« US Senators Introduce New Climate Change Bill | Main | Hino To Roll Out Dutro Hybrid Truck In Australia »
GE’s Weight-Reducing Contributions to the Chevrolet Volt
14 January 2007
 |
| GE Plastics' contributions to the Volt. Click to enlarge. |
GM’s new plug-in series hybrid concept car, the Chevrolet Volt (earlier post), relies heavily on resins and composite materials from GE Plastics to reduce its mass, allowing for even lower fuel consumption, fewer carbon dioxide emissions (when the range extender engine is in use), and improved overall performance.
GreenOrder, an environmental strategy firm based in New York, NY, that audited GM’s claims for the Volt, validated that if 3.2 million passenger vehicles weighing 3,500 pounds each were manufactured making the same use of GE Plastics’ weight-reducing components, the decrease in fuel consumption would save more than 20 million gallons (476,000 barrels) of oil each year. That decrease would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 194,000 tons each year.
GE fuel-saving technologies showcased on the Chevy Volt include:
Doors and hood made with Xenoy iQ high performance thermoplastic composites (HPPC). Xenoy iQ resins are created with polybutylene terephthalate (PBT)-based polymers derived from 85% post-consumer plastic waste, consuming less energy and yielding less carbon dioxide (CO2) in their manufacturing than traditional resins.
Roof, rear deck lid and fixed side glazing made with Lexan GLX resins and Exatec coating technology. (Exatec was founded in 1998 as 50:50 joint venture of Bayer Material Science and GE Plastics to develop polycarbonate glazing systems for the automotive market.)
Global energy absorber and hybrid rear energy absorbers with Xenoy iQ resins.
Steering wheel and instrument panel with integrated airbag chute made with Lexan EXL resins.
Front fenders made with Noryl GTX resins.
Wire coating made with Flexible Noryl resins.
Composites are typically used in the aerospace industry and on racecars due to their super lightweight structure and performance. GE Plastics, in partnership with Azdel, Inc., premieres its own version of composites made with Xenoy iQ resins on the Volt doors and hood. (Azdel is a joint venture between GE Advanced Materials and PPG.) The composite addresses three critical environmental concerns: conserving energy, lowering greenhouse gas emissions, and up-cycling or regenerating post-consumer waste such as PET plastic bottles.
On the Volt, the fender, window glazings, instrument panel and steering wheel can each offer from 30 to 50 percent weight reduction per part. Wire running throughout the Volt is made from non-halogenated GE plastics and reaches an approximate 25 percent weight reduction compared to traditional wire in automobiles.
—Amanda Roble, executive director for GE Plastics’ Automotive business
Lexan polycarbonate is one of GE’s original plastics, first created in 1953. The plastic traveled to the moon with astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin in their helmet assemblies and visors. The Lexan GLX resin provides high impact strength, UV protection, and light weight—especially valuable in automotive glazing applications. The Lexan EXL resin offers superior impact and low temperature ductility compared to standard polycarbonate grades.
Just last week, it emerged that GE is looking to sell the plastics unit, seeking bids of as much as $10 billion, due in part to the impact rising costs for crude-oil based chemicals combined with the low price of the final product have on the bottom line.
Other factors prompting the exploration of the sale include the slowing automotive industry, and increased competition, especially from Asia, according to the Wall Street Journal (10 Jan 2007, p. B1). In the first nine months of last year, the plastics unit had $5 billion in revenue, and operating profit fell 13% from the prior year.
January 14, 2007 in Fuel Efficiency, Hybrids, Vehicle Systems | Permalink | Comments (37) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/7489390
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference GE’s Weight-Reducing Contributions to the Chevrolet Volt:
Comments
If each of the four passengers lost 20 pounds it would save fuel too.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 14, 2007 10:18:36 AM
If they reduced their meat consumption by 50% they reduce CO2 emissions by far more than using these weight saving materials. Of course it they ate too many beans they methane emissions which offset any gains ;)
Posted by: Tripp | Jan 14, 2007 10:53:08 AM
http://grist.org/news/daily/2006/10/25/1/
Posted by: Scatter | Jan 14, 2007 10:59:43 AM
One half a million barrels saved per YEAR when the U.S. uses 20 million barrel per DAY, is the proverbial drop in the bucket. It is good to look at the magnitudes before we say "gee wiz".
