(Page 2 of 2)
Verbrugge says that one of the biggest challenges is ensuring that the batteries won't fail in extreme climates, such as the deserts of Arizona. Conventional starter batteries already give automakers trouble in hot areas, he says. Today, they're the car part that most commonly fails under warranty in the Southwest. "Batteries don't like hot temperatures," Verbrugge says. "But we're not going to say to people in Arizona, 'We're not going to sell you our Chevy Volt. You can drive one, but we're not going to give you a warranty.' That's not an option."
To make up for uncertainties about the life of the battery packs, GM plans to coddle them, wrapping them in insulation and including heating and cooling systems to keep them at optimal temperatures. Questions remain about when these systems should operate, since they can eat into the energy savings that electric vehicles are supposed to provide. "Let's say you're charging," Verbrugge says. "Do you run your cooling system now to keep your battery cool over black asphalt? Then your energy efficiency doesn't look so hot. Do you do that only in Arizona? These become critical engineering issues."
GM is also oversizing the packs, adding several kilowatt-hours' worth of extra cells to make up for potential degradation over the life of the vehicle. That makes the packs, and the vehicle, much more expensive. "Cost is a major issue for us now," Verbrugge says. "We're not sure people are willing to pay."
Indeed, the Volt and other proposed cars like it are expected to cost thousands of dollars more than conventional cars, which could limit their appeal, says Paul Werbos, a program director for the National Science Foundation (NSF), who has been promoting research on better, cheaper batteries. "I don't expect most people are going to pay that," he says.
Werbos and Verbrugge spoke last week at an NSF-sponsored workshop focused on improving batteries for the next generation of hybrid and electric vehicles. Speakers at the workshop emphasized that better tests for battery lifetime, combined with improvements to battery design to make them last longer, will allow automakers to use fewer batteries and cut costs.
In spite of the remaining challenges, Cesiel is encouraged by the progress that the company's engineers have made so far and believes that the Volt will be ready for production on time. Based on its laboratory testing so far, he says, the company is "happy" with the capacity and performance of the batteries. GM also knows what the cooling system will look like and has physically integrated the pack into the vehicle. What's more, the entire propulsion system, including the battery pack, the electric motor, and the generator, was incorporated into a test vehicle and delivered to the company's Milford, MI, testing grounds at the end of August, just two days behind the schedule set last year. "I wouldn't say that the battery is ready," Cesiel says, "but we're right on track."
The car is an engineering achievement, but it could easily be even more appealing.
The next few years will show whether the batteries in electric cars from GM and Nissan are safe and reliable.
The large facility is meant to reflect a change of direction for the bankrupt company.
Perhaps GM could:
Announce a modest estimated lifetime of the battery packs, at first: say, 3 years or so. Then, provide Volt buyers up front with a special warranty covering some or all of the cost of a future battery pack replacement, should the need arise. Let the maximum cost to the customer be fixed in writing up front. This will help reassure some potential customers who are reluctant because of fears over poor battery lifetime. Treat battery replacement as an expected, long-term maintenance item, rather than a potential disaster that buyers must fear.
This could also reduce the cost of the product, since the performance requirements for the first batteries can be somewhat reduced, at least partly offsetting the cost of the warranty.
In several years, after battery technology improves and field data helps quantify the situation, perhaps the special warranties can be reduced or discontinued for future models.
Bravo robin26 this is exactly what I would recommend to Chevy! Get the car out now and improve the battery in years to come. Just don't make the vehicle so it can't receive future improvements to the battery. As long as there is onboard battery charging capability even with a small IC engine the battery itself may not need to provide even a 40 mile range for most users. If the car can get someone to work and then auto charge while parked. Then right there his gas consumption his cut in half and the battery problem is also cut in half.
as said in comments above, this would be incredibly stupid. as said, charging batteries with ic is incredibly inefficient and would be dumping excess carbon into the atmosphere for no good reason. it would nullify the reason for the car existing. only charging through the grid is efficient. its amazing how people criticize gm with totally invalid complaints.
and whining about the price... give me a break people. when someone comes out with a 20k car with the same capabilities and specs as the gm then you can complain. the price is the price of technology. and people complained when car companies stopped development of ev's because it was expensive. and now they complain when they are pushing ahead and it is still expensive:P
A three year warranty on batteries that account for 25% of the car costs may help, but this is still going to be a $40,000 investment and for many people an $800/month car payment won't be feasible.
Even if Presidential Wanna-Be McCain gets his $300 million dollar battery program off the ground, it will be 5 or more years before anything gets to market.
GM is better off adding a Natural Gas Powered engine or conversion to their product mix just in case their target market group of Upper Middle Class and Millionaires don't buy the Volt and favor the Prius for half the price! A CNG engine will fit in any madel car they make!
A whole 40 miles! This is the response of the once-largest and richest auto maker? Goodness, my grandmother would have said.
In the early sixties, next door to my childhood home our neighbor had an electric car the <i>he had made<i> in a Renault body. He drove it about 10 miles downtown and back every day, presumably recharging it at night.
Should I add that was more than 40 years ago?
It probably didn't default to gas after 40 miles, though . . . way to go, GM.
Yeah, 40 miles, that's going to work one way for me. I think they are over engineering this electric car thing and need to forget battery arrays. The hybrid solution seems much better. A very clean burning and efficient engine, an alternator or two and an electric motor. Then who is the target customer? Average, middle-class folk, the bulk of the driving population, will not want a second mortgage to own a car and drive too many miles for leases to be practical. How many upper yuppies need to buy the Volt before the price comes down. Maybe I can buy a very used one.
If GM wants to be the car hero, they should design the "people's car" like Volkswagen did. The concept has merit. They should create and fuel a vibrant aftermarket, I miss my "Whitney's catalog.
If I were the Big3 auto makers, I would look into the best small engine/alternator combo, alternative fuels and powerful traction motors and target the bulk of drivers, average folk who make less than auto workers.
thats just unrealistic and discounts the very real technical challenges to creating a practical electric car. it is very easy to build a golf cart. it is very difficult to create a car that lasts for a decade and 100,000+ miles and has a decent range. if it were so simple that an old crank in a shed could do it, it would have been done by now. the limitation of the battery technology is very real.
What manufacturer did GM choose for the battery cells? Anyone know?
I have a feeling this might be a case of the typer-writer company trying to make a computer. But who knows maybe it'll work if those damn Li-ion batteries come down in price.
The talk coming out of Detroit makes it sound like the Prius never happened and the ABC123 doesn't operate well at 150 degrees. I thought the problem was cold. (Not to mention that the self-assembling nature of the material that was touted as a breakthrough in purity is now going to not-be-so-good.
Re: get clued in; don't believe the hype
GM fiddled around while Toyoto brought the Prius Hybrid to market. Now, late to the game, GM executives arrogantly seek to win with a Hail Mary Pass: hail, the Chevy Volt plug-in.
Meanwhile, the reality is that consumers lack confidence in the firm's manufacturing prowess and it is set to go the same way as Lehmann Brothers--into the junk heap of history.
The market amounts to a referendum, and GM's shrinking proportion of domestic sales urges a more conservatve approach.
It didn't seem like GM can get it right what "people want" They didn't want a "crappy little electric car" that could drive 40 miles on a charge in the 90's. but now they are willing to add 10's of thousands of dollars to the sticker price, prolong time to production, complicate engineering and reduce buyer confidence to give the volt another 40 miles by plugging in. Seriously if the car is going to reach the 600+ mile range per tank on the engine charging the system, then drop the battery and work on a more efficient generator and remove the battery pack's completely. 40 miles isn't enough for the headache of plugging in. With the reduction in cos, a still very decent "mpg" they could then compete with the prius and give people want they want and need. A good "US" alternative. It seems to me like these automakers are like big pop stars, surrounded with people feeding them full of BS warping their sense of reality.
40 miles Round trip covers a great many drivers. However, battery life is a huge problem for a car that may cost as much as $40K (or about $800/mo car payment), and the batteries may not perform as expected, or worse - wear out too darn soon (battery pack for this car is reportedly $10K or so). What's the drivetrain warranty on these again?
GM should have invested some money into creating a Natural Gas powered vehicle in their line up too. Take some of those Federal bail out dollars and get a line up and runnng to do CNG until the Volt is ready. Otherwise GM may not be around for too much longer!
Chevy Volt Sportscar Insurance Affordable
Looks like a sportscar, Is it? Insurance? Talk to me as it sure seems like an upper class dream. Tell me about affordability... This hope about 40 miles on a battery tells me nothing on how it compares to a Toyota Prius. Please find some comfort for me as the car name sure sounds like a sports car. My fear is that some PRES/VP is comforting himself with a sportscar hardo... My common sense tells me what's the story?
Re: Chevy Volt Sportscar Insurance Affordable
All the Eco-Greenie Millionaires will park them next to their 700 hp Corvette's that go 0 - 60 in 4.1 seconds and burn high octane E85.
You know - that Ying-Yang thing.....yet amazingly, both American Made!
Why is it that GM continues to perpetuate the lie that they cannot make a viable 'electic' car...
Watch the movie "Who killed the Electic Car" and you will know more...
http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/
Re: Who Killed the Electric Car
So they had a working electric vehicle already on the market. It was not perfect, but it was working.
Imagine how far we would be today if they made small improvements to it year after year.
Re: Who Killed the Electric Car
I believe GM made mistakes with the EV1 electric vehicle and could have possibly marketed it better but I would suggest that you don't blindly accept everything you see in a documentary at face value. The film maker clearly had an agenda and IMO, big conspiracies like he proposed between GM and 'Big Oil' don't hold up under scrutiny and application of common sense.
Why they hate electric vehicles
It is rumored that the oil industry has bought the patent rights to many technologies that could improve battery efficiency. The point is that they just sit on it, and thereby try to block further developments. Of course, don't expect this to show up in Exxon Mobile's public portfolio - it's probably done through a convoluted, multi-layered proxy system. It is easy to understand the oil industry's motivations.
But there are several other gigantic/powerful constituencies, who have a vested interest in blocking electric cars. These would be the following:
1) The regular auto maintenance industry.
Today's cars require a lot of maintenance and spare parts. But electric cars are far simpler and inherently more robust and reliable. An electric car would require almost no mechanical maintenance. Then what would all those mechanics do? What would the UAW http://www.uaw.org do?
2) The military-industrial complex.
We currently need to have a gigantic military apparatus, so we can dominate the oil-rich Middle East. "Cheap oil" is paid for with hundreds of billions in military equipment (how cheap is that!). If the energy landscape fundamentally shifts away from oil, then our huge military build-up in the Middle East is unjustifiable anymore. Obviously, being stuck in a chronic oil-based energy crisis provides the financial sweet spot for the military-industrial complex.
They don't want electric cars to wean us from oil. Why would they?
3) The pro-Israel lobby.
This lobby gets a ride on the backs of the military-industrial complex and the oil-industry. They keep us stuck in the Middle East, and anything that keeps America stuck there is good for Israel. Israel can use these crises to parade itself as the "strategic ally". If America was to leave the Middle East, that would be bad news for Israel. Go and ask an AIPAC http://www.aipac.org member if they want to get us off oil. Why would they?
For all these constituencies shifting America's transportation system to electric cars is bad news. That's why they killed GM's electric car in the first place.
Re: Why they hate electric vehicles
It's in their best interest to buy up the competition. The simple thing is to really avoid all this mess and Telecommute.
The most fuel efficient "PLUG-IN" vehicle we have is a laptop computer, cell phone and high speed internet connection. With them, we can work anywhere and save gas, reduce wear and tear on our cars, cut LOTS of emissions, reduce car insurance, cut road congestion and best of all about 60 million Americans can do it immediately! Add 15 million Canadians and we can all live on the natural resources we have in North America very easily!
Of course, Telecommuting will also reduce all those easy tax dollars we pay at the pump too! The Oil Companies, Lobbyists AND Elected Officials don't want too much change too quickly!
www.digitalfuel.org
Re: Why they hate electric vehicles
Yes, it is rumored. Just like the rumors that Big Oil has been buying patents from inventors for 100 mpg carburetors going back almost 100 years (http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp)
What you fail to mention is that the Asian car makers have been taking over market share since the 70s and have just recently been building alternate fuel vehicles. Is it more likely that the Automakers and Israeli-military-industrial complex has been controlling the Asians too or that the technology just wasn't there? Not to mention the fact that the US market wanted SUVs in the 90's, not tiny, expensive, inefficient electric vehicles.
Re: Why they hate electric vehicles
Except you forgot that all car makers are publicly traded companies, so anyone can be an "Asian car maker". My portfolio could be loaded with Toyota shares even though I am American. On Wall Street money has no nationality.
Besides, the points you are making about the car market, actually support my points, not make them weaker. All the constituencies I mentioned are deeply interested in having Americans buy lots of huge, inefficient, gasoline based vehicles. And Asian car makers don't necessarily sell efficient vehicles. The Toyota Tundra gets 15mpg, which is about as bad as GM's Yukon Denali.
Re: Why they hate electric vehicles
No Gabriel, EV-1 was not a complot against EVs, simply they were not good enough to avoid guaranties, as simple as that.
The cars were not complain with features that cars uses for avoid action class and other kind of legal stuff.
The reason was simply a lawyer suggestion at that time.
Re: Why they hate electric vehicles
GM's electric vehicles were owned mostly by environmental zealots, who had an almost religious attachment to these cars. If GM was concerned about lawsuits, they could have just given them the option of signing a "release form" that would obviate any lawsuits. But they scuttled the program, in spite of everything.
I think one of the things that is missing here... With the Volt, Prius, other "versions" and this forum is that we do not need to make this more complicated than it needs to be. Ford, GM, Toyota, etc., etc. have been making small, fuel efficient vehicles for years, generally sold in Europe and Asia. Adapt them to our use. Ok, sure, the "bumpers" need to be redesigned, get a first year engineering student to re-do it and move on.
Dang... as a manufacturer, I would dearly love to have that kind of a problem... Hmm... let's see. No one is buying my product because it get's bad fuel efficiency, BUT I make other products that get good / better... Oh... right, don't sell the one's that people want. ???
As for electric. Ahhh... the Prius. 48 mpg, no rechargable (plug in) battery option - "Can't be done". Three "kids" in Chicago spend $3,000 and "modify" theirs... double the mileage AND get's plugged in. And, GASP... they were not even from MIT!!! :-) What the heck. Oh, right... the company in Indiana that makes an "aftermarket" battery system for the car... Nope, use it and you loose your warranty. What the heck? Buy them out, use their technology and take it to the next level.
They are paying a good amount of money for their "in-house" engineering. Maybe it is time to fire them and bring in "new" (young or older) blood and take a different look at it and get on with it.
We are not trying to go to the moon...yet we were able to do that in 10 - 15 years... Electric cars have been around for a LONG time, why not just work with what we know, get it out (the way we "humans" will use it) and take the next step, the next and so on and so forth. We've been able to deal with new models from these companies each and every year for the last 50 years or so, why can't we expect it now?
Almost 40 years ago a young, know nothing (know it all?), group of mechanical engineering students, worked at the University of New Mexico with GM on building a "steam powered" car. Actually used the body of a 1966 Ford Mustang, that one of them had. The project took a year and "worked". Ok, not so well... it took upwards of 30 seconds to create the steam necessary to start up, first thing in the morning and the "experts" said the American Public will NEVER go for that. Of course, let's forget about glow plugs in diesel engines.
OR... A small midwest manufacturing company, making of all things "transformers", worked with Ford 15 years ago, or so on an electric car. The outcome?? It was built, worked just fine and shelved. No market for it. Didn't the "Pet Rock" make it's "inventor" something like $5M??? If Ford had spent a few $ "selling" the car, "making" the market, we would not be having this discussion today.
yea sure, if it were as easy as you portray someone would have done it already. its the same old conspiracy mongering that is pushed by cheap political films like the "who killed the electric car" film that are totally counterproductive because they inject ignorance into the discussion.
those cars were not viable because of inadequate technology. if someone could have made them for a profit it would have been done. assuming improvements would come from nothing is just naive. things like electronics have always driven battery development and we still aren't anywhere near cheap enough. this conspiracy mongering creates unrealistic expectations and so gm can't even get credit for the volt.
You fail to mention that it would be impossible for anyone to make them for profit because Chevron was suing anyone who tried. And even still, the only NiMH batteries which are used now in the prius are only a fraction as powerful as the ones in the EV1 and RAV4-ev. For more information about electric vehicles, and the history of the suppression of NiMH batteries, check out the book "Two Cents Per Mile" by Nevres Cefo . You can also read portions of it on Amazon.com
Have any of you even read GM's info on the Volt?
You seem to be clueless. The 40 mile range is important because it covers over 80% of driving. The instant result of the 'average' driver adopting the Volt is a huge reduction in fuel usage.
There is a 10 year warranty on the battery so drivers won't have to worry about that for what is currently the average life of a car. Part of the cost of the Volt is GM's warranty.
The power for electrics will gradually increase power demand, but in studies the power companies say that charging EV's at night wouldn't require any new plants.
The Volt is the first car that can change everything. The amount of power generation needed could easily change from gasoline to diesel, natural gas, ethanol or any other source.
$40k is a lot of money for a small car, but it's the first so will naturally cost a bit more, it saves money after buying cuttin operating costs drastically and it reduces our oil consumption.
Wake up, do some basic research.
EVs - WHO TO TRUST?
GM Volt is a PR program ONLY. See Ralph Nader in WKTEC. "They promise the earth, meanwhile buy my 8mpg Hummer." Don't bother reading GM's disinformation.
If you do the research - on Amory Lovins's hypercar and the U.S. energy future, Stan Ovshinsky's NiMH battery, Doug Korthof's liveoilfree youtube channel plus those below - you can work out:
1. Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) are the final destination.
2. Toyota are continuing to use NiMH, instead of Li ion batteries, for its ten year life.
3. Toyota are NOT ALLOWED to sell BEVs under a patent law settlement.
4. Chevron is suppressing Ovshinsky's NiMH battery technology via the Cobasys patents until at least 2014 and longer if they can get away with it.
5. GM Volt "doesn't have a battery." Excuse me? What a surprise. Obviously they have never heard of the EV-1 from 1995 or Ovshinsky's NiMH battery with proven ten year life and range of 160 miles. Oh wait. They built it. Or the RAV 4-EV with 120 mile range using ... an Ovshinksy patented NiMH battery. Duh!
6. GM told Saab to glue shut the plug-in socket on a car show prototype. A minor oddity, granted. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/06/saab_to_premier.html
7. The investment funds / trusts that control the U.S. auto companies may be owned or controlled by the oil companies. Why have they allowed the value of their stock go to zero, while Toyota's has gone in the opposite direction, from $20B to $200B in ten years(?). Two words. Razors. Blades. The money is made on supplying the blades. In this case the gas.
etc
Trusted sources from Who Killed the Electric Car. They lead to others. Use the web of trust to avoid constant disinformation from lobbyists, in forums, etc. - nuclear, coal, Chevron on EVs. Why disinformation? There are very big dollars at stake - "$100T in 'business remaining to be done' in oil alone - WKTEC."
Iris and Stan Ovshinsky - in WKTEC. American genius. 'Good guy.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_R._Ovshinsky
- Berkeley Alternative Energy speech (long intro to intro @ 13:40) video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DYxoacwuxg
Who Killed the The Electric Car. Ignore Italian subtitles. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wofjkTmVgt4
Amory Lovins http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid41.php
- On the Hypercar http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D-uhKHy7mk
When you hear "hydrogen" realise that the Ovshinsky NiMH battery IS a hydrogen storage device. Doug Korthof describes it and how it could have been available TEN years ago and OR RIGHT NOW, with pressure.
Doug Korthof liveoilfree http://www.youtube.com/liveoilfree
S. David Freeman http://www.thegreencowboy.com/
Join the Electric Auto Association (EAA). http://www.eaaev.org/.
Read Plug in Hybrids by Sherry Boschert http://www.amazon.com/Plug-Hybrids-Cars-Recharge-America/dp/0865715718/
and ZOOM: The Global Race to Fuel the Car of the Future by Vijay Vaitheeswaran. http://www.amazon.com/ZOOM-Global-Race-Fuel-Future/dp/0446698660/
Remember that there is a great deal of disinformation and FUD flying on EVs. Why? Well $100 Trillion is a good starting pointing. "It's the oil lobby, stupid" seems to be a good general answer to a lot of questions at the moment. Like, oh say, the last eight years.
EAA found that EV forums and threads are being co-opted by AI generated replies that are pages long, written at the engineering thesis level ... and appear within fifteen minutes of posting some comments to EV threads. From one lobbyist on the E. coast. He is certainly doing a more cost effective job than the myriad paid FUD spreaders on political websites.
Become immune to FUD - do the reading :-)
Dear Friends
ICE is good for high torque application when electrical motor cannot perform.
Today, electrical motor out perform in this range, over ICE.
So eletrify cars is the way to go.
And reciprocating ICE has to give way to more efficient rotating machines.
Turbo eletric system today is contrained by the bulky boilers. Even turbo generator can miniaturized, the whole boiler through to generator cannot.
So you need to acclerate the combustion into more efficient, more directional gust to turn turbine.
"Direct Thermal Transport" is one of the invention.
General Motor's competency has moved from ICE to a lot more on design, electrical systems, low voltage DC equipment. GM has to capitalize on this - "Dynamite Economy 5 - Put the Growth Engines Back"
Proud American,asked not Fed to fund you
Ask for more of heavenly forces to make your system more efficient.
It is us, the Eletronic generations helped GM to be profitable, fortune top few during the 80s.
Let us join our hands again
Solvere LIM Swee Keng
Engineer, Inventor, Economist with Philosophical Depth
SM(MIT), MBA(Law)
CtS Cognoscere tenus Solvere
Cognize before Happening
Solving beyond Root Causes
www.cts-ideas.com
Still, the Chevy Volt is the first American car I’ve seen in at least 5 years that looks and sounds good enough that (if priced right) I would go American and pick the Volt in a heartbeat. I say this as an Acura owner and lover, and as someone who has been thoroughly underwhelmed to the point by the design and offerings of the American auto industry. Car dealers would need to adjust for training, but if they do that right and combine it with a word-of-mouth program the sales could really take off.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
phoenix
172 Comments
a long and bumpy road
I would suggest that anyone reading this article, as the subject matter always seems to draw a fair amount of interest, Google 'the history of electric vehicles.' While it appears that they have been around in one form or another since the early 1800's, and that they could have become a permanent part of the American automobile culture, there were a number of mitigating factors which were responsible for their eventual demise. I hope, as probably many of you do as well, that GM is successful in bringing the Volt to market and make the electric vehicle available as a viable alternative to the Infernal Combustion Engine once more.
Reply
isaiah@borealis.com
1 Comment
Re: a long and bumpy road
GM has made a major blunder here.
The Volt, without the "plug-in" feature, is a 50 mpg series hybrid. A lot of people would be thrilled to own a much more muscular Prius, with better mileage.
But GM overreached. The "plug-in" feature adds hundreds of pounds in weight, as well as a battery that is a major technical challenge. AND it will add as much as 20,000 to the sticker price of the car! Even if the Volt works, few people will pay 35-45k for a car just because it can go 40 miles without using gas.
Series Hybrids are great. The Volt has a LOT going for it. But if GM (or other automakers) can dial it back, they'll have a major technical and commercial success. Removing the battery cost will make it competitive on price. And removing the weight can make the performance eye-popping.
BTW, see http://www.choruscars.com for an explanation of the various drivetrains.
Reply
swimdad623
8 Comments
Re: a long and bumpy road
Take a close look at the Volt drive train, and you'll see that it doesn't work without the battery. The internal combustion motor on the Volt gets 50MPG because it's only expected to generate 53HP of power, and it's been tuned to operate optimally at that level. The battery is the key - run the engine at the avergage power needs, and then use the battery to provide any extra or soak up any excess energy. Take away the battery, and the engine has to rev up and down to match the needs when going faster and slower.
Also, there was one item in the article that isn't completely accurate. It says that the internal compustion engine is there to 'recharge the battery'. That's not accurate, as it's only there to generate enough energy to keep the car moving and keep the battery charge from going below 30%. The reason for this is two-fold. First, you lose about 10% of the energy by charging and discharging the battery, so you want to put as little energy as possible into the battery. Second, the Volt costs about 2 cents/mile to run on battery and about 8 cents per mile to run on gasoline (even at 50MPG), so you always want to pull into your driveway with an empty battery so you can fill it up electrically, rather than using gasoline.
Reply
RogerB34
11 Comments
Re: a long and bumpy road
I'm not clear on the battery and engine operation.
My understanding is the car runs on battery alone until a specified level of charge, say 30 percent. Then the engine powers the electric motor directly and separately. There is no battery recharge by the engine. Might be some regenerative braking charge. GM hasn't stated the weight but likely is similar to Prius at 2900 lbs. A lot of car for 53 HP.
Reply
JoseSmith
2 Comments
Re: a long and bumpy road
This is heading in right direction for a short while…however thing is that, if every car out there becomes EV, then what is going to happen to the supply and demand of the electricity. Where is the extra juice going to come from? By burning more coal, oil? Building more dam with current weather and water situation?.. The amount of electricity we need to power all the EV in US or World in the future as we currently envision will not be satisfied by building a patch of wind or sun farm here and there.
We are talking about vast area of land used up just to power all the EVs that is going be driven in the morning and evening for people just going to “work”. Remember, Human society requires much electricity for other areas too.
All questions come down to the nature of the “power source”, whether it is revolutionary or evolutionary one.
Instead of spending too much energy and dollar on the last end of the chain, more attention must be given to the beginning of the chain: new power source that is already in R&D, drawing board or in some smart person’s head…meaning throw enough darts and hope one will hit the bull’s-eye before it is too late…since, the so-called “point-of-no-return” appears to be approaching soon, if not here yet. Solve the cheap/plentiful power source question first and the car issue can be handled more easily and cheaply.
And I think we can do it if we consider the current World situation as live-or-die (if not for us then at least for the our sons and daughters and on and on).
Remember the Manhattan project?
Reply