« Norfolk Southern Purchases Two Railpower Kits | Main | Interview: Sustainable Mobility and The Natural Step »
GM Unveils Second Propulsion System for Chevrolet Volt: A Fuel Cell Variant
19 April 2007
 |
| Cutaway drawing of the Volt fuel cell variant. Click to enlarge. |
At the Shanghai Auto Show, GM unveiled a second propulsion system for the Volt concept under the aegis of the E-Flex electric drive family: a hydrogen fuel cell variant that uses GM’s new fifth-generation fuel cell system as its primary power source.
This second variant of the E-Flex system combines the new 80 kW fuel cell stack with an 8 kWh (50 kW peak power) lithium-ion battery to provide up to 300 miles (483 km) of petroleum- and emissions-free electric driving. The Volt fuel cell variant is plug-in capable, adding up to 20 additional miles (34 km) of range each time it is charged.
 |
| The two Volts, battery-dominant with ICE range extender on the left, fuel-cell centric on the right. Click to enlarge. |
Unlike the first Volt propulsion system, which is battery-dominant with a small combustion engine range extender, the second system is fuel-cell centric, and uses a blended operating strategy to augment its range and power with a battery pack that is half the size of that in the first Volt.
A different configuration under E-Flex in which a smaller fuel cell would function as the range extender to a larger battery pack is also possible. (This is the approach Ford took with its HySeries concept. Earlier post.) However, this is not the design that GM implemented in the second variant of the Volt.
The E-Flex system is a flexible all-electric production vehicle architecture that can be configured to run on electricity from a number of sources. It was first shown in January at the North American International Auto Show in the Chevrolet Volt concept vehicle. The first Volt concept is a plug-in series hybrid electric vehicle that has a 40 mile all electric range and uses a small bio-fuel engine with a generator to extend its range to 640 miles (1,030 km). (Earlier post.)
We think electrically driven vehicles are really going to be a big part of the solution to the energy and environmental challenges that our vehicles face. We’re talking about purely electrically driven vehicles, not a hybrid, not mechanically driven. And this really sets the stage for diverse energy sources in simpler vehicles.
When we talk about electrically driven vehicles, we're really talking about what GM calls E-flex. It has a common drive architecture, electric drive component, and electric drive architecture.
The key is to be able to create and store electricity onboard the vehicle, and you can store electricity obviously by plugging the car in and storing electricity in a battery. And you can create electricity by running an engine generator or by using a fuel cell. So the key enabling technologies here are engines and generators and batteries and fuel cells and hydrogen storage and the plug in capability that they offer. And then because electricity and hydrogen can be generated from a range of energy sources, we can have all that diversity with a very simple, common E-flex electric drive architecture, so that really helps from a business standpoint.
—Larry Burns, GM Vice President Research & Development and Strategic Planning
The fuel cell variant shares many parts with the first version of the Volt, such as the front electric drive component.
 |
| The 5th generation fuel cell system in the Volt. Click to enlarge. |
GM’s fifth-generation fuel cell system is half the size of its predecessor, and provides the same power and performance. The fourth-generation system currently powers the Chevrolet Sequel concept vehicle. To double the specific output of the fourth-generation system, GM worked with different material sets and then improved efficiency and improved yield from each square inch of material inside the cells.
Our improvements are in management of all of those gasses and the water flows, [and] the selection of the materials to make that whole membrane electrode assembly center. It’s a system. The real key is in the controls.
—Larry Burns
The Sequel stores 8 kg of hydrogen and delivers a range of 300 miles (483 km). The fuel cell Volt—a lighter vehicle—will also deliver a range of 300 miles, but with only 4.0 kg of hydrogen (75 miles/kg) stored at 10,000 psi in two Type IV tanks.
The front drive motor offers a maximum 70 kW of power, with 250 Nm (184 lb-ft) of torque. The Volt fuel cell variant also showcases GM’s two third-generation wheel hub motors, packaged inside the rear wheels to add torque for all-wheel electric drive capability. The new motor technology reduces mass and produces more power (25 kw and 500 Nm /368 lb-ft per motor) compared to the first generation shown in 2003.
The fuel-cell Volt accelerates from 0 to 60 in 8 to 8.5 seconds, and has a burst top speed of 120 mph, with a continuous top speed of 100 mph.
A variety of other technological advancements and lightweight materials contribute to the efficiency of the Volt. With an estimated curb weight of 3,500 pounds (1,588 kg), it weighs 30% less than the Sequel. The fuel cell propulsion system is packaged entirely under the hood and is equivalent in size to a four-cylinder engine with automatic transmission.
The Volt also features molded GE plastic panels on the fenders, window glazings, instrument panel and steering wheel, which offer between 30% and 50% weight reduction per part. The car is fitted with low rolling resistance tires.
The global economy is going to grow 3% or 4% per year, and there’s a correlation with that economic growth to the demand for energy growing at about 2% per year.
You know you compound 2% over 10 years, that’s 25%. That puts you right in the range of the efficiency gains that you get from a hybrid, right in the range of what it would be energy efficient-wise versus a gas engine, and right in the range of what most people think can be teased out of the internal combustion engine going forward. So we really need to look at alternatives in addition to just efficiency improvements to solve this problem.
So we really think now is the time to face the reality. We have to find solutions to the energy and environmental challenges that automobiles face. We have to do it in General Motors simply as a matter of business. If we don’t, there are real concerns about the growth of our industry being capped and that’s not a good thing for our industry.
And at General Motors, our strategy is pretty simple. We want to displace petroleum, displace oil, reduce the amount of oil that’s being consumed, and we think the key to doing that is through energy diversity. By having a wide variety of energy pathways made available for automobiles, we can grow our business and we have the chance of growing our business sustainably going forward.
We’ve become increasingly confident that we can meet the automotive competitive targets that we've set for the [hydrogen fuel cell] technology, $50 per kilowatt, 150,000-mile life, with a 300-mile range. But before this technology can be made widely available, governments, energy suppliers and infrastructure companies around the world need to collaborate with GM and the auto industry to develop a market for fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen fuel.
—Larry Burns
April 19, 2007 in Fuel Cells, Hybrids, Hydrogen, Plug-ins | Permalink | Comments (137) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/17846058
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference GM Unveils Second Propulsion System for Chevrolet Volt: A Fuel Cell Variant:
Comments
That's nice Mr. Burns.
But, since the station down the street still only sells petroleum byproducts, I'd still prefer the version that runs on dead dinosaurs, thanks.
Posted by: dan | Apr 19, 2007 7:44:51 PM
GM is saying in effect 'we can't give you a large battery with a cheap engine so we'll swap it for a small battery with an expensive engine'. They need to offer an improvement in averaged well-to-wheels efficiency for this idea to go anywhere.
Posted by: Aussie | Apr 19, 2007 7:59:14 PM
how many times does it need to said that oil does not
come from dead dinosaurs.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/oil.html
Also, lemmings don't kill themselves but still that phrase is repeated over and over.
Posted by: argod | Apr 19, 2007 8:03:26 PM
3500 lbs. using lightweight materials in a small four-seater. Someone please tell me that this is progress.
Posted by: JC | Apr 19, 2007 8:07:17 PM
They are at it again: vapor and ads; the future is right around the corner! Right! GM and Ford, Big Auto, always advertise the future while producing the past. These companies are in the business of controlling the auto industry just like Big Oil controls the American energy industry. If we all decided to keep and maintain our current personal cars and to wait until the H2 car is available from GM, GM would go out of business. That may not be a bad thing.
Posted by: Lad | Apr 19, 2007 8:09:38 PM
$50/kW is $4000 for a 80kW stack. Oddly enough, that's almost exactly the difference in announced price between a 4-cylinder 2008 Altima and the 3.5L V6 version, so calling it an "expensive engine" is a bit of a red herring...
Yah, cost vs. MSRP, I know, and the V6 is better equipped, but it's in the ballpark...
Posted by: Rob | Apr 19, 2007 8:11:19 PM
The first Volt was all smoke & mirrors this one is.....what? Heavy smoke & no mirror?
Posted by: DS | Apr 19, 2007 8:12:28 PM
To all you negative nells out there:
Folks, GM is going to build the Volt!!!
Get over it.
Posted by: George K | Apr 19, 2007 9:04:42 PM
Look, there's a lot of energy money riding on H2 since the petro biz sees it as their next fuel. So GM announces the concept and challenges the oil guys to build an infrastructure. According to some on this site mobile H2 tanker/pumps could roll onto any dinosaur station lot overnight.
These cars will sell to fleet operators first and help establish localized H2 distribution. What's the big huff - consumers will want the LiIon version until the FC fuel issues shakes out. Don't like H2? Don't buy it.
Posted by: sulleny | Apr 19, 2007 9:35:12 PM
I was right there with this concept until the last line. If hydrogen under pressure turns out to be the most effective way to store energy on a vehicle, okay, but are they really still talking about a hydrogen distribution system? Why not have gas stations make hydrogen on site from electricity and water? Can someone clarify what the last sentence by Mr. Burns is supposed to mean? Surely he's not dreaming of hydrogen being piped or trucked from a central plant...
Posted by: Jeff R | Apr 19, 2007 10:36:09 PM
I agree sounds to me like" We want to lock you all into another
form of road fuel so GM and it buddies can sit back and watch
while the bucks roll in , rather than use an already exsisting
network ",
Posted by: andrichrose | Apr 19, 2007 10:46:20 PM
And GM tells us they can't build a conventional gasoline or diesel series hybrid Volt because of insufficient battery technology, but yet they continue touting hydrogen fuel cells? Ya, right.
Posted by: James White | Apr 19, 2007 10:49:56 PM
As I said fuel cells are improving fast. Just 2 gens and what 2-3 years amd the cell grew in power droppef alot in size and cost increased in lifespan.
Amd they still have years before deadline. How good will the next few gens get? Witch gen starts mass production?
Gona be fun finding out. Thats the real fun.. we will see so many interesting things in our life.. ubless we die soon;/
Posted by: wintermane | Apr 20, 2007 12:48:00 AM
The battery packaging has changed. Anybody have any input on this change and who created it?
Posted by: Martin | Apr 20, 2007 2:16:18 AM
Does it run ? Im seeing only words and pictures and mockups. Any way to see it running ?
::The fuel-cell Volt accelerates from 0 to 60 in 8 to 8.5 seconds, and has a burst top speed of 120 mph
Where and when exactly was this tested ? Can we see it, please ?
How is the one with gas engine doing ? Can we see it, please ?
Posted by: kert | Apr 20, 2007 3:04:01 AM
fool cells
Posted by: antigravity | Apr 20, 2007 3:09:26 AM
There is a good reason why GM chose to show the hydrogen fuel cell version in China. The Chinese have ambitious plans to build 300 new nuclear power plants. Those plants could use high-temperature electrolysis to convert steam into hydrogen; it's probably the most efficient way to make hydrogen without reforming fossil fuels.
GM's plan is to make versions of the E-Flex that can tap into whatever fuels become popular in different parts of the world. That means hydrogen in China, ethanol in Brazil, diesel or biodiesel in Europe, and I think the USA is still up in the air. Even a pure battery-electric version could be cooked up relatively easily, if the market goes in that direction.
I think GM's plans have some shortcomings (and the Chevy Volt, as it has been shown thus far, is an automotive abomination), but at least there is some method to what they're doing, and I think they are pretty serious about wanting to do it. They have seen the writing on the wall, and they must be aware the Japanese are also quietly researching this stuff.
Let's give some credit. . . GM are way ahead of Ford, DaimlerChrysler and VW, to name a few. Those companies have thinking stuck in the 1990s when they were all fighting against CARB and alternative fuels.
Posted by: Tony Belding | Apr 20, 2007 4:17:10 AM
Right on, Tony Belding. GM is on the right track here, and should be given credit for what they are trying to offer. At least they are not offering something, and putting a "Hemi" label on it to try to get it to sell!!
But this is all mostly unproven technology, and involve many other companies independent of GM, to succeed. GM, and Chevy, must be cautious in their offerings, or suffer irrepairable damage to their image. Remember the earlier Tesla story about their cars weight gain/range decrease? Minimal damage to them. But Tesla can play on a different, unlevel playing field from GM, and still be given credit that any major automaker would not get.
And as far as you guys worrying about the hydrogen issue here, keep in mind where this offering was unveiled. CHINA! A much different regulatory "atmosphere" there, than here in the USA. Perhaps it would be much easier to introduce and develop there, than here in the "overly-litigating" USA, and then trickle the technology back here after its liabilities are eliminated.
For the condensed opinion, its a good story all around. If you dont like it, ignor it, or, vote for your preference with your checkbook.
Posted by: Mark A | Apr 20, 2007 5:11:04 AM
Why is it when Honda and Toyota work with Fuel Cells, many here break their own arms trying to pat them on the back, and then when GM does it, GM is considered evil-incarnate? Scroll down the articles right now and see that their is currently an article about a Hydrogen Highlander. I guess that is perfectly acceptable for Toyota to look into Hydrogen because they can do no wrong.
Personally, I like the idea of Hydrogen, if its infrastructure issues can be worked out over time. I do feel in this case, GM should be prioritizing by putting the gasoline gen set version on the front burner to get all issues worked out, and FCV's on the back burner for the time being. That may already be the case too--we don't know that for sure. One poster here mentioned that this FCV version was shown in China since they might be closer to a Hydrogen economy than the rest of the world. I thought that was a good point. If that proves to be true, then the FCV version of the Volt being shown in Shanghai was probably a good move.
Posted by: Schmeltz | Apr 20, 2007 5:20:47 AM
Finally some voices of reason.
GM is on the right track, and they showed a different version fast, which shows that they really mean flexible in terms of power source to the electric motor.
If you put away hate for GM from the EV-1 and all the false hype would this be a good step? I think for most it would be seen that way.
A car that can run on any fuel source is ideal with all the changes coming.
Posted by: Greg woulf | Apr 20, 2007 5:32:45 AM
This is a lot of B.S. Hype..
3500 pounds = are they Nuts , and supposedly with light
materials ??
If they could remember Aerodynamics , they would be
able to meet the guidelines with Better design alone.
And git rid of some Garbage - cut that 3500 down
to less than 2500 = bonus...
Send that 'Hummer' somewhere else.. We do NOT want it..
Posted by: Larry | Apr 20, 2007 6:11:39 AM
The main thing that GM is missing is any kind of out-of-the-box thinking. To me this thing is just vaporware - they are trying to tease us and convince us that in the future GM will still be relevant. In the meantime, others are doing far more revolutionary things.
In my eyes, GM is still headed for bankruptcy....
Posted by: eric | Apr 20, 2007 6:23:58 AM
Schmeltz, show me ONE person here praising Honda or Toyota for their FC prototypes or their hybrid SUV's.
(Seems I made the same point last week, but some folks didn't get the memo.)
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Apr 20, 2007 6:24:44 AM
Hmm... it took GM just about 10 years to realize the vision Toyota Managers had already in 1995...
Cool stuff, really; Just listen up, electricity, in whatever form, will drive future vehicles.
(I doubt that GM runs it's own electric motor R&D department, own semiconductor manufacturing plant, and invests heavy in custom-built semiconductors for use in electric drivetrains. Guess who is... And guess who announced significant progress in bringing SiC (silicium carbide) production costs down. SiC can operate un-cooled next to internal combustion engines, and also next to the waste heat of fuel cells, or zebra batteries, without deratings in power or life at those temps (>250 °C at the junction, compared to <140° with Si).
Posted by: realarms | Apr 20, 2007 6:36:53 AM
Wow! This technology will probably come to market soon after GM goes bankrupt.
Posted by: Da | Apr 20, 2007 6:41:58 AM
“We’ve become increasingly confident that we can meet the automotive competitive targets that we've set for the [hydrogen fuel cell] technology, $50 per kilowatt, 150,000-mile life, with a 300-mile range.”
So the 300 mile range is a done deal. It would be really interesting to hear how far they have come on the other two goals. Speak up if you know.
Posted by: Henrik | Apr 20, 2007 6:52:44 AM
Engineer Poet-
I was referring to a recent article on this site entitled, "Toyota to put Fuel Cell Vehicle into Demo Project in Japan" as an example of an abscence in anti-Fuel Cell commentary vs. this article and others. I probably should have articulated that better--my fault. It has just been my observation that whenever GM seems to do anything, let it be FCV's, Volt concepts, E85, or you name it, they get a lot of searing flack, yet when Toyota does it, little or nothing gets said. Refer to the article I mentioned above. At the time of this writing, there was one comment posted. There are no comments about how foolish Toyota is to be wasting their time on Hydrogen. Nobody calls Toyota's projects "Vaporware". Nobody criticizes Toyota for working on "Fool Cells". Had that been a GM related article, there likely would be floods of comments calling it "Vaporware", "Fool-Cells", "smoke and mirrors", etc. You gotta be seeing the same thing I do here, where people are always taking shots at GM, and when Toyota does the same thing, the bashing comments are mysteriously abscent. That's called hypocrisy where I come from. You pointed out that few people here are fans of Tundras. But I see that those same people will neglect to negatively point the Tundra out in their comments, yet are more than happy to drop a shot at GM for making Big Pick-ups. Mark A. made a good point in a post above about the Tesla range decrease article. Had that been GM making a concession, we would never hear the end of it. Mark points out that there isn't a level playing field here, and he's right, there's not. I'm not saying GM can do no wrong either, but when I do see them doing things like the Volt, that's something we (as green car advocates), should get together on and promote.
Posted by: Schmeltz | Apr 20, 2007 7:24:11 AM
ReAlarms:
Thanks for just proving my point.
Posted by: Schmeltz | Apr 20, 2007 7:37:43 AM
I see you still have not figured out what the volt realy is...
Gm ewawntly talked about the rwd car...
The volt is the new rwd heavu sedan... in short its future is as a cop car and civ versions of said car,
I suspect a beefed up version is planned for testing as the 2015-2020 cop car.
Oh and because the fuel cell is smaller now they likely can make a cheaprt compact version down the line.
Posted by: wintermane | Apr 20, 2007 8:04:07 AM
$4000 cost versus $4000 MSRP (for the Rob).
With the equipment I deal in, we are looking for 30 points GP minimum from Landed cost (net-net). If FOB is $4000 and landed costs are maybe 1% then to make that 30 points of GP would be around $6286 cost to the dealers. Typically, my equipment tends to have 40 points of GP for the dealer for an MSRP of nearly $10,500. Granted, a dealer could choose to take less profit, but his operating expenses (lease, utilities, taxes, employee salaries, insurance, etc) have to come from somewhere.
So if $10,500 premium is not expensive to you...
Posted by: Patrick | Apr 20, 2007 8:12:50 AM
Wintermane:
Not trying to be disrespectful but who are you addressing? You said, "GM ewawntly talked about the rwd car..." Huh? What does that mean?
Posted by: Schmeltz | Apr 20, 2007 8:29:28 AM
Schmeltz-
I think allot of the negative comments stem from the fact that Volt is a show piece that comes with allot of hot air, while the Toyota is ON THE ROAD.
Who do you think will have one for the market first?
At least their fuel cell package appears to be improving, it appears to be on pace with other automakers in the size/output/weight.
I want GM to kick #$%, I wish I could be proud of the US automakers, most of my family and friends rely on these bozos for survival.
But given GMs history the Volt will be too late and not quite right. GM please prove me wrong.
Posted by: BillW | Apr 20, 2007 8:36:23 AM
My biggest fear is that the Volt will make it to market, it will sell well, but the accountants tried to squeeze 10 cents out of a critical power-train wire connection. Then all these Volts will be stranded at the dealers waiting for repairs every 10k miles destroying the image of an "alternative" fuel car. Then it will take the next 20 years to convince Americans that it is OK to buy something other than a pick-up with a six liter gas motor.
Posted by: BillW | Apr 20, 2007 8:46:06 AM
I guess that is perfectly acceptable for Toyota to look into Hydrogen because they can do no wrong.
Toyota can afford to look into Hydrogen because they already have a successful answer to the problem that GM can't address with anything other than vaporware.
Posted by: DS | Apr 20, 2007 8:47:27 AM
What I see in this article is GM trying to stick anything into this vehicle that they can make money
on in maintenance.
That is where GM makes BIG bucks. A car you cant fix
with small bateries so you cant run on electric only.
An ICE for this car or Fuel Cell is definitly something
you will have to drag into the shop and pray to the GM mechanic to fix. This is what I think GM is working on.
The statement GM has been tossing around that the
batteries are not ready does not hold water with
the advent of the Phoenix truck and Tesla.
So more ad-ware from GM doesnt shine there image much to me.
Bob
Posted by: Bob | Apr 20, 2007 8:48:26 AM
Bill W:
I have a lot of concern for the reliability and durability of the Future Volt too. The scenario you mentioned send chills through me. A collosal failure could strike a deathblow to the EV's future. I pray to God in Heaven that they can get this right.
Posted by: Schmeltz | Apr 20, 2007 8:52:58 AM
The Toyota on the road is a waste of valuable battery material meant to make non-technical environmentalists feel like they're doing some good.
I hate GM for their lack of success at times, but they have done a lot of research into electric vehicles. The motor and control system that's in the Tesla come indirectly from that research. The EV-1 is famous because it was pretty good after all. I've seen the numbers and no company could have made the EV-1 work. It wouldn't have sold, it would have failed, that's the bottom line.
If you offered the EV-1 today it would still fail. A $60,000 car that goes less than 80 miles on a charge with a very short life on a very expensive battery pack, isn't going to win the hearts of drivers.
There's a lot of people to blame for EV's not taking off, but GM isn't at the top of the list.
This car is the first to say we're going electric, period, and we'll make a flexible platform so we can fit any source of electricity into the car.
3,500 lbs isn't so high a curb weight. The Tesla just learned the hard way that to get the safety you have to add the weight.
If you want to blame someone look in the mirror. No company in the U.S. can compete, and it's not because they're stupid. We Don't support the research, and we don't work cheaply enough to be competitive. That's the bottom line.
Keep your eyes on the prize, and not on your pride and you'll see that this car is going in the right direction whereas many others are not. Flexibility is key right now.
Posted by: Greg woulf | Apr 20, 2007 8:57:14 AM
Schmeltz-
I am with you on that!!!!
I light of how GM managed technology such as engine cylinder cut out(Cadillac V8-6-4), diesel engines (Oldsmobile V-8) and electric cars (EV-1) in the 80 and 90's, I hope they stick with this and make it world class.
They could have been way ahead of the competition in the 00's if they worked on these things rather than tossed them out. We should be reading about how the new mild hybrid Colbalt with a 4-3-2cyl diesel engine is the top car on the EPA MPG list, the top of 5 GM cars to make the list.
Just Dreaming. :>
Posted by: BillW | Apr 20, 2007 9:06:33 AM
I think most of the problem is GM have a history of making not
terribly good cars , from my own stand point I have only ever owned
one GM car , and I am afraid it was a bag of **** , it spent most of its
time in the garage being fixed , and was eventually scrapped at three
years old after covering 130000 miles , so I have never gone down that
path again , I think also GM are basically dishonest and have no intention
of ever producing the volt .
On the other hand I also have an 18 year old Toyota land cruiser which
is still going strong , costs very little in maintainance and will still return
30mpg on a run , so when it comes to replacing a vehicle I think you can
guess which way I will cast my vote !
Posted by: andrichrose | Apr 20, 2007 9:21:41 AM
I'll believe it when I see it.
How about getting the first Volt on the road with feasible technology and infrastructure?
Another diversion tatic by GM to buy time while they keep unloading big SUV's on us?
Nothing in their recent history convinces me they are serious.
We'll have to hope for Japan, Europe and Start-up's in the USA.
Posted by: AAL | Apr 20, 2007 9:27:30 AM
New Cadillac SRX4 as reviewed by the Sunday Times in england
last weekend, official fuel consumption 14 mpg, test got no more
than 10 mpg , reviewers quote " this car could well turn out to more
expensive to run than the Iraq war ". This car sort of sums up GM´s
approach to the enviromental problem!
Posted by: andrichrose | Apr 20, 2007 9:36:11 AM
Greg-
I think that GM could sell the EV-1 right now. At least a limited number, look at Telsa's success, that is the EV-1 crowd. Plus, 10-15 years of development would have made it a better car. Heck, during the EV-1's short life it had already had a significant battery upgrade that increased the range to double what you quote. At least that is what I have found. see www.ev1.org
"We" not working cheaply is not an excuse either, most of the latest tech cars are designed, tested and manufactured in Europe, Japan or the US, all very expensive places to operate.
Unless you mean the guys at the top that make multi-millions making the decision not to invest in research, mis-manage employee benefits and give each other a bonus. Then I am with you!!
Posted by: BillW | Apr 20, 2007 9:39:21 AM
Larry:
GM has been selling 'BIGGER IS BETTER' 'MUSCLE CARS' (and not so small trucks) for almost a century and is still at it with the Volt. Changing GM's ingrained attitude is as difficult as changing our acquired addiction to 'BIG-MANIA'.
Fortunately, many more of us are waking up and may no longer fall for this PR and buy lighter more efficient cars such as the Toyota Prius II and III.
Schmeltz:
Your concern about the (Hydrogen) Volt reliability may be justified. Both, the new battery pack and the fuel cell will most probably have high early life failure rates, specially if GM over-accellerates the introduction of those two technologies.
A Volt PHEV with a proven light weight flex-fuel ICE generator and a 15 KWh to 25 KWh high performance battery pack would be a better idea, at least for the first 5 to 10 years or until such time as the hydrogen infrastructures are in place.
Posted by: Harvey D. | Apr 20, 2007 9:43:04 AM
Andrichrose-
When I visit family and have to drive US designed/built cars/trucks, it makes me more appreciative of my nearly 20 year old "foreign" car every time.
Although I have to admit the Cadillac CTS was a revelation. I hope that continues.
Posted by: BillW | Apr 20, 2007 9:46:09 AM
What a lightning rod GM is on this site. Alot of folks sure like to hate GM, even with a feel-good story like this. I am in disbelief. This is a concept car that appears headed for production in some fashion, when the technology and infrastructure all coincide. Everyone will win if and when that happens. Every automaker has concepts, even Toyota. Some dreams can come true.
GM has had some failures over the years, but perhaps we should look forward and hope for mostly good things instead of associating todays dreams to past failures.
But GM has had lots of hits, and homeruns, over the later years. The later Corvettes could hit 28-35 mpg, while still going 0-60 in 5 seconds or less. Say what you will about SUV's and trucks, but GM made/makes some of the best. And people have kept buying (voting with their checkbook). GM is also a leader in hybrid bus design, and alot of that know-how just may translate over. Many people buy vehicles for their utility, not for their passion and "greencarness" as most of us on this site.
The hydrogen economy is coming, in my opinion. Batteries and fuel cells will ultimately come together, along with ultracaps. I dont fully understand it all, but am excited about our future transport. But yes, Schmeltz and BillW, one bad EV offering from a GM, Toyota, Yugo or Kaiser (yes Yugo and Kaiser are in jest) will taint everyones perception of EV's. Everyones expectations are so high, and we cant afford a mistake. Thats why the automakers are so hesitant. Get it right, right out of the box.
Posted by: Mark A | Apr 20, 2007 9:49:16 AM
Andrichrose:
In reference to the Cadillac SRX4 you mentioned, thanks for your comment because it once again underscores un-warranted GM bashing in my viewpoint. The Cadillac you mentioned, (which incidentally has nothing to do with this article about the Volt), will probably be low in sales volume, therefore probably having little net affect on the environment. Moreover, you may find this hard to believe but the Asians are actually leading in the charge of the horsepower war. Toyota is busy showing off its new Lexus LX 570 sport utility vehicle, which replaces the 470. The current 470 weighs 5,400 pounds, can tow 6,500 pounds and has a 268-horsepower V-8. I never heard anyone say the previous model was underpowered. The new one, which reaches dealers early next year, will have 381 horses, a whopping 42% increase.
Just about all the small cars from companies such as Nissan and Subaru are getting bigger and punchier. I expect the new Honda Accord coming this fall will get a power boost too. Even Korean Hyundai is readying a big 300-plus horsepower V-8 for a new sedan.
From Europe, we have the new Porsche Cayenne SUV with a 290-horsepower V-6 replacing the 250-horsepower engine, and a V-8 with 385 horses versus 340 in the previous model. The twin turbo V-8 Cayenne moved to 500 horses from 450. The new Audi R8 is a new sports car with 420 horsepower, and almost everything, from Minis to little Volkswagens, are getting power boosts. Bigger, faster, and more powerful is not just coming from Detroit, but the Asians and Europeans are leading the charge.
It's laughable how you don't include mention of these cars in your bash above.
Posted by: Schmeltz | Apr 20, 2007 9:59:53 AM
The EV-1 would not sell to the masses, not the way it was, not with the batteries it had. It would sell to a small audience that would bicycle everywhere if they could.
The car cost over $60,000 to make, the batteries started out at around 100 miles and the range shortened fast. They took a long time to charge and a new battery cost over $20,000.
There's a saying about turning a swine's ear into a silk purse and it goes for the EV-1. I wish people would just get over it and look at reality with open minds.
Judge GM on their average mileage, which is crappy, judge them on their lack of hybrids being developed and judge them on their lack of quality. Those are all fair criticisms in my opinion.
Let go of the biased opinions based on a sensationalistic film and judge the product that comes out on it's own merits.
I'd never have guessed that GM would be the first to go the direction I see as right, but I think they were. An electric motor, with all it's efficiency to run the car, and a flexible platform to accept all power sources.
I hope all of the other car manufacturers start building with power flexibility in mind. My hope is that Battery electric is the way to go, but I question how large a supply of Lithium will be needed to satisfy the world demand. I hope that we can go battery electric and that's it.
Posted by: Greg woulf | Apr 20, 2007 10:11:00 AM
Greg Woulf:
Agreed and well said.
Posted by: Schmeltz | Apr 20, 2007 10:16:35 AM
So far H2 fuel cells are showing themselves to be just as complicated as internal combustion engines with none of the advantages of ICEs. ICEs can use a wide variety of liquid and gaseous fuels with only small adjustments. The presence of atmospheric CO2 does not spoil an ICE. ICEs are more efficient under heavy loads where as electrical devices become less efficient as load increases and that includes fuel cells. Experimental ICEs have reached efficiencies of nearly 80%. People have been working on ICEs and fuel cells for similar amounts of time but we still haven't figured out how to manufacture them as cheaply as ICEs.
Posted by: tom deplume | Apr 20, 2007 10:22:15 AM
BillW,
You don't understand the Japanese working culture. They are paid much less than we are for similar jobs. The engineers from Japan assigned to work in the US are paid much better than their peers back in Japan. Even then, the US Engineers are paid MORE. The American VP of one division is paid around 3 times as much as the Japanese President of the company.
In Japan, you work for the good of the company and not for yourself. Therefore, they are typically paid less and expected to put in overtime without compensation if the needs of the job demand it; unlike in the US.
Posted by: Patrick | Apr 20, 2007 10:23:53 AM
The beauty in the E-Flex series PHEV concept’s lies in its redundant simplicity and flexibility. The multiple "range extender" option allows the local market to choose what's best for them by voting with their wallets. This concept proves that there are still many brilliant and innovative people at GM.
The best part is that every day GM appears to be more serious about actually producing E-Flex. I’m an optimist, however we’ve all been disappointed many times before because GM “cried wolf.” I for one will remain skeptical until I can buy one from my local dealer’s showroom. I’d like the biodiesel range extender option please. My favorite color is midnight blue with faux tan leather interior. Heated seats and mirrors and a GPS system would be nice too. How about a convertible? Yep… I’m an optimist.
Btw: Hydrogen as a “battery” can’t compete with it’s own fuel source which is electricity.
The “Hydrogen Economy is scam-science unless one can repeal the laws of physics:
http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/h_scam.htm http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
Posted by: Tim | Apr 20, 2007 10:39:22 AM
I continue to hope that GM commits to building the PHEV Volt, and do not see why they cannot do it now.
I remember a few years ago all of the other manufacturers were saying that Toyota was losing money on the Prius, but look now, after probably some years of investment they pretty much own the space, and I suspect they make money at it, and get tons of PR dollars
If GM committed to the PHEV volt with an electric only range of 20 miles and committment to proceed there would be buyers
Posted by: Kevin | Apr 20, 2007 11:28:29 AM
Geeez, give GM a break already!!! WTF. I am no GM fan, but I am willing to look at this effort with an open mind. Let's start with some facts.
Whether you want to believe GM or not, whether you think this is just for show and vaproware or not, the fact remains that GM is dead within 10 years unless they do this! So I have no expectations and no need to believe anytning. Either they come up with these new designs or they are no more.
If Asians and Europenas choose to follow the bigger is better trend it is their problem. GM cannot turn around their product line on a dime. It will take time.
Next, hydrogen and oxygen are the most ubiqutous fuel available on this planet. It is everywhere. No more regional control of fuel sources, wars, etc.
Granted there are challenges, but what the heck have been doing this past century chasing all the science and knowledge???? We can go to the Moon but can't handle hydrogen on Earth??? WTF?
In any case the main point is GM is working on a completely different engine design. Using electricity and module design where it is easy to modify for different needs. This is the right way to go and we should give them the benefit where it is due.
Posted by: q | Apr 20, 2007 12:12:45 PM
My guess is that GM wants to tout series hybrid instead of all-electric to stay relevant and defend their margins. Today, as the Tesla shows, all electric with 200 mile range is expensive, so GM touts series hybrid. Tomorrow, batteries will be better, cheaper, and charge fast enough as to make liquid fuels a pain in the @$$. The complexity of a series hybrid won't be too attractive either. What's worse, GM is not a leader on battery patents.
I still don't like H2 on-board storage. The 10,000 PSI tanks are still big, hazardous, and hydrogen tends to leak no matter what.
Posted by: C Harget | Apr 20, 2007 12:13:09 PM
Greg-
I agree that the EV-1 is not for the masses and was not perfect. But (and there is always a but) there are enough people that have money to spend and an environmental flair that would buy. For example all current Telsa depositors, plus all the folks that fought for their EV-1s and the many new environmentalists that never had the chance to buy. Would they make money? Maybe not, but neither did/does the Prius/Insight. GM may have learned a thing or two and solved some of the problems that currently prevents a pure battery powered car from being a nearly massed produced reality now.
I did not see "the movie", I just want GM to use its vast and capable abilities to produce the best "cars" possible, whatever the form. The "mark of excellence" anyone? When GM produces cutting edge technology ahead of time (see above post) and then disposes of said technology because they did not get right the first time is short sighted management. They could be the company producing cars that are truly right for the market, rather than using "flex fuel" cars to get by. If they continually developed the technology they had years ago.
I am with you, the "Volts" are a great idea, it seems like it comes with allot of hype too. They just need to get them moving. Ha :>
Patrick-
True, but is Japan an expensive place to build due to resources and the yen?
Posted by: BillW | Apr 20, 2007 1:02:55 PM
the EV1 was not designed by GM for a start, how anyone can
think that a company as pedestrian as GM could come up with
something like the EV1 is beyond belief !
Currently GM are removing all that is good from SAAB , and this
how this company will continue , removing every shred of individuality
until it gets what it wants , profits for its shareholders, nothing else!
The EV1 if it was alive and well today would be in its third facelift
and selling well at around 30000 dollars!
Posted by: andrichrose | Apr 20, 2007 1:23:23 PM
Wow! Lots of emotions regarding GM.
One thing nobody has mentioned yet is that in 1998 the price of oil averaged about $12/barrel. And during the entire decade of the '90s (a time that included the birth, development, and death of the EV1) the price of oil averaged about $17/barrel. We're still trying to make EVs competitive with $3/gallon gasoline. How the heck can anybody say we were almost there ten years ago? [Please don't respond with some mumbo jumbo about economics not being relevant.]
The next big hurdle for xEVs (BEVs, HEVs, and PHEVs) will come during the next recession, when oil drops to $30/barrel. That's when we'll really need to raise fuel taxes to keep things moving forward.
Posted by: JamesEE | Apr 20, 2007 1:24:38 PM
Tom DePlume: "People have been working on ICEs and fuel cells for similar amounts of time but we still haven't figured out how to manufacture them as cheaply as ICEs."
No, it's pretty well agreed that Nicolaus Otto built the first ICE around 1876. The fuel cell idea may be a hundred years old but first became practical when NASA built them in the early 1960s.
As to GM vs. Toyota - no one suggests that Toyota may have built its Prius knowing that a hybrid success would mask their push into the big time Tundra market later on. What Japan cannot be accused of is colluding with oil. They build to market trends and listen better than others.
This is a smart technology move for GM China where leaping over petro infrastructure to H2 will be far easier than in the west.
Posted by: gr | Apr 20, 2007 1:27:46 PM
JamesEE-
I think EVs have more traction now due to the "total environmental impact" not just fuel prices. As the carbon footprint and total energy required to own/operate vehicles is understood the better a electric car starts to look.
I am not saying they are better, from what I understand in a carbon centric world green electricity looks nice.
Posted by: BillW | Apr 20, 2007 1:33:53 PM
but the ability to make electricity at home is already here , at the moment
in europe a 5 kwh PV solar system costs 30000 euro fitted and plumbed into
the grid , in five years the cost will be under 15000 euro , this what the
car and oil industry fear , and rightly so, its a direct assault on their profits,
Try making Hydrogen at home !
Posted by: andrichrose | Apr 20, 2007 2:19:59 PM
BillW,
For perspective: The Japanese company I work for ONLY manufacturers our equipment in Japan [we are big on hyping this fact as well]. We compete with one particularly monster sized company who has quite a few Chinese manufacturing facilities but we still compete with equal performance & features strictly on the basis of cost. It seems that my company is not finding it excessively expensive to manufacture in Japan.
Posted by: Patrick | Apr 20, 2007 2:36:02 PM
BAH! missed that typorama. Iment gm already talked about how the rear wheel drive sedans likely wouldnt survive a potent cafe boost. These include alot of big money makers.
Well its clear to me the volt IS designed to mimick a full size rwd sedan. 1000 nm of force in the rear wheels..awd ro boost performance...3500lb...
Later as they shrink the cell and make it cheaper I fully expect to see fuel cell midsized nd compacts.
The gret thing is they have a high profit margin market that will NEED h2 to exist anyway and a design they expect to hit only 4k cost.
Posted by: wintermane | Apr 20, 2007 2:38:20 PM
BillW,
Your point is well-taken, but "total environmental impact" doesn't mean much unless it directly increases cost. GCC readers may modify their bahavior because of environmental impact, but most people won't.
IMO we're learning right now that it will be quite a while before oil becomes expensive enough to change behavior. $3/gallon gasoline seems to start the conservation process; below that nothing. New technologies can find, extract, and refine a lot of oil at that price. Without higher fuel taxes, or a carbon tax, we'll be pretty limited in our efforts to reduce petroleum use.
Posted by: JamesEE | Apr 20, 2007 3:12:50 PM
GM would never sell the EV1 to anyone for any price the car was for lease only, why,Then they were taken back and crushed, why
GM say it was for saftey reasons but people offered to sign legal agreements saying they would not take GM to court if any thing went wrong with the car.
The real reason GM wanted the car off the road is because the electric motor is just too good and lasts far too long, any well build electric motor needs almost zero maintanence and no spare parts
If the EV1 was still on the road most of the owners would have upgraded the batterys by now and would prob be getting 200+ miles per charge.
This would change the car industry far beyond what GM or any ICE maker could ever allow, all the power and profits would lie with the battery makers.
Very soon there will be a massive oil shock caused by war in the middle east or a peak in oil production when that happens GM will die
the future of the car is electric, GM has no future
Posted by: antigravity | Apr 20, 2007 3:37:11 PM
Patrick-
hmm, that is interesting to know. I guess what I have read in the past, is well, too far in the past. Thanks for the insight.
JamesEE-
That is true, unless the out of pocket cost is unbearable most people will not change, even when the unseen cost may be high. Explains why the latest large trucks still sell at the rate they do....they are not all contractor/outdoorsmen/farmers.
Posted by: BillW | Apr 20, 2007 3:57:46 PM
Ok for the last time oh dim bulbs!!!!!!
The ev1 was crushed because the ensurnce policy gm had to have for it was bloody expensive. It doesnt matter what YOU aign if the car crashes and someone ELSE is hurt or dies gm is sued. DO YOU FREAKING GET A CLUE NOW?
It died because of US and our lawsuit happy nincompoop nation of idiots. If you want one off small run cars like the ev to live you must get off you chatty fat rump and change the laws so the car companies dont need massive 50000 page policies just to make a freaking test fleet and eveb more to then sell/give it away.
WE KILLRF THR ELECTRIC CAR.
Posted by: wintermane | Apr 20, 2007 4:56:13 PM
GM has no future except here on this site where it draws more posts than ten other news items combined! Gotto hate success...
Posted by: sulleny | Apr 20, 2007 5:23:11 PM
This sounds like the extreme of vaporware to me. Why does it cost $50,000 to buy a 1 kw PEM fuel cell like GM is claiming for the Volt. $50 /kw that is the most absurd fantasy I have ever heard. This is beyond hype, this is in the realm of photon torpedoes & warp drives.
Here is GM's tradeoff, replace 8 kwh of Li-Ion battery which even at today's way high prices is worth ~$4000, with an extra 27 kw of fuel cell, which at today's prices is worth in PEM a minimum of $270,000. Does this make sense? This is madness. The only logical way to introduce the fuel cell to the Volt architecture is to put a minimum sized fuel cell in a basic series hybrid EV, with a 5 kwh NiMH battery pack, worth $1100 right now. By using a top continuous speed of 80 miles per hour, the fuel cell need only supply the 18 kw that the vehicle should use at 80 mph. Now we have a smaller simpler battery @ 62% of their supposed 8kwh battery pack, and a fuel cell that is 22% of the size of their absurd 80 kw fuel cell.
These spin artists at GM don’t have any idea what E-Flex means. They could be making a simple version of the Volt, as above, nix the fuel cell, put in a 20 kw 41% efficient diesel generator, and they would have a vehicle ready for the road, NOW! It would be a simple matter to be able to upgrade the vehicle to a plugin hybrid, when battery price / performance is sufficient, and replace the generator with a fuel cell when available (try 20 years from now, maybe).
Comparative pricing overwhelmingly supports the BEV over the FCEV and even more so the high efficiency ICE engine series HEV over BEV or FCEV, version at present. The BEV is 4 times more efficient than the Fuel Cell vehicle, not counting energy lost due to H2 leaking (unavoidable), and H2 transport. And a TDI diesel modified to burn methanol with port fuel injection & spark ignition will run at 43% efficiency, vs the fuel cell’s 50% efficiency, even using methanol made from Natural Gas, the overall efficiency and emissions of the methanol engine series hybrid will be much better than the H2 FCEV. I’m afraid that GM is still in the H2 greenwashing, bury the battery, bury the EV, pro-Oil bandwagon. After seeing this nutty fantasy spin extraordinaire, I’m really dubious that GM has any intention of producing the Volt.
As an added wakeup call, with GM’s fantasy fuel cell’s at $50/kw, please tell me where my 1-5kw natural gas home CHP fuel cell is. I want one right now, but I can’t afford $50,000 to $150,000 that they cost. Figure this out, millions of home fuel cell CHP units could easily be sold in Northern Countries, and:
Home Fuel Cell(HFC): 1- 5 kw is ample size for most average power & heat requirements
Vehicle Fuel Cell(VFC): 15-50 kw (80 kw for the fantasy FC Volt) kw is needed
HFC: size & weight, not a problem
VFC: severe limitations on size and weight causes reduced fuel economy
HFC: burning off the carbon in Natural Gas or Methanol fuel (readily available & easy to store) with a reformer provides useful heat
VFC: either you use exceedingly difficult & expensive and inefficient hydrogen economy & hydrogen storage or if you use reformers the carbon energy is thrown away & fuel cell overall efficiency drops below that of an ICE - so who needs a fuel cell?
HFC: could last life of building, not likely to be scrapped, not likely to be smacked up
VFC: could be destroyed in modest accident, likely scrapped when vehicle is scrapped
HFC: temperature not at problem, used at normal building temperatures
VFC: temperature is a very serious problem, will not function at cold temperatures, would require a very energy absorbing heating system in the winter, in cold climates
HFC: can easily run on Natural Gas, which most homes & buildings have already
VFC: would require a massive, extraordinarily expensive hydrogen infrastructure development
So where is my Home Fuel cell GM, I only want 2 kw, where GM, where? Huh, Eh?
Posted by: Warren Heath | Apr 20, 2007 7:09:27 PM
Warren,
Please note that GM is in the car business, not the fuel cell business. E-Flex doesn't require fuel cells. They're only one option for supplying the raw electric power. The Volt is a concept EV with power supply options, including the ones you've suggested.
IMO the fuel cell thing isn't going to fly. But the history of technology is full of surprises, so there's nothing wrong with experimentation. The best solution will emerge when it's ready. And it may just be the one you want.
Posted by: JamesEE | Apr 20, 2007 8:56:38 PM
Greg Woulf, how is that the EV1 would be $60,000 and 80 mile range, when the Prius has been produced since 1997, which is an EV1 equivalent with the following modifications: Using UC Davis calculated volume cost of NiMH batteries of $220 per kwh (or take the Ovonics chairman’s quoted price of $250 per kwh for NiMH in volume, yr 2000 – pre Chevron), that would be $6,600 for a RAV4 BEV sized battery pack. Take out the 76 hp Atkinson engine, the exhaust & emission controls system, the complex Synergy drivetrain, fuel system, evaporative canister & control, ignition system and a few other components. Replace the two electric motors (67 hp) with one 80 hp electric motor, beef up the PEM a bit, simpler control system, and it’s a pretty good bet that you can make a Toyota Prius version of the EV1 BEV for about the same price as a regular Toyota Prius, and about $5000 less than a VW Golf diesel, with much better energy economy and zero emissions as well as being very trendy. And RAV4 BEV’s are running 150,000 miles on the original old technology battery packs, with resale values of as much as double the original purchase price for a 4 year old vehicle. Tom Gage at AC propulsion has said he could make the Prius as a BEV for +/- $1000 of current price. And in addition you have the option of selling the vehicle as a series hybrid or plugin series hybrid with similar components across all models – talk about scale economy advantages. This vehicle would have at least a 150 mile range. Prius’ running about $21,000, so I guess your $60,000 is the North American manufacture markup. And GM new way back in 1998 that it would be a trivial modification of the EV1 to make it a series hybrid with a 4 kwh battery pack & 750 mile range would be no problem whatsoever. In other words sell the EV1 as a BEV, series HEV, or a series PHEV, all which would achieve a significant market share, due to their unique quality, vs the run-of-the-mill, boring, gas guzzling, smoke belching, noisy Detroit special.
A quote from GM-Ovonics from 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."
Also note that at the time of the EV1, a converted Geo Metro a repeatedly demonstrated a highway range in excess of 200 miles per charge in less than ideal conditions, with Ovonics NiMH batteries.
And Wintermane, the EV1 owners offered GM to sign a release form that would have forfeited all liability claims against GM, GM wasn’t interested, and Toyota with the Rav4 BEV was in the same situation as GM, and did sell many of their vehicles to the leasers.
Posted by: Warren Heath | Apr 20, 2007 9:21:12 PM
Warren,
I think what wintermane was saying is correct. You CANNOT sign away your liability in the USA. The only requirement for suing is that the party being sued have deep pockets. Small startups, like Tesla or Phoenix, don't have deep pockets, so effectively you can't sue them.
But you can sue GM without proving they did anything wrong. Remember the Ford Explorer that tended to turn over when people drove too fast on underinflated tires. People who couldn't be bothered to wear seatbelts died, and it cost Ford millions, plus billions more in bad publicity. A similar litigation problem put most of the small aircraft manufacturers out of business until congress acted and limited their liability.
Finally, you seem reluctant to acknowledge some basic facts. For example, oil was under $11 per barrel in the late '90s. Only a few enthusiasts were interested in small cars or EVs then. But it's different now. Can we just move on?
Posted by: JamesEE | Apr 20, 2007 10:23:05 PM
Folks,
The Volt-FCV is GM's answer to the Honda FCX. GM can't afford to be behind the technology curve anymore, so I wish GM good progress on this promising vehicle.
And I thank GM for apparently having listened to me in my previous postings about equipping the Volt-PHEV with 8kwh battery instead of 16 kwh battery in order to save weight and cost. Just kidding! GM still have a lot of engineers with common sense like me!
Just use the likes of the A123 Lithium and GM may be able to tweak out 100kw of power from the battery instead of 50kw as mentioned in the article. This means that the fuelcell stack can be reduced in size to about 1/2, or 40kw instead of 80kw, thus saving even more cost, weight, and space! Just like the Ford Airstream FCV-PHEV concept.
Worrying about how to obtain the H2 at local gas stations? Just park at each gas station a truck with built-in reformer in order to get H2 from diesel fuel (least refined petroleum product), or natural gas. Sterling engines for electrical generation or H2 compression can be attached to the truck to recycle to waste heat from the reformation process. With FCV-PHEV's having twice the efficiency of LDV diesels or other ICE's, who can complain about the inefficiency of H2-FCV from well to wheel?
WAY TO GO, GM!
Posted by: Roger Pham | Apr 20, 2007 11:38:10 PM
Two obvious things ev1 fanaticsare clueless on.
1 Even if you sign you can still sue and people have done so.
2 You cant sign away the ability of OYJERS to sue gm. So it doesnt matter. Obly an act of congress limiting liability could have saved the ev1.
Posted by: wintermane | Apr 21, 2007 3:48:44 AM
"2 You cant sign away the ability of OYJERS to sue gm. So it doesnt matter. Obly an act of congress limiting liability could have saved the ev1."
Translation: You can't sign away the ability of LAWYERS to sue GM. ... Only an act of congress ..."
Posted by: JamesEE | Apr 21, 2007 7:33:14 AM
Thanks boys i now know the real story. GM wanted the EV1 to be a success it was the evil lawyers who took the car off the road
That EV1 must have been the most dangerous car in the history of the world, its a good thing its not on the road today, millions of people would have died if it was
I for one am glad to know GM care so much for my well being, i think i should by a hummer the safest car on the road (so long as you are the driver)
Could some one please tell me why GM will build a hybrid car, a plug in hybrid car, a fool cell car, but refuse to build a BEV what difference does it make to them where the electricty powering an electric motor comes from
And dont say there is no demand for a BEV we all know the tesla has shown that there is a demand for BEV
Posted by: antigravity | Apr 21, 2007 8:16:00 AM
Actually, the EV1 owners offered to buy all EV1's @ $24,000 each as Salvage vehicles, which would have removed all liability from GM - it was vetted by a lawyer. GM flatly refused and also refused to even sell the batteries out of the vehicles again as salvage parts. Instead they paid big bucks to destroy the vehicles.
And if liability is such a big issue why did Toyota sell some of their RAV4 BEV's?
Posted by: Warren Heath | Apr 21, 2007 8:32:51 AM
Roger, you are making no sense whatsoever. The cost of the larger fuel cell outweighs the cost of the larger battery by a factor of 70, and that’s assuming that even the 53 kw generator on the PHEV Volt makes sense. Go for a 18 kw fuel cell and a 8 kwh battery pack and you have every bit as good a vehicle, except for sustained top speed of 80 mph instead of 120 mph (who needs that?) and now you’ve just saved a few hundred thousand dollars on the vehicle.
It’s amazing that GM needs 80 kw of power for their little Volt, when the Army’s new HumVee series HEV, has only a peak 110 kw diesel generator and 80 kw peak battery pack, this for an 8,000 lb vehicle with four 50 hp wheel motors, which carries a 3,000 lb payload and tows an electric drive trailer powered off of the vehicles battery / generator, and also considerable weapons / hardware power load.
Posted by: Warren Heath | Apr 21, 2007 8:58:46 AM
Warren,
I advocate reducing the size of the fuel cell stack by half, thus reducing cost, by using better battery with higher power rating. How can this make no sense?
For a 15kw sustained power that this car will likely require, you will need a fuelcell stack rated at atleast 40kw peak power. The 80kw fuelcell stack is peak rated power, not sustained power.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Apr 21, 2007 12:07:20 PM
It is nice that GM is developing a versatile platform. I agree with Greg that GM is on the right track now.
The problem is that half a dozen very capable foreign car makers are on the track too.
I want to see GM competitive in the showroom. They are totally competitive in press releases and showing lovely 'tomorrows' at car shows.
Posted by: K | Apr 21, 2007 12:22:31 PM
Why the fixation on the '90s and on the EV1? And why do you guys keep avoiding the fact that oil was cheap (average price $17/barrel for the entire decade), making it a very rational business decision for GM to focus on selling big SUVs?
I commuted 50 miles every day then, and wanted to buy an EV1 myself. I was disappointed that they weren't for sale, but in any case I wouldn't have paid $40,000 to save $500 worth of gas. I didn't buy a Chevy Tahoe instead, but many people did. GM was able to show a profit while employing lots of people that it couldn't lay off for contractual reasons.
In hindsight they should have done more in the area of energy efficiency, and they're paying for it now. But what was bleeding edge and unprofitable in 1997 is leading edge in 2007. Toyota is eating GM's lunch. That's why they're changing strategies again with the Volt. Business people don't have the luxury of getting emotional about product decisions. And they don't have the luxury of living in the past. Again, can we just move on ... please?
Posted by: JamesEE | Apr 21, 2007 1:03:59 PM
Warren... that home fuel cell thing does seem reasonable... other than the same issue that they won't likely be economical for another two decades.
QUESTION... I've asked this before but gotten no reply. Could someone in the know about the high temp thermolysis generation of hydrogen using nuclear tell us whether there is any effeciency advantage to creating hydrogen this way (plus compressing or liquifying and transport) and then converting it back into electricity via fuel cell versus using state of the art steam turbines to generate electricity directly, transmission lines and battery storage cycle. Is there a way of generating hydrogen with nuke where you don't waste low grade heat like with conventional nuclear electric plants? From what I know it seems like when this magical hydrogen technology arrives, it is still going to have a lower source(well)-to-wheels efficiency than plug in battery cars. Whether it be nuclear, solar, wind or whatever, why would we want to waste the power?
Posted by: rhapsodyinglue | Apr 21, 2007 1:36:30 PM
They aretargetting 4k not 400k for the 80kw cell folks. Its a fuel cell centric variant just as the other was bat centric. It shows they can use any power as the main power.
As for why 80kw.. because that gives them the perf hey want at the cost they want in the time they want in the size/weight package THEY want.
They couldwell wind up with dozens of flex variants by market time so realy just wait and see what pops out.
I wonder how many cupholders it has... and are they big?
Posted by: wintermane | Apr 21, 2007 1:50:54 PM
"... the fixation on the '90s and on the EV1? And why do you guys keep avoiding the fact that oil was cheap (average price $17/barrel for the entire decade ..."
JamesEE, what fixation, I didn't bring up the topic? Who's avoiding the fact we had cheap oil? The viability of the EV1 and related series HEV and series PHEV's, would have at least initially been that they are non-polluting (big with California Whole Earth types), trendy (who wants that boring old ICE vehicle), quiet operation and along with this bragging rights on low operating & maintenance costs and great acceleration. The market for automobiles is so huge, that anyone who can produce a unique product that has decent performance can capture enough market share to make it profitable (this is precisely behind the success of the Tesla). And just like with the Tesla, this could easily have led GM (as they undoubtedly new very well), to some supremely high performance vehicles. SUV's were a big growth area, well how about a super SUV, series hybrid with high efficiency diesel generator, with all wheel drive, vastly superior rollover resistance (due to the concentrated drivetrain weight in the chassis), double or triple the fuel economy & range of competitive SUV's, turns in zero radius, double the acceleration of any other SUV, silent mode operation, much greater high speed cornering (due to the ability to drive wheels at different speeds), much less maintenance and meets Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle requirements. There are richies who "would have to have it" and would order one in each color.
GM, would have blown Toyota out of the marketplace if they had pursued EV technology, but the ugly insidious hand of Oil Interests made sure that wasn’t going to happen.
Posted by: Warren Heath | Apr 22, 2007 8:47:14 AM
Wintermane, by the time 80 kw fuel cells are $4k, Li-Ion large format batteries will be $20/kwh.
Posted by: Warren Heath | Apr 22, 2007 9:00:46 AM
OK, I must add to this delightful discourse that energy and personal transport technology will in the future be interdependent. That is, our cars must become energy storage systems. Toward that end, battery technology has more potential than hydrogen.
Generating and storing hydrogen is less efficient than simply storing electricity in a chemical battery. The chemical battery is also the more practical household appliance.
The ability to charge/recharge batteries at home offers a power source that will prove invaluable in an emergency, and just as important, an economic incentive to drive less. GM may not be interested in producing cars that being driven less, last longer, but GM has had a century of auto-oriented influence upon urban/suburban planning that has left behind environmental, economic, social and cultural problems that cannot be resolved with any car, no matter how efficiently fueled.
GM's notable E-flex versatility can be more simply achieved with hydrogen as a combustable fuel in an ICE PHEV, rather than in a fuel cell stack.
Posted by: Wells | Apr 22, 2007 9:43:18 AM
Warren,
"GM, would have blown Toyota out of the marketplace if they had pursued EV technology, but the ugly insidious hand of Oil Interests made sure that wasn’t going to happen."
I don't think the oil interests caused GM to go for short term profits rather than a longer term strategy. Big auto (big 3 plus UAW) did what benefited them the most. The oil companies had nothing to do with it.
Posted by: JamesEE | Apr 22, 2007 1:16:21 PM
JamesEE, when Oil Companies have enough influence and deviousness to have their political cronies to invade a country, just to prop up the oil price, and to get access to Iraqi Oil, a $trillion fiasco, costing upwards of 5,000 American lives, and likely > 1 million Iraqi lives, the biggest foreign policy disaster in U.S. history, there can be no doubt that they are quite willing and capable of suppressing disruptive technology, when it is in their self-interest. They created the Iran problem in the first place through their Operation Ajax.
They also buried the NiMH battery. So you were saying they had nothing to do with it? Read the facts, check out Wayne Brown, who is an expert in the field at:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/01/a123systens_clo.html
Posted by: Warren Heath | Apr 22, 2007 2:20:53 PM
"... For a 15kw sustained power that this car will likely require, you will need a fuelcell stack rated at atleast 40kw peak power. The 80kw fuelcell stack is peak rated power, not sustained power... "
Roger, now you are B.S.ing me. You know very well that PEMFC's are not rated that way. If you want a high peak power on a Fuel Cell - you add a battery. GM only needs a 15-20 kw fuel cell for the Volt, which will supply continuous power at maximum continuous speed, and the battery will supply the peak power, which is typically for < 8 secs.
Posted by: Warren Heath | Apr 22, 2007 2:26:18 PM
Warren,
I actually read the posts you referenced above. Your expert, Wayne Brown, says "conspiracy is one of the dark-side’s most favored tools of dominion." Some "expert!" If that's not a conspiracy theorist I don't know who is.
And subsequent posts pretty much debunked his outlandish ideas. He's an ideologue, and if that's all you've got, you're an ideologue too. So neither facts nor discourse will affect your opinion. I should have known better than to get into this food-fight. My bad. You can argue with yourself now.
Posted by: JamesEE | Apr 22, 2007 4:32:27 PM
As in many tech races just brcause the battery starts out ahead doesnt mean it can srat there. Li ion tech has some serious issues while fuel cells are still far from capped out and show marked tech improvements every gen.
In 10 years it is very likely fuel cells will have over reached anything that can be done with li ion annd its likely 40-60 years before a solid successor to li ion replaces it and if weare lucky fuel cells in many applicatiobs.
Posted by: wintermane | Apr 22, 2007 5:22:06 PM
JamesEE, you must'nt have read the same posts I have, because the suckers did not answer one argument, and you still haven't explained to me why we can no longer buy large format NiMH batteries, since Chevron took it over, there would be a huge demand for them not just for EV manufacturers but for storage applications. And Wayne Brown, I would reasonably guess, has forgotten more about EV technology in the last month then you know.
But I guess there is the gullible fools, who believe lobbyists just like to help out poor starving politicians, and there are WMD's hidden all over Iraq just waiting to be found, and Corn Ethanol is an honest effort by politicians to get us off oil. Yeah right.
Posted by: Warren Heath | Apr 22, 2007 5:50:28 PM
Wintermane, I win this debate, PHEV vs fuel cell, because you're a poor speller. Yeah, what do you know, ya poor speller! Wow, I sure shot you down. Beer time!
Posted by: Wells | Apr 22, 2007 8:28:35 PM
Wells, you are exactly right Wintermane can't spell and JamesEE refuses to believe that his heroes, Bush-Cheney would mislead the public. I give up, beer is the only solution.
Posted by: Warren Heath | Apr 22, 2007 8:40:45 PM
Warren & Wells,
Enjoy your beers! But don't throw the Bush-Cheney thing at me, because you don't know my politics. Warren, you posted your political manifesto above, but I haven't done that.
And maybe you haven't read previous posts from wintermane. FYI, he has severe cataracts. It's not that he can't spell. It's that he practically can't see. I don't always agree with him, but I don't disrespect people whose opinions I disagree with. You guys really could be a little more civil.
Posted by: JamesEE | Apr 22, 2007 9:10:48 PM
2severe cataeracts.. severe duslexia.. and im recovering from not one but 2 back to back hernia surgeries... being on morphine for over a week is...BAD.
But I LIVE!!!!!
We survive. Bayyeries are heavy they also might take awhile to get cheap depending on the extraction issues.. They also have limiyed power.
We will need other power sources more compact and poyent to handle our needs and certainly to handle our WANTS.
How can they possibly sell a lrdd rggicirnt motr costly car with a more expensive fuel you ask... you mean like they do totay and have done fot decades?
They are different and allow for very different kinds of cars.. that is all that is needed for both to sell.
Posted by: wintermane | Apr 23, 2007 3:27:03 AM
Wintermane:
My hat is off to you for joining our discussions even in spite of the pain you must be in. Thanks for your continued input here and I hope your health issues improve.
Best regards to you.
Posted by: Schmeltz | Apr 23, 2007 5:06:38 AM
A story you might have missed out on!
These are some fascinating articles about a man from Louisiana, who has done something that may just help the world!
http://www.register-mail.com/stories/041507/BIZ_BCTHB3AM.GID.shtml
http://www.register-mail.com/stories/041507/BIZ_BCTIBCRC.GID.shtml
Here is his contact information that was on the back of a brochure.
James Hunt
3000 log city trail
Galesburg, IL
61401
309-345-3533
Posted by: Joe Citizen | Apr 23, 2007 7:27:26 AM
Warren, passion is good unless you let it blind you to the facts.
Fact 1: $220/kWh NiMH batteries do not exist. People made projections in the past, but never delivered and the recent quadrupling of nickel prices virtually guarantees they never will. Toyota now builds 400k+ NiMH hybrids per year, yet even in high volume their cost is over $1000/kWh. And they worked very hard to achieve that (used to be $2000+/kWh). Toyota does not think NiMH can meet their $800/pack goal, so they're switching to lithium.
Fact 2: The earth is not flat. A 15-20 kW fuel cell is sufficient to propel the Volt on level ground, but is inadequate for gradability. Modern cars are designed to maintain speed up long 6-7% grades. The Volt needs at least 40 kW for this. And don't say the 40 kW can come from the battery pack unless your design keeps 10 kWh of battery energy in usable reserve at all times.
Fact 3: Chevron lacks the power to keep large format NiMH off the world market. First, some NiMH designs do not infringe on the Ovonics patents. Second, a number of companies have licenses from Ovonics/Cobasys to produce large format automotive NiMH. This includes Panasonic EV Energy, the Toyota JV which makes the Prius batteries (see http://www.cobasys.com/news/2005/20050706.shtml). If NiMH EVs were viable in the market companies would ramp production under these licenses. Or they'd just build packs using small NiMH cells which are widely available. Why do you think Tesla chose 6,831 lithium cells instead of 6,831 NiMHs? Hint: it's not because of Chevron.
Fact 4: GM and Ford are not in cahoots with Big Oil. This one should be obvious -- their interests are diametrically oppposed. The same high oil prices which let Big Oil rake in record profits have driven Ford and GM to the brink of bankruptcy. Conversely, when oil crashed to $12/bbl in 1998 GM and Ford were rolling in the SUV dough while Big Oil struggled. GM and Ford want oil prices low, Big Oil wants 'em high. They're enemies, not co-conspirators.
Fact 5: "EV1 and related series HEVs and series PHEVs" are not "non-polluting". People stopped claiming this years ago. Depending on the source of electricity they can be more polluting or less polluting. Hopefully the latter.
--ddw
Posted by: doggydogworld | Apr 23, 2007 10:28:53 AM
Wintermane, the jist of my 'Beer Time' post was not about spelling, and I'd hoped that it would be viewed as humor and light-hearted civility. Warren Heath's post that followed could also been viewed as humor. No one here should play the victim card to win a debate.
Wintermane argues in favor of fuel cells on less factual basis than I use for defending chemical batteries. Neither technology is a perfect answer to complicated transportation planning, particularly when modern society must address energy consumption beyond motor vehicles. Chemical batteries have more potential in most regards, no matter how both technologies may achieve future advancements.
Even battery weight has many advantages. Batteries mounted low on the frame, lower vehicle center-of-gravity, improving stability and handling; another important safety factor. Battery weight becomes applicable to heavier classes of vehicle than those to which hydrogen may apply. Battery-related industries are less likely to be 'outsourced' due to the cost of shipping all that weight.
And of course, I've already mentioned the most important regard of being able to store energy at household level. Hydrogen generation and storage at household level requires complicated appliances and more energy than chemical batteries. This advantage of batteries over hydrogen is simple physics.
Conclusion:
Hydrogen = whiz-bang.
Batteries = practical.
Posted by: Wells | Apr 23, 2007 10:44:17 AM
I just wanted to be th 100th comment -- that's all
Posted by: JJ | Apr 23, 2007 12:38:06 PM
Comment # 98
Marx once said (something like) If there were only two capitalists left, each would compete to sell the rope the other would use to hang theirself.
Posted by: Wells | Apr 23, 2007 12:56:03 PM
…but I don't disrespect people whose opinions I disagree with. You guys really could be a little more civil….”
JamesEE, you would do well to practice what you preach. It was you who first started slinging insults, first off to Wayne Brown, who is both a pioneer and highly respected in the BEV and HEV field and then calling myself an ideologue, when it is you who seems to ignore the facts and stubbornly attach yourself to this fantasy that the rich & the powerful wouldn’t do anything nasty.
You said: “…some "expert! If that's not a conspiracy theorist I don't know who is…. his outlandish ideas. He's an ideologue, and if that's all you've got, you're an ideologue too…” Just because he made some off-the-wall comment, a Star Wars metaphor, as we all do from time to time, doesn’t mean he sees space aliens in the white house. He most certainly is not a nutty conspiracy theorist or an ideologue, nor am I, so if you don’t want to be accused of being a gullible Bush-Cheney groupie, don’t make wild accusations about others.
Check out Wayne Brown’s website at http://privatenrg.com and then come back and tell me this is a nutty conspiracy theorist ideologue.
Sorry about the cataracts wintermane, here I thought you were enjoying energy discussion accompanied with good Jamaican ganja.
Posted by: Warren Heath | Apr 23, 2007 4:52:37 PM
I, for one, applaud GM’s second generation propulsion system. Even if it is only a concept car, the Chevy Volt in the FCV configuration is the right answer. Battery technology with all its virtues will eventually yield to future FCV designs.
