backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 50 comment(s) - last by jRaskell.. on Oct 16 at 12:52 PM

Chevrolet Volt
Thanks to battery tech the Chevy Volt could see an all-electric driving range of up to 80 miles

GM is readying its extended range electric vehicle called the Volt for production in 2010. The car promises to give the average driver a vehicle capable of at least 40 miles on electric power alone with a gasoline engine to recharge the battery when driving for longer distances is required.

The key component to the Volt and its ability to meet the promises GM has made is the lithium-ion battery the car uses. Applied Sciences Inc. is currently working with carbon nanofibers which could stretch the Volt's all-electric driving range to 80 miles.

Working along with GM and Applied Sciences to make the Volt a reality is another firm called Pyrograf Products. Pyrograf and Applied Sciences share a common owner, but separate investors according to Dayton Daily News.

Developing the technology to design a battery for the Volt using carbon nanofibers isn't cheap. The two Ohio-based firms received investments of $1 million from the Ohio Third Frontier program and $500,000 from GM.

Pyrograf says that its output of carbon nanofibers currently accounts for 25% of the global carbon nanofiber production. The reason the carbon nanofiber is such an important part of the Volt equation is twofold. First, the nanofibers allow for more efficiency form the battery. Second, due to performance that is more efficient the amount of overall carbon in the battery can be reduced. The total effect being less weight for the electric drive train to propel, equating to longer driving distances being attainable compared to other battery systems.

With any vehicle, reducing weight is a key component to improving performance. The original electric car from GM, the EV1, had a lead acid battery that weighed about 800 pounds. The Volt's current lithium-ion battery is about 400 pounds according to John Mackay, a spokesman for Applied Sciences.

Mackay said, "By making the carbon perform better, you can reduce the weight of that component in the battery. GM researchers say they have not seen any carbon materials that have performed as well as ours."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Sick
By xKeGSx on 10/13/2008 11:33:12 AM , Rating: 2
This definitely justifies the price tag and new look now...




RE: Sick
By inighthawki on 10/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sick
By xKeGSx on 10/13/2008 11:40:50 AM , Rating: 2
I was being sarcastic, but point well taken anyway.


RE: Sick
By inighthawki on 10/13/2008 3:19:28 PM , Rating: 2
Oh my bad, i just read it normally and missed the sarcasm, but yeah at least my point got across anyway


RE: Sick
By Samus on 10/13/2008 4:32:11 PM , Rating: 4
If you don't need the 80 miles of distance between charges, consider that the under optimum conditions (no cargo, ideal driving conditions, and no additional passengers) the vehicles achieves up to 40 miles on a charge.

With the new battery technology you can assume 3-4 passengers, full cargo, and snowy/congested driving conditions and achieve AT LEAST 40 miles per charge.

So the improvement in battery technology helps GM claim 40 miles per charge under all conditions, not just ideal ones.

Does the name of that battery research company bother anyone else? You should never have the word PYRO associated with a technology that has been known to catch on fire/explode ;)


RE: Sick
By inighthawki on 10/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sick
By Alexvrb on 10/13/2008 9:13:57 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The size of the gas tank to recharge the battery is too small to make too long of a trip, you would need to constantly refuel
I don't know where you're getting your information, but everything I've read indicates that even with the smaller fuel tank, the Volt will have a total range somewhere in the 340-400 mile ballpark before needing to refuel. That means enough fuel for 300+ miles AFTER the battery. I don't think having to stop for fuel every 300-360 miles is all that absurd.

Of course, that's not the primary purpose of the vehicle. The reason they downsized the tank in the first place is that you're trying to minimize fuel use in your daily driving. The ICE gives you the additional freedom and flexibility that it would not possess as a pure electric. So although it is not the primary goal of the vehicle, the range extending capability ensures it does not need to be "refueled constantly" during a trip.


RE: Sick
By jRaskell on 10/16/2008 12:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you don't need the 80 miles of distance between charges, consider that the under optimum conditions (no cargo, ideal driving conditions, and no additional passengers) the vehicles achieves up to 40 miles on a charge.


To date, pretty much everything I've read on the Chevy Volt is claiming at least 40 miles on a charge (including claims directly from GM), not 40 miles under the most optimal conditions.


RE: Sick
By Indianapolis on 10/14/2008 12:57:53 PM , Rating: 4
I think there's a glitch in the forums, because sarcasm never seems to come across.


RE: Sick
By Spivonious on 10/13/2008 11:42:02 AM , Rating: 5
I agree. My total commute is about 25 miles, so upping it from 40 to 80 makes zero difference for me.

Rather than increasing range, GM needs to find ways to reduce cost. If they can sell the Volt for $25k or less, they will sell millions.


RE: Sick
By MrTeal on 10/13/2008 11:56:10 AM , Rating: 5
If you can boost the range from 40 to 80 miles without increasing the weight, it should logically follow that you could keep the same 40 mile range with reduced cost, weight or both.


RE: Sick
By theapparition on 10/13/2008 12:48:56 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly,
I'd love to see the price drop due to a "half" battery pack solution. For those who need the extra range, get the "extended battery" edition. Not unlike cell phones or notebook computers.

Considering that it is estimated that the battery alone in the Volt is approx 10k(x2), offering a half battery pack should shave an approximate 10k off the price. Not too shabby.


RE: Sick
By Doormat on 10/13/2008 12:58:55 PM , Rating: 2
Furthermore (and also like PCs), it may be possible to build the vehicle in such a way that you can upgrade or downgrade between battery packs.

If you get a new job with a longer or shorter commute that would justify downgrading to the 40 mile battery or upgrading to the 80 mile battery, you could have it swapped out (for a fee of course).


RE: Sick
By austinag on 10/13/2008 12:09:42 PM , Rating: 2
My commute is 55 miles round trip. If this increase in range is accurate, the car would make sense for me now.


RE: Sick
By peritusONE on 10/13/2008 12:47:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I agree. My total commute is about 25 miles, so upping it from 40 to 80 makes zero difference for me.


How would it make zero difference? You could now make two trips without using any extra energy whatsoever. You say this like electricity from a wall socket costs you nothing.


RE: Sick
By Spivonious on 10/13/2008 2:19:32 PM , Rating: 2
I figured this out on another Volt article, but charging the Volt every day for a month would cost me something like $15. Saving an extra $7/month is not worth a $15,000 premium in price (assuming that they could get the price down to $25k).


RE: Sick
By foolsgambit11 on 10/13/2008 2:50:31 PM , Rating: 3
Uh.... you say this like you don't understand. While reduced weight would account for a small improvement in mileage, they aren't doubling the efficiency of the vehicle. Most of that extra range comes from improved energy density in the battery - that is, his electricity bill may go down a little, but he couldn't make two trips for the energy of one. He would use close to the same amount of electricity either way.

On the other hand, if he uses a smaller portion of the total capacity of the battery, he should experience greater longevity from the battery pack. Whether that offsets the cost of buying for capacity he isn't going to use, I don't know.


RE: Sick
By inighthawki on 10/13/2008 3:14:54 PM , Rating: 4
Because if it takes say, x amount of electricity to charge it up to drive 40mi, it takes 2x amount to go 80mi. Like i said in my first post, its simply now a matter of how long/how many times u can take the car out before recharge. In 95% of the situations, people don't get home from work only to drive another 20 miles. It still costs the same, there is no extra efficiency involved. Electricity is still measured in the same unit, and still takes the same amount to drive. The battery simply holds more power and itll probably take longer to recharge.


RE: Sick
By ebakke on 10/13/2008 12:52:06 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
GM needs to find ways to reduce cost. If they can sell the Volt for $25k or less, they will sell millions.
I found a way. Ditch the UAW.


RE: Sick
By codeThug on 10/13/2008 1:05:47 PM , Rating: 2
+10

Exactly.


RE: Sick
By austinag on 10/13/2008 1:30:53 PM , Rating: 2
SHAZAAM.


RE: Sick
By foolsgambit11 on 10/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sick
By ebakke on 10/13/2008 4:13:22 PM , Rating: 3
I will ignore all of your useless yammering and address your only (incorrect) point.
quote:
It's also about as feasible as ditching the UAW. Have you ever wondered why they put up with the unions?
They 'put up with the unions' for two reasons. First, they're terribly afraid. The lobbying power of the unions is incredible. Second, our current economic system encourages/rewards senior management for short term performance. They're judged on quarterly performance, and not yearly/bi-yearly (or longer) numbers. Telling the UAW to shove it would undoubtedly hurt short term. However, once the employees learn that life sucks without a job, and they actually do have the skills necessary to negotiate their own salary/benefits (contrary to what the union has been telling them for years) they'll get hired again. Or they'll work for someone else, and GM can hire a new person who's willing to do the job for less money.

