backtop


Print 51 comment(s) - last by sdfasdgdhasdf.. on Jan 30 at 1:02 PM


GM has announced plans to spend $129M USD to produce its electric vehicle motors in-house in Maryland.  (Source: AutoBlog)

The Chevy Volt will likely be the first recipient of the new motors, though the 2011 model will use a third party motor.
GM's motor move is a gamble and a departure from traditional approach

General Motors is already gambling big with the 2011 Chevy Volt, America's first mass-market electric vehicle.  A hit on the scale of the Toyota Prius could restore GM to dominance, while a miss could seriously harm the automaker's survival chances.

This week GM announced another major gamble -- it will be pouring money into producing its electric motors itself.  Engines are very complex and electric car motors are no exception.  But GM is confident it's on the right track.

The company will pour $129M USD into a White Marsh, Maryland plant which will build GM's electric-vehicle motors – the move will add 200 jobs.  The Department of Energy is chipping half of the development costs, drawn from a $105M USD EV grant GM previously received.

GM also plans to manufacture the battery packs itself (though it will source the production of actual cells to LG Chem) at a Brownstown, Michigan plant.  In total GM has received $241M USD in government grants to boost its EV program, a large sum that does seem a bit smaller when compared to the $750M USD that the GM spent to develop the Volt.

The company has electric motor facilities in Wixom, Pontiac, Indianapolis, Maryland and California and has added 100 electric motor engineers since 2003.  GM Vice Chairman Tom Stephens states, "In the future, electric motors might become as important to GM as engines are now.  By designing and manufacturing electric motors in-house, we can more efficiently use energy from batteries as they evolve, potentially reducing cost and weight: two significant challenges facing batteries today."

It does plan to purchase electric motors from suppliers in the short term to satisfy Volt production needs, while it brings its own facility online.  The first generation Volts will contain a motor from a third-party, though GM hasn't aired its supplier yet.

GM plans to spin off Volt variants in Europe and elsewhere following the U.S. launch of the Volt in November of this year.  A Cadillac electric -- the Cadillac Converj -- is also being readied for production. 

GM's moves are certainly risky, but for a company down on its luck, perhaps taking some risks is necessary.  If GM's in-house electric gamble pays off, it stands to pocket the lion's share of profits from EV sales.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Interesting Headline
By room200 on 1/26/2010 10:33:11 AM , Rating: 5
If it was a foreign carmaker would it read " Automaker Invests Millions Into Green Technology and Innovation "?




RE: Interesting Headline
By Hiawa23 on 1/26/2010 10:41:44 AM , Rating: 4
Made & built in America. Sounds good to me. seems like a worthy gamble. At the very least it should mean jobs for many....


RE: Interesting Headline
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Interesting Headline
By porkpie on 1/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Interesting Headline
By RDO CA on 1/26/2010 11:37:56 AM , Rating: 2
but remember that no wait time is required as the ice can be used when needed


RE: Interesting Headline
By seamonkey79 on 1/26/2010 11:41:22 AM , Rating: 3
Does electricity weigh? ;-)


RE: Interesting Headline
By ZHENDHIDE4 on 1/28/10, Rating: 0
RE: Interesting Headline
By verteron on 1/27/2010 3:15:26 AM , Rating: 2
Everyone misses the fact that quick charge stations are for long trips and emergencies only. You leave home everyday with a full charge. Other than road trips, you may never need a gas station again, except for a soda.


RE: Interesting Headline
By Reclaimer77 on 1/26/2010 2:15:33 PM , Rating: 2
Except they are gambling with our money. And if it doesn't work, they will simply take more of our money to fix the mess.

Gm isn't "gambling" at all. It's our government backed with our money that's calling the shots and pulling the strings.


RE: Interesting Headline
By ZHENZHEN on 1/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: Interesting Headline
By puckalicious on 1/26/2010 11:05:01 AM , Rating: 5
Typical DT. It's never a gamble to design & build your own technologies that are core to your business. Is it a gamble for GM to build it's own gas engines? What a joke of a headline.


