backtop

Print 37 comment(s) - last by Jedi2155.. on Apr 15 at 2:46 AM

Fire Department at the Warren, Michigan GM Technical Center  (Source: digitaltrends.com)
GM says the battery had nothing to do with the Chevrolet Volt

A prototype electric vehicle (EV) battery exploded at a General Motors plant in Michigan this morning, seriously injuring one auto worker. 

The explosion occurred at a General Motors Technical Center battery research lab in Warren, Michigan at approximately 8:45 a.m. The Warren Fire Department and authorities were called immediately to investigate.

The building was safely evacuated, with only one employee requiring treatment. Four other employees were evaluated at the scene and did not require further treatment, according to GM.

It was discovered that a small fire had started due to "extreme testing of a prototype battery." 

"We are aware of an incident this morning at about 8:45 a.m. in one of the laboratories at the Alternative Energy Center at the General Motors Technical Center in Warren, Mich.," said GM in a statement. "Fire and emergency authorities were called to the scene. The building was evacuated. All employees have been accounted for. We are aware of five employees being evaluated on scene by medical personnel and only one employee is being further treated."

The one employee that required further treatment is expected to make a full recovery, with some chemical burns and a possible concussion.

Warren Mayor James Fouts visited the GM site after the explosion for a further look, and said there was plenty of damage and a chemical smell at the scene.

"I just want to say how very fortunate we are that only one person was seriously injured," said Fouts. "There were 80 people in that building, but only one person received a possible concussion and some chemical burns, from what I've been told.

"It was significant structural damage. Three very large windows were blown out and thick, fortified doors were forced open by the blast. Our fire commissioner said the blast went straight up in the area where they test lithium batteries. The building was stuffed with personnel and equipment, but it was designed very well."

GM wouldn't say exactly what kind of battery exploded, but mentioned that it was built by A123 Systems and was going through tests that were meant to stress the battery. GM made sure to note that the battery was not Chevrolet Volt related.

"The incident was unrelated to the Chevy Volt or any other production vehicle," said GM in a statement. "The incident was related to extreme testing on a prototype battery."

GM is likely making sure to protect its Volt against any more bad publicity than it has already received in the past year. Back in May 2011, a Chevrolet Volt caught fire after the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) conducted a side-impact crash test on the vehicle. It caught fire while parked in the Wisconsin testing facility.

This incident prompted an investigation of the safety of lithium batteries used for EVs. In November 2011, three more Volts were tested by the NHTSA, and two out of three either sparked or caught fire while the third remained normal.

"We're not yet able to confirm that it was a battery per se, but it was in one specific lab in the advanced research building," said Wilbert McAdams, Warren fire commissioner. "There's water damage to the building and OSHA will have to be called in because a person was injured."

McAdams is referring to the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which is currently inspecting the situation.

Sources: Auto Blog, The Detroit News


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Why DT is part of the problem
By bah12 on 4/11/2012 5:14:47 PM , Rating: 5
I count 8 paragraphs about the Volt issues all following the paragraph specifically saying this had nothing to do with the volt. Figures.




RE: Why DT is part of the problem
By Motoman on 4/11/12, Rating: -1
RE: Why DT is part of the problem
By karielash on 4/11/2012 5:57:54 PM , Rating: 3

Yeah I mean who on earth would be doing things like developing or researching a new product or vehicle at a 'Research Center'.... it's not like they ever do anything new in one of those....


RE: Why DT is part of the problem
By bah12 on 4/11/2012 5:53:37 PM , Rating: 5
How about none, since this is about a prototype under stress tests? DT thinks it needs to link every article to every previous one, it is tiresome to read.

Let the event stand on it's own merit, no need to cross link so darn much. I get it you want hits, but every patent story is cross referenced to a dozen other ones. Every phone failure with posts to a dozen other ones. And now every battery article gets a volt reference.

Do something similar to HowStuffWorks. Post the newsworthy event and let it stand on it's own. Sidebar "lots more information" if you want to cross promote, but don't add a half dozen paragraphs of dribble recapping stories you've already done.

BTW looks like they removed 2-3 already, so I guess I wasn't too far in left field.


RE: Why DT is part of the problem
By bah12 on 4/11/2012 6:00:48 PM , Rating: 5
Basically it's trolling BY THE AUTHOR. Let's take some fairly relate-able events, hint at some controversial link between the two, and watch the comments explode.

It is DT trolling for hits pure and simple, ever wonder why you cannot track comments in real time, or maybe why no edit? They WANT page refreshes so they can count that as traffic. Take a close look at how they write. Find any phone article about a non apple design flaw, and see if there isn't a reference to "your holding it wrong". Take literally ANY car article regarding MPG and you will most likely find a volt reference, complete with a $7500 tax rebate comment just in case mentioning the volt was not trolling enough DT definately makes sure by bringing government spending into it.


