Critics are always eager to point out that the Volt’s 40-mile electric range is significantly less than that of the only electric car on the road, the Tesla Roadster, which gets 220 miles per charge. But since batteries are the expensive part of electric vehicles, more battery capacity brings increasing cost (the Roadster is a $109,000 car and the Model S sedan, which will be released in 2011, will be $57,400). The Roadster’s battery pack holds 6,831 individual lithium-ion cells (compared to 200 in the Volt) with a total battery pack weight of 900 lbs.
In GM’s thinking, it makes more sense to use the least amount of battery possible while the technology is still new and expensive. Since 40 miles covers 80% of daily driving, keeping the battery pack minimal and supplementing it with existing and cheap(er) technology seems logical.
I’m getting ahead of myself here, but when I test-drove the Volt with Frank Weber (read his post for us), he told me the cost and weight of the Volt’s battery pack could be cut in half by version 2. If that’s true, it would support GM’s strategy to minimize battery technology now, optimize the car for 40 miles, and keep the price as low as possible.
Of course, not everyone agrees with this. Every company intending to develop and market an electric car is coming to the table from an entirely different set of assumptions. GM wants to make a car they can immediately mass market to mainstream consumers (although no one in the company would or could tell me how big they think the market for the Volt is). Tesla Motors is trying to gain a foothold in the upper echelon of car buyers and hopes to innovate the price down from there. And if you’re familiar with Shai Agassi’s Better Place, their vision is to provide a total solution to end petroleum dependence.
It doesn’t really matter where these companies are entering the market because, in the simplest of terms, the winner of this electric vehicle race will be the first company to produce an affordable electric car that meets the basic needs of consumers.
NEXT: GM’s Reinvention: Tour of New Electric Vehicle Battery lab.
Photo Credits: Clayton B. Cornell, supplemented by GM Pro. Sorry about the grainy pictures. Tell my boss to buy me a real camera.
PDF Pages: 1 2
About Clayton
Excellent last sentence, and facts seldom voiced by
the EV-ignorant media. Agassi’s Better Place is betting on continued crappy battery technology. He’s dead wrong – MIT proved it a month ago and commercially available fast recharging, ultra high output li ion batteries will race the Volt to the marketplace. The Volt may upgrade batteries before 100 Volts are produced. Also, Better Place has no ability to electrically power either trucks or large vehicles, making it not even remotely possible to avoid all oil. The Volt can easily avoid 95% of oil. That’s way more than enough. And it will work in trucks as well.
Excellent last sentence, and facts seldom voiced by
the EV-ignorant media. Agassi’s Better Place is betting on continued crappy battery technology. He’s dead wrong – MIT proved it a month ago and commercially available fast recharging, ultra high output li ion batteries will race the Volt to the marketplace. The Volt may upgrade batteries before 100 Volts are produced. Also, Better Place has no ability to electrically power either trucks or large vehicles, making it not even remotely possible to avoid all oil. The Volt can easily avoid 95% of oil. That’s way more than enough. And it will work in trucks as well.
@kent: Great comments. The big picture is really important for intelligently evaluating these approaches. Road transport accounts for 60% of US petroleum usage, with a breakdown of 42.5% for light-duty vehicles, 13.5% for buses and trucking, and 3.7% for home/business/powerplants/factories (all 2007 numbers from David Sandalow’s Plug-in Electric Vehicles).
Solving petroleum dependence for passenger and light duty vehicles solves approximately 40-50% (future) of the problem, assuming you get all of them.
@kent: Great comments. The big picture is really important for intelligently evaluating these approaches. Road transport accounts for 60% of US petroleum usage, with a breakdown of 42.5% for light-duty vehicles, 13.5% for buses and trucking, and 3.7% for home/business/powerplants/factories (all 2007 numbers from David Sandalow’s Plug-in Electric Vehicles).
Solving petroleum dependence for passenger and light duty vehicles solves approximately 40-50% (future) of the problem, assuming you get all of them.
Plug in hybrids will be a huge part of the future auto fleet, but they are still plug in hybrids, not “electric cars”. Calling them that just melds together the options for how you power a vehicle in a confusing way. Was this what GM asked you to call it?
Also, fully electric vehicles are an option for more than just light duty. For delivery fleets and buses in particular, the pre-determined routes make the logistics of charging even easier. You can make a battery that’s large enough pretty easily – after all, the chassis themselves are bigger. The obstacle is really cost, and as you point out, costs are being driven down over time.
@kent – I think you are taking Better Place’s mission to “end oil” a bit too literally. They aren’t making any claims about electric planes either, are they? And by the way, when you are driving around in your Volt, wouldn’t you rather charge your battery pack by plugging it in at a charge spot while you’re at work for 10 hours, for less money than filling up your on-board generator, even at today’s fuel prices? And who would you rather pay for your miles, your local utility or the international oil cartel?
