Putting the ‘Flex’ in E-Flex
By Larry Burns
GM VP-Research and Development and Strategic Planning
At the Shanghai Motor Show today, GM unveiled the next iteration of our E-Flex electric architecture, this one configured with a hydrogen fuel cell system.
This is the same architecture that we debuted in the Chevrolet Volt electrically driven vehicle at the Detroit show in January. While that vehicle was battery-powered and fitted with a small biofuel engine powering a generator to charge the batteries, what we showed today features our fifth-generation hydrogen fuel cell system that, together with a lithium-ion battery, results in a range of about 300 miles. And that's 300 miles of completely petroleum-free and emissions-free driving.
The fuel cell E-Flex is also plug-in capable, adding up to 20 additional miles each time it is charged. Its fuel cell system is our most advanced one, and it fits completely under the hood, taking up about the same amount of space as a conventional four-cylinder powerplant with an automatic transmission.
The Volt that we showed in January explained the E part of the equation, and today in Shanghai we showed the Flex. It's a demonstration, a proof point, of what we said in January: this architecture can be configured to utilize a wide variety of energy sources. It can use, if need be, the most efficient and available system in any given global region where it's offered. As I like to say, that's the beauty of it.
For example, we can obtain hydrogen or electricity from range of renewable sources, including wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric and biofuels. Or we can use more traditional sources, like natural gas, clean coal, nuclear power or even gasoline.
And that's exactly what we mean when we talk about energy diversity. We're pursuing several different approaches to alternative energy and advanced propulsion technology – and to lessening our dependence on petroleum.
You can learn more about the fuel cell Volt we introduced today. It represents, to us, part of the ongoing transformation of the very DNA of the automobile, and it's incredibly exciting to be a part of it. We'd love to know what you think of it …
To see more of the Volt in China, check out Flickr.
71 Comments
Leave a Reply
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
I hope this time you can make this happen. The
rate of pollution our vehicles put out just to
get back and forth to work is astonomical.
We need solutions like this years ago. With you leading the charge all the other company have to stand up and take notice. We are so dependent
on foreign oil, with a small amount of people controlling the world’s oil pricing.
Congratulations on this grand achievement, now
go forth and give your best effort.
Thank You
Mr. Burns:
Your post sounds very promising. Make sure to beat the competition to the market place with superior, proprietary technology. Be careful to protect General Motors technology from the competition. Some of the competition has had ethical lapses in the past and I am sure they would love to have General Motors technology.
Respectfully,
Eric Matthew Vest
This morning on the way to work I sat (in my S-10 truck) behind 3 Toyota Priuses at the traffic light at the corner of Gaffey St. and Anaheim St. in Harbor City, CA.
The future is now.
I have been impressed with GM’s development of hydrogen power trains for years now and this setup seems one step closer to making this form of transport a reality. I suppose the biggest remaining stumbling block as many have indicated is the necessity to create hydrogen with non petroleum based power sources. In order to replace oil with hydrogen and make the transition with little price difference in terms of vehicle and fuel costs, the production of hydrogen would need to be enormous. Finding a method for doing so without fossil fuels will be a giant undertaking.
I hope that the large oil companies are making efforts to combine their research efforts into coming up with practical solutions.
Bravo Mr. Burns to you and your team. E-Flex electric architecture, and the fuel cell power source, are nothing short of an automotive technological revolution. I am proud that GM is leading the industry into the future.
Again I come Here You mention Alternate .Fuel sources to run your flex and I still Don’t here LPG Propane is already out at gas stations ready to go in cars and SUV’s TODAY. Monday’s Public release by Mark Shwartz from Stanford University that ”Ethanol is being promoted as a clean and renewable fuel that will reduce global warming and air pollution,” said Jacobson, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering. ”But our results show that a high blend of ethanol poses an equal or greater risk to public health than gasoline, which already causes significant health damage.”
LPG, LNG, CNG will today start cleaning our AIR and start fighting the Global Warming beast. So GM offer your customers something we can use practically now and save money, air quality, environment and lives, TODAY!