RE: Why DT is part of the problem
By TSS on 4/12/2012 9:38:04 AM , Rating: 2
They do have to make money with ads of a crowd that is suprised when anybody mentions they don't use adblocker.

I don't and even so i've never clicked on an ad on DT.

I've often wondered how any advertiser would pay to be on DT. This must be the least effective place on the internet that i know of to run ads :p


RE: Why DT is part of the problem
By leexgx on 4/12/2012 10:49:19 PM , Rating: 2
in the past i have blocked most of the stuff on this site (shareit Stupid intelitext crap i just block all the ads if they use intelitext as its dam right annoying they are told and keep using it i just blank block all ads on the site until its removed)

this system is stock chrome no adblock at all and its working fine (ie its not stalling the page when loading 10 ad scripts)


RE: Why DT is part of the problem
By integr8d on 4/12/2012 1:46:50 PM , Rating: 1
Everyone has an agenda. If you want the eco 'green' kool-aid, head over to Ars.


RE: Why DT is part of the problem
By Samus on 4/12/2012 12:22:24 AM , Rating: 5
I agree with Motoman. It's obvious this is blatant Dailytech Volt-bashing. I'm so tired of reading this crap here I've noticed I'm slowly reading DT less and less because of these ridiculous biases.

They don't even make vehicles in this building. Obviously it isn't Volt related. Instead of mentioning the Volt eight times, you could have detailed the type of stress-testing this battery was receiving (appearantly it was being superheated in a chamber.)


RE: Why DT is part of the problem
By Natch on 4/12/2012 8:01:38 AM , Rating: 2
Add to that that the Volt advertisement that appeared at the top of the page (when I opened it), just makes the irony that much more delicious! ;)


RE: Why DT is part of the problem
By lightfoot on 4/11/12, Rating: -1
RE: Why DT is part of the problem
By Keeir on 4/11/2012 7:28:25 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Yes, because when a company that produces only one EV


GM produces and has produced a range of Battery Assisted Autos. (Of course I am refering to the Power Train Battery assisted models since all cars have at least 1 battery)

LaCrosse eAssist comes to mind.

quote:
a high capacity battery says that the test


And where is this information from? What does high capacity mean? High density? Large size?

quote:
despite similar events related to that specific


Errr... I assume you mean the slow fire started by an improperly cooled battery three weeks after a full-scale crash test that was left unattended contrary to operation manual? How is that in any way similiar to this event? (A stress test at a GM facility with a resulting explosion.)

I really don't see any similarity in cause, event, situation, etc. Unless you want to see one there to start with...

Maybe the story was different last hour, but A123 doesn't make any batteries in GM automobiles. The Volt's battery comes from Compact Power.

So I really don't see how excessive mention of the Volt is at all relevant. Unless you know of a Volt that exploded? I don't.


RE: Why DT is part of the problem
By lightfoot on 4/11/2012 7:44:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So I really don't see how excessive mention of the Volt is at all relevant. Unless you know of a Volt that exploded? I don't.

But GM themselves felt it necessary to emphasize that this was not related to the Volt, so clearly they are either trying to deflect, or they think that it is somehow similar to the Volt incidents.

GM is basically telling the press to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." Is it any wonder that Jason thought it relevant to mention why GM was actively trying to deflect attention away from the Volt?


RE: Why DT is part of the problem
By Keeir on 4/11/2012 8:03:28 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
GM is basically telling the press to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." Is it any wonder that Jason thought it relevant to mention why GM was actively trying to deflect attention away from the Volt?


1. Written By Tiffany Kaiser

2. Read the quote by GM. "Unreleated to the Chevy Volt or or any other production vehicle,"

Standard language. You're looking for things that don't exist and DT is playing to your leanings. You can't believe the power media has... in this case GM released some standard language and this author (among many) slightly edited the statement to make it appear like GM is excessively concerned... but its really releasing the standard type language I would expect any major component test failure to get if it leaked to the news....


RE: Why DT is part of the problem
By Shig on 4/11/12, Rating: 0
RE: Why DT is part of the problem
By Paj on 4/12/2012 8:35:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
DT is a pretty solid site


Haha no it isnt.

With all their editorial slant and heavy bias, I wouldnt be surprised if Jason Mick is a pseudonym for David Koch.

Just like many tabloid News International papers, its pretty clear to anyone with a rudimentary grasp of media that many of the articles are written to provoke indignation in the comments sections, which in turn guarantees pageviews and lively discussion, which = $$$ for advertisers. Just go to the Daily Mail website - exactly the same thing.

Its the main reason I come here - I guess it satisfies the average internet user's love of pointless arguments. I certainly dont come here for the quality journalism.

For unbiased, professional reporting on tech issues, you'd be better off at IEEE Spectrum, MIT Technology Review, Wired or arstechnica (although even the latter has taken a slide lately).


