GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Electric Car Site

It looks like we may be on the cutting edge.

It turns out only 7 percent of the US population said they would very likely purchase a plugin car in a random nationwide survey performed by Consumer Reports. Over one quarter of the respondents (26%) said they were likely to consider one.

However, 72% of the population said they were unlikely to even consider it.  Consumers appear unwilling to sacrifice performance or convenience.

The study of 1752 purchase-intent people also looked at perceived range requirements and price expectations.

Overall the median electric car range desired was 89 miles. It was 102 miles for men and persons in households earning less than 50,000 per year. Less than half (49%) the respondents felt 75 miles of range was adequate and only 29% would be satisfied with less than 49 miles.

An additional 29% said they needed at least 200 miles of range.  Total range was the consideration, which in the case of the Volt would be gas plus electric or roughly 340 miles.

The median price premium people were willing to pay for an electric car was $2068. One fifth (20%) would pay nothing extra and another one fifth (20%) would be willing to pay $5000 extra, though this was correlated to income.

The majority of people (63%) said they would consider an electric car only if they could charge while at work.

A previous study published by Pike research in late 2009 drew a different conclusion.  It showed 48% of the US population would be very or extremely interested in buying a plugin car with a 40 mile range like the Volt.

So although we may lament GM’s near-term maximum production volume of 50,000 – 60,000 Volts per year, uncertainty of this new market may make planning difficult.

Source (Consumer Reports)

GM has placed a one billion dollar bet that range anxiety is important. The Chevy Volt was designed and engineered to allow drivers to do most of their daily driving on electricity but to have the option to keep going on gas when the battery is depleted.  This strategy eliminates any fear of being stranded by a dead battery.

This approach stands in contrast to that of pure electric cars which will stop going when their batteries die.

A study released by the University of California Davis suggests that range anxiety isn’t as important to a cohort of people currently driving electric cars.  The study surveyed 150 MINI E drivers and found the majority of them believed their needs were satisfied with the car’s 80 to 100 mile effective range.  It also showed they were completely satisfied by home charging and did not need to use public charging, suggesting that an extensive public charging network may not be needed to encourage EV adoption.

The director of automotive research at Frost and Sullivan, looking at a wider audience, found that range anxiety was actually more important than it was for this MINI E sub-group.

“There is real range anxiety, and people are concerned about being stranded,” Veerender Kaul told msbnc. “We found a strong preference for a plug-in, range-extended electric vehicle like the Chevrolet Volt.”

I have personally logged over 10,000 miles in my MINI-E, and did not participate in the UC study. My daily commute is 60 miles round trip, and at least twice per month I have to drive round trip greater than 100 miles.  In the cold weather my range is closer to 60 miles, as I drive almost all highway at more than 65 mph, which demands a lot of power.  As such, I rely on charging during the day at work to eliminate range anxiety, and cannot use the car for long drives  instead using a second gas-powered car for those occasions.

The participants chosen for the UC study appear to be a very selected group who are  likely to overlook any inconvenience in exchange for the cause of driving petroleum-free at all times.

To reach a mass audience appeal, however, range anxiety must be controlled.  The Volt is the perfect solution.

Source (msnbc)

General Motors is putting its best foot forward with the Chevrolet Volt extended-range electric car.

From their experience with the EV-1, the company has decided a 40 mile pure EV range with a gas range extender is the best solution for mass adoption, allowing the most gas-free driving while at the same time eliminating range anxiety and the need for charging infrastructure.

However, many car companies are choosing to produce pure EVs. Which approach will gain greater public appeal is unknown at this early stage, though the next few years should clarify things.

Thus GM isn’t resting on its heels but is continuing to study a pure EV launch in the US.  They have already joint ventured with Indian electric car maker REVA to produce a pure electric Spark for the Indian market this year.

Vice chairman Bob Lutz was reported as saying an electric Volt would be easy to build.  “Once you’ve done the Volt, pure electric is trivial,” he said. “You just leave some parts out.”

Pete Savagian, GM’s director of hybrid and EV engineering recently admitted that GM has “been studying (the BEV) internally really intensely.”

“Since we see electrification as the long term evolution of the auto, and there is so much going on in the industry,” he told GM-Volt.com. “We study various electrified vehicle options on an ongoing basis to evaluate the merits of how such a vehicle might perform in a particular market and segment.”

When asked specifically about a US pure EV Chevrolet Marketing director Jim Campbell said “thats not something I have a lot of comment on.”

“Its possible but we haven’t made a commitment on it one way or another,” he said.  “Were looking at a whole range of possibilities and that could be a possibility in the future.”

Though vague about the US market, GM’s electric plans for Europe are now more concrete.

In a recent statement on their five-year plan, Opel anounced it would be spending €11 billion to develop advanced technology vehicles.  Included would be the launch of  ”an extended-range electric vehicle in addition to the Ampera,” and “pure battery-electric vehicles in smaller-size segments.”

Opel President Nick Reilly indicated GM will be unveiling a new green car concept at the Geneva Auto Show next month.

“Using green innovation and alternative propulsion,” Opel told Auto Car the concept “is proof that size and comfort do not need to be sacrificed for a vehicle to be environmentally efficient”.

Yes I realize the focus of GM-Volt is the Chevy Volt, but don’t forget half of this site’s name is GM.

Plus, this is just so cool is had to be shared.

GM has partnered with NASA to produce a next generation humanoid robot called Robonaut2 or R2 for short.

The robot has fully accentuated human-like hands, fingers, and arms and uses the most advanced sensors, actuators and vision systems to achieve its functionality.

It is designed to be capable of working side-by-side with humans in spaces, angles, and environments that would be either unsafe or impossible for people.

The robots will be used to perform both in the aeronautics and automotive industries.

“This cutting-edge robotics technology holds great promise, not only for NASA, but also for the nation,” said Doug Cooke, associate administrator for the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “I’m very excited about the new opportunities for human and robotic exploration these versatile robots provide across a wide range of applications.”

“For GM, this is about safer cars and safer plants,” said Alan Taub, GM’s vice president for global research and development. “When it comes to future vehicles, the advancements in controls, sensors and vision technology can be used to develop advanced vehicle safety systems. The partnership’s vision is to explore advanced robots working together in harmony with people, building better, higher quality vehicles in a safer, more competitive manufacturing environment.”

The robot doesn’t having any legs but there are rumors NASA is working on them.

There is also a big difference between R2 and Honda’s well-known Asimo robot.

“R2 can actually do work,” says GM spokesman Dan Flores. “Honda’s focus with Asimo is on a personal assistance and social support activities.”

Source (GM and NASA)

As we sit here on the verge of an autmotive revolution, a significant amount of uncertainty remains.

Early adopters want electric cars here and now, and are willing to pay more to get them, but how large the market will eventually be, and how fast it will grow is unknown.

It is this uncertainty and lack of concensus that keeps automakers guessgin.  It is a large part of why GM cannot project what ultimate Volt sales volumes will be or how many different EREV models they should build.

A new study follows others in painting a more pessimistic picture.

The Boston Consulting Group released a report earlier thus week which concludes without a battery breakthrough, lithium ion battery costs will limit widespread adoption of electric cars through the next decade.

The study claims that automakers are basing their sales projections on being able to acheive a cost of $250per kwh for lithium ion cells.  They argue that although those prices have been achieved in the consumer electronics segment, the complexity of car batteries makes it untenable.

They report current electric car battery cost as being from $1000 – $1200 per kwh, and that in addition to complexity, longevity requirements and the needed technology and redundancy to obtain them will stricly limit ability to reduce cost.

“Given current technology options, we see substantial challenges to achieving this goal by 2020,” said Xavier Mosquet, Detroit-based leader of BCG’s global automotive practice and a coauthor of the study. “For years, people have been saying that one of the keys to reducing our dependency on fossil fuels is the electrification of the vehicle fleet. The reality is, electric-car batteries are both too expensive and too technologically limited for this to happen in the foreseeable future.”

BCG still expects about 26% of global auto sales to be electrics and hybrids by 2020, or 14 million cars.  Of this group, they project, 1.5 million will be fully electric, 1.5 million will be range extenders, and 11 million will be a mix of hybrids.  Seventy percent will use lithium-ion technology.

They warn, however, that by 2020 a 15kwh pack in an EREV would still effectively cost consumers $8000 to $10000 per vehicle, making those cars more expensive than their ICE counterparts, thereby limiting demand.

It is expected that the early EV market will be driven by early adopters and tax credits but by 2020, the total cost of ownership versus ICE cars will determine the market size.  If there is a low cost battery breakthough, or if gas prices rise substantially the market could improve.

Source (BCG, pdf)

The US National Research Council released findings this week of its study on plugin hybrids and their potential long-term effect on US petroleum consumption and CO2 production.

For the study, two hypothetical vehicles were analyzed; a PHEV-10 with ten all electric miles like the plugin Prius, and a PHEV-40 like the Chevrolet Volt.

Several key conclusions were drawn:

1.  Lithium ion batteries costs are high and will likely remain high.  The PHEV-10 was estimated to cost $6300 more than a conventional vehicle to build and the PHEV-40 $18,000 more, including a $3300 and a $14,000 battery respectively.  Cost as lithium ion battery technology matures was projected to only drop by 1/3 by the year 2020, and more slowly after that.

2.  At gas prices less than $4.00 per gallon, PHEV-40s will not become cost effective until 2040, PHEV-10s may get there before 2030

3.  The fastest market penetration that could be predicted was 40 million cars out of a fleet of 300 million by 2030.  It was expected, however, that the rate would actually be closer to 13 million due to the effects of limited charging infrastructure, high cost, and market competition.

4.  PHEVs would have little effect on petroleum consumption before 2030 because there won’t be enough of them in the US fleet.  However, a PHEV-10 would only reduce oil consumption by 20% (70 gallons per year) whereas a PHEV-40 would reduce it by 55% (200 gallons per year), and therefore would have a much greater impact on petroleum use if it became the dominant market choice.  Forty million PHEV10s would reduce US petroleum use by0.2 million barrels of oil per day.  Forty million PHEV40s would reduce US petroleum use by 0.55 million barrels of oil per day.  Currently, the light duty US fleet uses 9 million barrels of oil per day.

5.  Nighttime charging will not add any additional stress to the US electric grid, but $1000 per car smart chargers will be necessary to avoid taxing the grid during peak hours

6.  CO2 emissions would be reduced by using PHEV10s versus traditional gas cars, but hybrids would produce even less when taking powerplants into account.  PHEV40s are more effective than PHEV10s at reducing CO2 emissions.  CO2 reduction benefits will be small until the grid becomes “decarbonized” and renewable and nuclear sources become more contributory after 2030.

7.  A portfolio approach of increased efficiency gas cars, biofuels, HEVs, and PHEVs is recommended.  Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are considered the only way to eliminate gasoline use altogether.

Source (USNRC)