Print This Post
GM Volt Will Change History
Details of GM’s plans for the first-ever production model plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) were discussed in a report in today’s Financial Times. The car is still scheduled for 2010 delivery. Now we know that it’s 400 pound lithium-ion battery will have a 40 mile range and will be recharged on the move by a 4 cylinder gas engine which GM says will let the vehicle get about 150 miles per gallon.
I suppose the engine cuts in automatically when the battery gets down to a certain amount of remaining power. But if GM were clever enough to let the driver choose when to re-charge via the engine, some drivers might well get nearly infinite miles per gallon simply by driving less than 40 miles before recharging via the electric plug. No doubt many drivers could easily do that.
I’d bet the Volt will be a very popular car especially if oil prices spike higher after 2010, as I suspect they will. I think people will love refueling their cars at home at night and they will love the quiet ride. GM is seeking government subsidies, confirming estimates that the revolutionary power plant will be too expensive for average buyers.
My advice to GM (they haven’t called yet): price it high and they’ll get all the exotic car early adopters they can supply. Government will not be needed. A friend of mine has already put his name on the waiting list and he’s somewhere over number 25,000. I doubt they’ll make more than that the first year.
GM estimates 300,000 - 500,000 PHEV’s will be on the road by 2015. (SQM fans note: that’s 200 million pounds of lithium batteries.) This is clearly not enough cars to make any noticeable dent in global oil demand. It might save 300 million gallons of gas a year, which is about 7 million barrels or maybe 20 kb/d. And that is by 2015.
The ironic reality may be that just as the future car that can free us of oil dependency makes its appearance, the world will be suffering from the worst oil shortage in history.
Here’s is the full FT report:
GM set to bring Volt electric car to Europe
By Bernard Simon in Toronto
Published: August 18 2008 03:00 | Last updated: August 18 2008 03:00
General Motors is planning to rebadge its Chevrolet Volt electric car as an Opel or Vauxhall to bring it to Europe as part of the US carmaker’s plans to expand the model range of its highly anticipated new vehicle.
GM is so encouraged by the development of the Volt that it has begun work on other similar vehicles.
Bob Boniface, the Volt’s design director, said several other models were at the scale-model stage of development. The Volt design studio, which employs close to 50 people, is being expanded to cope with the increased work.
One of the follow-up models will be badged as an Opel for sale mainly in continental Europe and as a Vauxhall for sale in the UK. GM is also looking at producing different types of vehicles to the Volt, a mid-sized sedan.
The Detroit carmaker has staked its reputation on the Volt, heavily promoting each stage of the car’s development since a concept version was displayed last year. The redesigned production version is due to roll off the assembly line in late 2010.
The Volt and its derivatives will share many components, including a 5ft-long 400lb battery, enabling GM to achieve economies of scale.
Over the past decade carmakers have increasingly used a single platform as the basis for a variety of vehicles as a way of speeding up development and holding down costs.
GM says the Volt’s lithium-ion battery will have a range of at least 40 miles with a minimum life of 10 years. The car will be recharged by plugging it into a normal power socket or, when it is in motion, by a four-cylinder internal combustion engine. Petrol consumption is estimated at 150 miles per gallon.
Toyota also plans to unveil a plug-in car in 2010. Unlike the Volt, it will be driven both by the battery and the petrol engine. Toyota has said its design will cost far less while delivering almost the same performance.
GM said last week that it would choose the Volt’s battery supplier before the end of the year. Two groups led by South Korea’s LG Chem and A123Systems of Boston are vying for the contract.
Frank Weber, who heads the Volt project, said the batteries would have enough power. The biggest challenge was maintaining the cells’ stability. “Batteries are like human beings, they like room temperature,” he said.
GM has yet to disclose the retail price of the Volt but is lobbying for some form of government subsidy to bring the car within reach of the average Chevrolet customer.
Electric vehicles are expected to have limited mass-market appeal in their early years. Robert Bosch, the world’s biggest automotive parts supplier, estimates 3m petrol-electric hybrids and 300,000-500,000 electric vehicles will be in operation worldwide by 2015.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Tags: peak oil energy investments
Print This Post
27 responses so far ↓
1 paultaut // Aug 19, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Too little, too late.
GM might not exist by the second half of next year let alone by 2015.
GM’s major problem is not car related. It is the exposure it has to its Financial Arm. The loses from this area will only get worse. They will also have their day in the sun as mark to market grips all of the Financials.
2 Robert Essian // Aug 20, 2008 at 1:07 am
Jim, good morning.
Everything in life is an irony but this energy thing is the perfect storm, a beast and we need to start taming it.
GM, will sell any and all of the Volts it produces and most importantly will continue to bring attention to an ever increasing problem.
Toyota will bring its version to market also, Honda too and they will all sell their cars. All will have super star status.
The importing Nations will conserve like never before, the OECD economy’s will develop a world wide network of wind, solar, wave, etc…”Lets use everything.
All candidates are now speaking of an ENERGY POLICY, like we have in your posts now for quite awhile. Congress, the Senate, everyone. Everyone is willing to compromise now because the people they are accountable too have spoken.
Big business will participate in this thing because their will be lots of money to be made and they will get in early. The good will they will generate, not to mention new customer base will be tremendous. Image the positive spin their company’s could put on this through their new commercials.
Example: GE…We are helping to fan America to a cleaner, brighter tomorrow (with Wind turbines in the background).
I have started a little thing here in my home town, I ask friends, family and complete strangers what’s the number one problem in the World today and all say gasoline or crude oil costs. I then refer them to your site, the Oil Drum and ASPO.
This thing has legs and everyone will come on board with this energy thing and we will rock the world with our effort.
It will be most gratifying to know that maybe we helped bring one person closer to understanding this issue so that collectively we can change this thing.
One person talks to one person and so on and so on…
Our household budgets still have a lot of fat in it (or credit!) so if stated clearly by our next President the Nation would be willing to support this. It must be a fare shake though from the top of the financial chain on down or you risk loosing your momentum to have this happen rapidly.
Too late, no way it’s just starting… Thanks again Jim for helping me understand this beast better.
3 Robert Essian // Aug 20, 2008 at 1:46 am
Final thought:
Assuming this WWII effort takes place (it will) wouldn’t that require a tremendous amount of energy in crude oil and natural gas? If so I would think it could eat into our Worlds suppose glut in 2009-10. What are your thoughts…
4 paultaut // Aug 20, 2008 at 2:48 am
Its not only the energy aspect, its the manufacturing aspect as well. Not only do you start without having the plants but also without a trained workforce. With 2/3 of our labour in the Service area, how will we get the necessary parts? Suggest we make nice with anyone willing to be nice. The “enemy of my enemy” might work with the Chinese if we get off their backs about their Environmental and other issues.
The “manhattan” style approach is necessary and the Gov. may realize the gravity of the problem, but you need: a trained labor force, a Manufacturing Base, the necessary energy and the raw materials.
Even with utilization of the SPR, the raw materials required would strain world supplies.
As to labor, I would try to entice people out of the retired workforce. Most of them would probably jump at the chance to use the skills garnered during a time when the US led the world in manufacturing.
The other problem will be competition for everything. We embark on this project, The BRIC+ countries will accelerate their efforts also. Look for inflation both headline and core to jump. The FED will have to be stripped of its inflation fighting requirements.
You are talking about compressing over 30 years of neglect into 10 years of hyper activity.
It can be done but at what cost?
5 Robert Essian // Aug 20, 2008 at 6:39 am
I have lived in Detroit and its surrounding areas all of my life. This is a factory State just itching for a project like this.
Bring it on.
Regarding the cost…
I say whatever the cost. Long term it will be worth it…
Can you just imagine what the World would look like…?
6 paultaut // Aug 20, 2008 at 8:20 am
I can, that’s my re-occuring nightmare.
Russia says Poland will come under attack if it installs a missile defense shield. So much for jumping on defenseless prey.
7 KV // Aug 20, 2008 at 8:21 am
Jim,
Last night Charlie Rose spent whole hour interviewing Bob Lutz and others at GM facilities where batteries are built and tested and there was even a slight glimpse of Chevy Volt! It does look cool and is supposed to be much more aerodynamic. It has a small engine to give you putt-putt power to come home if you run out of the electric juice. Surmising from numbers sounded off, Volt possibly would come to 100 mpg in equivalent energy consumption, and if I remember Lutz correctly, he was eluding to 200~300 mpg stuff (late nights are hard!). The car addresses commuter needs, and short trip needs. I did not get recharge times involved, but I would not be surprised if many business parking lots to have electric outlets to charge up the car while you work etc. Solar collectors on the roof of a business makes lots of sense for this purpose.
I have one concern: price. As much as you might like to see GM recover, but the cost-effectiveness equation has to be positive for the consumer. Even at $4 gas, Prius hybrid is hard to justify against small cars, especially if your driving does not include lots of stop and go.
Volt at $17K to $23K would be great. At $30K~$40K it is a deal breaker, because, it is really a commuter car, and one can buy a small gas powered car at nearly half the price and meet many needs besides just a commuter car.
Finally, Volt batteries weigh about 450 lbs, and assuming Li to be 10% of the total weight, it would take 45 lbs ~ 20Kg of lithium. Can you project the impact of this on Li ore miners? Thanks!
8 ks // Aug 20, 2008 at 11:12 am
Some recent posts and comments have been focusing on what things will look like 10 years from now, and a recurring theme has been, will electric cars come soon enough to make any difference? Jim’s last line in this post suggests that PHEV’s will be ramping up by 2015, but not nearly enough to make a difference on the likely energy scenario we will be facing. Jim may well be right about that, but I think it’s also important to see this in a wider context of substitution and (for lack of better description) behavior change as a response to our coming liquid fuels crunch. Substitution includes PHEV’s, but also much more efficient ICE cars, changing out cars for other forms of private transportation (scooters, bicycles, etc), and abandonment for public transportation (I am thinking of the Rubin article cited by Jim, which suggests that 10m cars will come off the road by 2012. Bahavior change includes carpooling, living close to work, telecommuting, etc.
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that it is these sorts of changes that will have to be rapidly implemented to weather the Rapid Transition, and on the far-side of that — where the crunch eases and we begin to accelerate forward, electric cars (to the extent that they are really wanted, will be available).
I also agree that this future will be a better one — not primarily because we all drive hybrid or PHEV cars, but largely because we have changed the way we live to require a lot fewer cars (not none, just not 850 million of them). Put another way, I somewhat agree with Kunstler’s dislike of suburbia, and would add that our Transition can help wean us (the world) off of our addition to cars. (It is fashionable to say now that we are addicted to oil. That’s not quite right. Our profligate use of oil is undergirds our attachment to the automobile.).
9 paultaut // Aug 20, 2008 at 11:43 am
Zenn has a 20k on sale now for limited consumer usage. ZNNMF, which Jim mentioned and on which an article was printed here a few weeks ago. Additionally, HEV which has some prototypes.
The only reason I hope Zenn succeeds is that they claim the ability to retrofit existing cars to the new Tech.
10 jkingsdale // Aug 20, 2008 at 12:28 pm
ks: I think you make a good point that there will be much more substitution of more fuel efficient ICE cars that will continually bring up the fleet’s avg. mpg and help neutralize population increase to restrain U.S. oil use. We will not be totally reliant on substitution of PHEV’s.
I am not so confident that Americans will be willing in great numbers to give up their private car altogether for either public transport or car pooling. Maybe we could see a lot more scooters, but I sort of doubt that too. That is, unless the price of oil gets much higher, maybe above $150 or more.
I suspect we’ve already seen about all the U.S. reduction in oil use we will see as a reaction to high oil prices because people have done what they are willing to do. Maybe the U.S. consumer will conserve more but I think that will come more slowly and more long term.
11 jkingsdale // Aug 20, 2008 at 12:30 pm
That is, absent a concerted national policy with some teeth in it to encourage fleet change, systemic change in transportation, and behavioral change.
12 paultaut // Aug 20, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Good Caveat. Getting Poleaxed certainly makes a point.
13 Robert Essian // Aug 20, 2008 at 3:47 pm
To add to the conservation issue, much talk about four day work weeks…A probable and necessary part of the plan…
14 Robert Essian // Aug 20, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Jim, it has dawned on me that I have seen many more scooters in the neighborhood. So I just went down the street and asked a neighbor why she bought two for he son’s. Her explanation was it freed up time for her to do her things and saved gas, wear and tear on her vehicle and the kids could get around quicker.
I’m wondering though if that ad’s to consumption our saves fuels.
I would have bought them a bike…
15 jimb // Aug 20, 2008 at 8:51 pm
I actually cooked up a spreadsheet for a 2010 volt vs. a 2010 civic with over a dozen variables. If you put in pretty reasonable assumptions for all of them, the volt breaks even somewhere around 7 - 20 years out, assuming it costs 39K and you get a 3K tax rebate.
However I think you’re right in that the first year or two sales will be be small enough in volume and high enough in green-cache-cred that the initial price won’t matter.
What will really be a revolutionary product will be the gen2 volt (or whatever gm names it). The one where they’ve cut their battery costs 30 - 40% on economies of scale, opened up the SOC window an extra 15-20%, and droped the battery size. That will get you a 33K PHEV30, much more of a sweet spot.
Volt:
-16kwh
-50% soc (8kwh usable)
-40m range (200wh/m)
-$500/kwh (battery manufacture cost)
$8,000 battery
Gen2 e-flex:
-9kwh
-66% soc (6kwh usable)
-30m range (200wh/m)
-$300/kwh (battery manufacture cost)
$2,700 battery
The Volt is a revolutionary proof of concept. The sales and economics will come in the second wave.
16 Jim Kingsdale // Aug 20, 2008 at 10:05 pm
jimb - your predictions make sense; I see the 1gen Volt about the same way, as proof of concept. I hope there will be a 2gen with the sort of improvements you posit.
One variable for the popularity of the 1st Volt will be the sense of power provided by the Volt battery. If it’s mushy like the “economy” mode of my hybrid Highlander, it may not take off quite so well. But if it has spirit, the car will do great. Just one opinion based on nothing but gut feel.
17 Robert Essian // Aug 21, 2008 at 8:37 am
Jim, I have a friend (engineer) working on the Volt project and he says it’s exciting just to go to work every day. Without really telling me anything because if he did he would have to kill me. I sent him your article and asked him to look at Jimb’s response and all he would say is it will deliver and then some.
I seen it at the car show and it is sharp.
18 Mark L. // Aug 21, 2008 at 11:45 am
Electric vehicles might be a great long term solution but do little to solve our short term dilemma. We need to continue putting as much R&D into electric but we can’t produce fast electric vehicles fast enough. The initial cost will difficult for most families especially in a high demand low supply situations. It seems to me to be at least a 15 to 20 year solution. Every bit will help but it’s too little too late. I think we are missing the boat here. We already have a reasonable low cost solution for most commuters – (compressed natural gas) CNG. The cost to upgrade your existing vehicle to Natural Gas vehicle has dropped substantially over the last couple of years and continues to drop. Most converted vehicles also have the benefit of being bi-fuel. Many homes across the nation already heat with natural gas and homes can be outfit to refuel CNG until more pump stations are installed. The refueling home stations are a little pricey running at about $5K. The lack of refueling stations continues to be one of the major hurdles in this industry. Also, there is little requirement for retooling existing infrastructure. For most, the savings is substantial and without the significant upfront cost as with Electric Vehicles. My vehicle cost difference is $0.14 per mile for my gasoline powered Chevy Malibu vs. $0.024 per mile for my CNG Honda Civic. I’m excited about the long term aspects of Electric and feel it is the best long term solution however we need be doing more short term with the Picken’s CNG model. No… I don’t work for Picken’s or own CLNE!
19 paultaut // Aug 21, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Say you retrofit your vehicle to run on nat.gas and your home to supply refills. You better not drive too far from home because the infrastructure you say we don’t need won’t be there for a refill or do you plan to knock on someone’s door to pay them for a refill…assuming someone is home, uses Nat.Gas, has a similar installation and is willing to recharge your vehicle at a reasonable price.
Additionally, more and more Nat.Gas is used by Canada in their extraction process and if the Gulf takes another hit similar to Katrina, you may wind up having to choose between driving and heating your home.
While NG production is up and will continue to go up, there is only so much space to store it for emergency use, there is no SPR for NG yet.
20 Mark L. // Aug 21, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Paultaut, you are correct in what you say and you are right about infrastructure in part. Auto manufacturing will require little retooling. Existing cars, at not much investment, can be retrofit. Nat Gas pipelines are already in place in most areas and in fact pump stations will not require manual delivery as it does now with gasoline. The big infrastructure change to bring new pump stations online is the compressors required. I don’t know the cost for this but I think it is not inexpensive. This is the biggest infrastructure change required. It’s the chicken or the egg syndrome. As more people begin driving CNG there will be more pump stations built to meet the demand which will result in more people driving CNG vehicles. Initially, I see CNG mostly for commuting purposes and not for long distance but this is most of the driving anyway for most families. However when cars are converted they are normally bi-fuel and could be used to drive any distance. Of course natural gas will go up and has gone up. Currently in my area Nat Gas is $0.85 per gal giving me 35 miles on one gallon. Gasoline is about $3.97 giving me the same miles per gallon. My range is not great as I only have a 6 gallon tank so I get a maximum of about 200 miles on a tank. Even if Nat Gas were to double or even triple, it would still be the fuel of choice from an economical point of view. CNG vehicles of course also run much cleaner. Most people only think only in terms of emissions. Reduced emissions in our environment is a great thing but there is also less internal pollutants in the engine… the engine oil is still very clean even after 10,000 miles of operation resulting in much less wear and tear of the engine. Old timers having driven CNG vehicles for many years are claiming engine life of 300K miles (car manufacturers have got to love that). Even after 40K miles on my vehicle there is NO black sludge or any deposits at all on the inside of the tail pipe (it is actually cleaner on the inside than the outside of the pipe). Of course CNG is not for everyone… some people are content doing the same old thing day after day and resistant to change. I don’t think infrastructure is as much the issue… it’s more an issue of human complacency… until its perhaps too late.
21 Robert Essian // Aug 22, 2008 at 10:43 am
Use everything so long as we use our own.
200 miles on natural gas with a 6 gallon tank sounds great. I’ll take a three gallon tank and have it installed above my wheel well in my truck. Is this possible? Having a relatively new truck with no resale value this would be a nice thing until I turn it over in the future to an electric one.
We don’t have to have all the stations fitted right away with Natural Gas, just hook up the gas stations to GPS and let your Tom Tom take you there. Not my suggestion but a good one.
22 paultaut // Aug 25, 2008 at 4:50 am
Lithuanians are using Propane as a sub for gas but they cannot retrofit existing cars.
To use it, they have to buy a car which is built for this.
Which is why I’ve been questioning the NG concept. Why would a new car be necessary for them but we are able to retrofit ours to NG? Propane/NG whats the difference that I am Missing?
PS the Big 3 want to get $50 Billion from Congess to make energy efficient cars. Like if we don’t pay them off they will not make them.
23 Mark L. // Aug 26, 2008 at 11:48 am
Natural gas for your car is compressed natural gas (CNG). It is a gas for heating your home and in your car. It is also called methane with a molecular structure of 1 Carbon and 4 Hydrogen. Propane (which I use for heating my home… not because I want to but it is the only alternative for me for electricty) is liquid when compressed and has a molecular structure of 4 Carbon and 10 Hydrogen. As far as I know propane will not work in CNG vehicles. I’m not an expert beyond this.
24 Mark L. // Aug 26, 2008 at 12:23 pm
I stand corrected… Propane is C3H8. Natural Gas is primarily methane but may include significant quantities of ethane, propane, butane, and pentane
25 paultaut // Aug 27, 2008 at 12:32 am
Isn’t CNG a liquid when compressed? That’s what I assumed GTL plants were doing to send NG via pipeline to the US.
26 Mark L. // Aug 28, 2008 at 11:47 am
Paultaut,
CNG/LNG was confusing to me. CNG and LNG. Both are natural gas (methane) but to be LNG it must be processed to become such. The natural gas used by homes and the majority of cars is not liquified. Here is a better explanation than I can give at Wikipedia:
Liquefied natural gas or LNG is natural gas (primarily methane, CH4) that has been converted to liquid form for ease of storage or transport. Liquefied natural gas takes up about 1/600th the volume of natural gas at a stove burner tip. It is odorless, colorless, non-toxic and non-corrosive. Hazards include flammability, freezing and asphyxia.
The liquefaction process involves removal of certain components, such as dust, helium, water, and heavy hydrocarbons, which could cause difficulty downstream. The natural gas is then condensed into a liquid at close to atmospheric pressure (Maximum Transport Pressure set around 25 kPa (3.6psi)) by cooling it to approximately −163 °C (−260 °F). The reduction in volume makes it much more cost-efficient to transport over long distances where pipelines do not exist. Where moving natural gas by pipelines is not possible or economical, it can be transported by specially designed cryogenic sea vessels (LNG carriers) or cryogenic road tankers.
COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS (CNG) AS A TRANSPORTATION FUEL
natural gas flame courtesy SoCal Gas
http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/afvs/cng.html
What is CNG?
Compressed natural gas, or CNG, is natural gas under pressure which remains clear, odorless, and non-corrosive. Although vehicles can use natural gas as either a liquid or a gas, most vehicles use the gaseous form compressed to pressures above 3,100 pounds per square inch.
27 Paul // Aug 31, 2008 at 6:53 pm
The lack of infrastructure for CNG is a non-issue. Europe did it, so the US can do it. If needed, a law could be passed such that within one year all interstate and other large gas stations have to offer CNG. Problem solved.
The Volt is indeed a concept car. The range is not the problem (if the “back-up motor” works properly), it will be too expensive. (My guess: close to $15000 more than a comparable ICE car - and GM can’t afford to sell below production cost, which is probably the case for Toyota’s current hybrids to buy market share and technology leadership).
And in all likelihood you can forget mass production prior to 2012. GM might just keep their promise and introduce a dozen of Volts in December 2010 and some more in 2011.
But the FT article contains a revealing statement: GM has not yet chosen the battery supplier. This means a) the suppliers have not been able to meet GM’s specifications and/or price expectations and b) the suppliers have not yet been able to invest into large scale production and therefore have also not yet solved all the scale-up issues. Scale-up involving new technology is rarely a trivial straightforward matter.
Leave a Comment