Green Car Congress
About GCC Contact  RSS Subscribe Twitter headlines

« Palm Oil Prices to Rise on Biofuel Demand, Drought | Main | European Automakers Call for Harmonized CO2 Tax on Cars »

Print this post

GM’s View on Battery Technologies for Hybrids, Plug-Ins and E-Flex

13 March 2007

Gmphev1
Energy and Power requirements for full hybrids (two-mode), plug-in hybrids, and E-Flex range-extended EVs. Click to enlarge.

GM held a media briefing yesterday, along with its battery partners from Johnson Controls-Saft, A123Systems, and Cobasys, to provide some perspective on the development of lithium-ion battery technology for its plug-in and E-Flex efforts.

Interest in and demand for the Chevrolet Volt, the series plug-in hybrid concept car unveiled at the Detroit auto show, has been intense and gratifying, according to the GM executives, but they also want to manage expectations as best they can around the key issue of battery development.

On the one hand, we want to be excited. On the other hand, we’re getting emails asking if [they] can buy the Volt tomorrow. It’s important to understand that a lot of work remains before the batteries are ready for mass production. It’s a balance between the promise and the hurdles that remain.

—Scott Fosgard, Director of GM Powertain and Advanced Technology Communications

Joe LoGrasso, the engineering group manager for hybrid energy storage systems at GM, noted the difference in power and energy requirements between a standard two-mode hybrid, a plug-in version of such a hybrid (the Saturn VUE two-mode plug-in under development, earlier post), and an E-Flex range-extended EV such as the Volt (a series plug-in hybrid in configuration, earlier post).

In GM’s view, all-electric mode in a conventional two-mode hybrid at this point is limited to lower speeds and loads. EV mode in a plug-in two-mode hybrid such as the Saturn VUE will support a range of 10+ miles, and the E-Flex/Volt series hybrid plug-in will provide 40+ miles all-electric range.

A plug-in version of a two-mode hybrid would require about twice the discharge power and significantly more usable energy than a conventional two-mode hybrid battery pack. In turn, a range-extended, battery-dominant plug-in series hybrid such as the Volt would require more than twice the discharge power and usable energy of the plug-in version of a two-mode, according to GM’s view of vehicle requirements.

GM’s View of Hybrid and Plug-in Hybrid Battery Requirements
AttributeTwo-mode
Hybrid
Two-mode
Plug-in Hybrid
E-Flex
Range-Extended EV
EV Range Only at low speeds and loads 10+ miles all-electric in city 40+ miles all-electric in city
Recharge Only while driving While driving and with plug-in While driving and with plug-in
Power EV driving in low-speed city only EV driving in city EV driving full vehicle performance
Life 10 years
150,000 miles
10 years
150,000 miles
10 years
150,000 miles
Gmphev3
Battery technology and vehicle requirements. Click to enlarge.

GM and its battery partners asserted that lithium-ion batteries will provide the range of solutions required to support the different vehicle applications. The chemistry offers both high energy density and power density, and as such is necessary for future hybrid performance and critical for plug-in and E-Flex applications. Ongoing developments in new materials such as lithium titanate anodes and lithium iron phosphate cathodes continue to improve performance.

Gmphev2
Different battery requirements for the different types of cycles. Click to enlarge.

But GM also took pains to outline the challenges for battery design optimization given the different requirements between charge-sustaining and charge-depleting applications.

(In terms of areas of focus for GM in future energy storage, the company also noted that supercapacitors, because of their very high power density and potentially low cost, may be very well matched by mild hybrid applications.)

Gmphev4
Different applications require different li-ion cell and pack characteristics. Click to enlarge.

Li-ion cells designed for a charge-sustaining hybrid application require high power but low energy, and feature ultra-thin electrodes, thicker current collectors and short pulse power.

Cells designed for plug-in and E-Flex applications require both high power and high energy, and thus thicker electrodes and thinner current collectors. The batteries must be able to support longer power draws.

While GM is working with a battery pack built from large format cells for the two-mode plug-in, and an array of two or three such large-format packs for the E-Flex. However, GM is also exploring a single battery pack made of very large-format cells for the E-Flex as well.

The key challenges to making lithium ion successful are robustness, cost and life. While today it may not be ready for prime time, it’s not a revolutionary requirement but evolutionary advance that will help us meet the requirements.

GM is using a multi-phased approach, starting with qualifying the cell, proving out the cycle life and calendar life at the cell level, then developing the pack and testing it on the lab bench. All this is necessary as a precursor to declaring a solution ready. Vehicle integration is the final step before the production program. The challenge is how do we develop battery solutions and vehicles in parallel?

—Joe LoGrasso

Mary Ann Wright, the former chief engineer for the Escape Hybrid and new CEO of JCS (earlier post), provided a brief overview of lithium-ion chemistry and cell construction, noting that manufacturers can balance the power and energy based on system requirements in part by making the lithium-ion electrode coating thicker for energy requirements and thinner for power and acceleration.

Theoretical voltage and capacity is a function of the anode and cathode material. The practical capacity brings in the effect of the separator, the electrolyte, the connector, the temperature and the rate.

—Mary Ann Wright

She also emphasized the critical success factors of useful life and reliability, and automotive-compliant quality. The automotive environment, she stressed, is much harsher than the consumer environment, especially in terms of use and abuse and thermal management.

Ed Bednarcik, vice president and general manager of the pack and system group from A123Systems, provided an overview of manufacturing processes. Producing high-power li-ion batteries requires the use of nanomaterials that need proprietary mixing, handling and coating processes and systems, he noted.

The use of very large currents (100 times grater than conventional li-ion) require new termination and current collection schemes. To prevent contamination, the electrodes are assembled in clean room environments.

The additional burden of a 10-15 year battery life (compared to a 2-3 year life for consumer applications) also requires different assembly processes to seal the cells such as the use of laser welds to provide superior hermetic packaging.

Gmphev5
The major battery pack system components. Click to enlarge.

Scott Lindholm, the vice president of systems engineering from Cobasys, focused on the development of the battery systems, rather than the individual cells. The three major components of the battery system are the batteries, the thermal management system, and the electronics bay. An initial challenge faced is the mechanical packaging, especially in vehicles not originally designed to hold large battery packs.

Batteries like to live where we live. They like to live at the same temperature. If we can’t control the battery temperature, we lose control, and the system will fail. Things you may not consider—salt-mist testing, vibration, thermal shock, mechanical shock—are all wrapped into the system design.

From the consumer perspective, we want to ensure there is no exposure to high voltage. What happens when a kid dumps a Slurpee down the back seat?

—Scott Lindholm

The focus on the 10-15 year, 150,000-mile battery life appears iron-clad, despite suggestions from some, such as Felix Kramer of CalCars, that there might be the possibility of negotiating a lower regulatory requirement and/or supplementing that with a warranty package in favor of getting more cars into production more quickly.

March 13, 2007 in Batteries, Plug-ins | Permalink | Comments (48) | TrackBack (0)

Comments

Lad -

according to an interview with Tesla CEO Eberhard on an Autobloggreen Podcast the other day, the company chose to develop new packaging for a large number of commodity cells because that delivered twice the energy density for a quarter of the price.

Posted by: Rafael Seidl | March 14, 2007 at 05:39 AM

Just wanted to take a moment to address the GM haters. The introduction of the Volt, or maybe more accurately, the E-Flex architecture is Big news for the green world. Not only is it Big news, it's also Good news. Now, lots of people out there may have legitimate reasons for dislike of GM vehicles as they may have been shipped a lemon in the past, or didn't agree with their previous sales philosophies of pushing large vehicles as opposed to more efficient ones. GM appears to be really trying these days with ideas such as stated in this article. We say things like "this is a conspiracy between Big Auto and Big Oil"---huh? As I said in an earlier post, GM can't win here. First, they are blasted for selling lots of SUV's and Pick-ups. Toyota does the exact same thing and gets nothing but cheers and adoration from this crowd. Then GM finally makes an effort to be completely transparent and forthright about their future EV plans, and they still get blasted. Companies like GM need to be encouraged for efforts such as E-Flex. To do otherwise is to shoot ourselves in the foot. How? Promoters of green technologies, which I assume we collectively are, need to encourage green technology efforts wherever they rise, to push that evolution of the car forward. It's stupid and un-productive to commend and support one company for doing good things for the green, and blast another just because there are some old prejudices out there.

I'm off my soap box now.

Posted by: Schmeltz | March 14, 2007 at 06:00 AM

If it is true that the 2009 Prius will have a 3KWH lithum ion battery, and an AER of about 8 miles, and will sell for about $24,000, then a plug-in Hymotion modification will give us the performance claimed by the GM Volt, in 2009, less than two years away, and the modified vehicle will cost less than $36,000. Now it would be great if the OEM offered the option in 2009, but I do not foresee that happening until about 2012, with the 2011 models.

Posted by: Van | March 14, 2007 at 06:40 AM

Andone who has read up on the VAST differences between the markets in the us and japan would know instantly why they can bring out lith ion years early in japan.

It realy pays to be a tech gadget manic society as the japanese are.

Posted by: wintermane | March 14, 2007 at 08:42 AM

Amen, Schmeltz. You said it all.

Posted by: Mark A | March 14, 2007 at 09:08 AM

I learned to drive in 73 Chevy Vega ... what a LEMON! I won't feel any pity for the company if they go under. They've dug their own grave (repeatedly) with short sighted decisions. Having said that, I won't hold the past against them if they can do the right thing now. If GM makes a PHEV, I'll take a serious look at it. This could be their very last chance to earn a little redemption.

Posted by: Neil | March 14, 2007 at 10:29 AM

Just look at the chart GM produced. A serial plug-in hybrid requires high capacity and high power, while a parallel plug-in hybrid requires high capacity and low power. Since battery is the gating technology, even GM's own chart shows they will be at a disadvantage.

Seems they are admiting defeat even at this stage of game.

Posted by: Energex42 | March 14, 2007 at 10:51 AM

Energex42:

Defeat? Hah! General Motors laughs at defeat, there will be no defeat while there is a polar bear left standing.

Posted by: jcwinnie | March 14, 2007 at 11:48 AM

How will they be at a disadvantage if they are also producing parallel plug-ins? The series plug-in is meant to function as an EV with a range-extender, its a totally different animal, and will kill the parallel hybrids in economy for the average driver, unless you are you expecting 40+ mile battery range parallel hybrids by then.

Posted by: DC | March 14, 2007 at 11:55 AM

Poor Mark, maybe his weed affected his decision to buy his lemon. Just remember the UAW built this and other junk and also their right to strike in 86 for outrageous wages/heathcare/etc.. This cost GM about 3-4 development programs. How many stikes have the Japanese had? They fight to keep inefficient plants open instead of buying from the market. Now people can't afford to buy their product. Wakeup before your computer job is outsources to India!

Stop the nonsense and evaluate products as they exist today not as they are in your mind. You just might change your opinion.

Posted by: Mark A | Mar 14, 2007 9:08:41 AM

I learned to drive in 73 Chevy Vega ... what a LEMON! I won't feel any pity for the company if they go under. They've dug their own grave (repeatedly) with short sighted decisions. Having said that, I won't hold the past against them if they can do the right thing now. If GM makes a PHEV, I'll take a serious look at it. This could be their very last chance to earn a little redemption.

Posted by: tmo8844 | March 14, 2007 at 12:31 PM

I have owned alot of cars, but I never had a 73 Vega?????

But the best car I ever owned was a Chevy, a GM product. 77 Camaro, with a 305 (5.0L) V-8. Got 22-24mpg on the highway. Of course its catalytic exhaust wasnt quite as clean as todays cars, and its relative simplicity under the hood left alot of that periods auto technicians with free time on their (greasy) hands.

Posted by: Mark A | March 14, 2007 at 12:44 PM

tmo,

you attributed the quote to the wrong person...

The Japanese don't get paid very much. They work "for the good of the company" while in the US people are more likely to work "for the good of themselves". The engineers/managers I work with (from Japan) love to be assigned to the US because it gives them a nice raise in salary and they end up making much more than their peers back in Japan. They still pay the US workers more though...the American VP gets paid about 3 times what the Japanese VP gets paid.

Posted by: Patrick | March 14, 2007 at 12:46 PM

TMO8844: The Vega post was by a poster named "Neil", not "Mark A" as you stated.

Posted by: Schmeltz | March 14, 2007 at 12:50 PM

What about all this labor union bashing?

We have 80+ % of our workforce in labor unions, and there are never any problems with shutting down factories or cutting jobs in the export industries. The workers know that their jobs depend on keeping the company competitive.

Of course, they also know that record profits means record wage increases, but that is just as it should be.

And what of all this insaninty about corporations financing retirements and health care?! That will surely hurt the companies, and also make sure unemployed people are hurt real bad, which in turn makes it a lot harder to fire people when that is needed.

Taxes are payed for these things, especially as it keeps companies more profitable and flexible. Or if you feel neoliberal, it is financed by individuals. The state or the individual should pay. Not a corporation. Or maybe they should pay my rent, milk and bread too?!

Posted by: Starvid_Sweden | March 14, 2007 at 01:25 PM

TMO: what weed are you on? I didn't buy the Vega .. I just learned to drive in it. I stated that regardless of that experience I would take a good look at the Volt if it were available.

For all people bashing on those who negotiate for the best employment deal they can get: do you voluntarily take pay cuts or undersell your worth? Employment is just another business deal.

Posted by: Neil | March 14, 2007 at 02:00 PM

GM could easily produce the Volt as a standard series hybrid, with a 5 kwh battery pack, which would be quite sufficient for this vehicle, and could be made in NiMH or Lithium, when the larger batteries are available it would be an easy modification. And their so-called E-Flex architecture is an inherent advantage of the EV drive train. If Tesla Motors had GM's bucks, they could easily sell the Tesla as a BEV with a 44 kwh battery pack, a Series Hybrid with a 3-5 kwh battery pack and 88 mpg using a high efficiency TDI diesel generator, a plugin Hybrid with a 10 kwh battery pack, or even a series hybrid fuel cell vehicle, if the much fabled automotive fuel cell ever becomes economical.

GM could have produced and sold the Volt 8 years ago, this quote is from GM-Ovonics in 1998:
“GM's series hybrid (using an electric motor to drive the front wheels) uses a compact micro gas turbine generator system to charge the GM Ovonic NiMH HEV battery pack while driving, which provides an effective fuel economy of nearly 100 miles per gallon (MPG) of reformulated gasoline! This is based on GM's anticipation that the series hybrid owner will plug the vehicle in overnight while parked in the garage (grid charging), leaving in the morning with the HEV batteries fully charged. Operating as an HEV only (no grid charging), the hybrid obtains 60 MPG highway and provides a 350 mile driving range. When the generator is running, tailpipe emissions are one half of California's stringent ultra low emission levels (ULEV). The very high power to energy ratio GM Ovonic NiMH battery provides ample power for acceleration (zero to 60 MPH in nine seconds) and offers a zero emission, EV only, driving range of 40 miles, significantly more than other HEV battery types can provide."

Posted by: Warren Heath | March 14, 2007 at 06:52 PM

Lad, at 8:34 above said . .

**Why do you think Tesla's battery solution is based on lots of small capacity PC batteries? Answer: Because the patents for large capacity batteries are controlled by Big Oil! If you think this is a far out conspiracy theory, you haven't read enough about the battery industry. **

I must back up Lad here.

I read where Chevron bought patents for large format battery applications through Shell. This could be why Tesla is going small format, although I thought it was for a different type of battery. Scroll down. . .

TonyGuitar.blogspot.com

In any case, I think there is huge logic for *Big oil*, *Big Auto* and Government to slow the public access to EVs, [Electric Vehicles].

Government has to figure how to get massive road maintenance monies out of cars that only require 8 to 16 cents of *electric* charge / fuel.

Government will have to deal with massive unemployment when ICE industry shrinks and millions of man hours of casting and machining will end, not to mention, pumps, radiators, injectors, fuel tanks, exhaust and muffler/converter systems, oil, anti-freeze and dozens of other parts not required by electric motors.= TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar | March 14, 2007 at 07:46 PM

Folks, technological displacement has been going on for years. And with every change some of the displaced howl like stuck pigs. We need to shift off of fossil fuel, it is bad for the air and funds evil-doers. The folks who made vacuum tubes lost their jobs. Ditto for the ice delivery business. The business model of the American big three is outdated. They are doomed. Get over it. The first PHEV will probably be parallel, so there is time to shift jobs, but soon we will not need all those folks who do our smog tests.

Posted by: Van | March 14, 2007 at 09:49 PM

"GM is perfecting the car that runs on Press Releases."

DS; Just had to tell you that comment has had me smiling for days, thanks!

:-)

Posted by: Shaun Williams | March 15, 2007 at 03:28 AM

A lot of good points made.

First, GM did make a lot of crappy cars in the last three decades. Some were bad in concept or design, some in poor assembly. And too were many bad in all three.

Second, the UAW did increase costs v. imports. But that had little to do with assembly quality, sales practices, and dealer behavior. That came from GM, or should I say, all American car companies. And it came from the top down.

GM looks - to me at least - as if it will be the only large US automaker to survive. And one reason is they have maintained a world-wide presence. Their new products and intent looks pretty good but they have to execute this time.

Cadillac is competitive, Saturn now has a solid product line, Buick is so-so stable, and new models for Chevy and Pontiac arrive soon.

Posted by: K | March 16, 2007 at 09:29 PM

It dawned on me how the Volt works. The engine runs at good efficiency in one band. So, the engine comes on and runs in that bad when the SOC requires it. This explains the 40 mile range requirement. The battery life might suffer if it were only 10 mile range.

Posted by: sjc | March 23, 2007 at 03:10 PM


There are some interesting comments on the GM product line, and the management thereof, which produced that general lack luster performance in the US products. I’m just guessing here, but the management hierarchy there seems to work the same as our political system, specifically our current US Attorney General and performance evals. It doesn’t seem to matter much what your performance is, it’s your political party affiliation. So over the years, if you were a good manager, chances are you couldn’t be politicking around and got axed, because you “served at the pleasure of the boss” So political hacks ran and are running the grand ship into the ground, but its still sea worthy.

Posted by: wxfman | March 24, 2007 at 12:06 PM

If the ship sinks, you just blame it on someone else anyway.

Posted by: sjc | March 25, 2007 at 11:24 AM

Post a comment
[Please keep comments on topic. Disagreement is fine; insults, abuse or wild diversions are not. Comments not meeting those standards will be deleted. Abuse of another commenter’s email address will result in the banning of the offender from this site. In an attempt to prevent the posting of insulting and abusive comments, this site maintains a list of prohibited words and phrases, which, unfortunately, grows with time. Including one of the prohibited words or phrases will flag the comment as “spam”, and it will be blocked.]

Green Car Congress only allows comments from registered users. To comment, please Sign In.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef00d83531461669e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference GM’s View on Battery Technologies for Hybrids, Plug-Ins and E-Flex:

Green Car Congress © 2009 BioAge Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved. | Home | BioAge Group