Congrats on the fuel cell, but, concentrate on the first release of the Volt with the 40 mile battery range and an ICE. I’m not interested in a car with 20 mile battery range and a fuel cell range extender. Who ever produces a car like the Volt with 40 mile electric with ICE range extension will get a check for purchase from me. I’m ready and waiting.
Larry,
I sure hope GM plans on investing in new technology in the USA. Seems the best is being offered in non-US locations. How will the beancounters ever approve this if it is more expensive than the EcoTech 4 cylinder engine?
You introduced a fuel cell Volt today?!? Where can I buy it?!?
I can’t buy one?
Not much of an introduction, is it.
hi edvard! i think your question has already been answered. check out this link at CNET News(http://news.com.com/2300-11392_3-6173071-1.html?tag=ss)
It features a municipal hydrogen filling station that extracts hydrogen from water using solar power. Right now the biggest obstacle to fuel cell adoption is cost and refitting the fuel stations with hydrogen pump. The new generation Flex Volt can travel 300 miles on 4 kg of hydrogen and 600 mles on 8 kg of hydrogen, double that of the Sequel. You can also check out more details and pictures of Volt at AmericanCarfans.com(http://www.worldcarfans.com/news.cfm/country/acf/newsID/2070420.003/chevrolet/chevrolet-volt-with-e-flex-propulsion-system)
The most cost effective to fight Toyota is to use Bluetec diesel and in the future outfit the E-Flex with Bluetec.
All I can say is….I can’t wait for the Volt to make it to production.
Hydrogen, or gas-electric hybrid. GM has the right idea in mind.
http://www.ChevyVoltForum.com
Larry Burns said:
Larry,
That’s assuming of course you find a way to produce hydrogen without consuming fossil fuels to do it — and that’s a MIGHTY big assumption.
So far the only practical ways of producing hydrogen are by electrolysis of water, or by reforming natural gas, and each has drawbacks.
Larry Burns also said:
You’re kidding, right? If you have to resort to using NG, coal, or “even gasoline” to make hydrogen, you are in a losing game. That famous Second Law of Thermodynamics (You are familiar with that law I hope.) means it would be wiser to use NG, coal, or “even gasoline” as a primary fuel rather than to undergo the energy losses of using them as a feedstock to produce hydrogen.
Regards,
Gary Dikkers
It’s interesting that GM acknowledges the need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels:
(”…that’s exactly what we mean when we talk about energy diversity. We’re pursuing several different approaches to alternative energy and advanced propulsion technology – and to lessening our dependence on petroleum.”)
But I can’t help but notice the majority of GM advertising is still aimed at promoting less-efficient trucks and SUVs.
Congratulations on the second variation of the E Flex. I hope that by the time you show the 207th variation (sometimes in the year 2199) your first E Flex will be only ten years away from a dealer’s show room. Don’t you have better ways of wasting your money?
#1 battery and ICE.
#2 Battery and Fuel Cell.
#15 Battery and hot air.
#29 Battery and ???
How many iteration does it take to make one real hybrid car?
I like the fact that it sounds like you guys know what you’re talking about in reference to energy sources and all that. I mean, everyone in the know understands that the whole E85-from-corn thing is a scam to help your corporate average fuel economy, and that if we powered every car on the road with that it would be very disastrous to the environment, to farmers (depleting water resources), and to poor people (rising food costs). However, I read this and see you talking about sources of hydrogen, specifically solar (like the Norwegian hydrogen highway) but also geothermal and wind, and it’s encouraging. I watched “A Crude Awakening” on sundance the other day, and let me just say I hope you guys produce this. I would definately buy one – and you’d likely have earned yourself a lifelong customer!
Paul, Gary, Beaugrand, et al:
Once again, you guys are amazing.
Paul:
It does sort of remind me of the old joke about the carrot dangling from a stick out in front of the donkey. He kept chasing the carrot down the road, but he never got any closer.
Gary:
My younger son is a Humboldt State plannning graduate. He tried to explain the idea of “embodied energy”, which was taught in one of his classes, to me about 4 or 5 years ago when I was looking to buy a new car to save gas.
How interesting.
I’ve never been a GM fan, but if you can introduce a car like the Volt to the the public first, I will buy it.
Until we have fusion or mega scale solar and wind to power BEVs or H2 electrolysis, we’re screwing ourselves. Renewable bio-derived fuels for power generation (by fuel cells with a turbine stage hopefully) for said BEVs and H2FC cars is the next best thing. Until we approach either of those – if even possible – hydrogen is no green solution. To aspire to anything less than that described above as being at least an option for cars a few generations in the future is a money driven farce. Where is the BEV Volt concept? I hear diesel in Frankfurt. If you want to prove GM really wants to be sustainable, build an electric Volt concept even if it doesn’t have a large range – this shows the public that current state of the art battery tech STILL isn’t ready for automotive prime time – but close – if it can go 180 miles or so on a charge. 50% better than the EV1, still too costly to produce (advertise battery pack cost with the concept). Stirs demand, good for GM, and helps people forget about the EV1 as GM shouldn’t have been crucified for that in the first place considering the programs run by other companies at the same time.
I am happy to see GM continue working with the Volt and the E-Flex system. Toyota proved there was a market for a gas/electric small car. Tesla Motors showed us EVs can be sexy. It’s up to GM to show the world Detroit can still stay ahead in technology.
“Toyota’s ascendancy, which many in the industry have predicted for some time, is another milestone in America’s long decline from unchallenged industrial preeminence.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/24/business/24cnd-auto.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
That’s not good.
Oh that’s right, GM has a long term plan for fixing that, just like it has long term plans for fixing everything.
I sure hope the people of 2150 enjoy it when all of your long term plans actually work out, but until then, I can understand why people are driving Toyotas.
One can only commend GM for the efforts you’re putting into developping alternative fuel vehicles, but as noted by many other posters, this is not coming fast enough.
You’re not going to be the first ones to do it, so you have no other choice than to do it the best.
I disagree about the comments pertaining to fossil fuels being a viable resource to generate hydrogen. North America is actually in a highly advantageous position with regards to coal. There is an estimated 250 years or more left of coal alone. New deposits are uncovered all the time.
Though more costly,Technology exists today that enables coal to be burned with almost zero pollution which in turn could be used to generate hydrogen.Producing hydrogen in controlled centralized power plants would take pollution away from the millions of individually owned and questionably maintained cars and place it in clean burning plants that can be carefully monitored. Think about it. 200 years ago, we were driving horses. 200+ years might as well be eternity when it comes to the discussion of current propulsion. Without a doubt, how we get around, and how these devices are fueled will be entirely different way before these coal deposits are ever used up. There are already methods to produce hydrogen from non fossil fuel sources. So in my opinion, we should be accessing hydrogen from readily available, inexpensive resources rather than immediately try to reinvent the wheel.
There lies a bigger danger in terms of diplomatic and economic problems that have been a major broomstick in the wheel of America’s independence from international intervention. I would much rather see adaptation of technology that creates a road to peaceful coexistence first, then work on making those technologies clean. Put the priorities in the right order.
Whenever I am just about to throw up my hands and give up, I see some more comments of the quality of those above, and I get new hope.
You guys are amazing.
If GM disappears, it won’t be because you guys didn’t do everything in your power to hold up the mirror of reality for it to see.
I hope that they can realize that these sometimes testy sounding comments come from the deep frustration of loyal supporters and customers who desperately want to stave off disaster.
Mr. Burns:
I really hope your team keeps moving forward. The global climate is changing and not for the better. I’d love to be driving a zero-emissions car within the next 15 years (or sooner if possible).
Bill
toyota has become the world’s largest automaker, and i can’t stop yelling: china, china, china! just move everything to china, oh gm. the production cost is so much cheaper. and u can consider moving everything to ontario. toyota likewise has a big presence in ontaro.
When a GM executive says: “And that’s 300 miles of completely petroleum-free and emissions-free driving.” what part of truth in advertising don’t they get! Emissions free hydrogen? I think not. The electricity to make hydrogen comes, today, largely from electricity which is mostly generated with dirty western coal that spews Mercury on everyone living east of the midwest! Here in NY it’s not safe to eat fish caught in may reservoirs because of the Mercury content from the coal used to fuel the midwest powerplants. So it doesn;t make a lot of sense to use thoses sources to make hydrogen for “emissions-free” motoring now, is it? Same with plug-in hybrids. That electricity has to come from somewhere. They’ll tell you that it’s cheaper to use electricity (true) and that the emissions of the total energy cycle are a bit less (true), but that’s because CO2 is now an emission (oh, yes, let’s use the Supreme Court decision for justification in that little slight of hand). If you remove CO2 from the equation (golly, carbon-based fules contain carbon compounds when burned — really!? ), coal produces some of the dirties and most harmfull polutants: sulfur, heavy metals and muercury!
So let’s all use more electricity and spew more of that into the air while where trying to solve the energy crisis… this way we’ll have more cancer and more dead lakes, but zero-emission tailpipes. Please! Look up the definition of “truth” in a dictioary!
“LPG, LNG, CNG will today start cleaning our AIR and start fighting the Global Warming beast. So GM offer your customers something we can use practically now and save money, air quality, environment and lives, TODAY!” – Scott
Hi Scott,
so far I agree with you, even more since my wife and me are gaining just the best experiences with our Aveo and Alero, both LPG-fueled vehicles. But it’s also an issue for your government. In the meanwhile there are tax-incentives in Germany on the sale of LPG and CNG, at least effective until 2018. Especially the LPG-infrastructure is growing over here in a really amazing way. Just look at the past 12 months: There had been added at least further 1¬¥000 LPG-Pumps and it’s going on and on! These special workshops over here, which are authorized to retrofit LPG-systems, sometimes have difficulties to serve the demand. LPG contributes to a decrease of 80% in toxic pollutants and nearly 20% in CO2. Referring to my information, 85% of all the LPG available in the US, is from your own country. I can’t find any reason, why this LPG-boom shouldn’t be possible in the US, either, since you are literally sitting on the source. Over here already numerous Cadillacs, Hummers and even Corvettes run on LPG, if you order a car from Chevrolet Deutschland, it’s even available, comparable to an OEM-version.
CNG also is an environmental-friendly alternative, though, I am a little sceptical about it, since there are rumors concerning the threat of a CNG-cartel, comparable to the OPEC. This association may consist of countries like (e.g.) Iran, Russia, Venezuela and Libya, what might lead to uncertainty regarding the CNG-market. I hope, this won’t come up.
Is it possible to make hydrogen by fermenting meat waste products?
To John above:
From the article whose link you provided:
“But … a slowness to recognize the potential for small cars eroded G.M.’s seemingly insurmountable lead starting in the mid-1960s.”
Starting in mid-1960s ? To be more precise, the article should mention the 1970’s, 1980’s, 1990’s and now, with the “triplets” apparently not to be sold in the North America, we can add the 2000’s too.
Thanks,
Chris (Toronto)
edvard:
your point about coal is well taken and makes sense, except for one aspect: why use hydrogen as a middle-man?
as someone mentioned before, if you are generating electricity in order to make hydrogen, then turning the hydrogen back into electricity onboard the vehicle, why not just use the electricity directly (storing it in a battery pack rather than in hydrogen) ?
Battery technology is sure to improve in the near future, while hydrogen transport and storage techniques are more difficult.
Dano,
I don’t suppose you read much into my post which mentioned the fact that there exists technology that can burn coal cleanly, removing 99% of the resulting pollutants, gas, and debris from the coal burning process. Of course these technologies cost more, but if we’re talking about hydrogen, ethanol, switch grass, and so on, I don’t see how the discussion pertaining to clean coal is deemed unworthy by many on the alternative fuel bandwagon. Why? Because it sounds dirty, was dirty in the past, so it therefore must be dirty.
This is not true. All options must be utilized before true independence can be realized.
so hows that FIRST one coming along ? put anything else than a golf cart motor and ye old lead-acid starter battery in it, yet ?
Mutley asked, “Is it possible to make hydrogen by fermenting meat waste products?”
It is possible for chemists to reform one compound into another, or break it into its elemental parts almost without limit. But the question is how much energy and capitol it would take to do that. I can’t imagine that making hydrogen from meat waste would be either easy — or economically practical.
In effect what you would be doing is converting grass and grain to hydrogen — only doing it by using the rather inefficient means of first having cattle and pigs eat their feed, and then using what’s left over as feedstock to make hydrogen.
It would make more sense to simply use the grain and grass as feedstock, or even more simple to use the natural gas that is used to make the fertilizer that is used to grow the grain for the animals.
Of course, the simplest of all would be to just use natural gas as an auto fuel, instead of going through complicated and energy consuming schemes to convert that natural gas into some other form of fuel such as ethanol or hydrogen.
However, there would be a lot of unhappy farmers in the Midwest if we just used natural gas as an auto fuel, and didn’t first convert it to fertilizer; and then use that fertilizer to grow corn; and then turn that corn into ethanol.
to dano:
How much energy does it take to make the guts of a hybrids, batteries, motors etc…?
Another energy source I wonder about it peat. There’s ENORMOUS amounts of the stuff all over the world. Finland gets most of their power from it. There is in fact so much of the stuff that underground peat fires produce so much carbon emissions that there are estimates that as much as 10-40% of all fossil fuel emissions comes from these fires.
It is cheap and can be utilized in many ways. Anyhow, this topic is fascinating and I’m sure that one day we’ll look back at these comments amusingly.
General Motors, do your very best and you will succeed. Your engineers are second to none!
I hope that when considering the infrastructure for energy delivery in our future vehicles, that GM would consider invigorating the dealer network by encouraging dealers to install hydrogen filling dispenseries and plug in depots for electric vehicles. If big oil views hydrogen as a competitive system, perhaps we need to rethink the way the energy commodity is delivered to consumers. Our GM dealer network could truly become “one stop shopping” for your transportation needs.
Mutleythedog:
I read last week somewhere that Tyson had made a deal with one of the oil companies to produce biodiesel from the waste fat from its meat/chicken processing operations.
John Sherman, 4/27, 10:36 AM:
Right. Or how about even E85?
I recently found out, entirely by accident, that my 2000 S-10 can run on E85. Even though I understnd the issues around E85, as outlined so brilliantly by bloggers here, I would still give it a try.
The problem is, even after fiddling around on the web for 30 minutes, I can’t find a single E85 station in southern California, oe of the largest population concentrations in the country.
It really irritates me to think that GM is getting CAFE credit for selling me this truck when I cannot get the fuel.
If GM is going to outsmart the CAFE rules this way, how about putting your money where your mouth is and actually making the fuel available.
Mr. Burns, It is good to see GM keeping its promise to develop a wide range of solutions to our future transportation needs in a responsible manner. Now there are two powertrain options for the Volt and from what I can gather Lithium-Ion Battery technology is progressing.
GM deserves a lot of credit “staying the course” on alternative fuels of all kinds while developing state of the art vehicles like the Volt.
The Volt and vehicles like GM’s two mode hybrids that will be on the market within months point to a bright future.
Thanks again for your vision and dedication of bringing these vehicles to market.
The Thermal Depolymerization process breaks down organic material into a light oil, suitable (I assume) for use as a diesel fuel; “cracking” said oil (again, I’m assuming)could potentially be used to produce a gasoline substitute (butanol, for example, C4H9OH), and perhaps further “cracking” could produce hydrogen gas (H2).
The short answer would be yes, it’s possible, in theory, to produce hydrogen from meat waste; the real questions are, can it be done at a profit? and is that really the most efficient means to produce an alternative fuel?
All the candidates for investing in such an enterprise are the “usual suspects” in producing the fuels that have become “politically incorrect,” that is, the big oil companies and ADM (they, and only they, have the deep pockets necessary for the R&D).
Of course, the obvious way to reduce our dependance on fossil fuels, and reducing greenhouse gases, is to use more fuel-efficient vehicles; unfortunately, a large percentage of the American male population still equates virility with an oversized, overpowered vehicle:
Stick 4 wheels and a seat onto a big block V8 and it’ll sell. If it’s loud it’ll sell more.
“…what we showed today features our fifth-generation hydrogen fuel cell system that, together with a lithium-ion battery, results in a range of about 300 miles. And that’s 300 miles of completely petroleum-free and emissions-free driving.”
Larry,
No question, fuel cell technology is sweet. But where exactly will the hydrogen come from? Truth to be told, the logistics of supplying and distributing hydrgen will be the long pole in the tent, no matter how elegant your fuel cell technology.
I hope you’re not planning to use electricity to crack water into oxygen and hydrogen. The thermodynamic losses of the energy transformation alone mean that is a losing deal.
It would make far more sense to use electricity and batteries, than to use electricity to make hydrogen, and then use a fuel cell to turn the hydrogen back into electricity to drive a car.
The same with natural gas which right now is the only other practical source of hydrogen. There is no advantage to reforming natural gas into hydrogen, and then using that hydrogen to generate electricity in a fuel cell, over just using the natural gas as the primary fuel in a car in the form of LNG, CNG, or LPG. (Are you guys even doing any research with LNG, CNG, or LPG? In my opinion, that is the most likely path to produce practical results for a low-emission car.)
Don’t become so seduced with the elegant technology of fuel cells, that you become blinded to the almost impossible logistics of producing and distributing hydrogen as a fuel. The same with lithium-ion batteries. You and several other major car makers seem to be banking on lithium-ion. But will the logistics of the lithium industry be able to support millions of cars on the road with lithium batteries?
Logistics is almost always a more critical factor than the technology.
Mighty fine, and keep the shiny side up,
The Ol’ Roadhog
Mr. Burns,
I would be interested in hearing more details. I wonder if it’s really viable.
How much platinum and other rare material is used in each fuel cell?
What is the cost of each fuel cell?
Can they be produced in high volume (let’s say 10 million)?
What do you think is the best way to produce and distribute hydrogen?
What is the cost of hydrogen going to be this way?
What is the best way to store the hydrogen in the car?
How robust and reliable are the fuel cells in real life operation?
What is the crash-worthiness of the hydrogen storage?
What about using smaller conventional motors with a turbo along with the cylinder shutdown tehcnology that is in the Silverado V8. Take the inline 5 that is in the Colorado, tune it for gas milege, shut down 2 cylinders when not needed and add a turbo. That type of combination provides good gas milege for flat driving, good acceleration when needed, and reduces consumption when in traffic. It is similar to the Saturn that shuts down the gas engine when you let off of the accelerator.
Overall, we see a lot of diesel turbos, but why not gas turbos?
Dear sir, really encouraging, but why so late? Yes, like many
other bloggers I would dash out and buy one today, I would even give you cash for it. It’s funny
how the whole race to save Earth
has really begun in earnest. I think the charging up at home option is a good one and indeed,
make the thing flexible. And, can you hurry it up, please, man?
Tal Craig: There WERE a lot of GM gas turbo vehicles available not too long ago. An example of one that I owned: 1987 Buick Regal Limited with the Turbo V6 drivetrain which was the same as the 1987 Buick Grand National / GNX. The GN and GNX only came in black. But you could get the Regal Limited in any color (mine was white and people in Oregon mistook me quite a few times for a fast moving State Trooper vehicle). There were also GMC Typhoons and Syclones, too, if you wanted a pick up or SUV that was turbocharged. Clint Eastwood had a green Typhoon. Maybe he still does. Clint? GM made a huge mistake after the ‘87 Buicks came out – they dropped the rear wheel drive platform and the turbo drivetrains, though they said at the time that this was due to EPA emissions requirements. Which sounds like complete BS now due to changes in technology. They lost a LOT of customers when they dropped the rear wheel drive platform in Buicks, Olds and Pontiacs (though the Buick turbo V6 was used as the drivetrain in the 1988 Pontiac Firebird Transam Indy Pace Car which was white). The Buick turbo V6s were very expensive to maintain properly but were WICKED FAST and a blast to drive! Unmarked versions were even used by the FBI. Many were featured in movies. Mine was my daily driver and I averaged 26mpg with it according to the digital dash. No way am I getting that now with the Displacement On Demand V8 in my 4WD GMC Envoy Denali. By the way, with a flick of a knob on the dash of the Buick you could convert to metric if you were crossing into Canada on a trip (100 km per hour equals 62 mph). When I had my kids with me in the car I would switch the system to KPH and tell them “Look! We’re going 100!” to try to fool them. It was real easy to go through a gallon of premium gas in seconds. Yes, with the technology GM has available now it would be easy to produce new versions of these that met emissions standards, otherwise you would not see other high performance cars out there like Corvettes. Versions of these turbo V6s were run on ethanol at Indy as well. The turbo Buick was the fastest production car in North America in 1987, faster even than the Corvette. And concerning the turbo diesels, if you have ever driven a big truck (semi) without a turbo, you instantly realize why they need to be turbocharged – to clean up the exhaust and vastly improve performance. The old ones from the late ’40s and ’50s that were produced without turbos put out LOTS of black smoke!
Ben BRack:
I agree. I went into my local Chevy dealer the other day and offered to put down a deposit on a Volt. I told them they could send the check up the line to show that the public was interested. They looked at me like I was from Mars.
How about it Mr. Lutz? Send me an address and I’ll send you a check for a $2000 deposit on a Volt at MSRP. Right now. If I have to wait a few months until the dealers capture all of the first adopters who are willing to pay over sticker, fine.
And don’t forget that we need this technology in small trucks. Maybe once gas is $4 a gallon, the macho fascination with behemoths will fade. I don’t need a 3 ton vehicle that’s 23 feet long to take my trash to the dump, or haul my motorcycle… which is the most that ever gets carried in these monster trucks going down the freeway !!! Just make sure the interiors are large enough for Americans and our obesity epidemic
GM should consider partnering with a company that makes solar panels. It would be great if I could finance some solar panels to charge my mostly electric car’s batteries. I think you would find a lot of people would tick that $5k option box at the dealership.
Holden, 5/4, 1:27 PM:
Amen.
I am glad to see GM jumping into this Eflex system. It is so flexible that the quick development of the Volt will give them an early lead on the all-electric drive systems that will become standard over the next decade.
I wonder if they looked at the in-wheel motors that the UK PLM Flightlink has developed and showed fitted to a Mini. This seems like the most beautiful system of all and it would be great to leapfrog to in-wheel motors. This would make car design really modular.
“what we showed today features our fifth-generation hydrogen fuel cell system that, together with a lithium-ion battery, results in a range of about 300 miles.”
That’s odd, I don’t see generation 1-4 hydrogen fuel cell vehicles driving around my neighborhood. I don’t know anyone who knows anyone who knows where to buy a hydrogen fuel cell.
There is a gas station 16 blocks from my house that sells B99 Biodiesel (B20 in the winter, it’s cold in Minnesota). Put a biodiesel in a series hybrid PHEV and sell it to ACTUAL people, who would buy it with ACTUAL money, and we could ACTUALLY stop sending all our money to our enemies, and you could make ACTUAL profits. Or should I just go to my local Toyota dealer?
BTW I do love the Volt concept; but less talky, more buildy.