Again, I’m not against the Volt, I just don’t think the evolution of cars should stop there.
Plug in hybrids will be a huge part of the future auto fleet, but they are still plug in hybrids, not “electric cars”. Calling them that just melds together the options for how you power a vehicle in a confusing way. Was this what GM asked you to call it?
Also, fully electric vehicles are an option for more than just light duty. For delivery fleets and buses in particular, the pre-determined routes make the logistics of charging even easier. You can make a battery that’s large enough pretty easily – after all, the chassis themselves are bigger. The obstacle is really cost, and as you point out, costs are being driven down over time.
@kent – I think you are taking Better Place’s mission to “end oil” a bit too literally. They aren’t making any claims about electric planes either, are they? And by the way, when you are driving around in your Volt, wouldn’t you rather charge your battery pack by plugging it in at a charge spot while you’re at work for 10 hours, for less money than filling up your on-board generator, even at today’s fuel prices? And who would you rather pay for your miles, your local utility or the international oil cartel?
Again, I’m not against the Volt, I just don’t think the evolution of cars should stop there.
@Rob: That’s not really correct, but if you want to get into semantics:
“Plug-in hybrid” is any vehicle that plugs in and has batteries, which can be fully electric (series plug-in hybrid) or partially electric (parallel plug-in hybrid) as in the case of a converted Prius.
GM is adamant about calling it a “range extended electric vehicle” because (while it’s technically a plug-in hybrid EV) when you take out the generator it’s just an electric car. This was made evident by the fact that the generator was completely shut off during the test-drive. My choice of the term “electric car” is purely my own, and I’m using it because it’s easier for most people to understand.
You do bring up a good point though– initially, these terms are going to be extremely confusing for the uninformed.
@Rob: That’s not really correct, but if you want to get into semantics:
“Plug-in hybrid” is any vehicle that plugs in and has batteries, which can be fully electric (series plug-in hybrid) or partially electric (parallel plug-in hybrid) as in the case of a converted Prius.
GM is adamant about calling it a “range extended electric vehicle” because (while it’s technically a plug-in hybrid EV) when you take out the generator it’s just an electric car. This was made evident by the fact that the generator was completely shut off during the test-drive. My choice of the term “electric car” is purely my own, and I’m using it because it’s easier for most people to understand.
You do bring up a good point though– initially, these terms are going to be extremely confusing for the uninformed.
I think that the discussions of the Volt, and elective vehicles more generally, are heavily skewed in the direction of fantasy land. My criticism of the volt is the exact opposite of what is mentioned in this article, namely that I think the Volt’s battery is too big and that they should rely more heavily (not less) on the electric generator. Very few people are going to tolerate that massive column in the middle of the passenger cabin, nor are they going to pay the big price premium for the volt over the Prius or Insight.
A better balanced design would have a 5 to 10 mile battery, not a 40 mile battery. The purpose of the battery should be for temporary storage that allows the gas generator to run at peak efficiency all the time. You could still plug it in to get a little extra savings on fuel, but the primary savings would come from the greater efficiency of using an electric motor and of running the gas engine at peak efficiency. I suspect that this is what the Japanese will eventually do, and that most of the people who are whining about GM not selling a “pure” electric car will end up buying the even less “pure” Japanese cars, all the while complaining about GM.
From a technical standpoint, the problem with the Tesla and Volt approach is that batteries have terrible energy density relative to hydrocarbons (this is probably why all life on earth evolved to store energy in hydrocarbons, not in batteries). The most sensible role for batteries in transportation is temporary storage of electricity. No foreseeable advance in battery technology is going to change this.
I think that the discussions of the Volt, and elective vehicles more generally, are heavily skewed in the direction of fantasy land. My criticism of the volt is the exact opposite of what is mentioned in this article, namely that I think the Volt’s battery is too big and that they should rely more heavily (not less) on the electric generator. Very few people are going to tolerate that massive column in the middle of the passenger cabin, nor are they going to pay the big price premium for the volt over the Prius or Insight.
A better balanced design would have a 5 to 10 mile battery, not a 40 mile battery. The purpose of the battery should be for temporary storage that allows the gas generator to run at peak efficiency all the time. You could still plug it in to get a little extra savings on fuel, but the primary savings would come from the greater efficiency of using an electric motor and of running the gas engine at peak efficiency. I suspect that this is what the Japanese will eventually do, and that most of the people who are whining about GM not selling a “pure” electric car will end up buying the even less “pure” Japanese cars, all the while complaining about GM.