RE: Interesting Headline
By Armorize on 1/26/2010 12:31:25 PM , Rating: 4
How many people do you know with electric cars? just a thought.


RE: Interesting Headline
By dnd728 on 1/26/2010 1:30:27 PM , Rating: 2
To be honest, in the near future there wont be enough oil for everybody to drive traditional ICs.
We can partly use technologies like pure electrics/hybrids/hydrogen/super capacitors/jet charger/gas turbine charger... and guess what? - they're all using electric motors, so I'd say it's a pretty solid bet.


RE: Interesting Headline
By Reclaimer77 on 1/26/2010 2:18:10 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
To be honest, in the near future there wont be enough oil for everybody to drive traditional ICs.


The Saudi oil reserves alone are projected to last 100 years. Not to mention the untapped reserves in Alaska and other places.

So honestly, enough with this fear tactic. Unless "near future" means 100+ years in your book, you are not even close.


RE: Interesting Headline
By namechamps on 1/26/2010 2:46:04 PM , Rating: 1
That is a stupid stat.

The amount of gold in asteroid belt is likely enough to last billions of years. Of course you aren't going to mine asteroids for gold and break even at $1200 per ounce.

All oil is not created equal. Man started with the easiest richest deposits. As they are exhausted two things happen
1) production cost of oil will rise
2) the max potential rate of extraction will decline.

Nobody is saying we will run out of oil. However will run out of CHEAP and READILY AVAILABLE OIL.

Sure likely (unless legislation prevents it) you could still drive an oil powered car 100 years from now. Granted it likely will cost you couple thousands of dollars to fill up but you COULD use oil.

BTW Saudi Arabia hasn't been able to boost production more than a couple percent in the last couple years and that is even when they had capacity left in their OPEC cap and oil was $120+ a barrel.

Unless you are dumb enough to think they didn't want "free money" you will realize they are nearing the limit of their capacity. As the richest, cheapest, and largest wells slowly go into decline the deposits that go online to replace them will be much smaller, fuller of impurities, and more expensive.


RE: Interesting Headline
By OrSin on 1/26/2010 2:53:17 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you.

We don't have 100 of years of oil left at current usage and current mining technology. Now will get better at pumping it but still it is getting a lot harder every day to get it out of the ground.


RE: Interesting Headline
By dnd728 on 1/26/2010 3:22:41 PM , Rating: 2
Add don't forget that China alone adds about a dozen million cars annually at an ever increasing rate. Now add India and the rest of the globe. I can't see how oil production can keep up with this rate. The average driver would not be able to afford the same amount of oil, like it or not.


RE: Interesting Headline
By WW102 on 1/26/2010 3:29:11 PM , Rating: 2
HOw can you make a statement like that without knowing what our current production is like? Where are you getting this comparison?


RE: Interesting Headline
By Reclaimer77 on 1/26/2010 3:49:15 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
HOw can you make a statement like that without knowing what our current production is like? Where are you getting this comparison?


Their Liberals. They know everything.


RE: Interesting Headline
By dnd728 on 1/26/2010 4:09:28 PM , Rating: 2
...so tempting


RE: Interesting Headline
By dnd728 on 1/26/2010 3:55:01 PM , Rating: 2
One graph curves up, the other curves down. Bad recipe.


RE: Interesting Headline
By Reclaimer77 on 1/26/2010 3:17:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nobody is saying we will run out of oil.


Umm yes, he DID say that.


RE: Interesting Headline
By dnd728 on 1/26/2010 3:24:02 PM , Rating: 2
Nope


RE: Interesting Headline
By porkpie on 1/26/2010 6:40:01 PM , Rating: 2
"Nobody is saying we will run out of oil. However will run out of CHEAP and READILY AVAILABLE OIL."

Lol. In the 1970s, you clowns were saying we'd be out of oil in 30 years. Totally out. Now that 30 years have gone by and not only are we not out, but our reserves are actually LARGER than they were in 1975, you've switched to this nonsense.

Face the facts. Almost every drop of oil we pump today is oil that wasn't economical to pump a century ago. Even if technology doesn't improve, we have 100 years more of oil. And if technology does expand, the sky's the limit.

For that matter, in 100 years, we don't even need natural petroleum, we can synthesize as much as we need ourselves, with nothing but nuclear power, CO2, and water. Easier still, we can make oil out of coal (the Germans did that in WW2) and still turn an energy profit out of the deal.


RE: Interesting Headline
By lensman76 on 1/27/2010 5:53:54 AM , Rating: 2
Why do people like not see the 'bigger' issue here !? The simple fact is that oil is a finite source of energy. Do you agree?

As a finite source its bound by simple mathematical inescapabilities concerning availability vs demand. More people should be aware that the problems raised regarding oil cannot be viewed in isolation!

You mention oil reserves that will last 100 years, where did you pull this one out of...

Whilst I dont trust wikipedia completely it does help to start investigating and collates other useful links on the subject, here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_strategic_petr...

One link from the International Energy Agency of which the US is a member, states that all countries should keep roughly 90 days oil reserves at the previous years consumption rate. Here the link:

http://www.iea.org/textbase/papers/2004/factsheetc...

Do you know how much oil is held in reserve by the US? I dont know either but here's one quote from the wikipedia article:
quote:
The United States has the largest reported Strategic Petroleum Reserve with a total capacity of 727 million barrels.


sounds like a lot doesnt it but read further:

quote:
If completely filled, the US SPR could theoretically replace about 60 days of oil imports as the US is estimated to import approximately 12 million barrels/day of crude oil.


Doesnt look so good now does it !?

Im not preaching my opinion on the matter as fact, but surely it does raise some serious questions, how long will the worlds actual stored oil reserves last us ?

The problem with most of that estimates of how much oil/coal/gas we have, dont take into account population growth, you'll find that they might even mention '...at current consumption rate...'

In this subject, whilst I know this material is from back in 2001, but it does drive the point home, a talk given by a professor emeritus of Physics at Univ of Colorado-Boulder:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

Its in 8 parts, but it really is quite compelling.

We(world) consume oil at roughly 85 million barrels a day and that will only keep on going up if we dont do something about it.

As other posters have mentioned, China and India as two examples are both increasing on population size and more importantly in living standards that will inevitably lead to more and more oil being used. Population growth estimates put the average population growth rate in the US at almost 1% per year, at this rate the US will double its population in 70 years!!! Some countries population growth rates are closer to 4-5%, at 5% the number of years it takes to double the population is: 14 years!, The world average population growth is 1.17%, if this rate stays the same as it is now in about 60 years time there will be 2 times as many people on earth as now.

Lastly I stress dont take anything I say here as fact, do some research for yourselves!


RE: Interesting Headline
By BlackIceHorizon on 1/27/2010 2:21:28 PM , Rating: 2
Regardless of how long reserves "last" at present usage rates, oil production will peak a lot sooner - when approximately half of total reserves are left (whatever they turn out to be). And with peaking, or even leveling off, of production, basic supply/demand economics will dictate that oil prices increase to levels incompatible with its use for economic energy production in many current usage areas.

Add to that massive increases in consumption from emerging markets, such that usage rates of petroleum are predicted to triple or more in the next several decades, and I think economically viable alternatives to petroleum will be in high demand a lot sooner than a century from now.

Concerning drilling in untapped reserves, the quantities are a lot less than what a lot of people think. Whether you think it's a good idea or not, I'm sick of people claiming that drilling in ANWR could seriously improve our enormous consumption/production disparity (a significant portion of the trade imbalance) over any significant time span. A quick look at the numbers clearly shows this:

- The USGS estimates that between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels ( mean estimate: 10.4 billion barrels ) of technically recoverable crude oil and natural gas liquids are in the coastal plain area of ANWR. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.pdf

- Global annual consumption of crude is 30 billion barrels with the US consuming a little over a fifth of that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crude_oil

- That means that even at the end of an operation that would take decades to finish production, total ANWR reserves represent 1/3 of one year of total global crude consumption and less than two years of US consumption .

I know ANWR's not the only proposed new drilling project, but it seems like the main one people talk about. If you've actually studied petroleum geology (like I have), you'll realize that US oil production peaked in the '70s and has declined ever since. This is mainly due to hard geological truths about how much oil exists in certain recovery price ranges, not environmental regulations. Even a massive new drilling initiative in America will never bring us back to our peak production; meanwhile, demand continues to rise.

The hard conclusion of all these facts is this: the U.S. will continue exporting its wealth in huge quantities until (among other things) we develop alternatives to gas-guzzling petroleum vehicles. So I'd say there's a hell of a lot of need for this sort of thing right now.


RE: Interesting Headline
By wempa on 1/26/2010 12:32:08 PM , Rating: 3
No, the gamble is the electric vehicle itself.


RE: Interesting Headline
By Yawgm0th on 1/26/2010 12:45:41 PM , Rating: 2
GM is close to selling a plug-in electric vehicle and already sells vehicles with electric engines. The article is clearly implying that the gamble is in developing its own electric engine.


RE: Interesting Headline
By wempa on 1/26/2010 1:44:58 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. The article is misleading. I guess the thinking is that it's putting MORE eggs in the same basket. If the EV fails, then the part of the company making the electric motors is going to fail, too. In any case, it IS misleading.


RE: Interesting Headline
By Ralos on 1/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Interesting Headline
By Richard875yh5 on 1/26/2010 4:16:32 PM , Rating: 2
Well said!


Why not take the risk...
By SublimeSimplicity on 1/26/2010 10:37:22 AM , Rating: 5
...when what you're risking is in the form of government loans and grants?

Really what is there to lose... than again what is there to gain.




RE: Why not take the risk...
By wookie1 on 1/26/2010 10:46:18 AM , Rating: 5
Exactly, it isn't GM that's investing the money, it's you and me. The gov't just gave them about $150M to help with Volt production costs, it looks like this is what it was intended for.


RE: Why not take the risk...
By puckalicious on 1/26/2010 11:22:29 AM , Rating: 2
Actually if you READ the article, GM will initially only be making motors for their 2-mode hybrids. This has nothing to do with Volt, for at least 3 years anyway.


RE: Why not take the risk...
By AEvangel on 1/26/2010 11:23:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ideas that have merit do not require government largess to fund them. Either customers will willingly pay for the product and/or the service or both, or they won't. If the prices charged for these ideas is too high to generate adequate sales, then the product or service cannot morally be made affordable or the idea made "good" by taking money from some* to give to others.


‘Twas the Stimulus that Saved Them! « LewRockwell.com Blog (26 January 2010) http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/048...


RE: Why not take the risk...
By Solandri on 1/26/2010 10:52:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...when what you're risking is in the form of government loans and grants?
Really what is there to lose... than again what is there to gain.

This brings to mind the argument the U.S. brought to the WTC against Airbus. Basically, the EU was providing Airbus loan guarantees for making the A380. If the plane was financially successful, Airbus would pay the loans back. If it failed to break even, the EU governments would forgive the loans and absorb the losses. The U.S. cried foul over that in the perennial spat over government assistance to Boeing and Airbus.

Now we seem to be doing the very thing we argued against in order to support our auto industry, in the name of stimulus?


(Shakes Head Sadly at Mick's Reporting)
By porkpie on 1/26/2010 10:58:06 AM , Rating: 5
"Engines are very complex and electric car motors are no exception..."

An IC engine is very complex, agreed. But an "electric car motor" is not much more than some wire windings around a metal core.




By The0ne on 1/26/2010 12:15:48 PM , Rating: 2
Keep in mind this is GM and is some part our government.


By Chernobyl68 on 1/26/2010 12:57:41 PM , Rating: 4
yes, typically the motor controllers are far more complex than the motors are.


By Richard875yh5 on 1/26/2010 4:14:45 PM , Rating: 2
Another story making a good thing look bad. Why are some Americans so bent in killing American companies by writing stories like this one.

GM is not new in building motors. Delco motors of all sorts have been around for a long time. It is smart for GM to build their own motors. Of course, it this were Toyota or Honda the writer would have made this look as a positive.




By msomeoneelsez on 1/26/2010 5:30:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Another story making a good thing look bad. Why are some Americans so bent in killing American companies by writing stories like this one.


It isn't good when the tax payers are the ones who are paying the bill.
quote:
The Department of Energy is chipping half of the development costs, drawn from a $105M USD EV grant GM previously received.


GM is a dying company... let other companies buy up the efficient parts and let the inefficient things die off. There will be short term problems, yes, but we will be exponentially better off in the long run.

This is SIMPLE economics... I truly am amazed that people keep denying it...


By cruisin3style on 1/26/2010 9:08:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There will be short term problems, yes, but we will be exponentially better off in the long run.


Now, when you say long run, do you mean you expect politicians to be able to see past, say, 4 or 6 years?


By msomeoneelsez on 1/27/2010 1:39:17 AM , Rating: 2
Even less than that... I'm talking, say, 1-2 years out.

It truly is amazing just how fast a free market will buy up good parts and let bad parts die.


Corporations
By wookie1 on 1/26/2010 10:50:25 AM , Rating: 4
Actual corporations have to make moves that maximize the return for shareholders. This is nowhere in the gov't set of priorities with GM. Now it is merely a means to try to gain votes. No amount of your money is too much to buy votes for the politicians that use GM in this way.

The gov't isn't very efficient at creating jobs. I think that if $130M was left in the hands of private capital (instead of being wrenched away by taxes), it could create more than 200 jobs and be deployed much more efficiently. That comes out to almost $650K per job.




Alternate Title: "GM Pisses Away Millions"
By Chris Peredun on 1/26/2010 10:50:40 AM , Rating: 1
This is a departure from their traditional approach how?




By FITCamaro on 1/26/2010 5:41:50 PM , Rating: 2
No it just needs to be "American Taxpayers risk $129 million on GM building electric motors in-house".

I don't mind the fact that they're doing it. Creating jobs inside the US is a great thing. I mind that we're paying for it. If the investment fails, we pick up the check. And you know this was nothing but pressure from the government so it can say "see we created jobs!". I mean Maryland? A state with extremely high taxes? They would be far better off producing these in a state far friendlier towards businesses.


Not really a gamble
By dragonbif on 1/26/2010 11:38:32 AM , Rating: 2
I thought the US owns most of GM? So how is it a gamble? The gov will just toss some money into GM if things get hard just like they did with AIG.




Actually, Jason
By clovell on 1/27/2010 12:05:12 PM , Rating: 2
Motors are far less complex than traditional ICEs. Lame article.




Cheap online shopping
By fasfdhfd0000 on 1/29/2010 4:04:27 PM , Rating: 1

http://0rz.tw/oPWXd
can accept the paypal payment.we can ship within 24 hours after your

payment.

accept the paypal
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
http://0rz.tw/oPWXd




Cheap online shopping
By sdfasdgdhasdf on 1/30/2010 1:02:41 PM , Rating: 1

http://0rz.tw/oPWXd
can accept the paypal payment.we can ship within 24 hours after your payment.

accept the paypal
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
http://0rz.tw/oPWXd




Cheap online shopping
By zengqunhai3 on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki