There are several pieces of information about the Chevy Volt that have been accepted as immutable fact since early on in the car’s transparent developmental process. One of those has to do with the amount of usable energy that will be drawn from the battery to drive the car.
We have always been told the Volt would use 8 kwh to drive 40 miles, and thus about 50% of the battery’s total capacity, operating within the roughly 30 to 80 percent state of charge band. This number also indicated the vehicle’s efficiency is roughly 5 miles per kwh
At the Consumer Advisory Board information conference, Volt vehicle line director Tony Posawatz issued an addendum of sorts. The Volt will use “a little bit more” than 8 kwh. He would not be specific about how much more, instead assuring us we “will found out” when we start driving the car.
Britta Gross who is GM’s director of infrastructure indicated how much electricity consumers should expect to draw from the grid in order to fully recharge a depleted battery. “Assume an upper bound of 10kWh needed to fully charge the battery (from empty),” said said. This would include grid energy also used to condition the battery.
The Volt will issue monthly statements describing how much energy the car has consumed which will be sent to email via OnStar and be accessible on myvolt.com.
Over time as the battery degrades the car’s electric range will gradually decline. The pack should reach about 70 to 75% of capacity after 8 years/100,000 miles. The car will gradually increase the usable state of charge band, however, to continue enabling the 25 to 50 miles of electric range.
The car can continue to be driven long beyond that 8 year/100,000 mile point, and in secondary applications the battery could be used for an equal number of years. Eventually consumers will see electric range degrade, though the generator will always be there to allow normal usage.
That’s right, after 20 years GM is set to begin production of its first small Buick. The vehicle is called the Buick Verano and will be a luxury version of the Chevrolet Cruze the sales of which began last month.
GM has also announced it will begin production of the car in its Orion Township, Michigan plant next year and is expected to go on sale in 2012. It will be joining the subcomapct Aveo already built there. The Aveo in addition to getting a makeover may also get a name change.
GM is investing $145 million to retool the plant for the Verano and to retain a workforce of 1550 workers. Those UAW workers had negotiated a rate of pay that would allow GM to profit on both of these cars.
GM has only released the above teaser photo of the Verano but invited 900 Buick dealers to come to the plant where they were shown photos of the car.
It was described by one observer as looking like a mini version of the new mid-sized Regal already on sale. It will have a similar front end and a sleek design. It is also expected to have luxury interior appointments and is expected to be the quietest car in its segment.
“Verano will bring premium styling, performance and content to Buick buyers wanting a smaller car than Regal,” said GM North American President Mark Reuss. “The investment in Orion Assembly also extends GM’s local small car footprint, again increasing the number of U.S.-made small vehicles available in showrooms.”
In the month of September when both cars went on sale, 516 Chevrolet Cruzes and 1776 Buick Regals were sold.
All automakers are emphasizing production of small cars with high fuel economy to move to meet US efficiency standards of 35.5 MPG fleet average for cars by 2015.
Whether the public wants these cars is yet to be seen.
No plans for a hybrid Buick have been made public yet though GM’s next generation mild BAS system could theoretically be deployed in this vehicle.
GM has announced a partnership with Michigan-based SPX Service Solutions to sell and install the 240-v Voltec home charging station made for the Chevrolet Volt.
GM has positioned the price of the charging unit to be the “most affordable” on the market.
It will cost $490 before installation.
Installation costs are expected to vary depending on how much is involved at the customer’s home. SPX estimates the cost of installation in most cases with be $1475.
SPX will also offer several other different chargers for customers to choose from.
The Voltec 240V charger can recharge the Volt from depleted to full in about four hours, drawing 3.3 kw of power.
Nissan has partnered with AeroVironment to install chargers for the LEAF electric car. Those chargers, with similar specs, will cost about $2200 including installation.
SPX will work with local contractors to do customer installations.
GM says SPX will:
Manage all aspects of installation for Volt owners, including the home survey, installation, permitting, Department of Energy and utility coordination, and identification of available programs and incentives for reduced charging rates
The 240-v charger is optional as the Volt can be recharged using the standard 120-v wall socket charger that comes with the car. This would take about ten hours.
In a few weeks I will be taking delivery of a Chevrolet Volt test car to live with for three months as a member of GM’s consumer advisory board. Sooner than that I will have the official GM 240-v Volt charger installed in my garage. This level 2 charger allows the car to be fully recharged in about 4 hours as opposed to the 8 to 10 hours it would take at conventional 120-v household current.
The Volt has a programmable interface that allows owners to delay charging. This function allows one to take advantage of overnight off-peak utility rates, which are generally significantly less expensive. Utilities meet peak daytime demand by trading off excess nighttime capacity. The utilities would love the chance to sell that capacity, and by offering a lower rate can encourage people to buy it.
Electric cars are the perfect application for this off-peak power because mostly people will want to charge them at night while they are sleeping. In some cases rates are less than 2 cents per kwh off-peak, though they can be more than 10 times that during the day. To refill the Volts 8 kwh, or 40 miles range, of battery capacity could cost as little as 10 or 15 cents off-peak. In comparison, gas costs about $3.50 to $4.50 per 40 miles even at today’s rates.
Most homes have a fixed electric meter that simply records overall kwh usage and doesn’t tell the utility company when that power is being drawn. Customers are simply charged a fixed rate for all power consumed regardless of when it is used. To take advantage of off-peak rates one has to have the utility company install a time-of-use meter (TOU) that records specifically when power is consumed.
The problem with this, however, is that the utility company may offer stellar rates off-peak, but in exchange will inflate the peak rate to far above the standard, negating or even inverting any benefit for charging your car.
Le’ts take my case in point, as I have studied it to see if a TOU meter makes sense.
Currently my electric charges billed by Orange and Rockland (O&R; a subsidiary of Con Edison) in New York has two components; delivery charges and supplier charges.
O&R currently charges 8.6 cents per kwh for delivering the electricity I use. They do not profit off the electric power itself, as that is sold by a third party, in my case Coned Solutions. This provider is charging 10.5 cents per kwh. Thus my overall charge is 19.1 cents per kwh.
If I switch to TOU metering, O&R is offering an amazingly low 1.3 cents per kwh delivery charge for 9PM through 10AM. However, in that case the 12PM to 7PM rate balloons to 20.4 cents per kwh. Its 7.3 cents per kwh at all other times.
Let’s say in the average month I use 1000 kwh of energy, and 50% is during peak times. My bill would come to $191.00.
If I added 240 kwh per month charging my Volt six days per week, my bill would rise to $236.84.
Now let’s say I switched to TOU metering. My regular charges would be $155 (500 kw peak rate) + 79.50 (500 kw regular rate) +28.32 (240 kw off-peak rate) = $262.82
Thus though these differences are small, switching to TOU would wind up costing more. The less the percent of electricity drawn during peak the less the disadvantage, and at some lower level of peak usage a benefit will begin, this benefit will also be larger the larger the car battery. However it is hard to know how much peak electricity one uses unless the switch to TOU has already been made.
This situation is unfortunate and really doesn’t help promote electric car adoption. I suggested my utility company simply offer the 1.3 cents per kwh 9PM to 10AM rate for validated EV owners without changing their daytime rates.
My response so far from an O&R expert by the name of Paul Koretz is “the existing tariffs do not have an incentive for EV owners beyond the TOU rate at this time.”
Asked if that could change he said, “I will see if we have something in the works specifically for EV.” Paul advises that he is continuing to check on that.
“You’ve hit the nail on the head regarding TOU rates,” says GM’s director of infrastructure Britta Gross. “It is really going to depend on a customer by customer basis how much electricity you really use during the peak hours of the day (and what the rate differential is).”
“If nobody is home during the day, then the TOU can make a lot of sense – but if there is a lot of activity at home during the day the lower evening rate just to charge the vehicle may not make it worth it (because of the daytime higher rate),” she said.
“Some utilities have put rate calculators on their websites to let a customer play with the various options,” she added.
There is some hope this situation will change over time if more of us complain.
“Some utilities (just a few) do offer a special EV rate – and it is separately metered from the normal household energy use – and this is a low evening rate,” said Gross. “Maybe this will catch on – though there is the upfront cost of the separate ‘submeter’”
So if you can, call your utility provider and find out if they offer a special EV off-peak rate, if not see whether switching to TOU makes sense for you.
On a rainy October day in New York City I had my first chance to drive a production version of the Nissan LEAF electric car. While it certainly wasn’t the first media drive of the car, it was my first, and it was the first time one had been driven in the streets of Manhattan. And for another first I am one of the only few people on earth who drove both a VOLT and a LEAF in the same week!
When I first approached the car I was impressed by its appearance. It stood out from the crowd on the street in front of Mickey Mantle’s place on Central Park South. It was a light silver color, not the traditional sky blue we’re used to seeing. It felt to me like meeting a celebrity in person.
It seemed sizable on the road, and was very similar in height and stance to the Versa. Its design was striking, most notable was the curley-Q wide rear flanks and tail and the large bulbous sharp headlights. Nissan point out these unusual headlights were designed to move wind away from the rear view mirrors to both reduce wind noise and drag. Looking at those headlight head-on, which incidentally use 60% more efficient LED bulbs, and one is greeted by a sharp vertical edge. Odd maybe, unusual certainly, cool…maybe.
I got to drive the car for a 10 minute jaunt around and through the lower end of Central Park, about 5 miles. There was ample room for some spirited acceleration and twisty turns though not highway speeds. I was accompanied by Paul Hawson who is Nissan’s EV product planning manager.
The LEAF is close to getting its official curb weight and coefficient of drag which is 3500 pounds, and 0.28 respectively. The same drag incidentally as the VOLT.
The car has a nominal 100 mile range delivered by a 24 kwh lithium ion battery pack. Hawson explained the lithium polymer cells are each about four CD cases thick and about the size of a sheet of paper. There are four per module, and 48 modules for a total of 192 cells. The 600 pound steel-encased pack sits at the floor of the car and adds to handling ability, low center of gravity, and of course weight. The battery is warrantied for 8 years/100,000 miles, but Nissan admits it will drop to a nominal 80 miles after 5 years due to battery degradation. This will be more problematic for the air-cooled pack in very hot baking climates. He said Nissan is working on the next generation of better battery packs which owners could opt to exchange for the old pack in the future. Nissan will move those to a secondary energy storage market.
The on-board charger is limited to 3.3 kw, same as the VOLT, or 240-v and 20 amps. At that rate a full recharge will take 8 hours. The charger is capable of a faster rate, but Hawson says most customers’ homes won’t tolerate more than 20 amp 240-v service.
On to the drive.
The car is compact but seems a little bit more spacious than that inside. Egress is more than adequate both rear and front, and the headroom inside was very ample. I found the driver seat quite comfortable and had plenty of hip room. I noticed the cloth material was very soft and comfortable, though cheerful it had a bit of a drab grayish color that might not wear well. Hawson pointed out the material was made from recycled plastic bottles. In fact 99% of the interior was made from recycled materials. This grayish tone is repeated throughout the interior. It gave a high tech impression though couldn’t be considered luxurious, it seemed more to reflect the aura of of an economy car. There are no color or leather options, though I pointed out to laughter cattle can be recycled too.
The center stack was a gray-black rectangle. In the center was a rich LCD touch screen informational display which could be cycled through several screens. The most compelling was the efficiency information screen showing the current electric range remaining and energy consumption. There was also a screen which could show the nearest public charging stations and how far you are from them.
Nissan embedded cell-phone technology in the car that allows it to communicate with that data. It also allows drivers to communicate to the car via smartphone apps or the web. Charging status can be checked, stopped and started, and the cabin pre-conditioned using grid energy. Alerts can be issued for forgetting to plug-in.
Behind the steering wheel was a somewhat more conventional gauge showing speed, battery temperature, and battery state of charge. There was also a band of bright circles that served as an efficiency gauge; moving to the right indicated increased energy draw, and to the left regen. The idea was to keep the light in the center circle.
Once in the car, in possession of the key fob and with one’s foot on the brake, the start button could be activated. This led to an obvious powering up of the dash and a series of pleasant optimistic, video-game like tones, which indicated in no uncertain terms the car was on and ready to go.
The car drove is a nimble light, airy and responsive fashion.
The pureness of the electric dive was unmistakable. It handled rather well and seemed far lighter than its stated weight, presumably due to the low center of gravity of the battery, and speed-sensitive tuning in the power steering. This also allowed for excellent hugging handling around curves. Acceleration was very spirited and put the current Prius or Insight to shame. It felt a lot like the MINI E in terms of sheer acceleration though perhaps a notch slower, but yet also much more refined and as expected very linear.
The regenerative brake drag was minimal and the car coasted approximately the same a a gas car would. If, however, the drive button/shift lever was hit again the car went into ECO-mode. This allowed about 10% more overall range. It caused acceleration to be muted and increased the regenerative drag of the brakes.
The pedestrian friendly sounds were only minimally notable from inside the car, and could easily be missed. There was a button to the driver’s left that allowed the sound to be turned off anyway.
Rear seat room was a bit crowded and three large males would definitely be uncomfortable back there, though it could be done if necessary.
I felt the C-pillar was a bit wide and the rear window a bit small leading to some minor rear visibility issues when backing up. An optional rear view camera, however, is available.
The hatch back trunk space was very sufficient and the rear seat folded down for large cargo. The engine compartment was designed to look like that of a traditional gas car.
Considering this vehicle is $25,780 after the federal tax credit and the fact that it is purely electric, I have to hand it to Nissan for a very compelling and successful product. Though range anxiety may be an issue for some it would not be an issue as a second car, or fixed commuter car. Nissan points out 95% of Americans travel less than 100 miles per day, and I could see achieving 100 miles of range would be very doable with this superefficent, refined, tasteful, economical and pleasant electric car.