Posted by: SJC | Jan 14, 2007 11:26:29 AM
20 million gallons divided by 3.2 million cars is only 6 1/4 gallons per car per year.
Posted by: jmilner | Jan 14, 2007 11:33:38 AM
Two issues;
(a) imilner's 6.25 gallons per year, presumes no usage creep. Where measure to curb CO2 emmisions effectively contrain 'usage' it follows that where a vehicle owner has invested in avoiding these contraints they will excercise that either by justifying living further away (commute distance) or by extending journey length for the same uderlying (or probably higher) costs.
(b) Ommitted from the inputs is cradle/grave emmisions cost of infrastructure, manufacture, distribution of 3.2million new technology's and the displacement of and re-integration of 3.2 million existing vehicles back into the waste stream.
Further; Vehicle longivity... repairability and durability are unfactored in overall CO2 emmisions formulae.
Posted by: Blair Anderson | Jan 14, 2007 12:55:58 PM
While one can scoff at the contributions here by GE, it is still a serious step in the right direction. Lightweighting is one of the most important contributions to fuel economy that can be made. I would urge all nay-sayers to read Amory Lovins/Rocky Mountain Institute's book called "Winning the Oil Endgame." Inside, it has very well thought out and researched studies on lightweighting and hybrids, coming to the conclusion that lightweighting is one of the most important and highest payoff methods for increasing fuel efficiency. What the Volt is trying to do is a small step, but a step in the right direction.
Posted by: Ken Zemach | Jan 14, 2007 2:48:18 PM
How many Kg (of how many Kg) did they save ?
They say 50% part weight saving, but nothing absolute.
Posted by: mahonj | Jan 14, 2007 2:49:13 PM
SJC,
That is if they are car pooling at all.
Posted by: allen_XL_Z | Jan 14, 2007 2:54:19 PM
Weight saving is always a good thing in a motor vehicle. Weight saved in one location will result in weight saved in other areas as well. The frame can be make lighter, then the suspension, then the engine, then the transmission...etc. One lb of wt saved in one area can result in another lb of wt saved elsewhere in the entire car, for ~two lb or more of wt saving overall.
Talking about weight saving, while we are at it, how about downsizing the battery pack to 8-10 kwh, the electric motor to 80-kw size from 130kw-size, by coupling the engine's torque directly to the drive train during acceleration above 25-30 mph and during cruise. At 130 wh/kg for power lithium battery, the weight saving will be ~120 lbs, plus about ~60 lbs from the lighter-wt motor and some more wt. from smaller-size power inverter and we are talking about nearly 200 lbs. If we can then design the entire vehicle taking into account this 200 lbs of weight saved, then the frame, suspension, engine, and drive train can be made lighter, and we have a lot more weight saved in the final vehicle. At ~$1000/kwh battery cost, the saving in final cost can be ~ $10,000, considering less copper and smaller permanent magnet for the smaller motor, and less semi-conductor for the smaller power inverter. This will greatly help make the car more profitable for GM. Performance and utility sets the price. Co$t $aving determines the profit margin. Weight, or the lack thereof, contributes to fuel efficiency. Just a thought!
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 14, 2007 3:50:55 PM
Ken,
I read Lovins' book cover to cover. He talks about carbon fiber body panels to save weight, not saving 1/2 pound with a Lexan steering wheel. Lovins' book is a good one and everyone that visits here should read it. If is free for download on www.rmi.org and is about 185 pages, if you have the paper and ink.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 14, 2007 6:55:40 PM
Carbon fiber is too expensive for car parts.
Posted by: George | Jan 14, 2007 8:22:08 PM
I think Roger's comments on downsizing the battery / eletric parts are well made - especially in terms of cost.
Most cars are so overpowered that you could easily reduce the power without any effect on normal driving.
I am not so sure how easy it is to "couple the engine's torque directly to the drive train". It is an easy sentence to write, but it might not be so easy to do.
Also, redesigning the car to reflect a 200 lb saving in powertrain parts would be a major exercise. It would mean making most structural parts lighter, ie making new tooling for them.
And yes, carbon fiber is way too expensive for cars. For the B787 and A350 fine, but not for a Ford Focus.
But, being positive, saving weight is usually good, even if it just gives a better power to weight ratio.
Posted by: mahonj | Jan 14, 2007 10:59:46 PM
mahonj,
Reversible coupling of the engine to the electric drive motor is analogous to the torque lock up device between the engine and the hydraulic torque converter in a typical automatic transmission. Torque lock-up usually happens at 40-50 mph, depending on what car model, and from then on, no power is going through the hydraulic torque converter, hence no mechanical power loss by the torque converter.
The engine is mounted in transverse orientation as usual, and is opposed by the electric motor which takes up the space of the usual automatic transmission. The electric motor has can either be geared to the input gear of the differential unit, or driving the differential input gear via a chain like in the Prius. Whether the engine is there or not, the single electric motor must be attached that way to the differential unit. (unless a pair of electric motors is used instead, and that would render the differential unit unnecessary in a pure BEV. In a PHEV, and if a pair of hub-mounted electric motors are used, then a differential unit will still be needed to accept the torque from the single engine)
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 15, 2007 12:10:12 AM
As it is at the moment connecting the engine to the drivetrain would require some sort of gearing, as none exists on the car at the moment. You'd lose a lot of flexibility in where the engine is placed and the weight added by adding a gearbox, clutch and differentials (if necessary) may well make up for the efficiency savings of having the engine mechanically coupled to the wheels. Plus you lose the benefit of being able to constantly run the engine at fixed RPM and lose some efficiency there, unless a CVT transmission is used - in which case these too have an efficiency penalty. One of the advantages of an electric transmission is that the moving parts of the car are very simple, having just a motor coupled to the wheels, which is far simpler and lighter than the transmission to connect a combustion engine to them.
I think it may help to have the engine coupled directly to the wheels for highway cruising, but I expect most of the time it will just add to the weight and hurt fuel economy in a vehicle like the chevrolet volt.
Posted by: Richard | Jan 15, 2007 1:36:49 AM
Roger,
Part of the point of the Volt is that it will be able to easily accept new means to generate the electricity necessary to keep the batteries charged easily... like a small fuel cell, or a tiny biodiesel powered generator, or a gas turbine etc.
Your suggestions would defeat this goal. The volt is designed to be primarially an electric car without the inconvienve of a limited range.
Posted by: BBM | Jan 15, 2007 5:37:13 AM
This discussion of weight, with the comment about the downsizability of engines, shows why I continue to say we haven't yet begun to pick all the low-hanging fruit in transportation.
Because of the suddenness of the car makers' recognition of and response to peak oil and global warming we're likely to see an interesting mix of efficiency gains all hitting the market roughly at once. There be very obvious and simple things, like downsized engines, combined with high tech, lighter materials, series hybrids, stop/start, etc.
Posted by: Lou Grinzo | Jan 15, 2007 6:07:06 AM
I believe the half million barrels would be saved in the manufacture of the vehicle.The 6.25 gallons could be saved in one trip for many commuters.My wife could commute on electric alone to work.I would need a couple of quarts of fuel.I would use E85 if availlable to contribute to keeping teenagers out of oil wars.With electric and E85 I could be using pints of oil a week.
Theese plastics would be expanded to other models gaining further savings and a destination for recycled plastics.I wouldnt be surprised if Mr. lovins has consulted with G.M. on this.I would think you would celebrate that corporations are listening.
Posted by: earl | Jan 15, 2007 6:29:20 AM
Lovins has done a lot of consulting with the DOD and only wishes that GM would listen. He claims to have a lower cost way of mass producing carbon fiber body panels and who knows, he could be right.
The idea of lower weight and more streamlined series hybrids is a good combination. Make them low cost, reliable, effecient as well as safe and you may have a winner going forward.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 15, 2007 7:14:42 AM
With the Volt you could also use the car at highway speeds even if the gas ICE failed, for the battery range. The engine could be removed for more weight savings in a low volume version for short trips only.
Posted by: hampden wireless | Jan 15, 2007 7:19:31 AM
The half-million barrel savings in the article was due to the plastics, not the PHEV technology.
earl, I expect that if you could buy a Chevy Volt you could also buy a supplemental battery to go in the trunk (either OEM or aftermarket).
Posted by: Reality Czech | Jan 15, 2007 7:48:40 AM
What happens to these cars when they go the gunk yard
Can they be recycled? Or are we just creating another
envirmental issue
Posted by: kevin | Jan 15, 2007 8:02:25 AM
The rocky mountain institute set up a commercial company with the aim of building hyper cars based around ultra light materials. Looks like they gave up on the idea and have instead set up to promote their composite thermal stamping process. Their company is http://www.fibreforge.com/
I really like the idea of reducing the weight of cars. However, using carbon could have problems. I have operated a professional race team and we utilized carbon tubs and body panels. While they are very strong and light weight and take impacts very well, they are hard to repair. Often after a crash you can't even visibly detect problems. We have scrapped a number of tubs just from bottoming them out on curbs. If passenger cars were made of carbon, I suspect you would see a lot of scrapped cars after even moderate crashes. Metal bodies can usually be fixed pretty easily unless they are really badly deformed. This won't be the same for carbon chassis.
Posted by: paul | Jan 15, 2007 8:24:49 AM
I will be thrilled if GM really does market the Volt. I could commute 36 miles each day without using any oil. Discussion of weight, fact that GM has done some weight reduction, and knowledge that Toyota's next Prius will get something like 90 mpg does make me wonder why Volt only gets 50 mpg in hybrid mode (after all-electric range). They can't beat the current Prius? Regenerative braking should be better than current Prius with battery required for Series PHEV and it should be lighter weight. Why not at least 70 mpg? No matter, I'll buy one for the Series PHEV with 40 mile all-electric range ...if they produce it within three years. 50 mpg is kinda sorta maybe ok.
Is carbon fiber really expensive or is there just a lack of large scale manufacturing? ...i.e. is it just that carbon fiber is mostly used for custom hand built stuff right now? ...or is there something inherently more expensive about carbon fiber? Were steel auto bodies expensive like this before Henry Ford put us on the road to large scale manufacturing?
Posted by: mds | Jan 15, 2007 8:34:32 AM
Emphasizing the all electric and E85 aspects can give effectual hundreds of miles per gallon equivalent.That is from the replacement of imported oil perspective.This perspective is very important to me as my son trains in a stryker brigade in Germany which is the jump off point for deployment to Iraq.In our desire for an eventual perfect green world many of us would like to embrace intermediate doable steps.Having three kids in the military has instilled a green fervor in me as well as a desire for independence.If we cant energetically effectuate a domestic energy industry soon I may not care about sea levels or anything else because a parents view of the future is myopicaly tied to his or her own children.Right or wrong the psychology of other people is as much a determinant as the engineering debates or computer models.
Posted by: earl | Jan 15, 2007 9:02:51 AM
I will believe that there is a 90 mpg Prius when I see one. That might have to do with talk about a plug Prius. If you get 45 mpg, but if half of the energy comes from batteries that you plug in, then it looks like you get 90 mpg. That is false accounting. A BTU is a BTU a killowatt hour is a killowatt hour, there is no changing the physics.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 15, 2007 9:18:18 AM
Please see calcars write up on the volt.felix Kramer is working with utilities and government agencies to try to speed its introduction to the fleet.
Posted by: earl | Jan 15, 2007 10:06:59 AM
1. The 50mpg of the volt is AFTER you expend the 40 mile all electric range. Essentially you will get 90mpg if you only drive 90 miles before you recharge which is equivalent to the theoretical Prius.
2. Why is it that when someone speaks of saving a 1/2 pound of weight, and using less energy in the manufacture of a component someone thinks that the idea is garbage? It isn't good enough so you wouldn't do it at all? That line of thinking is garbage.
3. Typical glass on a compact is around 250lbs total. If they save 30-50% of the weight that is a 75-125 lb weight savings (34-57kg). The fenders would probably only save around 10-15 lbs (4.5-7kg).
Posted by: Patrick | Jan 15, 2007 10:46:24 AM
BBM,
Regarding your comment that the Volt is designed to accept various removable "electrical generators" as range extender, any genset can be designed to have the engine torque clutched to the engine when it is desirable, and still can be removable.
Just drop the genset into a rail or groove on one side of the engine compartment, while the electric motor sits opposite to the genset. A hydraulic or mechanical mechanism can be designed to move a clutch plate (splined to the engine shaft) a short distance from the engine to the clutch plate of the motor for reversible torque coupling of the engine to the motor. At rest, the engine is not coupled to the motor,so the entire genset can be removed. No gear whatsoever is needed to connect the engine to the motor, just direct drive via clutch plates.
Even a removable fuelcell genset can be used. The removable fuelcell genset would be of 30kw max power rating and has a 30kw motor built in to the genset to supplement the power of the 80kw motor. When this genset is dropped into the grove in the engine bay and secured, then the torque of the 30kw motor will be locked via a manual mechanism to the 80kw motor of the engine to give a total of 130 kw power output.
A turbine engine genset is not recommended due to the poor efficiency of the microturbine.
Since battery is heavy and expensive and costing ~$500-$1000 USD/kw, it is always good to have an engine costing $3000 onboard to assure that you won't get stranded when the battery is out of juice, not to mention saving of ~$10,000 from battery and electric component down-sizing, and saving of hundreds of lbs of vehicle weight! In winter, the engine or FC genset provides waste heat for cabin heating.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 15, 2007 12:43:56 PM
So in order to fit Roger's model, even fuel-cell gensets would require a motor of their own (duplication of motors, their expense and their gearing) just so that they could add torque to an undersized main motor. And they'd be stuck with the form factor and mechanical arrangement of a soon-to-be-obsolete system, when electric motors are already much more powerful than engines while being cheaper.
C'mon, get real.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 15, 2007 6:29:05 PM
Maybe what Earl is refering to is this:
http://www.calcars.org/gm-phevs-faq.html
The author is a bit over the top about the government's role, given the supply side market types. But he does credit Dr. Andy Frank of U.C. Davis with being the father of the modern PHEV. I think that is correct.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 16, 2007 7:33:59 AM
Eng-Poet,
The 30kw motor in the FC genset is an additional souce of mechanical power to the wheel, and not a duplication. This additional power is entirely optional, not required for the functioning of the car. It is intended for those wanting more Vroom in their humdrum routine, or to satisfy the occasional "need for speed."
Face it, a PHEV is more economical to purchase than a pure BEV and do not suffer from the lack of range issue of a BEV. An ICE or FC genset can supply free waste heat for winter operation, or serve as an electrical backup for your home during a winter-storm power outage, which may last for weeks and cause a lot of suffering. It'll allow you to live normal life when your neighbors are freezing due to the lack of central heating, because the central heater is operated by electric motor. :)
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 17, 2007 11:13:55 PM
The problem with weight reduction emerges when you consider collision with a heavier vehicle. Even if you light vehicle is quite strong, the energy from the larger mass vehicle is transferred to you in either crush or change of vector. Either way, the collision within the vehicle between you and your surroundings goes up. Say you get "T" boned and you are knocked over a cliff rather than remaining on the road if your vehicle was heavier. And there may be a safety connection between weight and velocity. Say under 40 MPH, decreasing the weight does not significantly affect stability, but over 60 MPH, you need to weigh at least 2500 lbs. I do not know if this is true, but it would not surprise me based on watching race cars go airborne.
