News   Jul 30, 2024
 563     4 
News   Jul 30, 2024
 1.3K     4 
News   Jul 30, 2024
 599     0 

Star: GM adds new spark to electric car's future

afransen

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
7,799
Reaction score
9,027
The gist of the article: GM is serious about the electric car again, with possible rollout of a line of electric (with IC supplemental power) cars around 2010 - 2012.

It's too bad that Lithium Ion is the technology they have to work with. Recent discoveries of quick-charge battery technology (which can reach 80% charge in 5 minutes) sound quite promising for application to automotives. I'm guessing nanotechnology is going to make batteries a whole lot more attractive over the next 15 or so years, mainly because battery technology is going to be absolutely critical to a post-carbon economy.

------------------

GM adds new spark to electric car's future

Gerry Malloy

Jun 23, 2007

When General Motors introduced its Chevrolet Volt concept car with great fanfare at the Detroit Auto Show in January, there were skeptics among us.

"Just another futuristic technological exercise to divert attention from the need to do something now," was essentially the assessment of more than one pundit. And while others found it technically interesting, many doubted the concept would ever make it to production.

They just might have been wrong.

GM brought the Volt to Toronto this week for its first Canadian showing, at the 2007 Environment and Energy Conference – an event for leaders from both industry and government to address environmental and energy issues of the Great Lakes region.

At the conference, Nick Zielinski, chief engineer for advanced vehicle development at GM, brought attendees up to date on the status of the Volt and its E-Flex powertrain, and what has occurred since its Detroit debut.

The Volt, as you may recall, is an electric car.

That's right. The company skewered in a recent documentary for killing the electric car is developing and promoting one again.

The biggest difference from the first time around is that this electric car appears to have potential commercial feasibility.

In purely technical terms it's a "series hybrid." But GM prefers to call it a "range-extended" electric vehicle because the way it works is quite different from the "parallel hybrids" we have come to accept as typifying a hybrid.

True, the Volt incorporates a gasoline internal combustion (IC) engine, as well as an electric motor. But unlike other hybrids, the IC engine never directly drives the wheels.

They are not even directly connected. The engine's only purpose is to drive a generator to recharge batteries which then provide power to the electric motor.

Those batteries can also be recharged by plugging the vehicle into a conventional 120-volt AC household outlet.

A full recharge takes six hours and that's sufficient for 64 km of city driving without the IC engine ever engaging, GM says. So if your daily commute is less than 64 km, you might never have to buy gas.

If you need to go further, however, the IC engine will extend the range to more than 1,000 km, with average fuel consumption of less than 5.0 L/100 km.

Significantly, Zielinsky revealed, both the Volt and its E-Flex powertrain, which has wider potential application, are being developed as production programs – not R&D exercises.

And the Volt and its derivatives are being integrated into the development of GM's next-generation small cars (Chevrolet Cobalt, Opel/Satun Astra), with which it will share its primary structure.

There are still some technical hurdles to be cleared before a production date can be set, Zielinsky says, but when they are overcome, production can be started quickly.

He wouldn't speculate how soon, but others have suggested between 2010 and 2012.

Chief among the obstacles remaining is the development of lithium-ion battery packs – the kind of batteries typically used in cellphones and laptop computers – for automotive use.

The batteries themselves aren't the main issue. They are already well proven.

The issue is connecting the individual low-voltage batteries together in packs to provide the high-voltage output necessary for automotive use – with the levels of safety, reliability and durability required.

GM recently awarded advanced development contracts for battery-pack development to two suppliers, Compact Power Inc. and Continental Automotive Systems. Such contracts are typically a first step beyond the research stage toward a production contract.

Indeed, it appears, the electric car is far from dead!
 
quick-charge battery technology (which can reach 80% charge in 5 minutes

please post some links for this. that's amazing!
 
Here's one:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/15/technology/disruptors_eestor.biz2/index.htm

Gentlemen, stop your engines
EEStor's new automotive power source could eliminate the need for the combustion engine - and for oil.
Business 2.0 Magazine
By Erick Schonfeld and Jeanette Borzo, Business 2.0
September 20 2006: 2:16 PM EDT

SAN FRANCISCO (Business 2.0 Magazine) -- The Disruptor: EEStor

The Innovation: A ceramic power source for electric cars that could blow away the combustion engine


The Disrupted: Oil companies and carmakers that don't climb aboard

Forget hybrids and hydrogen-powered vehicles. EEStor, a stealth company in Cedar Park, Texas, is working on an "energy storage" device that could finally give the internal combustion engine a run for its money -- and begin saving us from our oil addiction. "To call it a battery discredits it," says Ian Clifford, the CEO of Toronto-based electric car company Feel Good Cars, which plans to incorporate EEStor's technology in vehicles by 2008.

EEStor's device is not technically a battery because no chemicals are involved. In fact, it contains no hazardous materials whatsoever. Yet it acts like a battery in that it stores electricity. If it works as it's supposed to, it will charge up in five minutes and provide enough energy to drive 500 miles on about $9 worth of electricity. At today's gas prices, covering that distance can cost $60 or more; the EEStor device would power a car for the equivalent of about 45 cents a gallon.

And we mean power a car. "A four-passenger sedan will drive like a Ferrari," Clifford predicts. In contrast, his first electric car, the Zenn, which debuted in August and is powered by a more conventional battery, can't go much faster than a moped and takes hours to charge.

The cost of the engine itself depends on how much energy it can store; an EEStor-powered engine with a range roughly equivalent to that of a gasoline-powered car would cost about $5,200. That's a slight premium over the cost of the gas engine and the other parts the device would replace -- the gas tank, exhaust system, and drivetrain. But getting rid of the need to buy gas should more than make up for the extra cost of an EEStor-powered car.

EEStor is tight-lipped about its device and how it manages to pack such a punch. According to a patent issued in April, the device is made of a ceramic powder coated with aluminum oxide and glass. A bank of these ceramic batteries could be used at "electrical energy stations" where people on the road could charge up.

EEStor is backed by VC firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, and the company's founders are engineers Richard Weir and Carl Nelson. CEO Weir, a former IBM-er, won't comment, but his son, Tom, an EEStor VP, acknowledges, "That is pretty much why we are here today, to compete with the internal combustion engine." He also hints that his engine technology is not just for the small passenger vehicles that Clifford is aiming at, but could easily replace the 300-horsepower brutes in today's SUVs. That would make it appealing to automakers like GM (Charts) and Ford (Charts), who are seeing sales of their gas-guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks begin to tank because of exorbitant fuel prices.
 
The only thing standing in the way of the electric car is the efficiency of the battery, and with a little effort that problem can be reduced. Battery operated cars could already carry out many operations presently filled by gasoline powered vehicles.

Hydrogen as an energy carrier, while lovely in theory, will have to be produced by the hundreds of megatons to replace gasoline. Its production is energy intensive, its transport is a serious issue, its storage is a problem and there is no way to know if all these problems can be overcome in an economical manner so as to make it useful as a substitute for gasoline.

The electrical infrastructure already exists, it won't have to be built like a hydrogen infrastaructure. Let's hope electric cars get their day in the sun again.
 
I recommend the documentary "The Death of the Electric Car". There is no way GM is going to lead the way, it will come out with hybrids and electrics at the point it can't avoid it and no sooner.
 
thanks for the link afransen.

i hope they can work out the kinks.
 
I recommend the documentary "The Death of the Electric Car". There is no way GM is going to lead the way, it will come out with hybrids and electrics at the point it can't avoid it and no sooner.

GM already makes the VUE Green Line hybrid, and is going to release the Malibu and Aura hybrids. GM also makes hybrid buses.

With that being said, most electricity is in Ontario is generated by dirty means, and what happens in the summer? People won't be able to drive because of fears of rolling blackouts? What happens to the battery once it dies? I think that TDI-type or hybrid engines in compact, light, aerodynamic cars are still in the future. Even if we were to shut down all our nuclear and coal plants.
 
Junctionist: Ontario has tonnes of power available, even during the summer. The problem is that it is off-peak. Charging cars overnight can help with this.

Batteries need not wear out, and indeed, ultracapacitors will not, or hardly not. If EEStor is deploying ultracapacitor technology in electric cars next year at a competitive price, I can't see how you can scoff at the technology, especially compared to ICE/electric hybrids, which are quite costly and complicated.

Most electricity in Ontario is generated by carbon-neutral means. Frankly, carbon emissions are the more pressing issue than nuclear waste and disposal. Ontario has also gone to extraordinary lengths to promote renewables in this province. We now have the most favourable incentive scheme in North America for solar power, and one of the best for wind as well. However, this technology isn't quite ready for prime time (much less supplying ten or more gigawatts of power).

These ultracapacitors will also have potential application in making renewables more attractive by storing excess energy from uneven production, as well as taking excess power from lulls in demand (late night/early morning) so it can be released at peak times. Depending on the efficiency, there might be quite a business case for this given the new smart metering scheme that is being deployed in Ontario despite the relatively high capital cost.
 
I don't find the Volt all that promising from a practical standpoint. Lithium Ion batteries (which GM plans to use) are expensive, hot, and wear out at a faster rate than the rest of the car. On the other hand, I don't think it would be a huge leap for GM to switch to another electrical storage technology if/when something better comes along.
 
With that being said, most electricity is in Ontario is generated by dirty means, and what happens in the summer? People won't be able to drive because of fears of rolling blackouts?

The addition of extra centralized electricity generation is far less of a problem in terms of emissions than all of the cars using gasoline and generating emissions.

Remember, this isn't just an Ontario issue. For example, many U.S. states (and many other countries) could have access to tremendous solar resources that could function to generate electricity in a major way, which could a go a ways to reducing the use of coal or gas for electricity.
 
Where are your facts? Close to 70% of Ontario's electricity comes from non-CO2 producing sources.

Right here:

http://www.opg.com/power/

In 2006, nuclear and fossil fuel generation made for 68 percent of total power generation. Because the waste products of both types of generation are dangerous to human health they are "dirty".
 

Back
Top