expect from a board populated with the likes of C Michael Armstrong?)
Mar 16th, 2010 (10:25 pm)To be honest, I feel the same way, but it’s Lyle’s site, so I didn’t say anything. It’s probably a good place to get clicks, and clicks support the site. Given all the work that he puts into this project, seems like a very small price to pay. JMO.
Be well,
Tagamet
No ER, No Sale!
Mar 16th, 2010 (10:27 pm)Thanks Roy H ,Zachary Taylor
I was also going through Wikipedia on the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel-electric_transmission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_drive_system
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_locomotive#Hydrokinetic_transmission
It says ‘Diesel-hydraulic locomotives are slightly more efficient than diesel-electrics, but initial versions were found in many countries to be mechanically more complicated and more likely to break down.”
The bigger problem seems to be reliability in this technology but the same articles says that they have very proven systems also.
After reading all these, i think these systems should have been in road by 1970s.
Mar 16th, 2010 (10:42 pm)Well, GM has always proven first to announce, last to launch. What I give them great credit for is keeping the buzz going on the Volt across all these years. So far it still FEELS as though the first to go to market, to their great credit. Just looking at the ad on this page for the Nissan Leaf reminds me of how quickly other manufacturers seem to be to commit.
Mar 16th, 2010 (10:52 pm)EREVs powered by E85 or NG would be what I would favor (or, powered by both)…
Eugene
Mar 16th, 2010 (11:03 pm)From Green Car Congress: “Envia Systems Awarded $4M ARPA-E Grant and $1M California Energy Commission Grant for Advanced Li-ion Storage for Vehicles” – 16 Mar 10
ENVIA IS LOCATED IN THE BAY AREA … THEY RECEIVED 5M IN FUNDS FOR ADVANCED LI-ION BATTERIES… I HAVE A FEELING THAT OUR FRIEND DENISE GRAY MIGHT BE A GOOD CANDIDATE FOR THIS START-UP COMPANY IN THE SAN FRANCISCO AREA…
Mar 16th, 2010 (11:58 pm)hi Zach # 127 …
You lost me on the “fear” part.
The Volt will be produced in small numbers. And as announced, these will be in the showroom next to several new GM hybrids, the usual truck models, and the Cruze. Nissan, BYD, Ford, Fisker, and Tesla continue to move forward with several models of EV.
I am saying that GM has decided to go ahead and let the rest of the competition take charge. This isn’t a big deal really. And nothing to fear here. Just the matter of a large loan that was acquired through the representation of producing green vehicles. That big boost in public image is fading.
As far as waiting for the new EV to come out. I have stated here several times that my current vehicle is fine for a few more years. I also stated I wouldn’t buy a new EV until I demo drive the Volt. This is still true. Demo drives are happening now. Maybe we are in the future?
=D-Volt
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (12:44 am)That makes me chuckle. There is nothing even remotely simple about a cellphone.
I suspect the NAV unit in the car has more processing power than the rest of the car put together. Cars have for years used many small not-very-powerful microprocessors as the electronics replaced mechanical controls one disjointed system at a time.
There’s a reason the cellphone didn’t exist for decades after cars were invented. There is an astounding amount of signal processing required to make that phone work. It simply could not be done then.
Don’t get me wrong. Today’s cars do have a lot of complexity in them. But in all honesty, so does most everything else these days, even if it doesn’t seem so.
Just as a point of reference, a small horde of engineers (including myself) spent most of last year working 15 hour days just to design the basic semiconductor building blocks so some companies could use a horde of engineers to design chips used by hordes of engineers to design those cell phones!
And to keep on Moore’s law, we have to roll out another one of those every 18 months.
Ok, I’ll be quiet, now. It’s not very often somebody segues into semiconductors.
My next post will have something relevant to the topic, I promise.
Mar 17th, 2010 (12:50 am)Well, I’ve been saying for some time the EREV may, in fact, become the endgame, not the BEV. I used to think it was obviously the BEV, but the more I’ve thought about it, the more I lean toward the EREV.
Costs, charge rates, weight, liquid fuel infrastructure, etc. I think all may favor EREV for a long time… if that time is longer than it takes for batteries to become really, really small and cheap, I don’t think BEV will displace EREV.
The good news is we’ll all be winners as there’ll finally be some choice. I’m sure BEVs and EREVs will make their respective owners very happy for many years, indeed.
I know I expect to be happy for 10 years or 100,000 miles in a Volt, whichever comes first.
Mar 17th, 2010 (1:41 am)Go to http://plasmakinetics.com and invest in the company. The technology this company has
will make hydrogen storage on board a car a lot more practical and GM’s cost cutting advances
in fuel cell tech will also help. Imagine, store the same amount of hydrogen that a 10k PSI
hydrogen tank system will store at low pressure with a system that is 400 lbs lighter. There
will be more space potentially for batteries as the hydrogen storage system gets lighter and
smaller meaning that short trips can be accomplished via battery and longer trips via hydrogen.
Add to this nano tech advancements and the use of so called super aluminum atoms to split
water on demand. The aluminum is recycled over and over and over again. Hydrogen production
will not be a problem.
Mar 17th, 2010 (2:18 am)Rut-roh! You skipped “petabytes!”
Anyway, sod all that business. I’m goin’ straight to the zettabytes right now, and start warmin’ up for the yottabytes next week.
+2
Mar 17th, 2010 (4:01 am)Thanks Roy, Zach and Eco_turbo.
You have good points. And the comparison between the USA and Europe on cultural differences makes sense. I’ve checked that fact when a long time ago I studied in California.
Well to summarize : the paper I referenced to is an exploration of the scenario of 1,000,000 BEVs and EREVs in Belgium, that is less than 20% of the car population. The idea was that most of the households with a second or a third car would transform it in an EV or an EREV.
The second assumption was that a cooperative approach was chosen between electricity producers, distributors and consumers so that the battery could have sort of a “special reserve” that may be use as a buffer to equilibrate the grid.
The third assumption was that the degradation of the battery was linear with respect the deepness of the discharge/recharge and the number of cycles. And that small discharges and recharges do not affect battery life (as demonstrated in some research reports).
The fourth assumption was that it was possible to arbitrate between the interests of the consumers (their behavior is assumed to be determined by the LEVEL of electricity prices) and the interests of the planner (his behavior is assumed to be determined by the direction and the intensity of the VARIATION of electricity spot prices).
And the assumption of the “second life” of batteries as a means to store intermittent electricity production (wind or solar power) or the surplus of nuclear power plants was not taken into account, they think their conclusion could be reinforced if they had taken it in their computations.
With all those assumptions, the willingness of BEV and EREV owners and a careful management of the grid , their conclusion is that V2G is an efficient policy for both the society and the owner of BEVs or EREVs.
Best regards,
JC NPNS
Mar 17th, 2010 (4:55 am)Think the Volt will win a 6 on 1 fight?
=D-Volt
Mar 17th, 2010 (7:48 am)Yep, if the others are all unarmed – no Range Extenders.
Be well,
Tagamet
Mar 17th, 2010 (10:25 am)#124
How cool is that??? What a guy! +1
Mar 17th, 2010 (10:29 am)The Volt range extender is a plus. The Volt initial cost is a minus.
My response of “a 6 on 1 fight” refers to the Nissan/NGMCO corporate battle. A good example is the Accord/Prius tag team that Asia currently presents. Asia cranks out 100′s of thousands of these each year. This high sales rate displaces potential American made vehicle sales. So much so that Accord/Prius tag team nearly bankrupted two American manufactures.
The Volt is an excellent vehicle. Haven’t heard any complaints from demo drivers or celebrity testers. Volts are simply not going to be available to buy (lease?) at just 5000 per month production. The looming question is: “Will people who demo drive a Volt be willing to pay sticker and be content to wait 6 months for delivery?”.
If we total all available EV against Volt volume. It’s more like a 20 – 1 match.
=D-Volt
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (10:34 am)#140
I completely agree. +1
If the V2G program voids my battery warranty, of course I’m not going to do it. If it makes it so I have to drive home on gas, of course I’m not going to do it. It’s up the the utilities, the car companies and the cognizant government agencies to make the consumers an offer they can’t refuse. If they can do that, I’m in. If not, forget it.
Mar 17th, 2010 (6:47 pm)I’m often caught talking gigabytes instead of terabytes, right now. And that’s just for my servers at home.
Personally, I’m looking forward to the “hella”!
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-03/physics-student-petitions-hella-si-units
Mar 17th, 2010 (10:45 pm)EXACTLY!
Mar 17th, 2010 (10:50 pm)Dan Petit bows and waves