How GM is Making Electric Vehicles Relevant
Editor’s Note: Frank Weber is the Global Electric Vehicle Development Executive for General Motors. Here he discusses the Chevy Volt and the future of transportation. This post was written for Gas 2.0 and reposted at the GM FastLane Blog.
A couple weeks ago, I had the opportunity to speak at EVS 24 in Norway about extended-range electric vehicles (E-REVs). Attendees and presenters were some of the brightest minds from around the world working to make electric vehicles an everyday reality, but frankly, I sensed many of those minds think electric vehicle development is better suited to small, entrepreneurial companies, some with little or no automotive experience.
There seems to be in the minds of many some sort of inherent conflict between being a large, traditional automaker and the ability to develop cars of the future.
I couldn’t disagree more with that sentiment, and GM is on a mission to prove it.
- » Want an Electric Car? Sign up with our friends at 1BOG.
- » Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
Developing electric vehicles is no longer a nice little “green” story; it’s absolutely crucial if we are to alleviate our dependence on petroleum. Electric vehicles aren’t simply for niche markets; they are the future of a sustainable global automotive industry.
There are nearly 1 billion vehicles using petroleum on the road today. If we are going to make a difference in reducing our dependence on petroleum, GM and other automakers must offer large volume production solutions. Hand-built vehicles may capture the imagination of some, but we need millions of cars to truly address this global issue.
At GM, we have a level of product research, testing and development as well as a supplier network that is unmatched. When you consider the very real distribution, volume and quality issues some of the smaller start-ups have experienced, it’s hard for me to see how they are better equipped than us to deliver the volumes necessary for real change.
But the real key to making electric vehicles a success is to make them relevant for consumers.
Customers expect more out of their vehicles than ever before, so a relevant EV must be capable of being your primary vehicle. Although it would be nice to have a commuter car for the daily drive to work, a family hauler for recreational activities and a roadster to go cruising whenever the urge strikes, very few people have their own fleet of purpose-built vehicles – nor should they for environmental reasons!
We realize that some people can get by with just one of these choices, but we’d rather you didn’t have to settle.
Continue reading and see gallery on Page 2:
I agree with everything you said but I believe there are other issues.
Having two motors on a car vs. one invites an opportunity for one to suffer from inefficiencies. With two motors the energy required to obtain gasoline, convert it to electricity and then make the car move is not as efficient as merely using electricity to move the car only.
While you point out well that the Volt overcomes any range anxiety issues, and reduces battery expenses, an improved battery will someday in the future clearly overcome these obstacles and ‘replace’ the range extending vehicles. It also is preferable for several reasons to have one motor, not two.
Until that happens, the Volt is an excellent car and I would be thrilled to own one. I consider the Volt a great bridge technology.
I’m all for anything that helps the US use our own abundant natural energy resources: coal, natural gas, hydro, solar and wind (biofuels would be nice too, if we could make them economically competitive).
I’d prefer if we could have a higher percentage of solar and wind right now in our electricity generation, but the electric car could very well be the vehicle (pardon the pun) that drives the market in that direction. After all, the more electricity your lifestyle uses, the more quickly you will get a return on
investment from going solar.
Weber makes an excellent point that the Masters Of the Universe/Hollywood Starlets valet-parking their few thousand Fisker and Teslas aren’t going to really make any difference at all when it comes to the real issues confronting our nation and planet: oil consumption and atmospheric carbon production.
It’s foing to be the rest of us who need to get to work and bring the kids to birthday parties who will save the planet. For this, as Weber says, we need a “normal” car with an advanced propulsion system. Thanks, GM for staying in touch with the needs of real people.
Read the latest on lectric vehicles at Carlectro (http://www.electricarpub.com/)
Frank, I like your enthusiasm but personally I find it a little hard to give GM much of my trust. The overt destruction of the EV1s as documented in “Who Killed the Electric Car” makes it clear that GM’s priorities are a little suspect.
You write: “While I admire the technological prowess and tenacity of the smaller start-up companies, GM is better equipped to deliver electric vehicles in large volume globally. After all, we have been bringing relevant vehicles to consumers for more than a century.”
The EV1 was relevant long before today and the economic crisis. I know we should look forward, but seriously, I have a hard time viewing GM’s efforts right now through anything but a greenwashing filter.
Having seen the Honda Clarity in action, I wonder why GM is wasting its time on this path, unless this is just a bridge car. The Clarity as a hydrogen car is THE platform to get us off foreign oil for our cars, and we have all the hydrogen we need right here. All we need is infrastructure for the filling stations. Honda has these cars on lease in California here, and they are HOT. GM should be putting their resources into this as an ultimate solution, or Honda will whip them again in the long run. GM=no long term vision.
This is all well and good. I am all for getting us of petroleum but I have some questions:
1) Every summer, here in Ontario we are asked to not run our home air conditioners etc. because the electrical grid is over-worked as it is. Will the wholesale switch to electric cars not simply further burden an already overtaxed electrical grid? How will we generate all of the extra required electricity? How well will the batteries last in frigid temperatures?
2) Don’t you think that the government is going to want to make up the tax dollars that it won’t be getting from the sale of fuel? Where will that money come from?
We may wind up spending the same or more as we do now for petro fuel. (Likely more)
I’m not suggesting we stay with petro products in any way. Is electric cars really the answer.
I agree with Levi. I’m skeptical of GM’s commitment to electric vehicles given the company’s history with the EV1.
No mention of it is made in this article. Are we supposed to ignore it and pretend that it never happened? Or that it was other people at GM that were responsible and they have nothing to do with the current EV endeavor? That’s a bit hard to swallow.
And if you want to make electric vehicles relevant for consumers, how about eliminating the need for a proprietary cable to plug the thing in? Why not design it to use a standard extension cord?
GM deserves to fail, and fail miserably. But in the end, the government will bail GM out in some fashion, and, sadly, they will learn nothing from this “close call.”
I think GM has been beaten up for too long about the EV1 project. Yes, they scrapped it. Yes, it’s too bad that they weren’t able to break into the market with a disruptive technology that was ahead of its time. You can’t expect a company to spend itself into the ground to prop up a program like that.
Even now, electric vehicle technology is barely (or not) able to compete without major subsidy or what some would call crazy new approaches (like battery exchanges).
The true test, which will prove whether this is hype or reality, is whether GM can stay afloat while producing a $40,000 electric car ($32K after tax credit). If GM is successful at that they’ve really accomplished something.
Wow, a GM rep selling GM propaganda - quelle surprise. My only question is why is gas2.org publishing this GM advertisement as an article? Having a small disclaimer under a picture that most would assume is just a description of the picture itself doesn’t really cut it. Adding this place to my list of propaganda regurgitators.
@adam: We’re not going to apologize for facilitating a discussion. You are welcome to your opinion and choice of sources.