From a technical standpoint, the problem with the Tesla and Volt approach is that batteries have terrible energy density relative to hydrocarbons (this is probably why all life on earth evolved to store energy in hydrocarbons, not in batteries). The most sensible role for batteries in transportation is temporary storage of electricity. No foreseeable advance in battery technology is going to change this.
John, the idea is to get off foreign oil, not get trapped into using more. we have the technology now, and its being introduced.
Batteries are making great progress, though many advancements are not at a commercial stage yet. Competition and consumer demand will force even more rapid improvements.
If you personally want to buy a Japanese car which is reliant on gasoline, go right ahead. I’ll line up for my electric car.
At the end of the day, I’ll not only be removing dependence on foreign fuel, but reducing smog too.
John, the idea is to get off foreign oil, not get trapped into using more. we have the technology now, and its being introduced.
Batteries are making great progress, though many advancements are not at a commercial stage yet. Competition and consumer demand will force even more rapid improvements.
If you personally want to buy a Japanese car which is reliant on gasoline, go right ahead. I’ll line up for my electric car.
At the end of the day, I’ll not only be removing dependence on foreign fuel, but reducing smog too.
They will NOT sell me one………still the same people that have “RIP OFF” american people for a long time…..SORRY..to little…..to late
They will NOT sell me one………still the same people that have “RIP OFF” american people for a long time…..SORRY..to little…..to late
Man why is all the new electric cards 50,000$ plus.
I can never effored one I guess due to low income. how are the low income suppose to effored something like this when gas is banned?
Man why is all the new electric cards 50,000$ plus.
I can never effored one I guess due to low income. how are the low income suppose to effored something like this when gas is banned?
@John: Good points. I think I’ll have to reserve judgement about how the battery affects the interior of the car until I see the production version. The Chevy Cruze skin certainly wasn’t perfect.
I don’t know if you’re familiar with Prius plug-in conversions, but they’re about the equivalent of what you’re talking about now. The good ones get about 25 miles on electricity, though cheaper lead-acid conversions get more like 10 miles. These are available now.
I think the mentality shown by automakers here is that we need to “leapfrog” current technology, and there are some additional factors to consider above and beyond how the market would normally develop. There’s the idea of consumers’ willingness to pay extra for an “environmental feature”, such as this large battery pack in the Volt. There’s also the current economic climate, which through new and existing policies is really going to determine what’s possible and how fast it can be accomplished.
@John: Good points. I think I’ll have to reserve judgement about how the battery affects the interior of the car until I see the production version. The Chevy Cruze skin certainly wasn’t perfect.
I don’t know if you’re familiar with Prius plug-in conversions, but they’re about the equivalent of what you’re talking about now. The good ones get about 25 miles on electricity, though cheaper lead-acid conversions get more like 10 miles. These are available now.
I think the mentality shown by automakers here is that we need to “leapfrog” current technology, and there are some additional factors to consider above and beyond how the market would normally develop. There’s the idea of consumers’ willingness to pay extra for an “environmental feature”, such as this large battery pack in the Volt. There’s also the current economic climate, which through new and existing policies is really going to determine what’s possible and how fast it can be accomplished.
GM is not serious about the VOLT; if it were, it would use lead-acid or Nickel (NiMH) batteries, which are the proven EV batteries, and the VOLT would be in production now.
After all, the EV1 with PSB 1260 lead batteries had a range of 110 miles on lead-acid batteries; and the Toyota RAV4-EV, after 7 years of driving, still has over 100 miles range on NiMH.
And the VOLT hoax is, after all, just a 40-mile-range EV with a gas range extender. It’s nothing new; Oldsmobile demonstrated one in 1969, using lead-acid.
The problem with EVs is NOT that they have long charge times (they charge slowly at night, when electric is cheap, a good thing), with range or with battery cost; the big problem is that we, as a society, have decided NOT to make pollution-free proven-successful Electric cars.
That’s the ONLY problem, and it’s due to the massive power of the oil industry and its ancillary and dependent industries, from smog-checking to Halliburton, and from new-car dealers to Pep Boys.
GM and Chevron (Standard Oil of California) cooperated to sequester the exclusive patent-licensing rights to the only proven EV battery, Nickel-Metal Hydride (NiMH), which to this day powers the most successful EV ever made, the Toyota RAV4-EV.
In 1994, GM bought control of NiMH from Ovonics, the patent holder, and sequestered it, refusing to use it; in 1997, Toyota proved that NiMH worked by bringing out the RAV4-EV (the same NiMH batteries powered the HondaEV).
On Oct. 10, 2000, GM sold GM-Ovonics to Texaco; six days later, on Oct. 16, 2000, Texaco and Chevron announced that Texaco would merge into Chevron, taking control of NiMH with them.