The UAW does nothing but suck wages from it's members, and maintain it's insanely strong grasp on GM's throat.


RE: Sick
By Choppedliver on 10/13/2008 3:50:01 PM , Rating: 2
Wow zero difference huh? Ok so it makes zero difference when you just go to work and back. I can see that.

I would guess that there is times when you would like to travel more than 40 miles in one day, and get ready for this, even more than 40 IN ONE TRIP! *SAY IT AINT SO*. Got relatives out of town? Ever take a road trip? Ever have errands to run?

And on those days, the 80 mile range will keep you from running on gas ( until you hit 80 miles ). I cannot see how this would not be of benefit to virtually everyone drives.

Or perhaps you drive 40 miles one day, forget to "plug your car in", and you are late for work, and * THANK GOD * you have 40 miles left in your battery.

Oh what am I thinking, 640k is enough for everyone, so is 2meg, I mean 32meg, I mean 2gig... Oh hell...


RE: Sick
By inighthawki on 10/13/2008 7:56:43 PM , Rating: 2
Firstly, nobody really said it wasnt an advantage at all. The basis of this series of posts was when I said it wouldnt give an advantage to MOST people. Now of course, 80mi is better than 40, but then you have the other statistics. Road-trips? Where do you plan on going because the size of the gas tank int going to recharge your battery for THAT long, unless by road trip you mean 100 miles. Also, we have yet to see how efficient the battery is. It may HOLD 2x as much, but how much energy does it take to recharge? It's entirely possible the design makes it take more power to recharge than the 40mi battery (And dont be stupid, think comparatively) While this may not, and probably will not necessarily be the case, or at least to a larger scale, we don't have enough information to decide whether or not the advantage is nearly as helpful as it sounds.

Just fyi, if the 80mi battery takes exactly 2x the energy to recharge as the 40mi, very likely, then the max distance you can achieve is not greatly increased. In fact you will only get 40mi more because of the initial charge, but after that, no advantage at all.


RE: Sick
By Spuke on 10/13/2008 6:38:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If they can sell the Volt for $25k or less, they will sell millions.
Remember, there's only going to be 10k units per year of these built.


RE: Sick
By Arribajuan on 10/13/2008 12:57:48 PM , Rating: 2
They could also stay at 40mi range and reduce weight and hopefully cost


RE: Sick
By ajvitaly on 10/13/2008 1:45:32 PM , Rating: 2
If you have an 80 mile battery, and it takes the same amount of power (or less than 2x) to charge fully, then it will results in less electrical charge ups, hence less energy use, hence cheaper costs to operate in the long run.


RE: Sick
By zephyrprime on 10/13/2008 4:42:05 PM , Rating: 2
It's not going to take the same amount of power to charge. It's going to take 2x the amount of power to recharge. Increases in battery specific energy do not yield increases in charging efficiency. Charging is already pretty darn efficient.


RE: Sick
By Fireshade on 10/15/2008 9:59:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
i'm just saying that 40mi vs 80mi per charge doesnt really change the value of the price tag for most people

It should though.
It means you can drive twice the distance on a single fuel tank. Or single electricity charge (which also costs you). That could be an incentive for calculating consumers ;)


RE: Sick
By ajvitaly on 10/13/2008 1:48:07 PM , Rating: 2
After the initial shock of the official unveiling, I'm actually starting to like the look. It's not as sporty as the concept model, but I think vs. other fuel efficient cars out now it looks top notch.


RE: Sick
By Smartless on 10/13/2008 2:46:53 PM , Rating: 1
Is it me, or does it look like a Prius and now the new Honda Insight?
I'm sorry I guess I haven't been keeping up but last time I looked at the Volt, it looked a little like the new Camaro. Sheesh.


Unfortunately lithium isn't the answer
By Quantem on 10/13/2008 12:37:26 PM , Rating: 3
Just as Oil is the Devil's excrement, Lithium must be Allah's antidepressant. Not content with hiding most of the Oil under the barbarians of the desert, he put most of the Lithium with the banana bunch in Bolivia.

More importanly, there isn't nearly enough of it to satisfy the anticipated global demand.




RE: Unfortunately lithium isn't the answer
By snownpaint on 10/13/2008 12:44:09 PM , Rating: 3
So what do you call Coal and Natural Gas..
Salvation Rocks and Farts of Freedom?

There will never be enough of anything, unless it can be replaced or reused, in the long scale of things. Not even sand.


By Quantem on 10/13/2008 1:22:27 PM , Rating: 2
No shortage of energy - its a management problem!

How about geothermal heat+thermoelectric conversion, and spin up a carbon fibre flywheel instead of an engine?

Actually, I like the Indian car that runs on compressed air... or perhaps it's actually carbon di-backside, as per your suggestion.


RE: Unfortunately lithium isn't the answer
By dubldwn on 10/13/2008 2:34:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
More importanly, there isn't nearly enough of it to satisfy the anticipated global demand.

Running out of lithium? Is this peak lithium theory? The reason the US hasn’t had a large lithium operation is because it was cheaper to have others, like the South Americans, do it. So, while expensive, with significant demand, the US, China, South Korea, etc. will meet it with supply. Many environmental groups might be unhappy with new mining operations, but to say we’re going to run out of lithium shows a profound misunderstanding of the geology of the Earth. Even if there was no longer enough lithium to mine economically, which is ridiculous, by that time we would be using a new tech.


RE: Unfortunately lithium isn't the answer
By Quantem on 10/13/2008 4:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
There is lithium in the US - and in seawater, and on Ceres, no doubt - but there are 6,500,000,000 people on Earth, and counting, and they all want their share, and the easy stuff will quickly become uneconomic to mine.

Fortunately, other technologies like H fuel cell, and possibly Zn-air, might carry the load.

This guy may be a bit strange, but IMHO, worth a read:
http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Projects/Lithium_P...


By masher2 (blog) on 10/14/2008 1:48:15 AM , Rating: 2
> "This guy may be a bit strange, but IMHO, worth a read"

Sounds a lot like the geologists who, in 1925, were predicting the world would be out of oil in less than a decade. The lithium mining industry is extremely young...proven reserve figures today are a tiny fraction of what we'll ultimately exploit.


By randomly on 10/14/2008 1:41:31 PM , Rating: 2
There is some interesting information in the paper, but some of it seems questionable.

USGS quotes lithium reserves at twice what he quotes in the paper. The evaluation also seems slanted and alarmist. Although he mentions recycling, he ignores the impact that would have on supply demands. Recycling of Lithium car batteries would be very high since the retained value of the materials is so substantial in such an easy form to handle and recycle. If people throw them out, somebody else is going to collect them.

He also mentions that most lithium production is secondary to the primary mining of other materials. Mining for Lithium itself is still in it's infancy since the world demand is met mostly from incidental production of other minerals.

Another factor is that lithium is relatively cheap, around $4.5 USD per Kg for Lithium Carbonate. It takes about 1.4 Kg of Lithium Carbonate per KWH of battery capacity. So about $100 for the Lithium for the 16 Kwh GM Volt battery. Any increase in price is going to increase the economically recoverable reserves, just like it does with other metals and oil. There is certainly room for price increases at $100 per car. As the price goes up so does the rate of recycling.


Huh?
By TETRONG on 10/13/2008 12:53:54 PM , Rating: 1
They've been given billions for "supercars" over the past two decades, and now a huge slice of a $25 billion dollar bailout and they've decided to squander a staggering $500k for Battery R&D?
WTF???




RE: Huh?
By austinag on 10/13/2008 1:36:29 PM , Rating: 2
How dare they try to be on the leading edge of technology!!! This is an outrage!!! I'm going to write my Senator and demand they be water boarded.


RE: Huh?
By TETRONG on 10/13/2008 2:58:31 PM , Rating: 2
Might want to turn your sarcasm detector on.

500k is a laughable sum to spend on battery R&D if they expect to stay in the race against Honda and Toyota.


RE: Huh?
By austinag on 10/13/2008 3:09:04 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, my bad. However, I alreday wrote the letter.


RE: Huh?
By TETRONG on 10/13/2008 3:33:47 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps they should be water-boarded for unrivaled incompetence.
Seems its the only way to motivate them to get off of their asses.


Well, not exactly
By theBike45 on 10/13/2008 4:24:38 PM , Rating: 2
Several errors here- the original EV-1 battery weighed around 1250 pounds, not 800. Nor is weight the big deal in either an electric or a hybrid car - that's because both technologies recover a massive portion of kinetic energy,
which in other types of vehicles is the reason weight has a large effect on efficiency. The big obstacle to an 80 mile range is the cost of the batteries - that would be another $16,000. It would make zero economic sense. Or even environmental sense - the extra 40 miles would have little effect on gasoline consumption or emissions.




RE: Well, not exactly
By zephyrprime on 10/13/2008 4:40:49 PM , Rating: 2
Weight is less of a big deal in electric cars due to regenerative braking but even so, regenerative braking is only 50-60% efficient and it does take a little more energy to maintain speed in a heavier car.


RE: Well, not exactly
By Visual on 10/15/2008 5:15:22 AM , Rating: 2
The article touts the battery weight difference as if to show how huge of an improvement the current batteries are, but...
Note that while the weight of the EV1 batteries was bigger, so was the range. With lead-acid batteries the range was 55-75 miles for Gen 1, 75-100 for Gen 2.
So that is almost double the range for Gen 1 and more than double for Gen 2... so looking at the range/weight proportions, the current batteries are not really much of an improvement.

Later versions of EV1 with NiMH batteries had a range reaching 150 miles, so in that regard the current li-ions are no improvement at all, even a step back. I am sure they must be better in terms of longevity or price or safety, or something... else GM wouldn't have bothered. But they are not better in terms of weight for sure, and I don't see why the article tried to spin it that way.

I agree that price is the biggest factor to battery size... it's good this new research can double the capacity, but will the cost remain the same or double as well? Lets hope they manage to lower the prices, not rise them.

Anyway, I hope this new development will work out and really make the new batteries worth the wait... if Volt really launches with 80 miles range and a bearable price, they wont even be able to produce it as fast as it will be selling.


Hummm?
By snownpaint on 10/13/2008 12:38:01 PM , Rating: 2
This reminds me of the different sized HDs in a Xbox, PS3 or the IPod. In the end, I think the biggest storage wins the race. The manufactures of these devices soon learned those extra costs on lower (entry level) sales, were not worth it because people are going to buy the device in the end, only spend less if they have a choice. Also the up-sell is not worth the logistic trouble or inventory management.

As a manufacturing stand point, investing more money now in higher efficiency batteries allows you to take that same design(manufacturing) and apply into other future vehicles. (Hybrids as well??) This offers more time to refine battery production (reduce costs) and reduces the start up cost on the next Volt design that will require that extra energy. All making future production cheaper and more profitable.




RE: Hummm?
By Daigain on 10/13/2008 3:31:23 PM , Rating: 2
I do understand your point with the different sized hard drives in consoles but auto makers already deliver a multitude of different equations of cars. There's also a slight difference between a couple of bucks between hard drives and cars ranging in the tens of thousands.

A person buying a car can't just look down his pocket and say "-well I could just borrow another 10K to get the extra 40 miles of range". I think that different models starting at around 40 miles would be a good thing, and not only different battery packs but different ICE engines as well. But while ICE engine variations will probably take a while, different battery packs could be a potentially easy way to make both GM happy by being able to offer a much less MSRP leading to a larger target area and consumers by allowing more people to actually afford the car.

There's of course the question with the tax rebate would the smaller battery be eligible? If not then your initial statement could probably come true, why buy a car with 40miles less range if you only save a few thousands.


The part everyone misses is....
By utaka95 on 10/14/2008 11:05:43 AM , Rating: 2
By increasing the "theoretical" mileage to 80 miles, they are making the "real world" range about 40-50 miles. Any time someone tells you the possible range of an electric vehicle, they aren't including all the what ifs. Like what if you want to listen to the radio? Uh, well, that reduces your range. What if it's raining? The use of windshield wipers is going to reduce your range. Is it nighttime? Headlights REALLY reduce your electric range. ANY battery improvement is needed regardless of range projections.




"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




17 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki