backtop

Auto GM Attempts to Discharge Volt Hype
Brandon Hill (Blog) - March 26, 2007 10:18 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 94 comment(s) - last by spindoc.. on Mar 28 at 5:06 PM

Bob Lutz and the Chevy Volt
GM tries to limit excitement over its Volt electric car

GM's last modern electric car program began with the EV1 in 1996. The company spent over a billion dollars on the program and produced 1,117 units. The program was cancelled in 2003 and nearly all of the EV1s were crushed. GM felt that the program could never be profitable and that the public wasn't quite warming up to a 2-seater that was only operable in limited temperature conditions and featured a limited driving range.

Many believed that GM would right the wrongs of the failed EV1 program with the new Volt concept that was unveiled earlier this year at the Detroit Auto Show. The company hyped up the vehicle as the next step in automotive technology.

At the time, the Volt was expected to enter production at the beginning of the next decade. "We have set an internal target of production in 2010. Whether we can make that or not, this is still kind of an unpredictable program for us," said GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz. "We're sort of outside our comfort zone."

Although Lutz gave a launch date of 2010, he admitted that there are some challenges to be met with developing an electric vehicle like the Volt. Lutz also noted that the Volt had roughly a 90% chance of making it through to production. That's almost a guaranteed commitment in the car world -- especially from a man like Lutz who spearheaded the Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Sky and Pontiac G8.

Lutz then continued, "Competitors who write this off as a PR exercise are going to be brutally surprised."

According to The Detroit News, the competition may be saying "I told you so" if GM's current maneuvers are any indication. GM recently gathered a group of automotive journalists together and told them that it can’t guarantee that the Volt will ever hit the road.

"The pressure is intense," said Volt chief engineer Nick Zielinski. "We came out with this idea and now people are saying, 'OK, where is this car. We want it now.'"

Production is also highly dependent on lithium-ion battery technology which has not yet made into the automotive mainstream. The Tesla Roadster manages to fit 6,381 lithium-ion cells into its battery pack, but the price tag for the vehicle is roughly $100,000 USD. GM would need to sell the Volt at a price roughly one-forth to one-third that amount to garner public interest.

A concept like the Volt is quite appealing for a number of reasons. For one, it limits a driver's dependence on gasoline for around town cruising. The Volt gets all of its forward propulsion from its electric motor and onboard batteries. A turbocharged 1.0 liter 3-cylinder internal combustion engine (ICE) kicks in to recharge the batteries when they drop below a certain threshold, but is not used for propulsion. GM says that the Volt can travel as much as 40 miles on a charge -- enough for many American commuters on a daily commute -- and will save about 500 gallons of gasoline per year.

"It's a breakthrough of immense magnitude -- potentially one of the two or three most significant game changers that we've seen in a long time," said David Cole of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor.

Many automotive analysts questioned GM's judgment in showcasing the Volt to the public in the first place and in giving it a production date. GM insiders also questioned the decision to put what was basically an empty shell on the show floor. This isn’t like the Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Sky where a RWD platform was developed in record time using off the shelf components. GM has a much bigger technological challenge ahead with bringing the Volt to the market.

Michigan State University professor Bruce Vanden Gergh was a little more blunt with his assessment of the Volt program: "They'd better make it work or they're going to look stupid."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Saving what ?
By kensiko on 3/26/2007 12:45:17 PM , Rating: 2
"and will save about 500 gallons of gasoline per year."

Ok yes, but they don't say anything about electricity cost.

If you replace gazoline by electricity, the way to produce electricity could also make pollution.

Here in Quebec, we only have hydro-electricity, but it's not the same in US.




RE: Saving what ?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/26/2007 1:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
Energy can be produced far cheaper and cleaner in a large electric power plant than it can be by the tiny engine of a car. Even factoring in the electricity used by such cars, they generate considerably less pollution than their normal gas-powered couterparts.


RE: Saving what ?
By dever on 3/26/2007 2:41:10 PM , Rating: 2
There's no guarantee of it being less polluting without seeing some solid numbers. There is a penalty of having two systems for locomotion. Each has a level of inefficiency that taken together may be less efficient than a simple gas engine.

There are advantages are for urban areas. Reduction of pollution around road areas, shifting it to power plants which can scrub the pollutants. However, there's still an onboard gas engine, so there's actually a hardware cost penalty for the inclusion of two systems. But still cool for some applications.


RE: Saving what ?
By Schrag4 on 3/26/2007 3:45:01 PM , Rating: 2
Masher makes a good point about large power plants being more efficient than small combustion engines, but I think dever's point is valid as well. It would be great it you didn't have to lug around the combustion engine still, even if it is significantly smaller/lighter. Perhaps the passengers could drive some generator with sets of pedals for each passenger to charge the batteries! j/k

In all seriousness, though, I'd like to see the actual cost to the consumer compared for gasoline vs electricity, to drive one mile, assuming the gas engine never kicks in (because you drive only 40 miles or less every time). It has been thrown around that recharging these would probably use as much as an AC unit, but from what I gathered, that was a guess made by the poster.

Hypothetical: If my gas bill is 80 bucks a month now, but if I got one of these things I buy no gas anymore but my electricity bill goes up by 150 bucks a month, I say no thanks. Can someone with experience with electric/hybrid cars give me some hard numbers on what it costs to recharge them?


RE: Saving what ?
By Schrag4 on 3/26/2007 3:51:44 PM , Rating: 2
...I mean, wouldn't a significant increase in cost in order to reduce greenhouse gas production be a bad idea? After all, if you really cared about the environment then that money would be better spent by purchasing 'carbon credits' instead of reducing output...


RE: Saving what ?
By peternelson on 3/27/2007 1:44:26 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure I'd take the in-fashion "carbon" spin.

It's believed that 95% of the global warming effect is more due to sun spot radiation cycles and ionic clouds than from levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I'd totally agree that for urban places, we don't want poisonous gas / diesel fumes polluting the air. It's not carbon but the other nasty pollutants that concern me. Electric vehicles would therefore significantly reduce smog and health risks from exhaust gases.

I'd say keeping down the CO2 is worthwhile, but secondary.


RE: Saving what ?
By peternelson on 3/27/2007 1:48:52 AM , Rating: 3
Additionally, wasting our oil resources by burning them is a CRIMINAL waste and we will be hated by future generations who need that oil to make plastic and other chemical products. Once burned it's gone, and they will have to mine our landfills for the plastics we threw out in the garbage.

THAT is the big environmental problem: burning oil is economically cheap so everyone does it now without thinking. There should be high taxes placed on using oil for burning applications to reflect the TRUE cost to future generations.

Like I said, it's not so much about carbon emissions, but there are very good reasons to break our "addiction to oil" and use alternatives like renewables and nuclear.


RE: Saving what ?
By Schrag4 on 3/27/2007 9:59:33 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the 'carbon credits' comment was supposed to be sarcastic. Sorry, I should try to make things clearer when posting, like using <sarcasm>...</sarcasm>.

I tend to agree that carbon emissions are the least of our concerns. As far as 'pollution' goes, I'm much more concerned about our water supplies, non-biodegradables, etc etc. As we develop different and/or more efficient technologies for producing and consuming power, our carbon emissions will eventually go down, and the carbon that DO we emit is a drop in the bucket compared to what mother earth herself belches from volcanoes and such every year. Oh boy, I'm gonna get flamed, huh?


RE: Saving what ?
By peternelson on 3/28/2007 9:58:22 AM , Rating: 2
Don't blame it all on the volcanoes. They can't help it ;-)

<sarcasm> Maybe I'll be flamed too ;-)

On UK TV today another shock, as researched by a student from Durham University:

The UK's peat bogs store loads of carbon. But various factors have led to some peat being eroded (through several causes including people walking, streams etc). That means tons of CO2 being released into the atmosphere.

They are now appealing for government funding to stop the erosion of peat bogs.

Not really news though because it seems new scientist mag covered that back in 2004.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6124

"Peat bogs harbour carbon time bomb" !!!!

“On these trends, by the middle of the century, DOC emissions from peat bogs and rivers could be as big a source of CO2 to the atmosphere as burning fossil fuels.”

So ultimately, will me changing my lightbulb make a whole lot of difference? Especially if that electricity is from renewables or nuclear?

Carbon is getting high media attention, every other story in the news these days ;-)

I think a green agenda is important just it seems to be overshadowed by focus exclusively on carbon. Meanwhile toxins continue to leach into water supplies, whales are killed, population grows rapidly, the sea is overfished, money is squandered on war, and people die for lack of food and water.

Let's hope we regain some sense of priorities.


RE: Saving what ?
By lobadobadingdong on 3/28/2007 3:07:19 PM , Rating: 2
afaik most plastics are made from soybeans now.


RE: Saving what ?
By Parkerl75 on 3/27/2007 1:43:57 PM , Rating: 2
I'd say you must have missed the report in 2007 by IPCC saying that global warming is most likely caused by human activities. According to Duke University's Sun's Direct Role in Global Warming May Be Underestimated article, Duke physicists estimate this accounts for only 10% to 30% of the climate change, farcry from your 95%.

You are definitely in the minority in your opinion and the majority of the scientific community disagrees with you.

Of course science isn't democracy or else we would still continue to believe that the earth is flat, but you are definitely contradicting the majority of the scientists out there, who I believe have better credentials than yourself.


RE: Saving what ?
By peternelson on 3/28/2007 10:33:41 AM , Rating: 2
Not being a scientist, I just try to read through the hype and political agenda and see the balance in arguments, rather than those with the loudest voices or popularity. There are actually some respected scientists eg David Bellamy who don't totally agree with the popular interpretation. Not saying I agree with them just keep an open mind.

While every other story on the news is about carbon, not ONCE have I heard any reporting on the study about the sun's influence on global warming. If there comes another ice age, we may find those greenhouse gases useful in future centuries ;-)

The truth is NOBODY fully understands the mechanisms by which these things work, on a macro scale. That goes for weather, sea level, atmosphere, plant ecosystems etc.

So if we allow half Brazil's rainforest to be cut down for agriculture, does not that reduce trees and alter the carbon balance? So why not internationally outlaw that if it is a concern? There are many approaches to this not just one. In my view carbon capture and storage (such as Japan project) can only be shorter term solutions. We aren't giving airlines cash incentives to replace their fleets with more efficient cleaner planes, nor making them optimise seat usage near capacity. Meanwhile Prince Charles flies half way around the world with 14 of his staff on a plane. Why? To collect an environmental award. Forgive me for being a little cynical.

Some of the reports talk of probabilities rather than certainties, and tend to paint worst case scenarios. There are some statistics about atmospheric carbon levels over time which are problematic to the simplistic message often propagated.

Changing the amount of electricity we consume by changing lightbulbs would be irrelevant if governments ensured none of it was generated by oil/gas/coal. I'd prefer to drive an electric car and would buy one, but I can't really influence who builds what kind of power stations.

Therefore I believe governments have other motivations eg to lessen dependance on volatile middle east oil.

I just find it hypocritical to be selective about which green causes to focus on. eg to let the sea be overfished endangering fish stocks whilst pouring money elsewhere.

If all governments were concerned about burning oil, I didn't hear them making a fuss when oil pipelines and facilities in the middle east or elsewhere are set alight by terrorist/protesting people as sabotage. All that fuel burning is hard to stop and has no emissions filtering. We just seem happy to let them burn away. We don't educate the firestarters about the environmental wrongs of their petty actions.

There are practical things governments can do, and yes putting a tax on using fossil fuels for burning applications is one of them. That would make alternatives economically attractive very quickly. eg if governments paid half the cost of electric cars, or doubled conventional ones through tax that would eradicate most old ones within say 10 years, but they would also have to address how that power is generated.

So it seems to me that the picture is more complex. Sure I accept people contribute to CO2 levels. If that is such a concern, why is there little effort being focussed on the countries with exponential growth rates eg in birth prevention education? They are becoming more developed because of globalisation, bringing desire for aircon, etc.

And if the correct sun figure is 30% well fine I stand corrected. And somebody ought to quantify the influence of peat bogs, volcanoes and whatever else non-human.

Don't forget that people being funded to research something will likely find what they are looking for and miss things which are factors outside where they are looking.

All that aside a practical electric car would be great.


RE: Saving what ?
By Hoser McMoose on 3/26/2007 5:43:53 PM , Rating: 4
I don't have any personal hard numbers, but we can do a quick comparison of the Tesla Roadster (pure electric) vs. the Lotus Elise (gasoline ICE on which the Telsa car is based). Both are quite sporty little cars offering reasonably similar performance and I think it's safe to say that the comparison would be roughly similar for any pair of cars.

