1997 Chevy S-10 Electric Truck
Besides the four seat Chevy Volt compact car that will lauch at the end of the year, there is evidence GM will shortly be unveiling a seven seat Voltec microvan. It is unknown at this time if that car is production intent. Voltec is GM’s name for the extended range electric car platform the Volt uses, allowing 40 miles of gas free driving followed by unlimited gas-generated range.
Diversification of Voltec technology into different vehicle types is the hope of many enthusiasts who would like to see the technology in other platforms. Commonly the idea of a Voltec large truck or SUV is proposed. It appears, however, GM has no plans to attempt that at the present time.
Alan Taub is GM’s Vice President of R&D who replaced the recently retired Larry Burns. In a new interview with the British publication Autocar, Taub discussed the idea.
“With battery technology as it currently stands, extended-range vehicles that are larger than the Volt — luxury saloons, trucks and SUVs — aren’t really possible,” he said. “They would simply be too heavy to be efficient.”
Hydrogen fuel cells are apparently GMs plan for larger trucks.
“For those types of cars,” says Taub. “Fuel cells and biofuels are the future.”
Taub also notes Voltec cars cant be too small either.
“Ironically enough, the E-REV powertrain won’t really package in a much smaller car than the Volt, either,” he adds. “So expect them all to be between four and five metres long.”
Taub sees the cost of fuel cell cars and precious metal content to diminish significantly over the next decade.
“Fuel cell technology is looking much cheaper today than it did a few years ago,” he said. “Within 12 years, we’re expecting an average family car powered by a hydrogen fuel cell to be as cheap to produce as one with an internal combustion engine,” he added.
Taub believes the battery will one day replace the combustion engine “when it comes to small cars…absolutely.”
For larger vehicles and trucks though “the advantage you gain with an electric powertrain becomes less significant than the weight penalty associated with fitting enough batteries to run it.”
This will be true for the foreseeable future he believes “until the next big leap forward in battery technology after lithium ion.”
Source (Autocar)
+25
Apr 21st, 2010 (5:55 am)Razer technologies has a pretty sweet concept with their EREV hummer. The beauty of the EREV is that the weight penalty shouldn’t be so bad since your battery pack is only big enough to give you 20-40 miles of AER.
**Disclaimer – I didn’t start the hydrogen thread Alan Taub did ***
The cost of the fuel cells themselves may have gotten cheaper but even if they were free the cost of the new infrastructure would be a burden that I as a taxpayer won’t put up with when we’re in debt as much as we are. This doesn’t even touch on the hydrogen production inefficiencies compared to just using electric (I’ll leave that to the rest of you and the usual hydrogen debate)
+1
Apr 21st, 2010 (5:58 am)From the article: there is evidence GM will shortly be unveiling a seven seat Voltec microvan.
It seems to me an EREV Orlando would only seat 6, since the middle row would have the battery hump down the middle.
+1
Apr 21st, 2010 (5:59 am)A Chevy S-10 has a cargo capacity of 1300 lbs. Seems to me, if you put 1300 lbs of battery in the cargo area, you might end up with an electric autobahn cruiser for three people. albeit, no cargo. There’s worse things to drive around than a pick-up.
+28
Apr 21st, 2010 (6:02 am)Yes, I agree, +1.
Here are the realities of hydrogen.
1) Hydrogen is not a fuel source, it’s a fuel carrier. In other words, some other energy source is required to make hydrogen.
2) The main energy sources for hydrogen are electricity (to crack water) and natural gas. Of these, natural gas is much more economical. Cracking water is inherently inefficient. There are other ways to make hydrogen, but these are even more expensive and inefficient.
3) Current electricity production uses 70% fossil fuels, 20% nuclear, and 10% renewable. The economics of renewables is such that this won’t change significantly anytime soon. So hydrogen in the U.S. will most certainly be created from fossil fuels.
4) The efficiency of hydrogen conversion, transportation, storage, and fuel cell electricity production is poor.
5) The net result of all the above is that hydrogen cars would create more CO2 emissions than our current gas engine cars.
6) The infrastructure of hydrogen fueling stations is nowhere in sight.
7) The big oil companies are pushing the hydrogen economy the most. They are also using the promise of fuel cells to help delay or prevent other solutions from fully taking hold. This is how they managed to kill the California zero emission vehicle mandate.
That’s why they call them “FOOL SELLS”
+12
Apr 21st, 2010 (6:06 am)Why a hydrogen economy doesn’t make sense
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
“In a recent study, fuel cell expert Ulf Bossel explains that a hydrogen economy is a wasteful economy. The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use — an unacceptable value to run an economy in a sustainable future. Only niche applications like submarines and spacecraft might use hydrogen.”
+20
Apr 21st, 2010 (6:07 am)Very disappointing indeed.
I was so looking forward to a small Voltec pickup truck.
Oh well, I guess I can look forward to Hydrogen Fuel cells (I’m laughing as I type that).
Wait!! He didn’t mention EESTOR. He forgot about that major breakthrough.
Oh just wait for EESTOR. It is just around the corner….honestly.
+1
Apr 21st, 2010 (6:19 am)EREV is heavy.
/.. at least in GM’s current form. Almost enough battery for a BEV, conventional ICE, large generator, modified 2 mode transaxle, all the related control electronics + liquid cooling = HEAVY.
+15
Apr 21st, 2010 (6:19 am)“Fuel cell technology is looking much cheaper today than it did a few years ago,” he said. “Within 12 years, we’re expecting an average family car powered by a hydrogen fuel cell to be as cheap to produce as one with an internal combustion engine,” he added.
It is really painful to read such a backward-looking statement from the new gm VP of R&D.
The upside is that he is saying that EREV is good for Volt size but nothing bigger or smaller. Maybe saying that will allow him to stay out of the way while the Voltec people at gm focus on finishing up an outstanding Volt that turns into a big success. That will give gm a little time to re-think things.
Having a car like Volt where demand outruns supply does get one’s attention
+12
Apr 21st, 2010 (6:27 am)So what? Trains are heavy. They still go.
-9
Apr 21st, 2010 (6:35 am)I’m going to guess that’s just caffeine deficiency talking.
/coffee anyone?
+6
Apr 21st, 2010 (6:39 am)I’ve never seen so many experts on the subject of fuel cells. Maybe some of you should go to work for GM and show them the way.
+12
Apr 21st, 2010 (6:40 am)GM needs to be careful of maintaining a can’t do attitude. Asia is already producing EV and EREV trucks. Honestly GM, who needs hydrogen when battery technology is doubling each three years?
=D-Volt
+8
Apr 21st, 2010 (6:44 am)This is a good point. From my point of view, and EREV is anything that uses electricity as it’s primary fuel source. In other words, something with at least 30 miles of all-electric range. Other manufacturers are investigating “near-series” designs, where the range extender connects to the wheels, but the electric motor is powerful enough to handle acceleration and high speed driving.
To be fair, GM is also looking at ways to make the battery pack smaller, lighter, and cheaper. Their first design is conservative, in order to insure 10 year 150,000 life. Once they get a lot more data from real world customer use, they will probably know better which aspects of the battery pack design are over-engineered.
+14
Apr 21st, 2010 (6:45 am)Not to mention that the Voltec drivetrain has more in common with diesel-electric trains than other cars. Come on people, don’t fall in to an all day discussion about hydrogen, let’s convince GM to build diesel-electric pick-ups!
+22
Apr 21st, 2010 (6:45 am)It really hurts to see GM set their sights so low.
How do they expect to advance and stay ahead when they have this new guy saying, ‘It can’t be done’?
+12
Apr 21st, 2010 (6:47 am)Where there is no will, there is almost certainly no way.
Why does is have to be a large SUV or large truck? How about the run around town small pickups that so many commercial fleets use? When some people see just lemons, others see lemonaid.
+8
Apr 21st, 2010 (6:49 am)Trucks and large SUV’s need a lot of power to carry cargo, tow, and accelerate. Voltec’s 111 kW (150 hp) is not going to be acceptable for most drivers.
However, this is where the plugin 2-mode should shine. It has already been developed and proven, and GM is working to reduce the cost for the next generation. In addition, GM can leverage its knowledge in Li-Ion and use the same cells as those in the Volt.
So a larger battery pack with Li-Ion, versus the smaller NiMH as currently used, means more captured regen, more power for launch, more all electric drive, and some energy (4 kWh) from the grid.
In addition, GM should be able to downsize the engine with little or no performance penalty. The current Tahoe uses a 5.3L V8 rated at 320 hp, 335 lb-ft of torque. A mildly turbocharged 2.4L 4 cyl (like the DI engine in the Equinox) could be rated 240/240. A single 60 kW (80 hp) electric motor with 140 lb-ft of torque brings the combined rating to 320 hp, 380 lb-ft of torque. This should also reduce the vehicle’s weight.
So a more capable and efficient battery, 4 kWh of grid energy, lower weight, along with an efficient 4 cyl turbo, makes for one efficient truck/SUV.
My guess is that a full size Tahoe could achieve a 30/30 rating from the EPA, and even better with the plug-in energy from the grid.
Apr 21st, 2010 (6:50 am)Another Q&A from GM’s chief of R&D:
“Will battery technology ever eclipse the internal combustion engine in passenger cars?
When it comes to small cars, absolutely. With larger ones, the advantage you gain with an electric powertrain becomes less significant than the weight penalty associated with fitting enough batteries to run it. That will remain the case until the next big leap forward in battery technology after lithium ion.
But given the rising price of oil, it should become cheaper to buy and run an electrically powered supermini than a combustion-engined one before 2020.”
http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle.aspx?AR=248970
__________________________________
This is what I’ve been driving at ever since I started posting on gm-volt.com.
With the battery technology in front of us now. The quickest way to electric drive viability is with lightweight BEV’s.
+7
Apr 21st, 2010 (6:55 am)Now the EESTOR comment made me laugh. Hydrogen!! I really can’t add anything to what’s been said. What a dumm idea that would eventually waste recources.
+3
Apr 21st, 2010 (7:03 am)Trucks have the aerodynamics of a parachute. Think of how hard GM worked to get the aero good enough to get 40 miles out of a Volt.
Take up the entire payload of a pickup for batteries and end up with a 3-passenger car? This must not be from one of the people desperately wanting a 5-seat Volt.
Cost of a hydrogen infrastructure? Is that a bigger waste of money than wars to assure a supply of oil?
All the energy required to convert water or natural gas to hydrogen, then transport it? Are there similarly cooked numbers for how much it takes to transport crude, refine it, and get the gas to the station?
Limited size range of EREVs? He said four to five meters. That 39″ span covers everything from Minis to Malibus. Or maybe Volts to CTS’s.
If the Volt is as much of a success over the next decade as the Prius has been over the past decade, you’ll see EREV SUVs and EREV large sedans. And hydrogen? It’ll show up as soon as it makes economic sense, whether in a niche or widespread.
+9
Apr 21st, 2010 (7:04 am)Hi All,
http://www.balqon.com/
Here is the link for a 7 ton Class 8 Electric Truck, with 145 Mile per charge range, empty, and 90 mile range, fully loaded, that was funded by a $400k Grant in the Port of Long Beach, a far cry from the $50 Billion Plus Bailout of GM.
I hope the Federal Gov’t will realize how quickly we can start to get off foreign oil by electrifying Class 7 & 8 trucks plus pickups and SUV’s and require Gov’t Motors to move forward on available technologies instead of letting GM set on technology like they did for their Prius equivalent hybrids since the mid 60′s, (that GM admits). If GM had used that same technology they would be a vibrant auto company instead of being in Gov’t ownership.
I own a Garbage company and look forward to the availability of this truck for my 45 mile routes so I can be $4-$5/Gallon (the price we are returning to as we let the Investment Banks speculate in Oil Futures) Diesel free, with 45 miles to net meter back to the Grid. This technology will have a 5 year payback, then be fuel free. with a net reduction in my shop power bill!!
Thanks
Tim
+4
Apr 21st, 2010 (7:09 am)No, the current EREV platform does not scale to a truck. However, that’s the CURRENT platform.
My Dakota with V-8 weighs 4027 lbs. This is not a ‘small’ truck. The Volt (according to Leno) weighs around 3900. Without any cargo (3x 200lb guys, or, 6 x 100lb bags of mortar) they are pretty close.
As BillR says, a turbo L4 paired with a good sized electric motor would be equivalent to a V-8.
Fool Cells are so far in the future to be non-existent. We need something now!
+6
Apr 21st, 2010 (7:10 am)And this was my point in #15. If GM sets their sights too low, they will never get anywhere.
They looked far ahead when they did the Volt. There is no reason to slow down now.
+13
Apr 21st, 2010 (7:12 am)As I recall, most of the posts here were for a “small” SUV or truck using EREV, not the huge monster class vehicles. I see no real reason why a small pickup could not be done. Even with a payload of 500 pounds, it would be more than acceptable for my weekend handyman tasks. So put it on the Volt’s chassis, that would work for me. I had a 1982 Dodge Rampage that was exactly that. Here is a picture of the 83 model:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3103/2611034379_ea38630a9a.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveseven/2611034379/&usg=__la1RixMvuVmbJLCK79lNdXFqIiU=&h=375&w=500&sz=163&hl=en&start=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=wAJsB7tgFF4COM:&tbnh=98&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3D1981%2BDodge%2BRampage%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26tbs%3Disch:1
Back on topic – This is the statement that worries me the most:
“Within 12 years, we’re expecting an average family car powered by a hydrogen fuel cell to be as cheap to produce as one with an internal combustion engine,”
As long as I can remember, practical, inexpensive fuel cells have ALWAYS been 10-12 years away. Continue to work on it. I have no problem with that. But why make it your main focus?
Voltec is here now, so why not utilize it as much as you can????
JMHO
Apr 21st, 2010 (7:14 am)There are companies willing to do it if GM keeps this up. Razer has a hummer running around as an EREV, and with good results. The other company is ALTe, they want to convert used fleet trucks, buses and vans using their modular EREV components, prices start at $21k.. they replace the V8s with a new 4 cyl genset.
The advantage of the Voltec tech is that is easy to integrate to ALL vehicles.. Taub just wants to reuse the Volt components and not develop any new ones.
http://www.altellc.com/
http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/electric-car-conversions/778
“CALCARS TECH LEAD RON GREMBAN’S COMMENTS:
The conversion process consists of replacing most of a vehicle’s whole drivetrain with its modular series hybrid system (like that in the Chevy Volt “extended range electric vehicle”). It can be sized for vehicles from pickup truck size on up through medium-sized trucks, vans, and light buses.
Components/processes:
ENGINE: up to 5.4L gas or Diesel is replaced with a 2.0L or 3.3L gas engine driving one or two 82 kW permanent magnet (PM) generators.
AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION: kept but re-tuned, with the torque converter removed to enable 90+% efficiency); the motor/generators connect to wheels through the transmission.
ACCESSORIES: retained but electrically driven.
MOTOR/GENERATORS: 2-3 82 kW PM, the same ones used for the engine-generator set.
BATTERY: 15-70 kWh Li-ion battery pack, depending on vehicle size, for up to 52 miles of pure electric (EV) driving per charge.
OPERATION: Vehicle is driven as an EV until the battery is depleted, then the engine is started to keep the battery from further discharge. The engine is not mechanically connected to the wheels.
PROJECTED FUEL ECONOMY: As a hybrid — after a 40-50 mile all-electric range — mileage expected to improve by 55-130% over the original vehicle (25-32 MPG vs. 14-16 MPG for an unconverted Ford F-150).
ATTENTION TO DETAIL, including a liquid battery cooling system, and additional weight of as little as 200 lb.
CONVERSION COSTS of as little as $21k per vehicle.”
+4
Apr 21st, 2010 (7:25 am)Why oh why does GM continue to promote hydrogen and drag their feet on electric cars………..hmmmmm……………lest we forget where Mr. Whitacre’s loyalty lies?
ExxonMobil — Their “Hydrogen Plan” for Us
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-parker/exxonmobil—their-hydrog_b_173355.html
+7
Apr 21st, 2010 (7:26 am)I couldn’t have said it better myself. Why chase the dream of hydrogen when Voltec can be expanded across all lines? Hydrogen is kind of like EESTOR. It is always around the next corner. Lithium is here today. Does anyone think Nissan is going to stick with a 100 mile car?
As batteries improve, so will the range. Concentrate on battery technology and promote the he11 out of Voltec.
-6
Apr 21st, 2010 (7:27 am)“the cost of the new infrastructure would be a burden”
*****************************************************
When we transition from horse and buggies, we did not have the infrastructure, but did that stop us?
With your kind of thinking, we still be in the horse and buggy days.
+1
Apr 21st, 2010 (7:32 am)
Apr 21st, 2010 (7:34 am)How about a 4 wheel drive pickup with Voltec front axle, an all electric rear axle and 800 lbs of battery? That would make a 40 mile AER EREPU with 300 HP. Sounds viable to me.
+2
Apr 21st, 2010 (7:35 am)There is no law that says the physical arrangement of the battery has to remain the same. I believe the proposal is to put the batteries underneath the floor like in the Nissan Leaf.
+6
Apr 21st, 2010 (7:38 am)Let me add my sincere plea to avoid the waste of time, talent & space on this remarkable blog again rehashing the fallacy of a hydrogen economy.
I remain convinced that GM’s rationale for continued mention of hydrogen fuel cells is simply:
1) they’re attempting to protect their corporate “hind quarters” from loss of funding for lucrative R&D development contracts that actually support an important application of a slight variant of the same fundamental technology —such as DEFCs*
2) they’re sustaining a “smoke screen” of secrecy to protect their aggressive development and investment in cellulosic ethanol** as a fuel for DEFCs (as well as turbines, ICEs, etc) that could prove eminently practical when distributed using our vast world-wide infrastructure of gas /petrol station tanks/pumps.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-ethanol_fuel_cell
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol
-9
Apr 21st, 2010 (7:44 am)GM would be best in not making such comments as on today’s topic. Most readers don’t understand the technical aspect of their reasoning so they turn it into a negative.
GM, if you read this, be more careful of what you say to the public. Say like what Toyota says…nothing.
Apr 21st, 2010 (7:49 am)Rashiid, Now that is a name EEstor (laugh) I have not heard dropped around here lately. I think they are partnering with that Carlsbad based company who has been promising a two seat aircraft like 3 wheeler for years and have pushed back their MFG date as much as EEsnore. I finally dropped them from my favorites and subscription list after it seemed like they were waiting for EEsnore to power their vehicle with all the delays & all. If they finally come out with product, Volts & Leafs will already be on their second gen. battery packs. zzzzzzz
+4
Apr 21st, 2010 (7:53 am)What a load of BS! Alan Taub should be fired! There are many EV trucks being developed and some are contracted by the post office. Ford is building the Transit EV, Smith Electric is bringing out EV trucks. Trucks are a natural for electrification as high acceleration is not prized like in cars. Trucks are designed to carry heavy loads, so the batteries make it heavier, just put in stronger springs to make up for the increased weight. EV trucks are IDEAL for city use, where maximum speeds are low and the extra mass can be largely negated by regenerative braking, this means you don’t pay (much) for this extra mass in terms of energy use.
The problem with electric trucks comes on the highway. And it has little to do with air resistance (although streamlining is always beneficial) it has to do with the requirement of massive recharging in relative short time. Highway trucks would have to be charged in the time the driver would stop for a lunch break, about 30 minutes. For a big truck this would require some pretty heavy duty connections, but still doable.
The second main issue to be overcome for ev trucks is the large number of batteries required. The industry is just too small to do this yet. With large volume will come lower prices.
There is at least one mining company starting to mine lithium in California. We may yet find that lithium is available in more places than China and Bolivia.
-5
Apr 21st, 2010 (7:58 am)IF these are the reasons for GM researching fuel cells, what reasons do Honda and Toyota have? The two are heavily researching fuel cell, also. And, I forgot to mention Ford.
I think what you said is downright nasty.
Apr 21st, 2010 (8:01 am)Maybe the IPO created from GM should be GB -General Batteries-
+3
Apr 21st, 2010 (8:02 am)Last weekend I went to a local EV club meeting, which is mostly members who are converting conventional vehicles to EV’s. One of the members had a Ford pickup truck that was manufactured as a BEV for California and was replacing the lead-acid batteries (with lead-acid). What I found fascinating was that the rather substantial battery compartment fit entirely under the bed and in the area where the transmission would be. Also, the traction motor was mounted in the rear where the differential would be in a conventional rear drive vehicle. So, assuming that the electronics that are in the front engine compartment can be placed elsewhere then a FWD ICE and a RWD electric could co-exist without complex linkages (not as elegant as the Volt, but so what). BTW the size of this pickup was moderate (don’t know the model) and another, smaller, pickup was there (its batteries were also below the bed, with the bed modified so it could be tilted up like a dump truck).
Bottom line – pickups may not be so impossible. The hydrogen thing seems to be a big red herring from some entrenched engineers.
+4
Apr 21st, 2010 (8:03 am)What reason? How about massive government grants just to do that? Researching Fuel Cells is a profitable business, no product required.
I expect that GM has to publicize their FC efforts to maintain government funding. More to the point, promote FCs so the government won’t change their policy.
+3
Apr 21st, 2010 (8:04 am)The question I have is are they just saying that for disinformation to their competition, or is it really they only have so much money for R&D that they just want to put that off for now.
Oil will continue getting more expensive and batteries will continue to get smaller and cheaper. It is retarded to look at current generation batteries costs and weight when planning for the future.
They should be planning vehicles now based on the batteries that will be available in 5 years. And there are all sorts of ways to electrify larger vehicles.
EREV-20 is a great way to go for large SUVs. A large vehicle only needs big enough ICE motor to create electricity needed to cruise at 75 mph. This is better than current hybrid technology.
Every vehicle can have a BEV and EREV version to go with the ICE versions within 5 years. Car companies that do not plan on this and keep up with the competition will probably risk going out of business.
Then when charging stations are everywhere including apartments and work places, they would only need BEV and EREV.
Apr 21st, 2010 (8:05 am)Thanks big brother.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4rBDUJTnNU&feature=related
+4
Apr 21st, 2010 (8:06 am)PS: (to my post #32 above on DEFCs & cellulosic ethanol) — Remember that DEFCs 1) produce clean electricity, efficiently & silently and without any moving parts; that 2) a DEFC could simply replace the ICE/generator in the Voltec drive train; and that 3) a DEFC/Voltec drive train would still require electric traction motor(s) and batteries to retain the high efficiency of coasting/braking regeneration and use the EREV architecture in which the battery is still charged at home and/or charging stations from the electric grid.
+5
Apr 21st, 2010 (8:08 am)And that’s the point. We don’t need to build a completely new infrastructure for Battery Electric.
Let the Hydrogen discussion die today. It’s a joke and we don’t need to rehash it again.
+2
Apr 21st, 2010 (8:10 am)The Volt, Cruze, and Orlando are all built on the same chassis (Compact Delta 2 platform). I seriously doubt they would change the shape of the battery.
+2
Apr 21st, 2010 (8:13 am)Gov’t built roads but didn’t build gas stations. If GM wants to sell hydrogen vehicles I have no problem with it. But it better be industry that fronts the bill for hydrogen fueling stations. IMHO that just won’t happen because the cost and inefficiencies of hydrogen generation just don’t make financial sense. If we had an overabundance of clean energy going to waste I’d probably change my mind and say lets use that extra energy to generate hydrogen but that’s not the case and until it is I don’t see the advantage of a hydrogen battery over a chemical lithium battery.
Just because something CAN be done doesn’t mean it should be done
+1
Apr 21st, 2010 (8:20 am)I think that I just GOT something! GM seems to be hung up on the size of the Voltec platform. They are using a “modified 2 mode transmission”. That transmission seems to have trouble scaling up or down from the Volt. Also the standard 2-mode has two electric motors embedded in it, and it seems likely that in the modified unit in the Volt that one is the traction motor and the other is the generator, with the modes that permit the ICE to drive the wheels disabled. The dependence on this modified 2 mode unit may be both the beauty of the Volt and the difficulties in scaling it up or down. I wonder what is gained by using a simplified 2-mode? Other than playing with something that is “cool tech”? Might ulitmately be more limiting than helpful.
Apr 21st, 2010 (8:27 am)Natural Gas should also be part of the mix — especially for large trucks that transport good over long distances.
The U.S. has recently discovered enormous natural gas reserves, making it abundant, cheap, and much cleaner than gasoline (or diesel). Current fleets of gasoline or diesel powered trucks could economically be converted to natural gas powered vehicles with existing technology. In addition, building a nat gas fueling infrastructure would not be as challenging as building a hydrogen one (and it would not require as much energy to produce the fuel from another source as hydrogen would).
Rather than waiting to see if/when hydrogen fuel cells could be ready and if/when a hydrogen fueling infrastructure would be economical, we should be considering natural gas for large trucks. Particularly for the large trucks that transport goods across long distances which also makes electric vehicles impractical.
+1
Apr 21st, 2010 (8:34 am)Does anyone know if Phoenix Motorcars EVER delivered ANY of their SUT’s and SUV’s ?
http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/vehicles/index.php
3 years ago, they were showing (and hyping) these with Altairnano’s Lithium Titanate batteries.
+1
Apr 21st, 2010 (8:47 am)I’m really skeptical about a 7-passenger ‘micro-van’. All photos and sketches so far show the Orlando (if that’s what were talking about) to be fractionaly larger than the HHR.
Have you ever rode with 4 of your friends in one of those? Cramped is an understatement. 7 passengers in a Tahoe is just about right for hip and shoulder room. As long as the 7 of you don’t need any extra gear along. If so, then the Suburban is the only way to go.
My point: Don’t build a cramped, under-powered 7-passenger Voltec just because you can. The customers will not be pleased with the performance even if if they are friendly enough to stuff themselves in there.
Besides, $32,000 will get you a base model Tahoe that seats 8.
+1
Apr 21st, 2010 (8:49 am)AS I said…
I have an electric truck, my 2000 Ford Ranger EV and love it but would not buy another BEV. The range limitation means it is limited as a third vehicle for our family. But as an around town truck it is fantastic. Unless a BEV gets to a point where the range is at least 280 miles and the charge is under 10 minutes, for me it will be relegated as a third vehicle. I will hold on to my Ranger which I plan to replace the lead acid batteries with Lithium.
I have had 3.8kW solar panels now on my roof for about four months and am loving it. They are from SolarCity, another Elon Musk business, and was very impressed with their service. I highly recommend them.
What I would really like is a larger vehicle, like Jeep Grand Cherokee size that is range extended and fully zero emission. I think Voltec/fuel Cell would be my preference. The Equinox is a little too small as we camp with the boy scouts and need to have room for at least six.
+9
Apr 21st, 2010 (8:52 am)Use a bigger battery…
Just think of how much tax payer money (being wasted on Hydrogen R&D) could instead, be reallocated into battery tech…
+2
Apr 21st, 2010 (8:52 am)This is a very good point. I have said it before “for me a perfect vehicle would be a plug in Avalanche with 10 miles all electric”. This would allow me to get rid of two cars for one and still use far less gas. I think there are a lot of others like me.
+1
Apr 21st, 2010 (9:00 am)Re-reading, I apologize for the seemingly sarcastic tone, which was not intended. My point was more technical, thinking of weight as a design factor, but usually not a dominant factor in a larger vehicle, e.g., not as significant as aerodynamics at higher speeds. And, as a fact, many trains have electric drive.
Apr 21st, 2010 (9:09 am)Very thoughtful points. Thank you.
Apr 21st, 2010 (9:21 am)I’ve been trying to get you guys to face this reality for a long time. The power and energy density of current battery technology just isn’t high enough for larger vehicles. That’s why you won’t see EREV even on a CUV much less a pickup. A pickup is probably the last place you’ll see EREV because there is no realistic way for a manufacturer to limit the load. How many grossly overloaded pickups have you seen running around? And every one of the people driving those overloaded vehicles would be screaming bloody murder if they couldn’t get the pickup to drive up the hill at the end of their street.
-5
Apr 21st, 2010 (9:23 am)Who hid my comment by using “click to show”? Does this go on by itself when one reaches a threshold or so many negatives?
+2
Apr 21st, 2010 (9:24 am)Either out of business or just sort of hanging on as a zombie company. I’ve seen reports of both.
+7
Apr 21st, 2010 (9:28 am)Fool Cells, 10-15 years away, always have been, always will be.
In 2001 they were 10 – 15 years away (before the US Government poured billions, literally, into GM and Ford to work on these things over the last 10 years, no money was given for vehicle battery research here in the US, Japanese government did the same in their industry). 2010 and billions of dollars later and Fuel Cells are….10-15 years away. Auto industry lobbyists get fuel cell funding reinstated into the federal budget this year after it was cut out since its not producing expected results and not anticipated to in the near to medium term.
There’s a reason big oil has been a backer of fuel cells from the beginning.
I’m with Nasaman on this, GM (and Ford) gets hundreds of millions of dollars a year for fuel cell research and have been, every year, since the Bush Admin – they will not stop pushing the technology until they’re sure they can’t get the government to fund them on this whether its realistic or not. Goodness knows what kind of encouragement they get from Exxon etc..
+3
Apr 21st, 2010 (9:32 am)My silverado weighs 6,400 pounds. A voltec powertrain would struggle to move it around empty. But the truck is made to haul lots of cargo and pull heavy trailers. If I load 1,500 pounds in the back and hook up to a 7,000 pound trailer, the volt’s battery would take me exactly nowhere.
You would need triple, probably quadruple the battery, motor, and power electronics to scale up to a useful truck with a 40 mile AER. Those batteries make the truck heavier so you need even more of them. Where are they going to fit? If you put them in the bed then you don’t have room for cargo..
Construction guy at dealership: “So let me get this straight.. I can’t haul as much, I can’t pull as much, and you want me to pay $40,000 MORE…?”
I can see why this doesnt work for trucks, yet. But with cars like the volt and leaf rolling off assembly lines, the batteries will hopefully get better & cheaper.
-3
Apr 21st, 2010 (9:32 am)I’ll ask you the same question as I asked others before you, Why is Honda, Toyota, Ford, BMW, and all the others researching fuel cells? Is it political worldwide? Get real!
+5
Apr 21st, 2010 (9:33 am)The other advantage of natural gas is that the pipelines for it tend to nicely overlay the interstate highway system. So along the interstates you could have hydrogen fueling stations where you convert the natural gas to hydrogen, and then, using compressors for which the technology doesn’t exist, compress the hydrogen so you could have fast fueling. Now why you wouldn’t just compress the natural gas using compressors that do exist, and use natural gas as the fuel directly, is beyond me, but yes, natural gas would be the fuel stock of choice for hydrogen fuel stations. LOL
+4
Apr 21st, 2010 (9:40 am)Let me suggest you carefully re-read my posts #32 & 41 above, along with the 2 references;
I think you’ll agree that it’s quite plausible Honda, Toyota, Ford, etc are conducting their R&D activities for similar if not identical reasons. (But I won’t think your opinion is “nasty”, as you called my post #32, if you disagree with me).
Apr 21st, 2010 (9:44 am)Algae makes more sense than cellulosic ethanol since it requires far less space and water. Plus why not just use cellulosic ethanol or other bio-fuels using current engine technology. IOW why come up with a fuel cell when a current engine can run on them just fine?
But let’s look at how viable cellulosic ethanol appears to be with those who have real money to invest. Not government grant money but actual investments. Let’s look at Exxon. Exxon has invested zero dollars in cellulosic ethanol. It has invested “up to” $600M in algae. And it has just bought a natural gas producer for $35B. That should give us some idea of where the potential is, at least in the medium run.
Another way of saying this is that regardless of what you think of T Boone Picken’s conservative politics, the man is not a fool. IMHO too many people are writing off his ideas.
+2
Apr 21st, 2010 (9:47 am)Not going to research anything on this, just shooting off the top of my head, so grain of salt and all that.
I believe Phoenix went C11 around this time last year, but had some vague statement about a Shiek or something reportingly providing some DIP. I guess that was true because they are technically still around, putting out press releases at least. This past fall they put up some kind of update saying the truck would come out in 2010…don’t remember anything since.
Problem with Phoenix, besides the fact they actually have no money, is that they have no product.
The glider was supposed to be through Ssanyong (sp?), which is also enjoying a run through receivership (actually they continue to enjoy the ride of bankruptcy portection)…Sassifrass (or w/e) also feature no money, and have big labor problems. I’m not sure Ssassudio even have any real relationship with Phoenix at this moment. (Of interest, I believe Ssassypong (or w/e) won the award over GM in the category of ‘most press releases about other companies being interested in your brand/your company’ in 2009).
If they do sell, not sure why the new owners of Ssanguine (or w/e) would want to have anything to do with Phoenix.
Long story short…probably not going to happen.
Apr 21st, 2010 (9:50 am)I can see the headline now, CNG 18 wheeler jack-knifed in Queens, NY, and went over a bridge. The resulting explosion took out three square blocks, and incinerated 253 people, terrorism has been ruled out.
+2
Apr 21st, 2010 (9:55 am)*Sigh* I hope this does not “degenerate” (haha, you get it? A PUN!!…sorry, I obviously need my caffeine shot) into another Hydrogen thread.
Honestly, cost of building hydrogen infrastructure is way too high, for the “normal” fuel cells that use hydrogen directly. If GM is talking about DEFC like Nasaman, I don’t see why not. The infrastructure is already there (we’ve got like gazillions of gas stations all over the world) & it will be carbon neutral. I would welcome DEFC as the replacement for generator, with battery giving all electric range from electricity charged at home/work.
Now, re: a minivan like Orlando. As long as GM builds one that can comfortably seat 5 (or 6) with lots of room for storage at the trunk & in the cabin, I don’t care if I get 30 miles instead of 40 miles. Not sure what the R&D head is thinking, but if he’s thinking with 40 miles all EV range, he’s right. But, I don’t think folks would care too much with decreased all EV range. I’ll bet people would be more than willing to sacrifice 10-15 (or may be even 20) miles of all EV range for utility/function and ultra efficiency in extended range mode (say 40 MPG in both city & highway?). C’mon GM, bring Orlando as EREV & I’m there!
+7
Apr 21st, 2010 (9:57 am)..can’t… resist… hydrogen …posssttt…. argh!
The overall point to me is that if you have the choice between
1) burn x amount of fossil fuel to create electricity
2) use electricity to crack water for hydrogen
3) use hydrogen to drive 50 miles
and
1) burn x amount of fossil fuel to create electricity
2) use electricity to charge a battery
3) use battery to drive 85 miles (I made these numbers up)
Then the only justification for hydrogen is the quick refill time, and this is not really an insurmountable issue with lithium batteries. I can charge my hobby lipos from 50% to 90% full in under 6 minutes with the latest 5C charge-rate cells. Please put the research $$ into batteries and recharging tech instead of wasting it on fuel cells!
And before someone says, “But you can generate hydrogen with solar/whatever”, you can use the same solar/whatever energy to charge a battery. Moot (not mute) point.
I read a post on another site where the guy said, “I’m against battery powered cars because they are recharged by burning fossil fuels, whereas hydrogen doesn’t pollute”. How does he think hydrogen is generated?!? Does he think you pump it out of the ground? Argh, so infuriating.
I really don’t know much about the use of natural gas directly fed into a fuel cell, but I’d be surprised if it works out as more efficient than burning the natural gas in a power plant for electricity.
Apologies for another hydrogen rant. I think clueless people just fall in love with the silly term “hydrogen economy”. Take that and “peak oil” and shove them.
-2
Apr 21st, 2010 (9:58 am)One day we have vehicles with as long of range as the 1994 Solectria Sunrise. The Sunrise could go well over 300 miles on a charge using Ovonic NIMH Batteries. I believe GM prevented Ovonics from providing advanced batteries to Solectria.
This technology that existed in 1994 and could have been developed into something practical and affordable by now if it had not been stopped by Chevron, the Automakers and the Bush Administration.
Hydrogen is inefficient, energy intensive to manufacture and transport. It keeps us dependant on the oil companies. It makes me fear that GM and our national energy policies are still under the thumb of Big Oil.
+1
Apr 21st, 2010 (10:02 am)Yes
+7
Apr 21st, 2010 (10:07 am)Frankly, a Voltec vehicle that resembles the old Subaru Brat would be perfect for my purposes. My 4-banger compact pickup truck is too big and powerful for my purposes almost all of the time — the only problems with it is that it’s rear wheel drive and that it’s awkward to load 4′x’8 sheet goods into it. I rarely run into the 1000lb cargo limitation, and I’d be very happy happy to reduce the useful-load and power in exchange for being able to run off of alternative energy.
Build it small, make it efficient, give it the ability to run off of renewable energy (corn ethanol doesn’t count), give me a bed that can easily hold plywood and drywall, and I’ll write you a check. A 6′ bed that replaced the back seat and cargo area of the Volt would be fine — and major bonus points if you can keep the wheel-wells from interfering with the cargo. I can easily make due with an 600lb useful-load in the vehicle, which is about same as 3 adult passengers.
+3
Apr 21st, 2010 (10:17 am)Anyone can come up with “a scenario”. If we used this standard we wouldn’t want an electric car because children would be fried in their driveways — terrorism ruled out. There are 150,000 CNG vehicles on the road in NA and a million or two million worldwide. How many of these have been involved in anything resembling the scenario you’ve laid out? If the answer is zero that may be telling you something.
+1
Apr 21st, 2010 (10:22 am)That’s one advantage. The other advantages are that it’s very energy dense — longer ranges and less weight — and also power dense so you can use it in larger vehicles. You know, all the reasons that gasoline has worked so well. FWIW as others have mentioned biofuels have all the same advantages.
+2
Apr 21st, 2010 (10:22 am)Sssuch a Sssad Ssstory…
I think the Sheik was “Sheik Yerbouti”.
+1
Apr 21st, 2010 (10:24 am)I don’t know their present status. They did go through bankruptcy. Altairnano batteries are extremely expensive ($70k+/car) and they had signed a contract with Altairnano. Their financial model was flawed, they thought they would be able to sell CARB credits to big companies to pay for the batteries. This was a false assumption. They went through bankruptcy to break their contract with Altairnano and UQM and signed a deal with Electrovaya for the batteries. UQM was providing motors and controllers. Their price is also unreasonably high ($20k+/car) and they announced their intent to make their own controller (like Tesla does). This is all old news 2 years? Nothing since.
BTW they also got screwed by CARB. At the time the maximum credits (3 I think) were for zero emission, highway capable, refill under 10 minutes. Obviously to favor fuel cells. Phoenix paid Aerovironment to build a fast charger and demonstrate it to CARB. CARB then changed the rules to state the maximum credit was only available to fuel cell cars.
+3
Apr 21st, 2010 (10:28 am)…It’s because he believes unicorn horns will be released in a form that is ahead of EESTOR, but slightly behind hydrogen. Man right about now, I’m sure glad Volta invented batteries.
Apr 21st, 2010 (10:30 am)My understanding is that natural gas fuel cells would be a replacement for natural gas fired power plants because they are 70% efficient and carbon recapture is fairly simple. I’ve never heard of anyone suggesting natural gas fuel cells for a vehicle though, that may be new.
Apr 21st, 2010 (10:38 am)Although I think EV trucks are practical and better, I agree that just burning CNG makes much more sense than converting natural gas to hydrogen, then using fuel cell to convert to electricity. This is much cheaper and higher efficiency.
+3
Apr 21st, 2010 (10:38 am)#69
Yeah, me too. +1
Oh well, I guess I’ll either make do with the “microvan”, if it ever happens, or just rebuild the engine in my S-10 and keep driving.
+2
Apr 21st, 2010 (10:39 am)Err, it would be energy dense if you could just get the little buggers to stand closer together on photo days. And stop trying to take sun baths by shooting through solid steel tanks like sixth graders escaping school on the first day of summer vacation.
Apr 21st, 2010 (10:39 am)Can we say in other way :
We found another hybrids system which doesn’t fit in small cars and big trucks. Once the battery technology gets better, we will/may have a winner ? So we are back to scaling 2 mode system for now and hydrogen for future.
Now my question is with conventional 1.4 ltr engine, if you are able to hit 50 mpg, Is there a scope for using 10/5 mile extended range EV with ultracapacitors and a very efficient generator config ( i read 60% is more typical and 80% is max efficiency of generators ). So fix generator for a base required power and always run generator on that point. Use the ultacapacitor like electric motor in BAS+ ( to give additional power and to store regenerative electricity ). This give a clear abstraction and allows generator to work on max efficiency all times. Apart from this you have to really have space ship looking cars to take advantage of other factors like aerodynamics etc.
So chevy to 3 lines of products :
Heritage/Performace : HHR, SSR, Impala, Corevette, Camaro
Futurestic : Currently only volt ( add may be one or 2 models here – for low volume futuristic ones like aptera competitor etc)
Modern : Malibu, Equinox, Traverse,Aveo, Cruze,silverado, avalange, orlandeo etc.
This should be really give you a 230 mpg car and i think this will work for trucks also as electric motor can offere full torque on 0 rpm also.
+1
Apr 21st, 2010 (10:40 am)Per unit mass, not per unit volume.
+1
Apr 21st, 2010 (10:44 am)yes
Apr 21st, 2010 (11:02 am)First building quadruple power motor and controller is no big deal, that takes care of your “can’t haul as much or pull as much”. Your point about the battery is true at 4 times the power you would need 4 times the battery, but think about it, 4 X 400 lbs is 1600 lbs. It this really too onerous in a truck? Trucks get a LOT of mileage put on them, cut your fuel expenses to 1/3 and decide how long it takes to pay off that $40k.
+5
Apr 21st, 2010 (11:03 am)That’s what the compressors that don’t exist are for!
+2
Apr 21st, 2010 (11:07 am)A definitive interview relating GM’s fuel cell goals (FC). A guess is for over-the-road trucks GM’s FC priority is durability over cost. Right now there’s intensely competitive R&D 24/7 closing in on commercial durability. That makes previously announced GM 2015 timeline plausible. I expect we’ll see Daimler FC trucks, whatever brand – and given the FC policy advanced by GM Chief of R&D – likely GM FC trucks in the 2012-2014 period. Here VOLT.com should not be intimidated as to whether VOLT is powered by a fuel cell or battery. With all the rave reviews odds are VOLT chassis will be around for a long time. A perfect platform for EV power drive options. OPEC has to be sensitive to FC (and Li-ion) progress.
+4
Apr 21st, 2010 (11:35 am)Nice picture of that GM EV Pickup from the 90′s (using lead acids – heavy), it adds a good backdrop for the GM VP of R&D saying that the current battery tech won’t work for pickups/SUV’s cause its too heavy (NiMH had ~twice the energy capacity of the lead acids in that S-10 (same range for 1/2 the weight), Lithium tech has ~twice the capacity of NiMH (same range for 1/2 the weight again) and Lithium is lighter beyond that). Lithium battery capacity is expected to double over the next 3-5 years (i.e. same range for 1/2 the weight, again).
For truly large pickups/trucks/SUV’s, I can see his point. But for the small pickup/truck/van that (most of the time) just hauls 500-1000lbs pounds of stuff or less around and only needs 150 mile range or EREV (there’s alot of those out there – alot of fleet operators would be interested), battery tech is here, at least for an EV (and it would seem an EREV) application. An Orlando with a bed behind the front seats and/or a Volt based El Camino if the top needed to be off would have alot of people interested that need utility and require little to no Voltec component dev on GM’s part.
Thank goodness Ford didn’t know to get briefed by this guy (and Exxon) before they decided to bring their Transit Connect EV truck (payload 1700lbs) to the US with existing battery tech – phew…
+2
Apr 21st, 2010 (11:46 am)OK, weight, I forgot that one.
biofuels — only if it can be proven that the amount of fuel (typically diesel) used to create the stuff is less than the amount of fuel output. Don’t forget –
farmer drives big truck into town and back to buy seed
farmer drives big truck into town and back to buy fertilizer
farmer drives tractor across field multiple times to plow, plant, spray, harvest
farmer hauls crop to magic biofuel plant
etc
All of the above burn craploads of fuel. If someone can prove that a given ethanol/biofuels scheme has a positive overall fuel output, then I’m all for it. The one exception here is apparently sugarcane for ethanol in Brazil, but I don’t think you can grow sugarcane in Kansas.
It’s sweet if you can turn corncobs or whatever into fuel, but unfortunately the American midwest is a BIG place. If you burn 2 gallons of fuel hauling stuff to create 1 gallon of biofuel, it obviously doesn’t make sense. There’s a reason why ethanol production has to be so heavily subsidized. OK, rant over, I’ve been wanting to get this one off my chest. Just consider the overall picture, “cradle to grave”, that’s all I ask.
+1
Apr 21st, 2010 (11:47 am)No problem, point taken.
But on that point.. . . you don’t plug trains in. Trains aren’t carrying enough batteries to drive the train for any significant distance. The batteries are there to “fill in”. Plus, series hybrid trains weren’t developed because of their efficiency gain, they were developed because the drive train provided smoother operation and less maintenance. . . .the same qualities in series hybrid busses; however, they ARE getting better efficiency out of the busses . . but they haven’t started plugging them in yet in a viable fashion. (Yes there are plug in hybrid busses but they haven’t reached any commercial success that I’m aware of.)
The problem with hitting the viability target is that it’s very much a moving target. . and moving in many different directions — depending on battery advancements, battery price, and fuel price, just to name a few.
To be clear, I’m not saying series hybrid isn’t scalable. I’m saying ‘where we’re at with batteries now’ that weight reduction is a very important factor if you’re going to do any form propulsion where you’re relying significantly on ‘battery stored grid electricity’ to move the vehicle. I believe this was the gist of Mr. Taub’s Q&A as well.
Daimler is selling the (non plug in) Orion vii series hybrid bus with some succes:
http://www.benzinsider.com/2010/03/daimler-hands-over-last-hybrid-bus-from-order-for-ny-city-transit/
Apr 21st, 2010 (11:48 am)http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/21/autos/gm_loan_repayment/index.htm?hpt=T2
Apr 21st, 2010 (11:52 am)You can’t compress to more than a liquid. 10000 psi tanks now are very close to the same size as refrigerated tanks for liquid hydrogen for same energy content (refrigerated tanks require a blanket of insulation bringing them up to about the same size). The point is that we are already near the theoretical limit. Higher pressure isn’t going to gain much.
Apr 21st, 2010 (12:03 pm)OT (and submitted so that I can post something positive today):
GM Repays TARP money 5 years ahead of schedule:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSWALLFE62P20100421
-5
Apr 21st, 2010 (12:05 pm)O realy,are you sure GM the same NO like with the EV 1??? …. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iohXgR3Maig&feature=related –
Chevy S-10 Electric Vehicle
Apr 21st, 2010 (12:07 pm)Another point about compressing hydrogen. It takes a lot of energy to do the compression. Did you know that some of this energy is recovered in the car by a turbine in the de-pressurization stage before the fuel is fed to the fuel cell? I would like to know how much energy is recovered this way, it could be significant as some companies are trying to build cars that run on compressed air.
What percent of hydrogen energy is used in compressing?
What percent of hydrogen energy is recovered by the turbine?
About 60% of the hydrogen energy is converted to electricity by the fuel cell.
Apr 21st, 2010 (12:07 pm)Phoenix Motorcars already manufactures a BEV truck and an SUV which can travel 100 miles per charge. I find it HIGHLY unlikely that it is not possible to manufacture an EREV truck, as the battery would be much smaller than a BEV.
-2
Apr 21st, 2010 (12:13 pm)“GM Exec: Extended Range Electric Trucks Not Possible With Current Battery Technology”
NOP… GM WRONG AGAIN…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iohXgR3Maig&feature=related
+1
Apr 21st, 2010 (12:14 pm)I’d say my ’91 Park Avenue probably fit the category of luxury “saloon”. It was plushier than the Lincoln Continental I had subsequently. It was also 100 lbs lighter than the proposed 3500 lb Volt.
The Park was 300 pounds heavier than the as-large-but-less-luxurious 87′ Delta 88 I had, which in turn weighed over 200 pounds more than the equally spacious Ford Taurus of that year. All three had 3.8L V6′s and a proportionately heavy transaxle and radiator, with an 18 gallon tank to boot. All had more than adequate power with engines ranging from 145 to 165 hp.
The idea that the Voltec platform is for small cars only is hogwash. The Volt is in a Cruze body with a Cruze engine and radiator as a genset so GM would have a factory they could flip to making Cruzes more easily if the Volt didn’t work out.
The Cruze genset is far heavier and more complicated than it needs to be. Last week’s news that it’s getting the expected 50 MPG range is great news, since it points up some real “low-hanging fruit” opportunities for improvement. Likewise the 10Kg/KwH battery chemistry the Volt uses, which now appears to have come down about 30%.
If you needed space for the battery, you could easily have carved a foot out of the Park Avenue’s trunk and not missed it.
I’m not saying I’d KILL for a Voltec Park Avenue, but depending on whom I might think about it for a bit..
+3
Apr 21st, 2010 (12:16 pm)It’s not the fuel cell that’s the issue; it’s everything else you need to use one:
On board storage? Hydrogen gas molecules (H2) are so small that they have a tendency to penetrate most other materials. In the case of most metals, it actually alters their properties, making them more brittle. We’ve seen a lot about cost improvements for Fuel cells but nothing new about how to carry their hydrogen fuel.
Hydrogen sources? Everything said so far about making hydrogen is true; but GM has steadfastly clung to a lame argument of using hydrogen produced as a waste-product of other industrial processes (are these by-products produced everywhere? Are they created in suitable quantity to be meaningful for transportation? Is it economical / practical to move hydrogen gas from where it is a by-product to where it is needed? Answer to all: NO.)
But the real kicker where we are concerned comes when you combine statements like this with the departure of many important pro-Volt people from GM, and with the most recent GM fuel cell announcement that the cell will specifically not be used as the range-extender for the Volt, and it all adds up to this: The Hydrogen Inmates are running the GM asylum.
The comment about current batteries’ limits, while technically true, ignores the on-going research which has already promised to double and triple current energy densities while reducing costs, over the next several years. To ignore this in an environment where Hydrogen Fuel Cells are ideologically favored over batteries is transparently self-serving.
I’d love to believe this, nasaman, but there really is such a thing as making “too much sense” (especially when discussing big governments and big corporation politics).
You’re more likely to find a rat than a unicorn.
Apr 21st, 2010 (12:43 pm)One of the advantages of cellulosic is that you can use “crops” that don’t require fertilizer or irrigation. Those are big deals. Algae is even better since it’s very compact, doesn’t require much water at all, and eats carbon. Ultimately what you’d want is a synthetic plant that used sunlight and carbon to produce fuel.
I know corn cobs have been in the news but solid waste will also work, and solid waste is something you’d like to get rid of and isn’t exclusively located in the Midwest. So your feedstock is an important factor.
But I’m not a huge biofuel supporter. The practical approach is to use CNG for larger work vehicles and long hauls while we wait for some breakthroughs.
-1
Apr 21st, 2010 (12:49 pm)If only someone here on the forum could change the laws of physics, we could all have the exact kind of vehicle that we want. But we can’t change the laws of physics. If Taub is guilty of anything, it is that he points out the limitations of reality as embodied in the laws of physics. Hydrogen or batteries, they are both storage mediums for energy. Each has physical limits; weight, volume, energy density, cost, availability. Taub simply was pointing out that the Volt fits a “sweet spot” for batteries. Larger… not so good for the type of batteries that we have right now… meaning Lithium. Hydrogen fuel cells… larger is beneficial… according to the physics… so maybe in trucks. Smaller? How about rubber bands? Come on folks, be fair. Taub is a scientist first. He’s telling you what the reality is. Maybe he’s not telling you what you WANT to hear, but get real. He is!
+1
Apr 21st, 2010 (12:52 pm)Just follow the money… The interests of the oil companies and associated groups do not want us to get off oil. I am growing increasingly frustrated.
I want a small SUV (think Honda CRV size) with VolTec or a STRONG hybrid. The styling needs to be contemporary with useful space – not a major slant in the rear window. Ford Escape hybrid, front end styling too dated. I want to buy American but might consider otherwise. many others in the US are thinking the same thing.
The high MPG SUVs are highway miles not city. The get up and go off the line is not great.
IS GM OR OTHER US MANUFACTURERS LISTENING?? I don’t think so…
Thanks for the great info. … And letting me vent a little.
+4
Apr 21st, 2010 (12:54 pm)Allow me to re-phrase:
You’re more likely to find a rat in the dark than a unicorn.
Compare the light of Voltec’s nearly-public development with this dark, inexplicable, mostly-hidden-from-view Hydrogen regression. If there is no extant practical or economic rationale for a new technology, look for ideology, or some powerful vested interests behind it’s promotion. I can think of a couple (and one in particular has already been mentioned in this thread; several times. Hint: The people who sell you gas will be just as happy to sell you Hydrogen. The EV threatens the paradigm of a refueling station; who is most likely to find that unacceptable?).
Apr 21st, 2010 (12:58 pm)The problem with those new sources of natural gas is that those new techniques contaminate the water supply. And once the aquifers are tainted, it’s permanent. They actually had to evacuate some people from their homes in Northwest Louisiana because of it. The Wall Street Journal is about as far from being a left wing news source as you can get, and they ran an article about it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703763904575196412156777260.html?KEYWORDS=tainted+water
+1
Apr 21st, 2010 (1:02 pm)This might be a stupid question from a non-engineer, but couldn’t they use carbon fiber to make the actual truck much lighter? Wouldn’t that more than compensate for the added weight of the extra batteries?
They might not be able to haul as much right now. And it would be really expensive at first. But as batteries get better and carbon fiber gets cheaper…
Apr 21st, 2010 (1:07 pm)True.
However, there is also a chance that more, ‘cleaner to recover’ natural gas will be found offshore; in the areas recently opened for exploration. Large methane hydrate deposits may be indicators of large traditional methane resources.
Apr 21st, 2010 (1:10 pm)Here is another post on GM paying back some of their loans:
http://www.businessjournaldailybuzz.com/
Apr 21st, 2010 (1:13 pm)The next efficiency horizon after the current push to electrification is weight reduction. However, carbon fiber is not merely expensive, it is really most sincerely expensive. In the near term, reduction in the weight of things like batteries will give a larger return for the investment. Alan Taub is actually right about this, he’s just unrealistic about the time scales over which it will continue to be true.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if the ideal material for compressed hydrogen storage tanks turned out to be carbon fiber or nanotubes? Guess that would be good for another 10 – 15 years of waiting for the Fuel Cell fans …
-1
Apr 21st, 2010 (1:23 pm)Well, with GM killing Saturn and its Vue Hybrid and Plug in (and not dropping it in the Equinox) – the next vehicle on the horizon beyond the Escape Hybrid is Toyota’s RAV4 which they will supposedly be delivering as a Hybrid (I was thinking I’d heard for 2012). Amazing they haven’t done it already.
+2
Apr 21st, 2010 (1:46 pm)I didn’t listen to the speech by Whitacre this morning in Kansas, but the rumor that is circulating is that GM is moving Volt production ahead by 2 months!!
I’l see if I can find more info or links.
Apr 21st, 2010 (1:52 pm)The original Tesla Roadster concept was fiberglass with $85k price tag, numerous upgrades later including an all carbon fiber body (for light weight) and the Roadster is now $128k.
Don’t know how much weight could be saved, but I think it would be a safe bet that it would only be a fraction of the battery weight.
Apr 21st, 2010 (1:53 pm)BillR Said:
GM is moving Volt production ahead by 2 months!!
Does that mean more than 10,000 the first year, or the same number of Volts sooner?
Apr 21st, 2010 (1:55 pm)Don’t know why the negative votes. This primitive truck conversion works, so GM could use the much superior Voltec technology to build a better one.
+2
Apr 21st, 2010 (1:56 pm)Bill, see link in post #98
(lot’s of additional news online of course)
WOT
Apr 21st, 2010 (1:59 pm)Interesting news on the hydrogen front, the inefficient production may be a thing of the past..
Scientists at MIT have used viruses to the do the job in an efficient manner.
In other words, if this is viable on a large scale, the only drawback to hydrogen is the fuel distribution.
Though, if viruses are doing the work, a home bioreactor would be pretty damn easy to set up. Just add water.
Apr 21st, 2010 (2:06 pm)#87
Yeah, plus big truck hauls biofuel from plant to distribution point. My understanding is that ethanol at least can’t be shipped in the same pipelines as petroleum products.
+2
Apr 21st, 2010 (2:09 pm)#86
No kidding. I have to confess to feeling like my intelligence has been insulted a bit by all of this.
Great comment. +1
Apr 21st, 2010 (2:14 pm)Nice to include a link: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/belcher-water-0412.html
Still more research to be done, but looks promising.
Apr 21st, 2010 (2:25 pm)#111
Thanks for the heads up. I went back and gave Constantin a “+1″ just to try to help out. +1 to you too.
-1
Apr 21st, 2010 (2:32 pm)Gee —— a TAHOE —– Yeah, boy…THAT’S what I really want! L
L L 
L L 
L
Slap a NIMH battery on it, “Flex-Fuel” moniker – and call me “Dumbo”!
Anybody on this site who feels 17mpg in a Tahoe is gonna get us off foreign oil – please leave the building.
RECHARGE! James
IF YOU BUILD THEM THEY WILL COME.
Apr 21st, 2010 (2:33 pm)I think T. Boone Pickens was right when he favored CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) for heavy vehicles. Its infrastructure is more likely than hydrogen (Which is just CNG converted). GMC makes enormous vehicles (Semi Trucks, etc), and should be considering a new CNG infrastructure for them.
When SUV owners start noticing how cheap CNG fuel stations are, I guarantee they start considering a CNG truck.
With the big trucks using less petroleum, means cheaper gasoline for the Volt users…
Apr 21st, 2010 (2:34 pm)I found the following regarding Whitacre’s speech this morning in Kansas…trying to figure what to make of it:
“The Detroit-Hamtramck plant will build the Volt. Whitacre said the investment in that plant will allow it to help produce the next-generation Malibu during periods of peak demand.
Whitacre also provided a brief update on the Volt during his remarks. “We’ve now started production on the Volt and we remain on track to bring it to market in October,” he said.”
I’m not sure if this just means they’ll be producing production models in October and selling in November like the plan or doing it a little earlier.
I didn’t really like that they put another car type for Hamtramck to be producing (2012 Malibu) – doesn’t give one a feel that they’re planning on ramping Volt production at Hamtrack beyond their stated plans of 50k/60k a year.
Came from here: http://www.insideline.com/car-news/gm-ceo-we-paid-em-back.html
Apr 21st, 2010 (2:52 pm)But shouldn’t they at least work on prototypes? And find ways to reduce the battery weight? If the technology breakthroughs happen, and GM isn’t prepared to capitalize on it, someone else will be.
Apr 21st, 2010 (2:56 pm)Oh. I didn’t know that. But you’d save more weight with a truck than a car? At least in absolute terms? But, yeah, if it’s an extra 42K for a car the size of the roadster, then it’s probably at least an extra 80K for a truck. And no one will pay that.
I still think they should prepare prototypes though…it may get a lot cheaper.
+1
Apr 21st, 2010 (3:04 pm)Carbon is cheap. Technology for economically forming structural articles from it is not. The ball is in the court of those who will develop this basic technology; I doubt that GM is in the position of being among them (remember, the cell type that served as the starting point for Voltec already existed, and could be manufactured by existing entities before GM started inking battery contracts).
Watch for a breakthrough in the economics of forming large structures from advanced carbon composites, then look for prototype articles to start appearing.
Apr 21st, 2010 (3:19 pm)Well there still has to be an energy input of some kind, rocks don’t roll themselves uphill. But maybe you meant the theorized “bioreactor” would plug into the wall. In any case increased efficiency is always good. On the other hand I tend to ignore breathless “breakthrough technology” press releases, one of those and 75 cents gets you a cup of coffee… (but not at Starbucks I suppose)
+1
Apr 21st, 2010 (3:52 pm)One other observation I can make is aerodynamics – one of my favorite subjects. You watch Honda, Toyota, Ford, Dodge and Chevy — Not only do they not offer an SUV or truck with an aero nose ( or rearview mirrors ), but…they’re travelling in the wrong direction. Just look at the Honda Ridgeline, or their Pilot SUV. Even the ICE-loving motor press comment how they could feel the blunt nose catching the wind like a sail at freeways speeds and the concurrent loss of forward momentum, and power loss! F-150s, Expeditions, Tundras, Chevy C and Tahoe’s look like a barn door in front. And then — there’s Dodge. They put out a new truck with innovative features like the first coil spring rear suspension, yet they cant the big Dodge semi-truck grille FORWARD AT THE TOP – as if to say, “gas mileage be damned! “.
Marketers and laymen alike know American truck buyers from farmers to suit-wearing weekend warriors love their big, ugly big-rig brand-specific grills. It’s obvious since we keep buying them up like hot dogs at a ballgame. We are, however, at a new age with new types of truck buyers coming on the scene. Smarter ones. People who care how efficient their utility vehicle is – not as much how it hails back to days gone by, people who don’t attach the level of their virility to the size and bulk of their pickup truck.
My idea – Sell the traditional square plow Kenworth grill to the traditional buyer who will except nothing else. But offer an “aero nose” version with it’s 5 – 8 better mpg. My guess is that the testosterone-strapped fella with the blunt truck will begin to change his mindset once he sees the aero nosed trucks on the road. It works on one’s psychology to know that other fella is laying out less for gas than you are.
RECHARGE! James
IF YOU BUILD THEM THEY WILL COME.
+3
Apr 21st, 2010 (4:11 pm)Mark my words. It can be done and will be done before some distant breakthrough 20 years from now. A123 power density is plenty suffiicient. Motors are plenty powerful and so are controllers. The problem is cost and the will to do it. Mechanical advantage could be used if needed as well. The dynamics aren’t the same when you go from a 50mpg HEV to a 40AER EREV as the are going from a 18MPG ICE to a 30AER small pickup. The EREV drivetrain can cost more and still have a cost advantage over small sedan EREVs. It won’t be a world vehicle to start. It won’t be practical to tow 5000lbs. This doesn’t mean a vehicle cannot effectively meet a market need.
+2
Apr 21st, 2010 (4:22 pm)Or a Volt-based El Camino… I’m picturing it in my mind: it would be beautiful!
+4
Apr 21st, 2010 (4:25 pm)Sorry nasaman, but at the moment I thought it was nasty. But now, I feel differently.
+2
Apr 21st, 2010 (4:36 pm)Thanks, apology accepted.
Apr 21st, 2010 (4:36 pm)I’ve reread #32 and #42 and I don’t see any reference to Ford or Honda.
Apr 21st, 2010 (4:51 pm)If you dig further that’s not what the $400K is for. They spent a LOT more than that to develop the truck. It is a 400K grant to convert the current lead acid pack over to a lithium ion pack.
The trucks cost $200K instead of $100K. I wonder what they payback time is?
I also really wonder about the choice of an automatic transmission with a torque converter. What a waste of energy, an electric motor just doesn’t need one. They could have gone with an automated* transmission sans any clutch and saved the power wasted on both the torque converter and the transmission hydraulic pump. Both would be very significant.
*an automated transmission is a non-synchromesh transmission where a computer matches the engine speed to make a smooth shift without disengaging the clutch.
Apr 21st, 2010 (4:56 pm)Just remember GM’s target audience. GM doesn’t make trucks heavy duty workhorse trucks. They make grocery getters for consumers. The big three are in a horsepower war where power and acceleration are bragging points. Many pickups have the same horsepower that semi trucks hauling 8X the load have.
Apr 21st, 2010 (4:57 pm)What about natural gas? It should be a quick piece to engineer within 3 years. We NEED alternative fuel vehicles out ASAP.
By 2015, gas prices are likely gonna be much higher than they are now……
+2
Apr 21st, 2010 (5:19 pm)I agree. Tying the two motors in one package no doubt saved development time since they didn’t have to design and tool a new housing and gearbox. But tying them together doesn’t seem like the best route.
It commits them to a very rigid form of the engine and motor placement that doesn’t have to be the the case. For example, rear drive without a right angle rear end and drive-line would be possible if the two were separated.
I’d also expect NHV isolation of the ICE to be a bit easier with an independent generator and motor. The transaxle does have to have quite a bit of rigidity in its mounting to handle the torque going to the wheels. If the ICE and generator only had the electrical connections, then the ICE / generator package could be on far more resilient mounts, isolating vibration further.
+2
Apr 21st, 2010 (5:32 pm)Nearly every train is electric drive.
It doesn’t make a good comparison on a performance perspective though. The reason electric drive is so appealing to locomotives is because the power to weight ratio is so low. The lower the power to weight ratio on a vehicle, the more gears are necessary to keep the engine right in the power band from a low enough gear to get things moving up though top speed. If a North American freight locomotive used a selectable gear transmission, there would have to be something on the order of 50 different gear ratios. The electric drive has the advantage of infinitely variable ratios that can keep the engine exactly at the horsepower peak from 4 MPH to 80 MPH.
Additionally, what would normally be a weight penalty on any other vehicle is a benefit on a locomotive. They need to be heavy because they have to have the traction to pull a train and that takes a lot of weight.
To put the power to weight ratio into perspective: The ubiquitous GE C44-9 locomotive weighs 425,000 lbs and produces 4,400 HP. A Suburban with an equivalent power to weight ratio as the locomotive alone would have 53 HP. Yep, imagine the power of a 3 banger Geo Metro with the weight of Suburban. Now when you add in the cars that the locomotive usually pulls, and now you have the power to weight equivalent of a Suburban with a 4 HP lawnmower engine.
+2
Apr 21st, 2010 (5:43 pm)The other consideration many don’t get is that even hybrid semi trucks are a ways off. People will argue that hybrid transit buses are cost effective right now. That is true because of the severe duty cycle of a transit bus.
Consider what they do:
Idle for a while.
100% percent power until they hit 35-45 MPH.
Cost for 1 block.
Brake hard to stop and then idle again.
Repeat several hundred times a day.
That is a perfect application for a hybrid. The engine size can be reduced drastically because the average power is very low because of so much time spent idling. By eliminating the idle it saves fuel not only fuel, but also saves engine life. Recovering all that energy lost in the brakes saves both the fuel and lengthens brake service time – transit brakes last a matter of a few months before they wear out. Getting rid of a transmission saves the cost there too; the life of an automatic transmission worked that hard isn’t great. The size of the battery is wonderful, as it only has to hold the energy to move the bus up to 45 MPH one time before it is recharge by regeneration. The hybrid buses cost 3X as much, but payback time is under 2 years.
That duty cycle doesn’t resemble a heavy truck’s drive cycle. Traveling on flat ground at speed takes so much power the only time the engine would shut down is when going down hill. There is very little fuel saved there. The battery would have to hold the energy that is a sizable fraction of what is necessary to haul the truck over a mountain pass, otherwise the engine can’t be reduced in size without significantly impacting the truck’s performance. That’s orders of magnitude more power than the transit bus battery. The cost would be far more for a much smaller benefit.
Apr 21st, 2010 (5:43 pm)Cargo! It’s all about the cargo! The number of times I’ve had four people in any of my cars over 35 years is about twice. Or maybe six times. Whatever. I’ll take the microvan without the third row of seats, please. And, no, I don’t want to have to bottle-cork a Tahoe into my one car garage.
Apr 21st, 2010 (5:45 pm)Power comes from sunlight.
Apr 21st, 2010 (5:47 pm)The problem is cost, not size or weight. 4X the Voltec battery would weigh 1600 lbs. For a full size truck, that’s noticeable but not THAT bad. The engine could also be downsized some so there would be weight savings there. A battery that size could fit down the outside of both frame rails from under the driver back to the rear axle with the fuel tank behind the axle.
Apr 21st, 2010 (5:50 pm)A DEFC driving an electric motor is theoretically capable of 3X the overall efficiency of an ICE / mechanical drive train.
Of course the practical DEFC is still years away.
Apr 21st, 2010 (5:54 pm)Tesla tried that and failed. But then again they were aiming at sub 1/4 second shifts.
I think it would make much more sense to use an automatic transmission, just leave out the torque converter. The torque converter is not required with an electric motor and most of the losses in an automatic transmission is in the torque converter.
Apr 21st, 2010 (5:57 pm)CNG is actually a lot safer than gasoline and arguably safer than diesel as a vehicle fuel. Burning natural gas produces very little radiant heat. Ever been around a big fire? The radiant heat alone from a gasoline or diesel fire can maim or kill at a good distance. Natural gas is lighter than air and quickly goes away if leaked. Gasoline or diesel remains a fire hazard until it is cleaned up. Leaking natural gas in a confined space can build up until it reaches the lower explosive limit and then open pilots or electric sparks can light it off. But that’s not the case in the open. The natural gas dissipates quickly so it doesn’t tend to stay between the flammability limits.
+3
Apr 21st, 2010 (6:01 pm)Everything is Bush’s fault.
He magically went back in time to 6 years before his election to stop the technology in 1994 AND he’s keeping it from happening this day though his secret government conspiracy.
Apr 21st, 2010 (6:03 pm)Given that current natural gas fired turbine plants are beating 60% efficiency, that is a hard sell unless the cost comes in comparable.
+1
Apr 21st, 2010 (6:14 pm)+1
A couple of examples I’ve heard of just low the density of hydrogen is:
The most compact form of hydrogen is solid hydrogen. Solid hydrogen is 2 times as dense as gaseous hydrogen at 7,000 PSI. One gallon of solid hydrogen weighs 1/2 pound. It is as dense as styrofoam.
At 7000 PSI, 6.5 gallons of hydrogen has the same energy content as 1 gallon of gasoline. So if you car has a 15 gallon tank, the equivalent hydrogen tank would be 100 gallons. Not only would you have to find the room for a 100 gallon tank in the car… but how much do you think a 100 gallon tank capable of resisting 7,000 PSI weighs?
+1
Apr 21st, 2010 (6:19 pm)There seems to be a misconception proposed by Alan Taub that in a series hybrid truck the batteries have to become excessively heavy or expensive and therefore not workable.
Most diesel locomotives are series diesel-electric hybrids. The diesel engine powers the generators which supply electricity to the electric motors which turn the wheels. This is of great advantage when attempting to start say a 10000 ton freight train on a gradient as the electric motors supply maximum torque at low speeds.
A pickup weighing twice that of a Volt with the present 16kWh Voltec would be equivalent to a Volt-20 which has often been proposed here.
Would not the torque be more beneficial to a heavier vehicle than to a lighter one?
Taub in German means deaf and most of us would feel that the gentleman in question has deaf ears to the technological changes as well as to the opinions of the interested public.
+3
Apr 21st, 2010 (6:21 pm)“The Detroit-Hamtramck plant will build the Volt. Whitacre said the investment in that plant will allow it to help produce the next-generation Malibu during periods of peak demand.
They actually think people will still want a Malibu, after Volt comes out, and it’s qualities are documented and well known?
+2
Apr 21st, 2010 (6:23 pm)My guess is that the testosterone-strapped fella with the blunt truck will begin to change his mindset once he sees the aero nosed trucks on the road. It works on one’s psychology to know that other fella is laying out less for gas than you are.
Exactly why after Volts are common, nobody will want anything else. IMHO
Apr 21st, 2010 (6:23 pm)Actually, many do:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Arcing_pickup_shoe.jpg
Apr 21st, 2010 (6:36 pm)GMC got out of the heavy truck business in 1997 when it sold its trucking division off to Volvo.
Ford also dumped theirs to Freightliner.
+1
Apr 21st, 2010 (6:46 pm)Short sighted. There’s lots of really really BIG trucks with electric drive. Just like the locomotives.
) and there’s plenty of room for a second or third electric motor to power the rear wheels even with the current non-optimal packaging up front. Add in the ability to use the generator to power a site and people will buy them no matter what the all electric range is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel-electric_transmission
The current limitations he describes are applicable to the current voltec drive train which is hardlly optimal. As GM’s admitted from the start the goal was to get it done quickly with as many off the shelf parts as possible. That hardly makes for optimal enclosures, layouts or engines.
For trucks, I’d still go with the 2 stroke diesel similar to what is used in locomotives (only smaller
Please, GM, stop wasting time with hydrogen. That’s getting embarrassing.
Also, you should probably stop wasting time with the two mode system. Your previous product attempts with this system have been way too expensive for too little benefit. You’d probably be better off at this point spending your engineers revisiting your basic assumptions about what the voltec drive train should be, rather than what it is.
Voltec is leapfrogging your competition, now rethink it and leapfrog yourselves.
-4
Apr 21st, 2010 (6:54 pm)It’s only “NOT” possible because it’s stupid ass GM!!!
Isn’t it funny how Raser can do it but GM can’t? And we wasted a shitload of tax payers money to save this crappy company? When does this end? They should have closed their doors last year.
More corporate welfare?
+3
Apr 21st, 2010 (7:00 pm)Most semi trucks do not have syncromesh transmissions. The driver must match speeds through double clutching or matching the engine speed with the clutch up (“slip shifting”). “Slip shifting” in a truck is far easier because the inertia of all of the parts is so much more and the inertia dominates over the friction with all of the transmission parts. New drivers have to double clutch at first but veteran drivers know the engine RPM necessary to slip the transmission into the next gear without grinding.
Eaton developed the “automated” transmission where the speed matching is done by computer. There are MANY trucks on the road right now with an automated transmissions. I’m certain that the accurate control of the RPM of an electric motor is easier than the exact RPM control of a diesel engine.
Yes, most of the loss is in the torque converter, but the difference is not trivial.
The automated transmission still has a regular clutch. In stop and go driving the clutch life is short. This pushes most urban use truck owners into selecting the automatic over the automated since the torque converter in the automatic eliminates the clutch.
For long distance transport, the automated beats the automatic due to fuel efficiency. Not only does the automated transmission dump the lossy torque converter, it also eliminates the hydraulic pump needed to engage the plate clutches used in an automatic. Above low gear, the automatic locks the torque converter, yet the automated still gets better mileage on the freeway. The difference is due to the hydraulic pump.
I think their mistake was in choosing to work with Allison instead of Eaton. Allison dominates the automatic truck transmission market. No one would consider putting an Eaton automated transmission in a yard truck because the clutch would wear out in months – if the truck was a diesel. I’m sure that was the mental hangup. But an electric drive doesn’t need a clutch. The Eaton automated transmission sans clutch would have a very long life and be far more efficient.
Dang, why didn’t they hire me?
+3
Apr 21st, 2010 (7:06 pm)Here is your next battery breakthrough…
http://today.ucf.edu/blog/2010/03/01/ucf-researchers-confirm-battery-breakthrough/
+2
Apr 21st, 2010 (7:19 pm)Hydrogen is GM’s way of trying to stay tight w/ the oil companies. Keep us chained to the pump like the miserable, helpless animals we are today. Bush [need I say more].
Voltec == real, true, Freedom
Apr 21st, 2010 (7:20 pm)I hope it’s real and not venture capital raising spin!
+2
Apr 21st, 2010 (7:52 pm)I could be mistaken, but I thought I remember hearing or reading Frank Weber once say that the Volt’s design could also be employed in light trucks and SUV’s. I think that Taub is being excessively pessimistic and negative here. When GM sees how well the Volt sells, and sees how quickly the sizes, weights, and prices of batteries come down over the next 10 yrs., they’ll come to their senses. On the other hand, there’s far more reason to be pessimistic about hydrogen.
Best Regards, George, Sudbury, Canada…go Volt!!
+1
Apr 21st, 2010 (9:17 pm)I sincerely hope nasaman is right and jackson is wrong, but I fear the opposite is the case.
Honestlly, could GM be on the verge of p!ssing away their EREV lead ???
No serious person, not even the most dense troll, is arguing ** anything ** on the basis of the **current** state of battery manufacturing.
We are all talking about what will become possible in the medium term future.
And work not done now will mean lost opportunities.
Hopefully, Ford will pick up the ball if GM drops it, before Europe or Asia does.
But the Volt will be bringing in actual consumer dollars later this year to add to GMs bottom line.
Hopefully, this rule will kick in to counter the corporate resistance to developing EREV tech:
MONEY TALKS, BULLSH!T WALKS.
Apr 21st, 2010 (10:07 pm)Wrong answer. Wrong application. Obviously, you didn’t read my entire post.
+2
Apr 21st, 2010 (10:37 pm)I guess the Rav4 EV is just a figment of my imagination?
Apr 22nd, 2010 (2:56 am)This is realy what Taub thinks? I can not believe.
How weight of vehicle do affects the viability of EREV? My answer – only positive. Caterpilar EREV tractor and locomotives are best evidence.
Apr 22nd, 2010 (4:37 am)What a load of rubbish – a 3 seater van like the one pictured (even with with 1300lbs in it) is not going to be much harder to push along than a Volt and not much heavier either (it will probably be near empty 80% of the time anyway so average fuel use would not be significant). Once a vechile is moving at speed then proportionally air resistance beomces more of a factor than rolling resistance anyway (mv2). So as long as it’s relatively streamlined then it should be fine! Maybe electric range would be 30-35 miles… but that’s still a lot. The Voltec platform is a win-win, as battery costs continue to come down and as the Volt sells like hot cakes it’ll be in lots of cars, trucks and vans in a few years. It’s just will GM be ahead of the curve or react late to the high sales? And, if you don’t believe electric trucks work – take a look at the UK manufacturer SMITH. They make electric versions of vans and trucks that are up to 10 TONS using Valence Technology batteries!: http://www.smithelectricvehicles.com/
-1
Apr 22nd, 2010 (9:41 am)VOLTEC too Heavy?? TOO HEAVY??? What a load!
Why spend Billions of dollars on a design that has a narrow focus? Oh, it will only fit in the VOLT. Gnashing … Growl!! No Effin Clue!
Modify the flippen pack to say 5miiles and replace the ICE/gen with a cell and DONE!
No, it is too heavy, we have to redesign — the voltec platform is not the right one…
Sorry to say it, but the VOLT is a flippen PR stunt.
2.6%
Apr 22nd, 2010 (12:32 pm)I read your entire post. The point you were trying to make is that nobody makes a battery powered locomotive but you didn’t explicitly open with.
Apr 22nd, 2010 (1:17 pm)Bummer! I love my 2009 Sierra Hybrid! Was hoping that in 6 years I would trade in for a plug-in version.
Apr 22nd, 2010 (6:41 pm)Nope. Still wrong.
Here, I’ll help you out:
“To be clear, I’m not saying series hybrid isn’t scalable. I’m saying ‘where we’re at with batteries now’ that weight reduction is a very important factor if you’re going to do any form propulsion where you’re relying significantly on ‘battery stored grid electricity’ to move the vehicle. I believe this was the gist of Mr. Taub’s Q&A as well.”
Apr 22nd, 2010 (6:54 pm)Looks like somebody major is finally looking (back?) in the right direction:
BMW Says First Electric Car, The Megacity, is Coming in 2013
http://gas2.org/2010/04/22/bmw-says-first-electric-car-the-megacity-is-coming-in-2013/
“BMW’s approach to electric cars is markedly different than that announced by other auto manufacturers. Although they will be coming a bit late to the EV parade, BMW plans on using ‘EXTENSIVE AMOUNTS OF HIGH TECH CARBON FIBER’ to make their Megacity EVs stronger, safer, lighter and faster than any other electric cars on the road. The light weight is key, allowing BMW to claim that the first Megacity EV will have a 160 mile range. At 160 miles, the “short range” argument begins to get seriously muted.”
Apr 23rd, 2010 (12:39 am)GM should first of course of course use it’s Voltec technology then combined one of it’s new cars with clean diesel technology. Note) It’s known in Europe that clean diesel technology get’s 60 to 70 MPG when it comes to fuel efficiency so it should make more economic sense because diesel has been known to be more efficient then gas just to say.