The fact that an oil company owns control of the technology needed for Electric cars was allowed, under the oil-tainted Bush regime, to go unquestioned. Clearly, Chevron didn’t buy control of NiMH to make money from oil-free cars; Chevron already makes lots of money selling oil.
Chevron, which renamed GM-Ovonics COBASYS (“Chevron-Ovonics BAttery SYStems”), filed suit the next year against Toyota et al., alleging violations of its patent rights.
In Dec., 2002, a settlement agreement was reached; Toyota now only uses NiMH for applications, such as the Prius, where the car cannot plug-in, and thus has to run entirely on energy from oil.
Whether Lithium will work or not, as an alternative, is irrelevant to the fact that no NiMH car has since been made that runs on energy other than that supplied by the gasoline pump.
Toyota stopped making the RAV4-EV and the NiMH battery it uses, which are not available at ANY price. Toyota informed the public that the RAV4-EV program had been cancelled at the same time as this settlment agreement, although the timing of the latter was not admitted until later.
we COULD make a battery industry for Electric cars, let’s say if Toyota were not encumbrered by Chevron’s lawsuit agreement, and/or if some American company decided to fight Chevron in the court of public opinion.
Nickel-Metal Hydride batteries (NiMH), like lead-acid, recycle; ALL the materials you need to construct the battery are to be found in (used) recycled batteries.
Hence, there is NO need for additional supplies of mined metals, once the battery “urban storehouse” in the fleet of EVs is created.
Hence, also, the costing claims for EV batteries are wildly inaccurate, and, to be frank, just plain LIES.
A fair estimate of the cost of NiMH in mass-production would be less than $100/kWh, which is about what CARB intimated in 2000. The only cost for NiMH would, like lead, be for the reprocessing from used batteries to new batteries, using the same materials.
The cost of a battery pack for a NiMH EV with 180 miles of all-electric range (with or without a small engine-generator to extend the range) would be no more than $3,000. That’s more than Detroit wants to pay, but it’s well within the range of value that people would pay, if they were allowed to.
It would be a change; like any other massive changes, some would benefit, but Big Oil would be hurt.
Up until now, no public figure, not even any news media, has dared to break or even allude to the story that Chevron and GM cooperated to kill a competing, viable technology, that Chevron owns control of the battery needed for EVs and that GM once owned control of the battery needed for the wildly successful Prius.
If people could have the choice of driving on energy they make themselves they would love it.
To go 1000 miles per month in an EV only takes 250 kWh, about what two old refrigerators use; the money saved by not buying gas would pay for a rooftop solar system to make more than that electric energy. Of course, Big Oil sockpuppets would say “gee I don’t have a roof” but if you have a car, it’s got a space where you park it, and that’s enough for a solar system to power it.
But the price of a barrel of oil would fall to about the cost of extraction (no more than $10/bbl.) and a lot of money held in oil stocks would disappear. Also, a lot of dealers, refineries, gas stations, engine repair businesses, pollution study and control industries, etc., would founder; no need to study dirty air if the air is clean.
GM is not serious about the VOLT; if it were, it would use lead-acid or Nickel (NiMH) batteries, which are the proven EV batteries, and the VOLT would be in production now.
After all, the EV1 with PSB 1260 lead batteries had a range of 110 miles on lead-acid batteries; and the Toyota RAV4-EV, after 7 years of driving, still has over 100 miles range on NiMH.
And the VOLT hoax is, after all, just a 40-mile-range EV with a gas range extender. It’s nothing new; Oldsmobile demonstrated one in 1969, using lead-acid.
The problem with EVs is NOT that they have long charge times (they charge slowly at night, when electric is cheap, a good thing), with range or with battery cost; the big problem is that we, as a society, have decided NOT to make pollution-free proven-successful Electric cars.
That’s the ONLY problem, and it’s due to the massive power of the oil industry and its ancillary and dependent industries, from smog-checking to Halliburton, and from new-car dealers to Pep Boys.
GM and Chevron (Standard Oil of California) cooperated to sequester the exclusive patent-licensing rights to the only proven EV battery, Nickel-Metal Hydride (NiMH), which to this day powers the most successful EV ever made, the Toyota RAV4-EV.
In 1994, GM bought control of NiMH from Ovonics, the patent holder, and sequestered it, refusing to use it; in 1997, Toyota proved that NiMH worked by bringing out the RAV4-EV (the same NiMH batteries powered the HondaEV).
On Oct. 10, 2000, GM sold GM-Ovonics to Texaco; six days later, on Oct. 16, 2000, Texaco and Chevron announced that Texaco would merge into Chevron, taking control of NiMH with them.
The fact that an oil company owns control of the technology needed for Electric cars was allowed, under the oil-tainted Bush regime, to go unquestioned. Clearly, Chevron didn’t buy control of NiMH to make money from oil-free cars; Chevron already makes lots of money selling oil.
Chevron, which renamed GM-Ovonics COBASYS (“Chevron-Ovonics BAttery SYStems”), filed suit the next year against Toyota et al., alleging violations of its patent rights.
In Dec., 2002, a settlement agreement was reached; Toyota now only uses NiMH for applications, such as the Prius, where the car cannot plug-in, and thus has to run entirely on energy from oil.
Whether Lithium will work or not, as an alternative, is irrelevant to the fact that no NiMH car has since been made that runs on energy other than that supplied by the gasoline pump.
Toyota stopped making the RAV4-EV and the NiMH battery it uses, which are not available at ANY price. Toyota informed the public that the RAV4-EV program had been cancelled at the same time as this settlment agreement, although the timing of the latter was not admitted until later.
we COULD make a battery industry for Electric cars, let’s say if Toyota were not encumbrered by Chevron’s lawsuit agreement, and/or if some American company decided to fight Chevron in the court of public opinion.
Nickel-Metal Hydride batteries (NiMH), like lead-acid, recycle; ALL the materials you need to construct the battery are to be found in (used) recycled batteries.
Hence, there is NO need for additional supplies of mined metals, once the battery “urban storehouse” in the fleet of EVs is created.
Hence, also, the costing claims for EV batteries are wildly inaccurate, and, to be frank, just plain LIES.
A fair estimate of the cost of NiMH in mass-production would be less than $100/kWh, which is about what CARB intimated in 2000. The only cost for NiMH would, like lead, be for the reprocessing from used batteries to new batteries, using the same materials.
The cost of a battery pack for a NiMH EV with 180 miles of all-electric range (with or without a small engine-generator to extend the range) would be no more than $3,000. That’s more than Detroit wants to pay, but it’s well within the range of value that people would pay, if they were allowed to.
It would be a change; like any other massive changes, some would benefit, but Big Oil would be hurt.
Up until now, no public figure, not even any news media, has dared to break or even allude to the story that Chevron and GM cooperated to kill a competing, viable technology, that Chevron owns control of the battery needed for EVs and that GM once owned control of the battery needed for the wildly successful Prius.
If people could have the choice of driving on energy they make themselves they would love it.
To go 1000 miles per month in an EV only takes 250 kWh, about what two old refrigerators use; the money saved by not buying gas would pay for a rooftop solar system to make more than that electric energy. Of course, Big Oil sockpuppets would say “gee I don’t have a roof” but if you have a car, it’s got a space where you park it, and that’s enough for a solar system to power it.
But the price of a barrel of oil would fall to about the cost of extraction (no more than $10/bbl.) and a lot of money held in oil stocks would disappear. Also, a lot of dealers, refineries, gas stations, engine repair businesses, pollution study and control industries, etc., would founder; no need to study dirty air if the air is clean.
@Doug: Obviously, this is a complex issue, but to address one point you made- most of the folks I’ve talked to in new electric car startups (like Tesla) speak to the increased storage capacity of Li-ion batteries as the reason for their use.
I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see hard proof that NiMH batteries would have played a much greater role in this transition to electric vehicles if Chevron didn’t own the patent. Thankfully, we have alternatives.
@Doug: Obviously, this is a complex issue, but to address one point you made- most of the folks I’ve talked to in new electric car startups (like Tesla) speak to the increased storage capacity of Li-ion batteries as the reason for their use.
I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see hard proof that NiMH batteries would have played a much greater role in this transition to electric vehicles if Chevron didn’t own the patent. Thankfully, we have alternatives.
Clayton: Yes, Tesla is using Lithium, but not just because of its higher energy- and power-density. When ACP was using lead-acid, JCI bought up and derated the batteries they were using; so Tom Gage, using the Lithium 18-650 batteries AVAV was using for the electric plane, decided to try them, in desperation.
Yes, they do work; but the batteries are only warranteed for 50K miles, and, while Tesla buyers can afford it and expect that expense, it’s not appropriate for a mass-market car.
NiMH is the only technology that promises to be cost-effective (and easily recycled) with a proven requirements envelope (that does not, however, support 3.6 seconds to 60 mph).
Lithium MAY work; but if GM were serious, they would put out the VOLT with 700 lbs. of lead-acid batteries (10 kWh of accessible batteries) or even 400 lbs (6 kWh, for 24 miles all-electric) and then, when and if Lithium becomes available, upgrade.
ALL successful electric cars started using Lead, and then were upgraded to NiMH: EV1, HondaEV, RAV4-EV, S10-E, RangerEV. So that’s why we know GM is L-Y-I-N-G about the VOLT hoax.
Clayton: Yes, Tesla is using Lithium, but not just because of its higher energy- and power-density. When ACP was using lead-acid, JCI bought up and derated the batteries they were using; so Tom Gage, using the Lithium 18-650 batteries AVAV was using for the electric plane, decided to try them, in desperation.
Yes, they do work; but the batteries are only warranteed for 50K miles, and, while Tesla buyers can afford it and expect that expense, it’s not appropriate for a mass-market car.
NiMH is the only technology that promises to be cost-effective (and easily recycled) with a proven requirements envelope (that does not, however, support 3.6 seconds to 60 mph).
Lithium MAY work; but if GM were serious, they would put out the VOLT with 700 lbs. of lead-acid batteries (10 kWh of accessible batteries) or even 400 lbs (6 kWh, for 24 miles all-electric) and then, when and if Lithium becomes available, upgrade.
ALL successful electric cars started using Lead, and then were upgraded to NiMH: EV1, HondaEV, RAV4-EV, S10-E, RangerEV. So that’s why we know GM is L-Y-I-N-G about the VOLT hoax.
It’s evident that “all electric” vehicles are not a viable option for mass production now or in the forseeable future due to the limitations of the battery storage issues. Why not focus on realistic changes that can be made today that helps reduce pollution, improves gas milage, eliminates foreign dependence. Its called Natural Gas. Compressed Natural gas is much cheaper than gasoline, less polluted and can all be a source for wealth generation for our country. Great if you want to combine it with electric motors but lets take the first step to a practical solution instead of wasting more money on a product no one will buy.
It’s evident that “all electric” vehicles are not a viable option for mass production now or in the forseeable future due to the limitations of the battery storage issues. Why not focus on realistic changes that can be made today that helps reduce pollution, improves gas milage, eliminates foreign dependence. Its called Natural Gas. Compressed Natural gas is much cheaper than gasoline, less polluted and can all be a source for wealth generation for our country. Great if you want to combine it with electric motors but lets take the first step to a practical solution instead of wasting more money on a product no one will buy.
I donno Doug, seems better to put 400 lbs of Li-ion batteries in the Volt now, sell 10,000 of them, cut the price of the batteries in half, and so forth.
I donno Doug, seems better to put 400 lbs of Li-ion batteries in the Volt now, sell 10,000 of them, cut the price of the batteries in half, and so forth.
@Dr. J: There’s no sense in trading one fossil fuel for another. CNG still requires new cars or conversions, the same way the vehicle electrification does. CNG is also a source of wealth for the same people we’re all sick of sending money too.
@Dr. J: There’s no sense in trading one fossil fuel for another. CNG still requires new cars or conversions, the same way the vehicle electrification does. CNG is also a source of wealth for the same people we’re all sick of sending money too.
It’s amazing how quickly these talks turn so negative. I’d buy an electric car with 80+ mile range in a second if it looked like a normal car (Coda might be the winner). The all electric Mini looks pretty cute too. I can’t understand how people sit and belch out “we can’t do this” or “it isn’t possible” when thousands of electric conversions have been driving around for decades. Get over yourselves, it IS happening and it has to happen. The sooner we get to a society built around clean wind and solar the better.
The EV1 was a huge step forward and GM totally blew it by dumping it. Whatever their true motivations were, I won’t be rewarding them by buying a Volt. I’ll continue driving my diesel with 100% biodiesel from restaurant waste oil (made in the USA) until my all-electric comes along. Where do you buy your fuel from?
It’s amazing how quickly these talks turn so negative. I’d buy an electric car with 80+ mile range in a second if it looked like a normal car (Coda might be the winner). The all electric Mini looks pretty cute too. I can’t understand how people sit and belch out “we can’t do this” or “it isn’t possible” when thousands of electric conversions have been driving around for decades. Get over yourselves, it IS happening and it has to happen. The sooner we get to a society built around clean wind and solar the better.
The EV1 was a huge step forward and GM totally blew it by dumping it. Whatever their true motivations were, I won’t be rewarding them by buying a Volt. I’ll continue driving my diesel with 100% biodiesel from restaurant waste oil (made in the USA) until my all-electric comes along. Where do you buy your fuel from?
I think Chevy got all of this more or less right on target.
Lead Acid technology is too heavy. It takes a HUGE toll on car suspension, handling, breaking, and space. Non-starter except for the hobbiest on a budget.
Electric with range estension vs Hybrid. I think they nailed this too. Why carry the weight of an automatic transmission and drivetrain? What is the benefit? The electric drive will be less prone to failure I think. Why have a gasoline system in the loop? I concur that this is an electric vehicle.
Range? That is purely a classic case of (to Chevy’s credit) good marketing research. If there research is accurate, and 70 percent of US car usage can be covered with a 40 mile range, my guess is that from here, captureing the next 10 percent of the drivers would greatly escalate the cost of production.
And there is the design balance.. If you add more batteries, you sacrifice more space to them, and you increase the weight, which means that you now have to make it stiffer, stronger, bigger tires, bigger brakes, etc. It is ALL tied together.
Of course I think the solution for drivers that need longer range will be found in innovative Ultra-high milage internal combustion engine cares like the revolutionary Volkswagen 1L.
Now if the VW 1L were to come to market, and US government would require dedicated Single-wide seating vehicle lanes in all urban areas, we would see that for drivers needing RANGE, there is still NO SUBSTITUTE for the Internal Combustion engine. 235MPG.
Why didn’t Detroit do THAT. I want a VW 1L!!!
I think Chevy got all of this more or less right on target.
Lead Acid technology is too heavy. It takes a HUGE toll on car suspension, handling, breaking, and space. Non-starter except for the hobbiest on a budget.
Electric with range estension vs Hybrid. I think they nailed this too. Why carry the weight of an automatic transmission and drivetrain? What is the benefit? The electric drive will be less prone to failure I think. Why have a gasoline system in the loop? I concur that this is an electric vehicle.
Range? That is purely a classic case of (to Chevy’s credit) good marketing research. If there research is accurate, and 70 percent of US car usage can be covered with a 40 mile range, my guess is that from here, captureing the next 10 percent of the drivers would greatly escalate the cost of production.
And there is the design balance.. If you add more batteries, you sacrifice more space to them, and you increase the weight, which means that you now have to make it stiffer, stronger, bigger tires, bigger brakes, etc. It is ALL tied together.
Of course I think the solution for drivers that need longer range will be found in innovative Ultra-high milage internal combustion engine cares like the revolutionary Volkswagen 1L.
Now if the VW 1L were to come to market, and US government would require dedicated Single-wide seating vehicle lanes in all urban areas, we would see that for drivers needing RANGE, there is still NO SUBSTITUTE for the Internal Combustion engine. 235MPG.
Why didn’t Detroit do THAT. I want a VW 1L!!!
Very balanced reporting. But one issue, “stops working after 40 miles”.
As someone who has on occaision (so I’m a bit absent minded…)run out of gas, let me say that gas cars can also “stop working after 15 gallons”.
Just needs to be plugged in after 40 miles, is the equivalent of “need to stand in a smelly gas station and ….”
Actually, plugging in takes a second. Refilling takes 5 smelly minutes.
Very balanced reporting. But one issue, “stops working after 40 miles”.
As someone who has on occaision (so I’m a bit absent minded…)run out of gas, let me say that gas cars can also “stop working after 15 gallons”.
Just needs to be plugged in after 40 miles, is the equivalent of “need to stand in a smelly gas station and ….”
Actually, plugging in takes a second. Refilling takes 5 smelly minutes.
I think that BEVs are a mistake and always will be a mistake.
A practical car has a 300-500+ mile range fully fueled. Whether that fuel is electricity stored in a battery or hydrogen stored somehow is irrelevant. The $100k totally impractical 2 seater Tesla Roadster cannot go 244 miles if only 70% of the quoted range is guaranteed. At 70% of quoted, you are talking 170 miles to depletion of battery.
Between platinum nanowire and other technologies, the cost of fuel cells and the size of them is dropping rapidly. It’s possible to build a compact fuel cell car now.
The Volt’s battery I hear isn’t 400 pounds, but 450 pounds.
That battery is evidently $15k to produce. At $20k you are
talking what most people want to pay for a new car. The
Volt’s price won’t be under $30k, it will $45k+. Government
rebates just hide the actual cost of the Volt, these are rebates you pay for in your taxes.
There is a better way than the Volt barring a breakthrough
in wireless transmission of electricity or a substantial increase in battery energy density. That better way is
fuel cells. We need to start building hydrogen refueling stations now. Even if the primary source of hydrogen is methane, that is a huge improvement over gasoline.
Even if the $15k price tag for the Volt’s battery is cut
in half, that only drops the price of the Volt down to
$37,500. That would be great, but I don’t see it happening
and even if it does the Volt would still be too expensive.
2015 is going to be the year for fuel cell cars and Daimler
at least says that they’ll sell a fuel cell car for $30k.
For most of the major automakers to say 2015 is the year for
fuel cell cars, that isn’t much time. That’s only 6 years away. Toyota has a prototype fuel cell SUV right now developed in 2008 that has a 518 mile range using 10k PSI hydrogen tanks. Honda has the Clarity which can go 270
miles on a 5k PSI hydrogen tank. For GM, there is the
Chevy Volt hydrogen and the Sequel. The Sequel isn’t very
impressive, but then I haven’t seen a release that uses GM’s
most advanced fuel cell technology.
I think that BEVs are a mistake and always will be a mistake.