Now, for the Lotus, they get 24mpg city/29mpg highway. Let's make that about 26.25mpg average and 9.524 gallons for 250 miles (roughly one tank of gas). Latest US average gas price was $2.61/gallon, so we're looking at $24.86.

The numbers for the Tesla electric vehicle are slightly less exact, but they claim 250 miles on a single charge. One charge takes roughly 4 hours off a 220V/70amp charger. That comes out to 61.6kWh worth of electricity, which seems quite reasonable given a slight loss in charging the 56kWh worth of batteries the car has. Now, current electricity prices in the US, all costs, taxes, etc. included, are roughly $0.12/kWh, so that works out to about $7.39.

Obviously you're numbers will vary considerably, but I think it's safe to say that the electricity will definitely be cheaper then the gas. The downside though, is that the upfront costs of the electric vehicle are MUCH higher. For our two cars in the comparison here, the base price of the Tesla is $92,000 while the Lotus is half as much at $47,270. At that rate you would need to drive over 600,000 miles to make up the difference in up-front cost.


RE: Saving what ?
By peternelson on 3/27/2007 1:37:49 AM , Rating: 2
You may be right for US market.

But here in UK, the Tesla being electric would make it exempt from road tax. It would mean no daily congestion charge for entering central london. It would mean free resident parking permit. It would mean likely cheaper insurance.

And since in the UK, gas is not $2.61 per gallon but much more than that (about 80% of our gas price is tax), there are SUBSTANTIAL savings to be made and the payback time is much, much quicker.

The Tesla roadster is great and can do over 200 miles on a charge, more than enough for anything but the longest journeys when you could just use a hirecar or train anyway.

Also it's more a proof of concept. Tesla are working on a cheaper and more mainstream family type vehicle for 2008 I believe.

The true breakeven depends how long you keep the vehicle, and the cost of replacing the Li-ion battery pack when it fails and needs replacing. I'm led to believe it will be fine for at least 5 years.


RE: Saving what ?
By Schrag4 on 3/27/2007 10:12:58 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks, Hoser, and peter, it sounds like a no brainer for the UK, given that you can afford the initial cost. It's hard to make the switch to something that you know will save you money in the long run if there's a large up-front cost.

If you don't agree with me, I would ask you if you have a traditional water heater with a tank in your house. If you do, you're proving my point (or you will be getting a tankless heater after reading my post, a great way to reduce energy consumption!).

Tankless water heaters use up to 70% less gas, take up less space, and never run out of hot water. Yet they're still not used because they cost 2-4 times as much, and installation is QUITE expensive (more expensive than the heater itself in many cases) because modifications to the pipes and exhaust must be made when switching from a tank to a tankless heater. And the cost difference is very little when compared to the cost difference between an electric/hybrid car and a plain ol' ICE one.

Yes, my water heater broke recently and I replaced it with another tank because I'll be moving the next few years. If your heater is old, replace it. They tend to dump 40 gallans of water all a once when the break down, as I now know...


RE: Saving what ?
By peternelson on 3/28/2007 10:50:37 AM , Rating: 2
Up front cost? That's why we have car finance and leasing ;-)

As for water heating, ours is integrated with the central heating system.

Besides you can always take a cold bath instead ;-)

Oh and don't forget only fill your kettle with the amount you need ;-) Then again you could switch to drinking orange juice ;-)

Or use a shower instead saving water and the energy to heat it, or bathe less frequently ;-)

If the boiler may be inefficient doesn't the escaping heat simply contribute to the warmth of the house?

A friend of mine says his oven is 100% efficient, because lost heat warms his kitchen. Maybe the same could be said for indoor lightbulbs.

Yes, I think electric car is a no-brainer for UK use, just its very hard to get one here (let alone service it). I'm not a big fan of ethanol or hybrid.

For cost reasons my brother drives his jeep on LPG fuel which is cheaper.

Ideally I'd fit my garage roof with high efficiency solar cells to collect power for charging a Tesla or similar, but as you say the up-front costs.... Not to mention planning permission. But excess power could help my computer farm.