Will GM Revive the Electric Car? Part 1
A GM battery engineer at work in one of the R&D Center's battery labsI just returned from a whirlwind trip to Detroit to attend a really interesting (and pretty unique) event: General Motors brought bloggers and journalists to their Research and Development Center outside of Detroit yesterday not to make a big announcement, or roll out a new vehicle, but to simply provide an update on the development of battery technology for the Chevy Volt and other electric concept vehicles. As the PR rep who coordinated the event told us right before the big presentation, there was really no news; rather, GM really seem to want to keep the media posted on where things stand with these new concepts that received a ton of attention in January.
Now, if you're a skeptic, you're probably thinking something along the lines of "Wow! Who Killed the Electric Car? must've really got their attention!" I think that's accurate — at the auto shows in LA and Chicago, as well as today, company execs. discussed the EV1 project openly and frankly. Their story (and I think it's got some merit): a two-seater with an 80-mile battery range was only going to have limited appeal, and, ultimately, not serve the purpose of really greening the American auto fleet. And that's their real push, they claim — they want to create greener cars that have mass appeal, and fundamentally change the vehicles we drive.
Enter the Volt, which was rolled out at the Detroit Auto Show, and is getting all sorts of attention. It's a sweet car, no doubt, but it's also a concept vehicle at this point. That's another area of criticism: GM does well creating green concept vehicles, but they're not rolling off the production lines. We heard a healthy dose of that in LA from the Rainforest Action Network and JumpStartFord (now Freedom From Oil). Larry Burns, VP of Research and Development, spoke to that criticism when I talked with him in Chicago, and the company continued to respond yesterday. In short, GM has more vehicles in its fleet that average over 30 mpg than any other American auto maker. Furthermore, as CEO Rick Waggoner said in LA, and Burns told us this morning at a bloggers-only breakfast meeting, GM is committed to "reinventing the automobile."
OK… sounds like a good line from the PR department, right? I've got to admit, after talking to Burns one-on-one in Chicago, and then seeing his presentation yesterday, I think we've got to give the company some latitude: they're definitely thinking very big. Burns held a breakfast meeting with four bloggers: Ed Ring of ecoworld, David Houle of Evolution Shift, Sam Abuelsamid of AutoblogGreen, and myself. The thrust of his talk: we're facing big challenges in terms of energy security, climate change and global political instability, and that requires a fundamental rethinking of the automobile. Burns noted that the "DNA" of the car hasn't really changed in 120 years: it contains an internal combustion engine powered by petroleum products, is driven by mechanical systems, and functions independent of other vehicles on the road. GM wants to change those factors: create a vehicle powered by electricity and/or renewable fuels, driven by electronic systems, and connected (via communications technologies) to other vehicles on the road (think accident avoidance, among other things).
This fundamental shift is encapsulated in a concept introduced by GM CEO Rick Waggoner at the Detroit Auto Show: E-Flex. According to Waggoner,
What exactly do we mean by E-Flex? Well, the "E" is no surprise - it stands for "electric," because no matter how an E-Flex vehicle is configured, it will always be driven exclusively by electricity.
This is the major difference between E-Flex and hybrids. Hybrids can be driven by an internal combustion engine, or an electric drive, or both systems simultaneously. E-Flex vehicles will always be driven by electricity.
What about the second half of the name? Well, that's the really interesting part of all this. E-Flex is "flexible" because the electricity it uses to drive the vehicle can come from a wide range of fuel sources. It can come from a hydrogen fuel cell; it can be generated by a small motor running on ethanol or bio-diesel or synthetic fuel; or it can come from the power grid, and be stored in a battery. And, when the electricity comes from the grid, it can be generated by natural gas, coal, nuclear power, wind, hydroelectric, and so on.
In short, E-Flex vehicles will enjoy one of the really outstanding benefits of electricity: the opportunity to diversify fuel sources for the vehicle.
E-Flex is also flexible because it offers flexibility around the globe. Europeans rely more on diesel fuel than North Americans, Brazil has gravitated to E-100 ethanol, and we see tremendous opportunities with bio-fuels here in the U.S. China, meanwhile, may well be the first country to develop a broad-based fuel cell infrastructure.
By setting up a propulsion system that allows us to power vehicles with any of these fuels, E-Flex provides us with a single elegant solution.
In short, E-Flex creates options. It'll allow GM to leverage a range of electrically driven propulsion systems, as well as benefit from the inevitability and the promise of energy diversity.
The concept is really innovative: essentially, GM wants to take the concept of energy diversity, which we've heard much about in the context of electricity production by utilities, and adapt it to the automobile. Rather than creating vehicles based on the assumption that gasoline is the almost universal fuel of choice, E-Flex allows for diversity based on local and regional difference.
Of course, this thinking presents unique challenges. The biggest ones: development of next-generation battery technology, particularly lithium ion batteries for automobiles. This, the company claims, is the main challenge they'll have to overcome before moving the Volt, as well as the Sequel, to production status. They say, though, that they're fully committed to developing this technology, and that, while no firm dates were given, they foresee these vehicles on the road within a 3-5 year time frame.
Too good to be true? That claim was made, with at least one reporter in the battery briefing characterizing the company as having a history of overpromising and underdelivering. In my next post, I'll get into the battery development plans, as well as alternatives that were suggested over and over.
I do think GM is very serious about reinventing the automobile, and that their ideas are much bigger than anything we're hearing from the remaining two companies of the "Big 3." They've provided a pretty specific blueprint for how they'll do that. And, while they don't have firm dates (that probably would be overpromising), they've argued that such developments can happen in a relatively quick time frame. The one question that remains to be answered (and the one that you can help with): how will the public react to this news? Are we willing to give the company the time it needs to make such dramatic changes? Or, has their moment passed? I'm tending towards the former: GM's certainly made its mistakes, but if these plans succeed, we're looking at a revolution in personal transportation…
Disclaimer: GM did cover my expenses for this trip. As with my trip to the Chicago Auto Show, this was done with the understanding that I was free to write (or not to write) whatever I chose…
Cross posted at sustainablog
March 15th, 2007 at 2:39 am
To me, the E-Marketing/E-Politic machine of GM just got cranked. I think that GM does not want to put the E-Volt on the market anytime soon, at least, not in significant volume.
GM could, right now, introduce a car like the E-Volt using NiMH battery. This will offer a working prototype to test the concept of the car and most Electric/Electronic component. GM can upgrade to better battery a few years later (EX: 2011). By then, most of the car will be classify as proven and it will be easy to get some significant sales shortly after the introduction of these revolutionary baterry. Actually, an introductory E-Volt with a 10 to 20 miles electric range will be enough to let us think that GM is getting serious.
This is my understanding of GM: Wait Wait … Wait 3 to 5 years and GM will introduce a better hybrid technology, better than Honda and Toyota.
Ok, that might be the plan and I accept it at face value. Actually, GM have no choice about the calendar year 2011 or 2012: Something must be done since some jurisdiction such as Canada that does not give brownie point for E85 capable engine might mandate similar standard to CARB or worst, Europe standard. This can also be the case for specific US state to formalise better standard (Why not: California, New-York, Maine, etc…) With the E-Volt, GM is essentially saying to Canada, some US state and Europe (and may be China): Wait at least until 2011 before mandating anything, GM understand the issue and work very hard to find a good solution. This will be in 2011, promise…
By 2011, GM tests the car in a small market such as California (OK, not that small) for one full year. GM will complain about the low sales for the E-Volt 2011 (more politic here) since only 10,000 to 20,000 cars will be purchase that year. Model year 2012 is entering the market in North America (Canada included). In Canada and the Northern US State, the sales are abysmal: Less than 500 units for all of Canada and less than 5,000 units for the New-York states. GM then claim (politic again): I told you so; nobody wants this type of cars.
The reason will be simple: in New-York, Montreal and Toronto, GM dealership receives a few questions from potential customer of the E-Volt 2012: What is the performance of the car in winter condition? The battery work OK at -10 degree F? The heating system and the defroster work OK by -20F? What is the battery life expectancy in Canada or Northern US driving condition? How many mechanics persons are trains to fix the car in Sept-Iles, Quebec or in Thunder Bay Ontario? Guest the answer of the dealership: A big, I don’t know?
Meanwhile, the Toyota and Honda hybrid system will be plug-in capable and have an Electric range of over 100 Miles on a single charge: Under these conditions, the e-Volt will no longer be a revolution but, an “also ran” technology!
March 15th, 2007 at 4:20 am
Now there was a classic mud-slinging comment discrediting all readers, steeping on everybody’s toes without any facts to back up the nonsense contained- I see this so called “Unregistered User” has no guts to even put down even his name or e-mail address.
Where have ya been the your entire lifetime, in a bar, winning pissing contests?
Good Lord - give us all a break and post your nonsense on your favorite “dimwit” message boards!
I am an EV enthusiast - you on the other hand are a mudslinger and you haven’t done squat about your homework and you don’t speak for me.
I agree that GM is probably completelly unimpressed by “Who Killed The Electric Car” and I also don’t believe it will ever see the streets. The politics involved to suppress the modern battery are in place firmly around the entire world and have prevented us from achieving this milestone in development since probably close to a century now.
To end this dilemma, we gotta be totally present and willing to change our way of thinking. Your post is totally devoid of any seeds for change yet full of bad manners.
Wished I could’ve ignored it because it deserved it - but the tone used just wouldn’t let me.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:55 am
NiMH’s patent is owned by Ovonics, which in turn is owned by oil companies. Needless to say, Ovonics will not license a battery large enough to power an electric or plug-in-hybrid car. In this case, the technology is irrelevant.
June 30th, 2007 at 6:53 am
I tried to post this before, but I will try again:
It seems to me that the obvious solution to the BEV
using available technology is to combine a large sodium
nickel chloride (Zebra) battery with a small high power
density battery, such as the ones from A123 or
AltairNano.
The Zebra battery almost has it all:
o It uses only cheap, abundant, non-toxic materials. The
only moderately expensive material is nickel, and it
uses only about $17/kwh, perhaps 1/4 that needed by
NiMH.
o In mass production its manufacturing cost would be less
than $75/kwh, far cheaper than any other candidate
battery
o It has a very long storage life, calendar life, and
cycle life, good for 200,000 - 300,000 miles in a car.
o It is the only candidate battery that is immune to the
most extreme climates on earth: death valley, northern
Siberia, Antarctica, affect it hardly at all.
o Despite the fact that it is a high temperature battery,
around 600 degrees F, and uses liquid sodium, it is a
very safe battery. A battery contains a large number
of cells, each of which contains a thin layer of sodium
in an aluminum structure around a nickel chloride core.
If the cell is penetrated, it quickly congeals to a
solid mixture on mostly aluminum and table salt. It
has passed all European auto safety tests: submerged in
water, over-charged, over-discharged, roasted in a
petroleum fire for 30 minutes, and crashed into a pole
at more than 30 mph.
o It has more than a million miles of road testing behind
it and 3-9 ton delivery vans powered by Zebra batteries
with a range of 130-160 miles are rolling off the
production lines in England as we speak.
o It has a very high energy density, nearly 50 wh/lb, or
well over 100 wh/kg, better than those LiON batteries
that are safe enough to be used in a car.
The only not so good features are:
o While it does not leak electricity like other
batteries, it does leak heat, and if you leave it BOTH
un-driven AND un-plugged for more than 3 days in a row,
you will have to plug it in and spend a day or more
heating it up again — so you don’t do that (it does
nor hurt the battery but it would be inconvenient)
o Its power density is mediocre: plenty good for cruising
at 70-80 mph, but sluggish for acceleration, so that is
why you want to add the small high power LiON
batteries, which would be much too expensive for the
entire battery pack, but economical in the small size
needed.
So why does no one in this country, as opposed to
Europe, ever even mention the Zebra battery?
— Larry
July 6th, 2007 at 3:30 am
I ran into this woman in New Haven Mi a few Months ago who said her Company (A Battery Marker and devoloper)was once part of GM.
She said GM pulled the pulg on a Battery they were working on which could have replaced gas as a primary energy source and sold the company. This was within the last 8 years. Anyone remenber the name of the Company?
July 14th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
I agree the Zebra battery is the most likely candidate for a high energy density battery. It makes sense to team it with a high power density battery for acceleration and brake recovery. The Zebra appears at this time to have the least impact on the envitonment of any current or R & D battery. It is ready for production now. The question is how do you market an electric car after the death of same less than five years ago? I was under the impression that a small two seater commuter would be the best platform, but that seems not to be the case as expressed by GM. If the gerneral public already has expressed its desires in car styles and sizes based on what it is buying now, the obvious transition is to modify a current body style to sell at the lowest upcharge. I can’t see green cars making much of a dent in sales unless they are entry level models. Maybe selling a solar option either directly or through a solar distributor much as Honda does with Phil on its Civic natural gas model would work. It would shift the idea of electric away from the current grid mix to renewables or nuclear with no greenhouse emissions. Seems to me, you either sequester CO2 for hydrogen or store non fissionable waste for electricity if you want a non carbon energy medium with storage capabilities. Its just that solar works so well with BEVs since they already have the storage on board.
July 15th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
I am a faith in GM and in future with their hybred car, think they are outstripped in this Toyota and Honda :))
October 20th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
The ultracapacitor technology is coming quickly. With companies like EEStor - you can have a car that can go 500 miles from a 5 minute charge… no gasoline.
It will be interesting to see how these companies roll this technology out.
Greg
http://www.ultracapacitors.org
January 11th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
[...] MI, to cover the North American International Auto Show (NAIAS). Judging by the itinerary and the documented experiences of Jeff McIntire-Strasburg from last year, it should be a busy [...]
January 14th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
[...] During the frenzy of PR announcements yesterday, I had the opportunity to sit down with Tony Posawatz, Vehicle Line Director for GM’s Chevy Volt. If you aren’t familiar with the Volt, here’s a short introduction: it’s a plug-in electric hybrid vehicle, capable of 40 mile trips before relying on a small internal-combustion generator to repower the battery system. For more background, see Jeff’s posts from last year (Will GM Revive the Electric Car? Part 1). [...]