bagwell

http://gm-volt.com/2008/05/14/big-ne...iles-electric/
Posted in: Prototypes, Test drive

In the biggest news since the initial concept announcement, GM vice-chairman Bob Lutz confirmed that in fact the first Chevy Volt prototype, with the full lithium-ion battery pack has hit the test track.

He said “It is reliably meeting its objectives. Even with a rough calibration, even with the wrong drive unit, the wrong body, etc. etc., it has been hitting its 40 miles on electric power.”

He specifically confirmed the dynamometer tests have been successful even under various thermal conditions.

He even went so far as to say “I can almost say the battery is the least of our problems,”

He further explains that much of the engineering challenge ahead has to do with software, figuring out how and when the engine should kick in for example.

He notes that he is much more confident in the November 2010 deadline. He talks about Volt vehicle line executive Frank Weber in the following way:

“Three months ago if you asked Frank Weber ’so November 2010?’ he’d get flustered and say he wouldn’t answer until he knew more, now if you ask him the same question, he’s calm and relaxed and says unless we encounter some completely unforeseen obstacle - November 2010 looks good.”

Finally he confirms that CEO Wagoner is as involved in the Volt project just as much as he is, confirming extreme interest in it straight from the top.

bagwell

question is, will the price be competitive? can GM afford to lose $$$$ on this car like Toyota initially did with the Prius (allegedly)?

STIG

Big news? LOL! welcome back to 1996 Bob.

Stage3

iTrader: (3)

So, wait a sec... I think I'm missing something... Is he estatic that it went 40 miles on ONE CHARGE????

STIG

That's how I understand this as well.

drink300

This is ridiculous. They had a better version of this same car back in 1996. Does anyone understand the conspiracy to kill the electric car? WHY!?!?!

Sens4Miles

Well, GM already killed the electric car and now they're trying to bring it back. Of course, this time around they will be using Lithium Ion batteries instead of the NiMH batteries used in the EV1s. The NiMH battery patent that achieved a 120 mile range in 1996 was sold to Chevron for a profit, then they had their EVs crushed and shredded. The Volt will be using Li-Ion batteries, thus the lower range. Still, 40 miles is decent and I hope they succeed in delivering this car, as promised, by 2010.

bagwell

all true --- patent was sold for $180 million (which Chevron makes in about 5 mins). The Volt will have a 600 mile range in conjunction with the ICE which as I understand simply supplies power to recharge on the go? I'd much rather see the 120+ mile range of pure electric too.

LexFather

So the car doesn't pollute but plugging it into the wall means the coal plant polluted.

Not the answer, just an alternative.

bagwell

wrong! do some research on this and you'll see plugging in a car STILL ends up being cleaner....plus we've already had the solar + renewable energy discussion elsewhere.

here we go...

Q: Why would I even want to plug a car in?
A: Plugging in to tap renewable electricity such as solar, wind, tidal or other, allows you to drive without contributing to the pollution that sickens and kills hundreds of thousands of Americans every year, providing you with virtually pollution-free driving. Electricity is much cheaper than gas (~a third of the current cost of gas) and allows you to opt out of giving your money to oil companies, the politicians they support and the middle eastern tyrants. It allows you to drive silently so that you don’t contribute to the din of thousands of internal combustion engines moving throughout your community. It allows you to drive without participating in wars over oil.

Q: Isn't an electric car simply trading a tailpipe for a smokestack? What about pollution from the power plants?
A: Electric cars that run on renewable wind or solar power eliminate emissions. But even today, with 50% of U.S. power coming from dirty coal plants, plug-in cars still reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and most other pollutants compared with either conventional gasoline cars or hybrids, because so much of it comes out of tailpipes.

EVs also allow you to use 100% clean renewable electricity from sources such as the sun or wind. In addition, EVs get cleaner as the electrical grid gets cleaner. Gas cars only get dirtier as they age. We support replacing all “fossil-fuel” electricity generation with clean and renewable generating methods. Read the summary of more than 30 studies, analyses, and presentations on this topic.



Q: Won't plugging in cars lead to building more coal and nuclear power plants?
A: Although Plug In America favors more use of electricity for transportation, we won't need additional generating capacity for this for decades to come. During that time we can shift to cleaner, renewable power options that cause less environmental harm than fossil fuels and nuclear plants.

The existing electrical grid's off-peak capacity for power generation is sufficient to power 84% of commutes to and from work by cars, light trucks and SUVs without building a single new power plant if people drive plug-in hybrids, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. In addition, the existing nighttime electricity can be stored in plug-in vehicles and retrieved during peak-demand hours through vehicle-to-grid technology for use by the grid, helping to meet society's daytime power needs.

New power generation facilities should focus on clean, renewable sources such as wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal power. Combine these with the institution of energy efficiency measures throughout society, and we can meet the targets needed to avoid the worst effects of global warming without resorting to more coal or nuclear plants, according to the 2007 report Tackling Climate Change ( www.ases.org).

bagwell

PHEVs reduce CO2 emissions by 37%-67% compared with ICEs and by 19%-54% compared with HEVs in well-to-wheels (W2W) analyses assuming fueling with gasoline and electricity from the U.S. mix of power plants (and ignoring one or two outliers in the data). PHEVs reduce all other greenhouse gas emissions too.

EVs reduce CO2 by 11%-100% compared with ICEs and by 24%-54% compared with HEVs, and significantly reduce all other greenhouse gas emissions, using the U.S. grid mix. If all U.S. cars were EVs, we’d reduce global warming emissions. Using electricity strictly from coal, EVs still would reduce CO2 by 0%-59% compared with ICEs (one analysis found 0% change; six others found reductions of 17%-59%) and might produce 30%-49% more CO2 than HEVs (based on only two analyses). On the other hand, if electricity comes from solar or wind power, EVs eliminate all emissions. Using natural gas to make electricity, emissions fall in between those from coal and renewable power.

As for criteria air pollutants – the emissions that cause smog or acid rain – the data are mixed on whether using electricity for fuel would create more or less emissions compared with using gasoline. In either case, however, these emissions won’t necessarily enter the atmosphere. (See final paragraph of summary.) Most analyses of criteria pollutants look only at EVs and ICEs;numbers for PHEVs or HEVs may be based on only one study.

Overall:
NOx – Compared with ICEs, PHEVs decrease NOx by as much as 67% or increase it up to 83%; EVs decrease it by 32%-99%. Compared with HEVs, PHEVs may decrease NOx by 110% or increase it up to 108%; EVs increase it 384%.

PM – Compared with ICEs, PHEVs increase it by 2%; EVs may decrease PM by as much as 97% or increase it up to 122%. Compared with HEVs, PHEVs increase it 130% and EVs increase it 483%.

SOx – Compared with ICEs, PHEVs increase it by 53%; EVs increase it by 17%-296%. Compared with HEVs, PHEVs may increase SOx by 283% and EVs by 1120%. Regulations are in place and technology exists to contain any of these criteria pollutant emissions that power plants create. Scrubbers can handle SOx, selective catalytic reduction technology can handle NOx and mercury, and baghouses and electrostatic precipitators can contain PM. The 1990 acid rain amendments to the Clean Air Act cap total acid rain emissions, so no matter how much electricity we generate, total SOx emissions will continue declining if the Act is enforced. While there is no absolute cap on PM, federal rules are in place to ensure that these emissions – especially the smallest particulates – will decrease as well, regardless of the amount of electricity produced. (Source: Charles Garlow, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Air Enforcement Division)

Indeed, power-plant criteria pollutants have been decreasing even as the U.S. generates more and more electricity. Greenhouse gases, which are not yet regulated, are a bigger concern. PHEVs certainly (and EVs almost surely) reduce W2W greenhouse gas emissions compared with ICEs or HEVs, because so much of the CO2 comes from burning gasoline. PHEVs and EVs get cleaner as the grid gets cleaner with the addition of more renewable power, but ICEs create more exhaust as they age.

PHEVs and EVs have the added advantage of moving emissions away from population centers (where ICE tailpipes pollute the most). It is simpler to regulate emissions from a smaller number of power plants than from 200 million tailpipes.

Overall, PHEVs and EVs create fewer emissions by using cleaner, cheaper, domestic electricity.

SLegacy99

My power comes from clean good old fashioned nuclear power.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

So if 'they' killed it before, why would they be bringing it back!?

The so-called conspiracy about 'killing the electric car' is hogwash. GM was forced to build the car because of California's 1990 ZEV mandate. It lost a fortune on the program and was in dire financial straights for many reasons beside the EV1. After they decided to axe the program they chose not to sell the leased vehicles to the owners because of (legitimate) liability issues, even though owners were willing to sign waivers (I don't blame GM, waivers won't stop lawsuits and GM had no idea how the cars would do over the long run).

GM's CEO *still* says though that killing the program was a huge mistake from a PR standpoint at least as well as an R&D loss.

According to this laughable page: http://www.ev1.org/chevron.htm
So is that right? Toyota, now purveyor and seller of millions of hybrids, collaborated to kill NiMH technology?

But it does says:
So if these batteries are so great and car makers are now making HUGE quantities of hybrids if not EVs, why wouldn't they just place a 'large order'?

bagwell

gee that's a real tough question....I have to go to lunch and I'll get back to you.....


WTF --- it just cost me $62 to fill up my 4 cyl Nissan Altima loaner!!!!!!!

Faymester

not everyone gets electircity from coal, in Vancouver we have hydro-electric dams ... so there's no major pollutants associated with producing electricity because its all about the spinning of the turbine ... SO THERE







... but i get what you mean ... just thought i'd give ya a bit of a hard time