GM’s resources today (and this matter of will vs. short-term profit) “can” take their FC vehicle technology into large scale market applications (suppliers permitting), and ramping up hydrogen FCV vehicles in only a few years -- will they is entirely another question.
HFC vehicles large scale and commercial introduction can begin with dedicated fleet applications (private and public sector), and then quickly expanded to the consumer market.
Following the HES III (home fueling system) model created by Honda to support its introduction of the new FCX 2008 (350 plus miles driving range), Honda addressed the absence of a hydrogen infrastructure through the logical and economic scaling of a strategy that is worth copying.
The next generation FCX model car will be commercially introduced next year by Honda, and to more than just a few early adopters. A hydrogen fueling station on every corner may never come to pass, but one next to your garage is coming if Honda has their way that can be as economical as installing a home heat pump.
The question of what fuels the hydrogen fuel does not require a dirty answer, such as electricity from a coal fired power plant. Honda’s HES III (5KW) fueling station can be charged by PV (solar) and that’s a zero carbon footprint in my book, or by natural gas.
Hydrogen-fueled vehicles are nearly ready for prime time, and rather than ranting about what’s not possible, America would be better off focusing on clean energy options that are truly clean, independent of imported energy resources, and sustainable.
Posted by: Bill Bugbee | Apr 23, 2007 5:14:22 PM
doggydogworld, I would say it is you who ignores the facts.
Fact #1: Right now you can buy NiMH batteries, 10 AH (D size) in small quantities for $312 per kwh. Recently F size, 14 AH, have become available after Cobasys licensed a Chinese company to produce them specifically for Electric Bicycle applications. Still way below the 95 AH that you could buy before Chevron sued Panasonic (PEVE). Judging from the fact that large format Lead-Acid storage batteries are <10% of the cost of small format, and taking into account volume it is easy to see that NiMH shouldn’t cost more than $220 per kwh in large format. This is exactly what UC Davis concluded in a study of NiMH battery manufacturing costs. The rise in nickel prices is, of course, significant but at <12% nickel @ $23 per lb, that works out to $76 per kwh for the 95 AH EV-95 batteries. So a fourfold increase in nickel price would add $50 per kwh to the battery pack price and that doesn’t include the fact that the nickel is almost 100% recyclable. I would say your $2000 per kwh is an absurd fantasy – not a fact. And your $1000 per kwh, well Miles Automotive is selling a 30 kwh Li-Ion battery pack street legal vehicle, fully safety tested & approved, 85 mph, 150 mile range in the U.S. within 2 years @ $29,000. Lets see 30 x $1000 = $30,000 for the battery pack alone – hmmm, somehow those numbers just don’t add up.
Fact #2: Actually the Volt should use about 25 hp or 19 kw @ 80 mph. For the Volt to travel up a very steep 7% grade for 1.25 miles, this is a very steep hill, you’re talking mountains here, it would use about 0.95 kwh, 0.61 kwh potential energy increase. A 5 kwh battery pack would easily supply that energy. In order to climb a mountain, a 3000 ft climb would require 4 kwh in potential energy expenditure. At 80 mph and 7% grade, that would take 6 minutes for the climb. Obviously no normal road is going to climb 3000 ft in 6 min, so there will be ample opportunity to recapture climbing potential energy on downhill sections. Even a steady uphill climb of 3000 ft on any normal road would require a small increase in energy expenditure, so you would likely not even deplete the battery into the 90% level, and if on an extreme road in extreme mountains you did, well duh just slow down to 60 mph. Who goes 80 mph constantly in extreme mountain switchback style roads anyways? 5 kwh battery pack & 20 kw generator should be ample for the Volt unless you want to go beyond 80 mph sustained speed.
Fact #3: Actual Toyota has strict limits on its NiMH battery license, although the settlement facts have been kept secret under a court ordered gag order, leaked information is that Toyota is only allowed to use the battery on parallel hybrids that have at least 50% ICE power, and size is limited to <2 kwh. Thus, in spite of huge demand, Toyota is unable to sell the Prius as a plugin. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to build NiMH battery packs using parallel branches of small cells. The manufacturers specs clearly advise against paralleling NiMH batteries, due to a thermal runaway problem. It is especially difficult if you want to incorporate regeneration, which of course, HEV manufacturers want. Li-ion batteries are much more amenable to paralleling. And even if you did attempt a parallel NiMH battery pack, you will be sued by Cobasys, because there licenses specifically specify state that the batteries may not be used in “certain transportation applications” (exact specification is secret).
Fact #4: This one is more difficult. Big Auto companies are quite clearly acting in harmony with the desires of Big Oil. GM has had advanced series hybrid EV and PHEV and BEV technology quietly buried for 10 yrs. And is only now leaking it them out, in response to the overwhelming demand of environmentalists, and the proven viability of it with the Prius and Tesla. The reality is that skullduggery goes on behind the scenes, and these are not even Enron amateur fools, these are the super-rich, the oil barons who can cause a country to go to war to secure oil reserves and to force the price of oil upwards. Do you really believe the Bush-Cheney Iraq War was about WMD’s. Do you really believe that those who can cause a country to go to war cannot control the likes of GM & Ford? Why are GM, Ford & Chrysler so much on the H2 economy nightmare / fantasy as is Big Oil promoting, when it is an absolutely nutso strategy to sell energy efficient automobiles? I suggest, If you want to get the picture, go see the movie Syriana based on the book “See No Evil: the True Story of a Ground Soldier in the Cia's War on Terrorism (Paperback) by Robert Baer” and understand why George Clooney is financing Phoenix Motors, the new BEV company.
Fact #5: Yes it is true that EV’s are not non-polluting, counting the source emissions, unless you happen to charge them off of your home solar panels (which many EV owners will do). I should have said Zero Emissions or not producing local smog causing exhaust (which is a serious problem in cities – it kills children).
Here is some good info on Chevron & Cobasys from http://www.ev1.org/chevron.htm - add
“…. California's 1990 ZEV mandate forced GM and other auto makers to produce Battery Electric cars such as the GM EV1. GM purchased control of the patents from the inventor, Stan and the late Iris Ovshinsky, in 1994 forming "GM Ovonics" under the guise of going into production with the EV1. But GM's Andy Card had been fighting Electric cars for years, and GM's true intention became apparent when on Oct. 10, 2000, GM agreed to sell their control of the EV batteries to Texaco. Less than a week later, on Oct. 16, 2000, only days after Texaco acquired control of the batteries, Chevron agreed to purchase Texaco in a $100 billion merger. Chevron announced the merger even though the GM sale of the batteries to what would become Chevron did not close until July 17, 2000. Perhaps Chevron wanted this sale to be announced prior to the merger so it would not look like Chevron (formerly Standard Oil of California) worked directly with GM. > >>
GM and Chevron collaborated with Toyota-Panasonic in such a way that these batteries were killed, and no such NiMH batteries are available for EVs. Chevron, awash in oil profits, assets and cash reserves, claims that "it's a chicken and egg problem" of "no demand", but that does not explain why they sued Panasonic, extracting $30,000,000. Shortly thereafter, the EV-95 line of proven, NiMH batteries still running in the RAV4-EV was shut down and killed, and the batteries cannot be sold or imported into the USA, according to one Toyota spokesperson. Only a few used EV-95, salvaged from crushed vehicles, are available, and those only for warranty replacement on existing RAV4-EV. Toyota won't sell even these used batteries to EV converters, who need long-lasting, reliable batteries and can't get them.
"A senior Chevron executive was quoted off-the-record as saying that Chevron was determined not to go down the BEV path again and never to let that happen again in the automotive industry, at least not with NiMH batteries." Chevron, by virtue of its purchase, apparently wants cars to be powered by gasoline and not by NiMH batteries large enough to drive cars from electric plug-in power. > >>
Chevron's unit that controls the patents, cobasys, refuses to sell their version of the battery unless, they say, they get "a large OEM order". Apparently, they also refuse to let anyone else sell it, either> >>
Auto and oil industry detractors -- "oilliars" -- claim that "the batteries are not ready" for a plug-in Prius. They hope you don't know about the existing, still-running 2002 Toyota RAV4-EV, which operates entirely on batteries with no help from any Internal Combustion ("IC") component. It's easy to add a small engine-generator to this proven EV, and have an instant plug-in hybrid that runs like an EV for 100 miles, and then relies on the generator (like a diesel-electric locomotive, and they are very powerful). Over 1000 RAV4-EV are running far over 100,000 miles with EV-95 NiMH deep-cycling as the only power source for the RAV4-EV> >>
A real Plug-In Serial Hybrid is an Electric car, with a powerful electric motor as its only source of motive power, and with batteries capable of normal driving in EV-only mode for at least 100 miles. This Serial Plug-In Hybrid is just an EV with a small engine-generator for long trips or unusual occasions when you can't plug in somewhere. Similar to the Diesel-Electric locomotive, the engine's only use is to generate electric for the drive motor. >>
Phony Plug-in hybrids are of the parallel hybrid variety, where the engine is used as the primary source of motive power and the motor and batteries are just used to start off, or to boost acceleration. They work, but are still gasoline cars at high speed; even worse, without viable and cost-effective batteries, they are just another libel on Electric cars. The lithium batteries in the plug-in prius cost something like $14,000 for 9 kWh, about six times the equivalent cost of NiMH, and even more expensive when you consider that NiMH last longer than the life os the car -- even a Toyota car -- while the lithium batteries are untried and unproven> >>
The big difference is that the Serial Plug-In Hybrid allows you to run normal driving without gasoline or oil, but the phony plug-in hybrid still requires that you buy gasoline for your daily run. Guess which one the oil and auto companies will try to confuse you with? Right, they will try to push the Phony Plug-In Hybrid or, even worse, the Phony Hybrid that can't even plug in.
In all cases, the lithium batteries may not last as long as the NiMH, and render the plug-in option prohibitively expensive. AQMD and CARB must be acquainted with the need for NiMH batteries. So far, ONLY NiMH batteries are proven to be economicial> >>
Even if a NiMH pack costs $25000, and even if it only lasts 200,000 miles, that's only 12.5 cents per mile; and for those with solar systems, the electric "fuel" is free of further cost. In a pure EV or a serial plug-in hybrid, you can normally drive "oil-free". It's this possibility that seems to bother oil execs. > >>
The plug-in Prius, using Lithium batteries, still requires you to buy gasoline (the engine turns on when the catalytic converter is cold, or if the speed is greater than 33 mph, burning gasoline)> >>
Chevron and its auto company proxies can kill the idea of plug-in hybrids: obscure the issue, and bring out "dual-mode" and parallel hybrids that can limp along at 40 mph on a small electric motor for 10 miles and re-charge its batteries with a big diesel engine. They are not frightened of lithium-powered plug-in hybrids, and since they have control of and have eliminated the use of large-format NiMH batteries, they have no worries ... unless the oil party were to lose an election, of course. A responsible president and prudent Congress could force Chevron to disgorge control of the batteries, and could force auto makers to produce a plug-in serial hybrid for sale on the free market.
Oil and auto company claims that "no one wants an EV" ring hollow when the full cost of gasoline, mostly subsidized by the Taxpayer, is taken into account. >> ….”
Posted by: Warren Heath | Apr 23, 2007 7:03:28 PM
Nice post doggydogworld. Concise, factual, and to the point.
Posted by: JamesEE | Apr 23, 2007 7:31:06 PM
Bill Bugbee, I hate to repeat myself but, the power use of a solar hydrogen electrolysis is 65 kwh per kg.
Converted to electric power in a 50% efficient fuel cell (which ain’t cheap, $50,000 for a 1 kw PEM Fuel Cell Station), that’s 16 kwh per kg.
i.e. 75% energy loss from electric energy to electric energy. That doesn’t include the inevitable losses due to H2 leakage and transportation (very difficult to transport). And then there is the ~8% loss in storing much of that energy in the H2 fuel cell vehicle battery. Thus we are at a maximum efficiency of 23% of input electric energy to vehicle electric energy.
Now taking that same solar power and sending it directly to a battery in a BEV or a PHEV, will result in 85% of input to output electric energy (i.e. the battery charging loss). So it takes at least 3.7 times the electric power to run the H2 vehicle as the BEV. In terms of range, the most optimistic DOE projections are a 300 mile range for the H2 vehicle. Battery vehicles are already being built with 350 mile range, and this with a trivial amount of real government funding (I’m not counting the USABC – US Anti-Battery Coalition funding), compared to the 10’s of billions that have been poured into H2 vehicle research. And we haven’t even begun the $1 trillion plus expenditure for H2 distribution & storage.
If you work the numbers with H2 ICE engine, you’ll be even worse off. So right off you are throwing out 4 times the CO2 emissions, then if you stuck with a BEV in the first place. And the BEV can easily be made as a PHEV, with a simple, cheap, efficient alcohol fueled generator as a range extender and get 800 miles range on a 15 gal cheapo plastic fuel tank. For a good analysis, see:
http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/sb76/workshop/brooks_nov2.pdf
Posted by: Warren Heath | Apr 23, 2007 7:31:58 PM
JamesEE, I don't believe it's a question of either FCV or BEV, I'm a fan of both and both have their respective roles on the road to zero emission vehicles. Btw, I drive a Prius 2G and I'm still waiting for Toyota to deliver a PHEV version. The latest from Toyota indicates no dice on a PHEV option for the 2009 Prius make-over.
By 2010, the real world functional results will be in on Honda's 2G FCX model, as well as the companion HES III hydrogen home / commercial fueling station. The FCX operational results may very well tell the story of the (near) future prospects for H2 in transportation.
Posted by: Bill Bugbee | Apr 23, 2007 9:02:01 PM
To see one explanation as to why big auto companies are in bed with big oil companies, check out:
http://www.ev1.org/gmoil.htm
"...Funds owning at least 42% of GM, enough to effectively control the Board, own at least 10 times as much in oil company stocks. Fund ownership of GM is listed at 99%, which probably includes convertable bonds and fully-diluted options and conversions. Many of these funds are very difficult to trace, and some are disgorging GM holdings as this investigation continues.
These funds own other oil stocks in addition to the four majors, of course.
Other funds owning GM whose oil ownership has not yet been traced also are dependent on oil stocks.
If you were one of these fund managers, and you heard that GM was going to produce Electric oil-free cars, you might think that it was a neat idea, might give GM some class and some cachet ... until, that is, you realize the danger. What if the dang things caught on? What if there were an alternative to oil? What if the price of oil came down from $58/bbl to some number much closer to the cost of production ($6/bbl)? Those billions invested in highly cash-profitable oil companies, which throw off cash like a walrus surfacing in a bathtub, would shrink down, dwindle, and diminish.
This realization must frighten those with so much more at stake in much more profitable OIL than they have in poor, money-losing GM.
In fact, their GM investment, a market value of only $11B, is dwarfed by more than 10 times that ... "
Posted by: Warren Heath | Apr 23, 2007 9:31:23 PM
Um the entire point of a fund owning s many companies stock is so far more often then not irs always growing. They own oil because it A;WATS makes a prufit they own car stock because whenever oil goes down cars sell. They own skittles twinkies and spongebob too.. are you telling us spongebob and the twinkie and skittles secret police are out to get us?
Posted by: wintermane | Apr 23, 2007 10:06:21 PM
Those fund managers have to consider the fact that most of the oil in the world is owned by national oil companies (not part of their portfolios, and never will be) while the value of most of their investments goes up and down in opposition to the flow of money to those NOC's.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Apr 23, 2007 10:08:21 PM
A basic principle of investing is diversification to achieve the highest return per unit of risk. Energy only represents about 8% of the S&P 500 index, and thus about 8% of mutual fund holdings. And the energy portion has declined steadily for the past 25+ years. No rational investor would mess up 92% of his/her portfolio to make the other 8% look good.
Energy stocks are negatively correlated with airline, automotive, and other stock sectors. E.g., Exxon is doing well now, but Ford just mortgaged their logo to meet the payroll. GM can survive if they can get an ICE PHEV version of the Volt out soon, or if oil prices fall (doesn't look likely without a recession, which could also kill GM). IMO H2 will take way too long to save them.
I bet GM management has one eye on the Volt development project, with the other eye on the price of oil.
Posted by: JamesEE | Apr 24, 2007 7:39:07 AM
Fact 1: Sub-$400/kWh NiMH (and Li-ion) cells don't meet automotive specs. Thermal, NVH, safety and performance requirements (power density, cycle life, etc.) add cost, if not in the cell itself then in support systems (e.g. Tesla). Toyota execs such as the late Dave Hermance have publicly discussed their $1100/kWh NiMH costs:
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/1572
Fact 2: A typical gradability requirement is 105 km/h at 6.5% grade for 20 minutes. You see grades like this out west:
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Trans/T96-10_UHVPrinDsn.pdf
The 3500 lb Volt thus needs 30 kW of climbing power plus another 15 kW for aero drag, rolling resistance, etc. A serious auto engineer would laugh at your 15-20 kW fuel cell idea.
Fact 3: The limits to which you refer were part of the original Toyota/PEVE settlement with Cobasys in 2004. The 2005 revision REMOVED these limits. Reference the press release I linked to for info and ECD's SEC filings for further detail.
Fact 4: Syriana???? LOL.
Even corrupt companies act in their own interest. It's not in Chevron's interest to blow half a billion "burying" NiMH EVs when such a move benefits arch-rival ExxonMobil more than themselves. Theories that GM's board is controlled by "funds" in cahoots with Big Oil fall apart on inspection. Board members at GM and most other large US corps are hand-picked by the CEO -- the shareholder vote is a mere formality. One notable exception is Ford Motor Company, whose board is still controlled by Henry Ford's heirs via a special class of stock. Are they intentionally destroying their own family fortune and legacy to make Big Oil richer?
Furthermore, if GM really was under Big Oil's evil spell it would open up a huge opportunity for someone to buy them and start churning out these previously suppressed EVs. GM trades at $17 billion, a mere snack for a company like GE. Warren Buffett has $45b in cash at Berkshire Hathaway, he could literally write a check tomorrow. Such an acquisition would make sense even if the EVs themselves were barely profitable -- Berkshire owns one of the nation's largest electric utilities and GE is a leading supplier of powerplant equipment and wind turbines. Either company would make billions from the increased electrical demand. Or what about Kirk Kerkorian? He actually tendered for GM shares in 2005 and is currently trying to buy Chrysler. There are plenty of rich, powerful people out there who would love to get even richer at the expense of Big Oil.
Here's the thing: I'm a huge believer in PHEVs and EVs. I think they're crucial to our nation's future. In fact my friends are sick of hearing about it. But zealotry does not serve the cause. Fanatics who invent their own facts when convenient and promote conspiracy theories do much more harm than good.
--ddw
Posted by: doggydogworld | Apr 24, 2007 11:00:46 AM
20 minutes of 6.5% grade at 105 kph is about 7500 feet of vertical climb. That's one hell of a lot. Still, it would only take a 15 kW powerplant plus 10 kWh of usable storage. If you slow down to 80 kph, the time goes up to about 26 minutes (getting 6.6 kWh out of the powerplant), reducing the storage requirement to 8.4 kWh before considering lower drag.
The Volt has a considerably more powerful engine than that, plus more than adequate storage. It would have no gradability issues.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Apr 24, 2007 4:22:11 PM
Doggydog, just what is that anyway, it’s a dog’s world so you figure Chevron & gang are your kind of dogs, steal the other dog’s food because you’re bigger and meaner, is that what this is all about?
Regarding point #1, I left the doggy a bone, and he sniffed it out. congratulations I owe you a doggy beer, you are quite right the sub $400/kwh NiMH are not suitable for BEV’s or HEV’s or electric bicycles or power tools for that matter due to the low power to energy ratio. The suitable NiMH batteries with Power / Energy ratios of 10 or greater run about $600 per kwh in low volume and small format. Undoubtedly, in large format size, cost per kwh would be much lower, as is the case for lead-acid (>10 times cheaper for large format over the small format). Toyota Prius batteries are an interesting case since they are only 1.3 kwh and must deliver the > 50 kw the motor requires for acceleration, which implies a ~ 50:1 power to energy ratio. No wonder they cost $1100 per kwh. A 5 kwh series hybrid battery pack with a standard high power NiMH battery could provide 50 kw peak energy, which is enough for a run-of-the-mill vehicle, but you would probably want to at least double that for a high performance vehicle. Of course, you could go for a bigger generator, but that is less cost effective than a higher energy or power battery, making Altairnano or Ultra-capacitors very attractive for series HEV’s.
As to point #2, yes if you wanted to drive up 7000 ft @ 60 mph with a 3500 lb car & 1000 lbs passengers plus luggage, as your article suggests you would need to supply 46 kw for 1/3 hr or 15.5 kwh. This would require either a larger battery or generator or combination of both. I don’t know where you would climb 7000 ft in 20 min on a decent road, note this precludes slowing down at switchbacks or for other (sane) drivers or stopping to see the (undoubtedly) excellent scenery. Note that in a drive from Los Angeles to Las Vegas via Interstate 15 includes two climbs, the Cajon Pass and Baker Grade, both with about 3500 feet of elevation gain. The tzero never faltered and arrived in Las Vegas, 245 miles from AC Propulsion headquarters in San Dimas, with at least 40 miles of reserve range. This is just a BEV with no generator. The largest climbs in a drive through the Rocky Mountains in B.C. is 12% for 1.6 km or a 192 metres elevation change, easily done with a 5 kwh battery pack. So I think that a 7000 ft climb for 20 min @ 60 mph is a rather dubious enterprise, and you could always make the climb if you went slower, slowed down for sightseers and curves or stopped yourself for a bit of sightseeing.
Something you need to realize about hybrid vehicle design, is that you are adjusting the vehicle specs to meet the needs of the customer much more closely than a standard ICE vehicle. With a standard ICE vehicle, the motor is so huge in order to provide acceleration, that you can accommodate extreme hill climbing at speed or towing a heavy trailer at speed quite easily, the cost is the engine is running way below optimal efficiency, is way too large & expensive, emissions controls are much more difficult and expensive, and low speeds are terribly inefficient. With a hybrid, engine hp x time plus battery energy gives energy storage, that tradeoff can be adjusted according to customer demand, and economic considerations, bigger engine à smaller battery & vice-versa and bigger generator à lower efficiency. This gives good advantage to the series hybrid which allows for an easy interchange of generator and battery size according to customer requirements. The logic is that if GM was truly serious about the Volt, they would start out with a basic series hybrid diesel generator design, for normal city drivers (not 7000 ft mountain climbs at speed), with a smaller 5 kwh battery pack, no plugin, and when demand and component specs ramp up increase the performance option for those who want it. No need for an extraordinary 80 kw fuel cell (close to the military HumVee’s 110 kw generator in a 8000 lb with 3000 lb payload plus electric drive trailer and electric