A practical car has a 300-500+ mile range fully fueled. Whether that fuel is electricity stored in a battery or hydrogen stored somehow is irrelevant. The $100k totally impractical 2 seater Tesla Roadster cannot go 244 miles if only 70% of the quoted range is guaranteed. At 70% of quoted, you are talking 170 miles to depletion of battery.
Between platinum nanowire and other technologies, the cost of fuel cells and the size of them is dropping rapidly. It’s possible to build a compact fuel cell car now.
The Volt’s battery I hear isn’t 400 pounds, but 450 pounds.
That battery is evidently $15k to produce. At $20k you are
talking what most people want to pay for a new car. The
Volt’s price won’t be under $30k, it will $45k+. Government
rebates just hide the actual cost of the Volt, these are rebates you pay for in your taxes.
There is a better way than the Volt barring a breakthrough
in wireless transmission of electricity or a substantial increase in battery energy density. That better way is
fuel cells. We need to start building hydrogen refueling stations now. Even if the primary source of hydrogen is methane, that is a huge improvement over gasoline.
Even if the $15k price tag for the Volt’s battery is cut
in half, that only drops the price of the Volt down to
$37,500. That would be great, but I don’t see it happening
and even if it does the Volt would still be too expensive.
2015 is going to be the year for fuel cell cars and Daimler
at least says that they’ll sell a fuel cell car for $30k.
For most of the major automakers to say 2015 is the year for
fuel cell cars, that isn’t much time. That’s only 6 years away. Toyota has a prototype fuel cell SUV right now developed in 2008 that has a 518 mile range using 10k PSI hydrogen tanks. Honda has the Clarity which can go 270
miles on a 5k PSI hydrogen tank. For GM, there is the
Chevy Volt hydrogen and the Sequel. The Sequel isn’t very
impressive, but then I haven’t seen a release that uses GM’s
most advanced fuel cell technology.
How about this.. Take the crapy gas engine out, and replace it with ANOTHER Generator and ATTACH them BOTH to the REAR wheels and use the battery to move the car until the car reaches lets say, 10 MPH. Now as the car is MOVING IT WILL TURN the 2 Generators and RECHARGE THE BATTERIES and YOU will never have to CHARGE the STUPID THING AGAIN.. OR STOP FOR GAS.. WHOS THE MAN>>>>>>> EMAIL ME IF YOU WANT THE PATENT>>
How about this.. Take the crapy gas engine out, and replace it with ANOTHER Generator and ATTACH them BOTH to the REAR wheels and use the battery to move the car until the car reaches lets say, 10 MPH. Now as the car is MOVING IT WILL TURN the 2 Generators and RECHARGE THE BATTERIES and YOU will never have to CHARGE the STUPID THING AGAIN.. OR STOP FOR GAS.. WHOS THE MAN>>>>>>> EMAIL ME IF YOU WANT THE PATENT>>
It’s important to note that to FULLY evaluate battery packs at a facility such as this, several different styles of testing would need to be performed:
One level of testing would be needed to evaluate the performance of the Lithium Ion cells themselves to evaluate charge/discharge characteristics, energy density, and thermal behavior.
The second (more complicated) level of testing is evaluating the BMS, that is, the Battery Management System circuitry that monitors the state (voltages, temperatures, etc) of individual battery cell modules and of the full battery pack as a whole. Correctly performing this these tests usually involves simulating and controlling all inputs the BMS encounters in normal vehicle operation, subjecting it to any possible conditions it would encounter in the real world, and making sure it responds correctly in all cases.
An example of this approach can be found here:
http://www.dmcinfo.com/Case-Studies/View/ProjectID/236/Battery-Management-System-BMS-Test-Stand-2nd-Generation.aspx
The third level of testing is to validate all functional and performance characteristics of the battery pack as a whole (ie once the cells have been fully assembled into the completed pack that will go in a vehicle). This includes testing the diagnostic (CAN) communications between the pack itself (from the BMS) to the vehicle’s Engine Control Unit (ECU), and all operational characteristics (things like contactor operation, safety fault monitoring and reporting, electrical wiring and isolation, etc). Additionally, high power cycling of the pack needs to be performed to simulate actual real world drive profiles to determine qualities like the battery’s energy capacity, which in turn is directly related to the vehicle’s range it can travel on a single charge. An example of an automated test system for this level of testing can be found here:
http://www.dmcinfo.com/Case-Studies/View/ProjectID/121/Hybrid-Electric-Vehicle-Battery-Test-System.aspx
That’s a great point Jesse. I am sure they do some kind of validation and testing in house. Basically the battery pack is the electronic version of a gas tank, so its safety has critical. No one want a repeat of the laptop battery incidents with a 100 cell stack.