RE: Why DT is part of the problem
By BSMonitor on 4/12/2012 2:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
Probably because a donkey reporter asked the question. Wow


RE: Why DT is part of the problem
By rich876 on 4/12/2012 12:44:09 PM , Rating: 2
Your remark is easy to answer. It's a research center and GM could be testing a battery for the future. Anything wrong with that?

What has made it hard for GM is the media being a circus run by the clowns who are more interested in entertaining, than imparting factual news to the audience.

The totally perverse attitude of the American media to denigrate anything developed, designed and built in the USA shows stupidity and ignorance, all of which gets heaps of praise, publicity and cheerleaders.

Have a good days to the anti-GM, Volt morons!


RE: Why DT is part of the problem
By Black1969ta on 4/13/2012 1:14:56 AM , Rating: 2
A123 is rumored to be the supplier of batteries for Volt 2.0, LiFEPO4 batteries are more inert than LiPo, and store energy more densely, also the usable charge is over a wider range of voltages. and charging cycles are much higher than LiPo.

FYI Volt battery is 100 Liters in volume and 16kWh capacity
for the same 100 Liters, the A123 Battery capacity would be 450kWh!

from the Volt Wiki and A123 website respectively.

Li9kely GM would reduce Volume and mass of battery but 100 mile battery only capability is not unfathomable.


RE: Why DT is part of the problem
By Mint on 4/13/2012 2:07:32 PM , Rating: 2
You're misreading the specs. Power density is 4500 W/L. 100L would give you 450 kW (603 hp), not 450 kWh. Energy density is 247 Wh/L, meaning 24.7 kWh for 100L.

Still, that power density is very impressive. A 12kWh battery should still carry you 30 miles, be 50L and 94kg (plus cooling), and have 200 kW max power. That could create a rocket of a PHEV.

I hope the Fisker Atlantic delivers on that.

Performance was a missed opportunity for the Volt, IMO, as marginal cost for more power in an EV is very low. Powerful electric motors don't add as much weight/cost as ICEs. Maybe their battery choice didn't allow it, and the next one will.


RE: Why DT is part of the problem
By mindless1 on 4/14/2012 4:20:09 PM , Rating: 2
LiFEPO4 chemistry batteries have lower energy density, which is far more of a detractor than higher power density would be a benefit.

Not sure why you are suggesting "should still carry you 30 miles". Power density does not do work, only the RATE of the work.


RE: Why DT is part of the problem
By Jedi2155 on 4/15/2012 2:46:03 AM , Rating: 2
The Volt only uses ~10 kWh of the 16 kWh pack for 40 miles of range. So a 12 kWh usable would be 48 miles.

FYI A123's battery is less energy dense than the Volt's battery but it has a higher power capacity.


RE: Why DT is part of the problem
By Samus on 4/12/2012 12:28:51 AM , Rating: 2
I would assume if a diesel engine blew up at a Ford plant that it wasn't F-350 related at all, and lean toward a new engine possibly being designed for one of their compact cars. It's just the same to assume this new battery pack that exploded at this GM factory is potentially a new design for a new vehicle, perhaps the Sparq, the Verge, etc.

The Volt design is complete. There is nothing wrong with its battery, nor was there anything ever wrong with its battery. It simply didn't have enough impact protection for the DOT's unrealistic side impact test where they hit it with a narrow beam not shaped anything like a car, and GM fixed the breach by fitting the battery cage with a 80lb steel plate in a recall.

God this car doesn't have a chance. As if the price wasn't enough of a problem, factor in the public reception over the tax credit and all these ignorant, bias journalists, and it is certainly doomed.


RE: Why DT is part of the problem
By BSMonitor on 4/12/2012 2:56:31 PM , Rating: 2
Donkey.

All the auto manufacturers and their suppliers do all kinds of testing of prototype engines, transmissions, exhausts, intake manifolds, etc. etc. Most of which never see the light of day in production models, as THIS kind of testing eliminates them from practical use.

Wait for it....

It's called R&D... Oh sorry, forgot, donkey.. Research and Development.

NO ONE claims that an engine that leaks at extreme temperature is related to existing F-350 trucks in production. No one claims that a drive shaft that explodes at an R&D facility at 10000rpm, is related to all rear wheel Chrysler 300's...

The point is to develop the technology at R&D facilities and test them under extreme conditions to see if they are viable at real world conditions.

After that they go to the assembly of prototype vehicles, which are also tested.

To say that one component at a test facility in any way is related to on the road vehicles is absolutely IGNORANT.

Hence, you are a donkey.


This Is What R&D Does
By skeansmith on 4/11/2012 6:48:15 PM , Rating: 4
I work for a company that produces consumer electronics and we blow stuff all the time. This is not news. It is called a stress test.




RE: This Is What R&D Does
By fic2 on 4/11/2012 7:48:16 PM , Rating: 2
I hope that your company blows stuff up behind some kind of shielding. Doesn't sound like GM does.


RE: This Is What R&D Does
By Jeffk464 on 4/12/2012 4:58:25 PM , Rating: 2
The article specifically stated that the design of the building prevented the damage from being worse.


RE: This Is What R&D Does
By lightfoot on 4/11/2012 7:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly how often do your employees get seriously injured during these "routine" tests?

A person was hospitalized. This is not a normal test, no matter how you wish to spin it.

It is news because people were injured. They were injured because they clearly did NOT expect it to EXPLODE.


RE: This Is What R&D Does
By Keeir on 4/11/2012 8:15:10 PM , Rating: 2
::Sigh::

It only news because GM had to call the public fire department. Most large companies conducting this type of testing maintain thier own site emergency and fire services.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.nr0.htm

187 people in 2010 were killed by a fire or explosion at thier workplace.

Someone getting severely burned by a fire or explosion (unexpected) is literally an everyday occurance in the United States. I can assure you that most of these occur during "routine" work. At my workplace, several people have been seriously wounded this year, upto amputation of limbs. (Sadly the count is 3 limbs this year, which is unusually high. All of these occured during testing of stable products under routine conditions. It has been determine the fault was human error not product error, but that might be the case here as well.)


RE: This Is What R&D Does
By FITCamaro on 4/12/12, Rating: 0
RE: This Is What R&D Does
By lightfoot on 4/12/2012 11:12:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It only news because GM had to call the public fire department.

It's only news because they didn't cover it up??

So, in your opinion, injuring, maiming and killing employees is not news worthy? You must live in China. Or work for Apple.

Everywhere else in the world this is news worthy, regardless of the risks involved in the profession. If a test pilot dies in a crash, that is news worthy. If coal miners are killed in a cave in, that is news worthy.

When an employee is detonated by an experimental EV battery, that is news worthy. Because it involves a EV battery it is even Tech news. Or do you think that the threshold for news-worthiness should involve a body count?


RE: This Is What R&D Does
By Keeir on 4/12/2012 12:53:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's only news because they didn't cover it up??


Maintaining your own fire and emergency services isn't about covering something up. Its about WORKPLACE safety. If you have an explosion on your private property that you completely handle in the safe manner yourself, is it a coverup you don't write a news story about it?

quote:
So, in your opinion, injuring, maiming and killing employees is not news worthy? You must live in China. Or work for Apple.


Its not my opinion. Its the opinion of the society. If it truely was newworthy there would be tens to hundreds of articles every single day. I dare you to find 10 news articles on different workplace injuries that occured between 4/1/2012 and 4/8/2012. Staticially speaking there was likely 10-20 deaths and 100 major injuries during this time period. Surely there would be 10% report rating.

quote:
Everywhere else in the world this is news worthy, regardless of the risks involved in the profession. If a test pilot dies in a crash, that is news worthy. If coal miners are killed in a cave in, that is news worthy.


So, someone being injured is the same as multiple people dying?

quote:
When an employee is detonated by an experimental EV battery, that is news worthy


Do you know what the word "detonated" means?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/detonated?s...

I am almost positve the employee did not explode with sudden violence.

See, the problem is that it may be newsworthy, but the most newsworthy thing about it is "fuzzy interest". People like you (and me) are more interested because of the political ties in of EV technology currently. We don't share the same interest in accidents at Intel. This allows people like you to twist the event in thier mind to support thier views. How? Lets look at the post I am replying to

A. "Cover up"
B. "Live in China"
C. "Same as coal miners in a cave in"
D. "Detonated"

WTF. None of those things are said, implied, etc.


RE: This Is What R&D Does
By BSMonitor on 4/12/2012 3:03:44 PM , Rating: 2
As someone else said, workers are injured on the job ALL the time. Why else is Workers Compensation Insurance mandated by ALL 50 states for businesses.

Not every single incident at a workplace where someone gets injured or killed is in the news.

So, I fail to see your point.


Damn
By Ish718 on 4/11/2012 5:44:56 PM , Rating: 5
Now Al Qaeda wants to outsource bomb production to Chevy




RE: Damn
By fic2 on 4/11/2012 7:47:17 PM , Rating: 2
Seems like GM has bought Sony's battery technology.


RE: Damn
By delphinus100 on 4/11/2012 10:35:51 PM , Rating: 2
Ford stopped making the Pinto, so somebody's gotta pick up the slack...


Finally.
By CZroe on 4/11/2012 8:29:18 PM , Rating: 2
Finally, a real violent explosion instead of all the battery fires and ruptures that are usually described as "exploded." That includes all the 2005/2006/2007 notebook battery troubles for Sony and the cellphone batteries before that.

I hope the employee recovers fully.




"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki