GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Electric Car Site

By Ray Iannuzzelli PE

I am a mechanical engineer and have performed thermo-mechanical analyses of the lithium-ion batteries used in some of today’s most sophisticated electric and hybrids cars. Since purchasing my 2012 Volt over four months ago I’ve followed the perplexing battle of words between Left & Right involving the car I drive daily. Many of the political pundits and talk-show hosts know little or nothing about the Volt or plug-ins, in general. They seem to be guided by some divinely inspired reasoning to attack this American made vehicle. Perhaps they dislike our president so much that anything he touches or associates with is fair game for criticism, or perhaps they feel that while subsidizing an oil company is OK cars and real people are a different story.

Whatever their reasoning for attacking the Volt, I wanted to write an article dispelling some of the hype and comparing the Volt with the best cars available in a way that most folks could understand. In that way I felt we could strip the invective and political atmosphere from a debate that should be about what makes the Volt a special vehicle, i.e. quantifiable metrics.

In order to make sense to drivers of conventional cars, I believe the comparison must be based on economics as well as energy use, i.e. how much energy does it use and how much does it cost? The EPA has shied away from using the cost metrics due to the vast differences in gasoline prices across the U.S. This is understandable. Additionally, any comparison involving the Volt must also consider the national variation in the cost of electricity to charge its batteries.

Recently, Toyota announced its new Prius PHV (Plug-in Hybrid Vehicle) soon to be available in the US. With the success of the standard Prius it is quite apparent that both Prii would be interesting competitors of the Volt.

2012 Volt EREV                                                            2013 Prius PHV

How Do They Compare?

I used EPA data for both vehicles wherever available to develop a spreadsheet comparison of the cost per mile to drive both cars a certain distance (see assumptions in table 1). I tried to use national averages wherever available. The cost per mile is presented in terms of $/mile and KWh/mile, where Kilowatt-hours (KWh) is a measure of energy.

Figure 1 Cost per Mile Comparison Map

Figure 1 presents the cost per mile ratio. It is the ratio of the Volt’s Cost per Mile to the Prius PHV’s Cost per Mile. A number greater than 1 indicates that the Prius PHV is less expensive while a number less 1 indicates that the Volt is less expensive. What is interesting about figure 1 is that it shows three distinct regions where the advantage switches between the Volt & Prius PHV. For low mileage trips (less than 16 miles), the Prius PHV is less expensive most likely due to its weight advantage over the Volt. For intermediate distance trips (between 16 and 65 miles), the Volt is the clear winner due to its bigger capacity electric battery. For long distances (greater than 65 to 75 miles), the Prius PHV again gains the advantage because of its inherently better gasoline/hybrid mileage (50 mpg) compared with the Volt’s internal combustion engine (~37 mpg).

Another observation can be made from figure 1 which shows two distinct long-distance cross-over points depending on whether we use $/mile or KWh/mile.  As gasoline prices rise and the price of gasoline reflects its energy content, the $/mile cross-over (65 miles) will approach the KWh/mile cross-over (75 miles). Note: for this comparison the Volt uses premium while the Prius uses regular fuel.

The underlying cost per mile comparison charts used in figure 1 are presented in figures 2 and 3.

Figure 2 $ per Mile Comparison of Volt & Prius PHV

Figure 3 KWh per Mile Comparison of Volt & Prius PHV

The assumptions used to generate figures 1 are listed below in table 1.

1)     Average EPA rated gasoline mileage

2)     EPA electric range

3)     Volt owner’s manual

4)     Battery Size/Electric Range

5)     Based on average driving data from my volt between 11/18/11 and 3/25/12

6)     Average Prius mileage between 9/18/10 and 3/5/12 ~ 49.5 mpg

7)     Reported by various media sources & Toyota

8)     Average price of gasoline reported by EIA

9)     Average price of electricity reported by EIA

10)   Data averaged from several websites

11)   “Best” electric range (reported in HybridCars.com)

12)   “Best” electric mileage = battery size/’best’ electric range = 4.4/15 = 0.293

13)   Electric mileage reported by EPA

By Huw Evans

At approximately 8:45 yesterday morning, residents of the Detroit suburb of Warren, Mich. heard the sound of an explosion coming from the nearby General Motors Technical Center.

A fire then resulted at the Alternative Energy Center located on the technical center campus. Local news stations reported one person was chemically burned, taken to the hospital, and will be held overnight for observation.

As to the cause, GM said engineers had been working on a prototype battery system and were in the process of testing it. At the time of this posting, much is still unknown, though it is believed the explosion originated with some kind of chemical reaction gone awry.

 

A statement issued by GM said the incident was unrelated to any production vehicle, including the Volt, and the experimental battery itself did not explode.

“Chemical gases from the battery cells were released and ignited in the enclosed chamber,” GM said in a statement. “The battery itself was intact.”

With the GM Technical Center hosting advanced engineering and design groups, there’s a high level of security to prevent trade secrets from leaking out. While it may prove an advantage for GM and its employees, for rescue services, it can prove an obstacle due to the number of restricted entry points and locked doors.

This said, steps have been taken to minimize the impact of any disasters on campus; GM and local fire authorities having already staged mock fire drills. As a result, during real incidents like the battery lab fire, emergency response proved fairly quick and effective; firefighters were reportedly on site about six minutes after the explosion occurred.

“We’re happy with how it’s gone,” said local fire chief Skip McAdams.

Officials evacuated and sealed off the AEC, though other parts of the technical center reportedly continued to run as usual. All 80 employees working at the facility were accounted for with five being treated on site for minor injuries.

McAdams said that following a preliminary investigation, the fire “caused significant structural damage” to the facility and equipment within, though he also said safety systems directed the blast upwards and outwards, reducing the impact of the explosion on the building itself although a door was reportedly blown off its hinges and windows shattered.

As the proverbial dust begins to settle, the rumor mill is nonetheless spinning once again. The Alternative Energy Center is where GM develops lithium-ion battery systems for hybrids and electric cars, including the Chevy Volt.

No doubt the incident’s timing was unfortunate for GM so soon after the highly publicized federal Volt fire investigation, and some observers will try to put together the dots to further cast doubt on battery safety.

While more info has yet to come forth, industry analysts were quoted as saying the mishap was an outcome of attempting to push technology to the limits in the search for improved power and range for automotive batteries.

“They are stretching the envelope,” said Edmunds.com analyst Michelle Krebs to the Detroit Free Press. “Everybody’s trying to get a breakthrough. They’re dealing with new volatile materials and new ways of doing things that haven’t been done before.”

And speaking of volatile materials, in sort of related news, and in the same town, the Detroit News reported the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center opened its Ground Systems Power and Energy Lab at the Detroit Arsenal in Warren.

The 30,000-square foot complex is state of the art with the purpose of building next-gen military vehicles – manned and unmanned – and relying on different propulsion systems, including hybrid electric. The new complex has eight labs to test vehicles from minus 60 degrees Fahrenheit to 160 degrees as well as in winds of up to 60 mph.

Congress has funded the lab with about $40 million since 2008 – but a return on the investment is expected considering just one factor that last year the military spent an estimated $17.3 billion on oil.

So, if any observers want to scream about battery-electric vehicles based on an explosion in Warren, that won’t be unexpected, but indicators show this industry is not going the way of the pterodactyl; more likely it’s just spreading its wings like an American eagle preparing to fly.

Looking into the tea leaves – that is, citing transportation and demographic trends – a former General Motors R&D head has said that by 2020, self-driving vehicles will be available.

The 2020 vision for autonomous vehicles presented by Larry Burns at the University of Michigan Robotics Day could solve such issues as distracted driving and tailgating. It could also dovetail with calls for reliance on lighter – likely hybrid or all-electric – vehicles, and greater efficiency.

A few years back, GM made the case for the Volt as a car for the future based on studies that average daily driving for three-quarters of Americans was under 40 miles per day. That, it said, was good enough to justify its “moon shot” experiment for the plug-in car.

Looking ahead again, GM’s former head of R&D, according to Automotive News, told the Michigan audience about a soon-to-be world of driverless cars tracked by GPS with collision avoidance systems that are already well underway .

GM is experimenting with electric pods, but the vision, assuming it comes to pass, calls for regular styled vehicles as well.

Chances are you’ve seen reports of Google’s small fleet of six driverless Toyota Prii and its autonomous Audi TT as well. These cars have logged hundreds of thousands of miles in and around California, largely without incident.

In 2007, GM demonstrated a Chevy Tahoe SUV that won a 55-mile race sponsored by DARPA (the U.S. government’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency).

Burns said as early as 2015 many of the autonomous driving features necessary to remove the driver will be available. These include adaptive cruise control, forward collision avoidance systems and lane-keeping assistance.

“By 2015 we’re going to have auto companies selling features that are akin to cruise control on steroids,” he said. “We’re in this five- to 10-year window when it’s going to be really exciting … By 2020 we’ll have self driving cars.”

He said automakers are also thinking about potential legislative hurdles.

“We’re going to have to have policies and laws to figure out whose liable when driving this car,” he said. “As an innovator, you’ve got to anticipate all of this. I think the market is really going to be the thing to drive this, not the government.”

That other forward-thinking company, Google, has been talking up the myriad facets of driverless possibilities with automakers, Burns said, and for his part, he sees the potential.

“It’s not going to be one breakthrough that gets it to the point where it excites customers, it’s going to be an improvement of a bunch of factors,” he said. “We’re not going to go from driving our cars to not driving our cars overnight, it’s going to be a gradual transition. Hopefully this picture will motivate people to build on it, but it’s a great opportunity.”

Burns did not say exactly what kind of cars will be the first to receive the full treatment so you can legally and safely go to sleep at the wheel.

In China, GM has demonstrated its EN-V concept to reportedly enthusiastic acceptance, and is working out the bugs there in a model “eco city” for the little personal people pods.

Implicit in the message however is larger vehicles, such as compact cars, would also be in the mix.

As mentioned, this is not just about GM pods. Google’s Prius provides an example of technology transferable to any vehicle.

It’s long been a joke that the only problem with some vehicles is the “loose nut between the seat and steering wheel.”

With distracted driving now being called an “epidemic,” the case is being made – as the technology is also – to remove people from being directly involved in driving their own vehicles.

What do you think? Is this a positive development? Can you foresee pitfalls? Are you ready for the paradigm companies are working on, in part, they say, for the betterment of society?

The prospect of federal dollars going toward advanced research – including for hybrid and electric car development – has caught its fair share of criticism, but according to a recent twin panel discussion on Capitol Hill, American competitiveness also hangs in the balance.

Objections have included philosophical disagreement with the government “betting taxpayer money” and “picking winners and losers” but what happens when bets pay off?

According to a March 16 discussion sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and nine other professional societies, many federal bets have fundamentally improved life as we know it.

Fisker and its battery supplier A123 Systems have taken federal money to research and develop product with ultimate payoff yet uncertain. The fear is if they fail, taxpayers lose. The hope is if they succeed, America wins.

As companies like Fisker Automotive contend for a remaining balance of a low interest Energy Department loan – with critics saying it will be “the next Solyndra” – the briefings showed that sometimes the government can also pick winners.

For example, Google’s search engine algorithm was born from a $4.5 million National Science Foundation grant for a Stanford University digital library project. Similarly, federally funded research into lithium-ion batteries, liquid crystal displays, signal compression and magnetic storage devices was credited with the 2001 introduction of Apple’s iPod. And thus far $5.6 billion invested in the Human Genome Project over 13 years has netted an estimated $67 billion economic payoff.

The discussion, as reported by Lab Manager Magazine centered on whether federally backed research and development is worthwhile and concluded there is little question spending has paid off over the years.

Arguments leading to this included those by Fred Block, a research professor at the University of California, Davis, who cited a number of reasons, including a trend by large corporations to cut back on funding.

“The basic innovation system in the U.S. economy has changed very radically over the last 30 years,” Block said. The dominance by large companies has declined, and many scientists and engineers have “voted with their feet,” and have moved to companies with fewer than 500 employees.

The need for the government to get involved was further shown in that out of the 88 U.S. winners of the “R&D 100” awards by R&D Magazine, 77 had federal backing.

“The federal role has permeated the innovation economy,” Block said.

Block also said the public and private long-term value of R&D was revealed in a 2010 study that tracked the growth of output per unit of labor in the U.S. economy from 1948 to 2007. The study used U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to conclude that the output grew at an annual rate of 2.5 percent, and 58 percent of that growth was credited to the increase of knowledge that comes from investment in R&D.

Catherine T. (Katie) Hunt, R&D director for Innovation Sourcing & Sustainable Technologies at The Dow Chemical Company said federal R&D programs, which often cross disciplinary boundaries, help to promote new ideas by bringing various pieces of a research puzzle together.

Hunt also said it is important to not only avoid eating the “seed corn” for economic growth, but also to make sure the ground is well-prepared when that corn is planted.

Today it is also not uncommon to hear that the U.S. economic downturn should be countered by fiscal conservatism – a sentiment edging even in the area of tech R&D. This was countered by the moderator for the briefings, Vijay Vaitheeswaran, a senior correspondent for The Economist, who documented fruitful industrial investments that yielded long-reaching positive results began during one of America’s darkest times.

Vaitheeswaran said history suggests great countries, like great companies, invest during an economic downturn. His new book, “Need, Speed and Greed,” cites economic historian Alexander J. Field of Santa Clara University, and Vaitheeswaran contended it was not so much mobilization for World War II that planted seeds for postwar prosperity but rather technological progress achieved during the 1930s and the Great Depression.

“Lots of great companies founded then ultimately paid off,” Vaitheeswaran said.

Today we often hear about China investing heavily in electric vehicles, stacking the deck for its state-run companies, while some Americans decry the U.S. is declining as the “world’s largest auto market” continues on its inexorable rise.

Basing his optimism for the entire U.S. economy on his research, Vaitheeswaran said the U.S. does not have to wind up a loser if it plays its yet-considerable advantages wisely, and invests in technology now.

“It’s wrong to say that just because China goes up, the United States has to come down,” he said denying the fear that we are playing a zero-sum game. “That’s too simplistic. That’s not how innovation works in an open world.”

The knowledgeable speakers shared a conditional optimism, while noting ironies as well.

Hunt – who is also a former president of the American Chemical Society – got laughs when she quoted genius inventor, and former EV advocate, Thomas Edison, who also foresaw solar energy’s potential over 80 years ago.

“I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy,” Edison said in 1931, “What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that.”

The speakers observed we’ve missed opportunities, while winning bets also, but said the bottom line is a quantifiable case for government investment has always existed.

Chevrolet’s Volt could be considered a grandfather among a yet-small but growing segment of plug-in vehicles that rely on electric power as a source of propulsion.

We’ve heard all about how the Volt has been targeted by opponents to what it could all lead to – and can do now – to wean away from petroleum reliance, but the Volt has shaken off many of the malignant allegations, and enthusiasm for it is growing.

Following another record sales month in March, General Motors has said it will cut the time out it has given its Detroit-Hamtramck assembly plant from five weeks down to four.

GM North America President Mark Reuss told the Detroit News the company is heartened by 2,289 Volts sold in March, and expects the higher average momentum to continue, but he will not forecast actual numbers.

 

The company’s CEO, Dan Akerson, has been quoted as saying he’s looking for 2,000-3,000 per month, but GM’s official posture is it will manage inventory closely to match supply to demand.

The five-week closure now shortened by one week had been from Mar. 19-April 23, and had been just for this reason in light of negative press and nationwide inventory considered excessive.

Industry watchers also note the company is continuing with a favorable lease package, and wants and needs the positive press to continue.

In rather a unique category as a “plug-in car,” the Volt, launched December 2010 – as was the Nissan Leaf battery electric vehicle – has not been threatened to date by the Leaf’s month after month sales.

And while the tide is seemingly turning further for the politicized Volt, and some Republicans have been very conspicuously featured lately as endorsing the car, eyes also are on the Prius plug-in hybrid, which scored 911 units sold its first partial month in March.

For its first sales month, the Prius PHV made a sizable splash into what is a small but growing pond of plug-in electric cars tracked by the HybridCars.com Dashboard. Sales of all brands combined in February added up to 1,662 units, with a total market share or “take rate” of 0.15 percent , and in March this jumped to 4,161 total vehicles with a take rate of 0.30 percent.

There is a proverb that says people ought not to look down upon “small beginnings” and fact is, everyone has to start somewhere. This industry has many players posturing and preparing for growth, and the Dashboard’s plug-in numbers do not count Coda and Fisker which do not regularly report sales, or Tesla which when last we checked, said it has over 12,000 pre-orders for its Model S.

As for the Volt vs. Prius vs. Leaf question – three different kinds of technology with the common denominator of ability to plug into the electricity grid – a sense of rivalry will always be there, but the big picture is the market is growing with major commitment and sentiment expressed by respective plug-in automakers ranging from mildly bullish to fully optimistic.

Despite rumors and speculation suggesting Fisker has essentially changed its plan to build the Atlantic in its Wilmington, Del. facility in light of a frozen Energy Department loan, the company is emphasizing production goals in the works since 2009 are by far still its intention.

According to Fisker spokesman Roger Ormisher, who spoke to us in a phone interview yesterday, “hypothetical” scenarios its representatives answered questions about were taken by some reporters to paint a picture beyond Fisker’s actual position to date.

“Delaware’s the first option, that’s where we’re going to try and make it,” Ormisher said.

He had to hedge it a little, as company CEO Tom LaSorda did go on record with a strong-sounding statement that “the whole plan has changed,” and while not denying it, Ormisher said it would not be logical to build the extended-range EV anywhere else.

The Atlantic – shown this week at the New York Auto Show – has been reported as “90-percent” ready for production, but Ormisher indicated the amount of money now suspended and still under negotiation with the U.S Department of Energy is the only thing holding Atlantic production back.

“We’re ready to go when we close with the DOE,” Ormisher said indicating the company has spent tens of millions already on refurbishing what was formerly GM’s Boxwood assembly plant. It reportedly needs a paint shop completed, but Ormisher said no major roadblocks were in place.

Further, Fisker has reportedly also built relations with Wilmington authorities, and, Ormisher said the company has “already recycled around 14 million pounds of materials,” and having invested many dollars and much sweat, Ormisher noted that Fisker owns the plant outright.

So, to back out now over money would come with additional costs, Ormisher said, and he would not speculate about relocation to anywhere else, while adding the company intends to be an American manufacturer, and has no plans to build the Atlantic alongside the Karma in Finland.

Presently, the amount of money preventing Fisker from starting Delaware assembly, while not insubstantial, is also not earth shattering compared to the over $1 billion it has thus far garnered.

Ormisher confirmed the frozen DOE loan amounts to about $336 million hanging in the balance, and “that’s all we need,” he said, plus the company is also talking with private investors, and has done quite well of late.

As we reported recently, Fisker has more than doubled initial goals for its latest D1 round of fundraising. It garnered $392 million in private investments when it had only set a target for $150 million, and now it says it is shooting for $500 million-plus.

Just in the past month, the company secured $130 million in private funds, Ormisher said. And to date it has sold over 700 Karmas, thus delivering product despite media-amplified setbacks.

Ormisher confirmed LaSorda said the Atlantic will be built with or without DOE money, and clarified the company would entertain the option to change course later this year only if it found this was necessary.

But that is a road the company has yet to take, and for now, plans are the same as they have been albeit with some loose ends – about one-third of a billion dollars’ worth – yet shy from being all tied up. Whether resolution comes via the DOE or other channels, Ormisher emphasized Fisker’s attitude remains optimistic and intends to make it happen.