Posted by: Van | Jan 20, 2007 1:35:19 PM
Van,
Yes, your energy in a lighter composite vehicle will get changed into motion along a different vector. So? Read the "Pre-Astronauts" which talks about the ability of humans to survive high acceleration if properly restrained. John Paul Stapp led this work for Air Force jet pilot bailout. Watch some more of those races. The cars might fly up in the air in a wreck, but the drivers often walk away. How often do you drive that fast? How often do you drive next to a cliff? If you get "T" boned, then you will survive better in a carbon fiber vehicle than in a steel body vehicle. Carbon fiber is stronger than steel. That's why those race car drivers walk away. If cost can be reduced more, then lighter weight plastics or composites are better.
SJC
So you don't believe Toyota is going to get 90 mpg in the near future. Healthy sketicism. OK. I own a Prius and get close to 50 mpg in winter and closer to 55 in the summer, 50 to 55 mpg. This is because of my commute and driving habits. Most will get 45 to 50 mpg. I see this when in a hurry, with a lot of stop and start driving in town. My momentum is being converted to heat in the brakes because regenerative braking is not that strong. Also, the engine rpm audibly varies. These are sources of obvious inefficiences that are easier to improve in a Series PHEV. I said 70 mpg above. Lets be more conservative and say 60 mpg. That should be even easier to do. It's still better than 50 mpg!
As to the false accounting of using all-electric for the first 40 miles. Wind, nuclear, solar, wave, tidal, and geothermal are all dropping in price and can all provide clean energy. All except nuclear are renewable. Add to that studies that have shown PHEVs and EVs will be useful energy storage for intermittent renewables and you have an industrial revolution in the making. Wind is competitive with gas generated electricity now and still getting cheaper. Wave power will be cheaper than wind in some coastal areas. Solar will bypass both in the not too distant future.
http://www.alternet.org/story/45020/ (Good interview with Travis Bradford, author of “The Solar Revolution")
In the 1970s we got a good portion of our electricity from oil. In the last 30 years the oil part has changed over largely to natural gas and nuclear. In the next 30 we will be using more renewables and/or nuclear AND electricity will get cheaper. ...so...if we're driving a lot of PHEVs and EVs by then... You can help this happen faster, but you can't stop it. It is already happening. Is the Prius selling well? What about a lower cost PHEV with even better mpg? Stuff shot! Prius will become the space shuttle of hybrid technology. Wonderous in its' time, but no longer cost competitive with newer designs.
GM needs to get the "Volt" into production fast!
Posted by: mds | Jan 28, 2007 10:36:41 AM
“ On your terms” means customizing the available materials CPod has to offer to my needs, my attension span, my life style. You are absolutely right that this“ learner- centric” model is increasing in other industries. I have commented before regarding this issue, but as a practicing physician, I must continuously keep my medical knowledge up- to- date; it’ s a challenge to fit that knowledge acquisition into my hectic life. Services such as www. cmedownload. com was created with flexibility in mind (it’ s...
Posted by: http://www.overweightchild.org | Mar 23, 2008 5:39:24 AM
Enter your search terms Web www. joiz. org Submit search form Commercial Break Other Headlines Mini Blurbs from Twitter It's all drawn out. there's nothing inside and nothing to hold, nothing to find. Its wearing' me out, this feeling inside. I'm all drawn out 19 hrs ago More updates... Featured Entre! Bathroom Break Recent Ramblings Still Dadum! Terrible Two’ s! Ink Blots Concerts and Music Videos Drinking Lessons Single Ole! Entre! My List of Wants Maroon 5 and Incubus A Bit for the New Year Miserably...
Posted by: overweight teens | Apr 19, 2008 6:46:14 AM
simple :
1-use flat tire . save 50lbs (don't need spare tire any more ) and other stuff. and we have more space
2-use more plastic where don't need steel.
Posted by: | Oct 7, 2008 7:32:09 PM