CHEVY VOLT!Great idea!powering a generator to power e-motor!Generator on “VOLT” can be desing to power 6000watts,that can be used in emergency’s,power outage and other???
Looks like the Tesla Roadster is going to beat the Volt to the punch AND take all the market share! Plus their White Star electric sedan is coming after that which will give us even more reason to forget the Volt completely. Why does GM move so slow when it comes to introducing new vehicles? If a small start up like Tesla in Silicon Valley can do it, why not GM? We need an electric pickup or SUV here a lot more than a roadster or sedan. Bob?
Taken from The Auto Channel: “Annual registration of diesel passenger vehicles has grown by 80% — from just over 300,000 in 2000 to nearly 550,000 in 2005. And most analysts expect this trend to continue. Researchers at J.D. Power and Associates predict that diesel sales will triple in the next 10 years, growing to more than 10% of U.S. vehicles sales by 2015 up from 3.6% in 2005.”
You have plently of diesels in foreign countries. Can’t this be an interim to the advanced battery technology. Something to bring to market quickly. Seems to me this data shows a lost opportunity for increasing sales in a sector Toyota has no feel for.
Could a package be sold with the volt that would include a solar pannel that could be set up to charge the car when you are at home? It could be mounded on the roof of the house. Could it be pluged into a traditional outlet when the sun is not out? GM needs to be one step ahead of toyota if they want to stay in business.
wade, 5/15, 8:56 PM:
Your last sentence says it all.
Thanks.
Hydrogen is a horribly inefficent way of transporting energy. I just saw a fuel cell expert’s chart that showed the difference between sending 100 units of lectricity over the wies to a driver’s home and into his plug-in versus using that same 100 units to produce and then send and then use hydrogen in a fuel cell car. The elctric route provided the car with 69 units of electricity, the hydrogen pathway provideed a mere 20 units of juice. The hydrogen was way more than three times as expensive, and we would need three times as much electrical generating capacity to power our transportation system. Hydrogen is insane, totally insane.
I agree with Ben BRack, tell me where to send the check. I am happy to back an American car company that is actually taking some strides. The only way we are going to be able to compete with the Asian market is by beating them at their own game…TECHNOLOGY.
Being a big Volt fan, I compiled some videos, audio clips, pictures and more, check them out online at http://www.chevy-volt.net
Hi:
It is great hearing about all of this advanced technology. I was just wondering if a car could be built using windmill tehnology charging the batteries. For instance on a small scale electric Golf cart, you could install two windmills in front and two sets of batteries. While one set of batteries were being charged you could drive down the road using the already charged batteriess, then you could could throw a switch and run off the other set of batteries and vice versa I am not a mechanic or engineer but was just wondering if this type of concept was ever tried on an automobile. A couple of switches and a couple of set of batteries and windmill charging. ???
The Chevy Volt E-Flex propulsion System represents a major shift in how American Auto manufacturers go to market. For once they are thinking long-term sustainability and seeing the virtues of a green way of life. Unfortunately, until they roll this technology out to serve the SUV market, Americans will still be paying a premium at the pump due to those who feel the need to drive an Excursion solo 40 miles to and from work. In order to make this technology thrive, there needs to be more options, less trade-offs and a greater level of consumer interest/adoption.
I haven’t owned a GM car in over 20 years. If GM made an electric-powered car, I would buy it today. And I know many others that feel the same way.
Larry Burns reminds me of a 4th grade science-fair winner saying “Look what I can do!” Don’t get me wrong, it’s great that you’re looking for more ways to do the same thing. But it all seems to me that you are adding a bunch of expensive systems onto the bottom line: fuel cell/battery powered/plug-in. What kind of warranty are you offering? 3 seconds/500K miles, whichever comes first.
I just remember hearing that a replacement battery for the Prius was something around $6000. How many things can potentially go wrong with this flex-technology?
I just find all this comical. GM hasn’t even perfected the gas combustion vehicle (which is only about 100 years since its debut) but wants everyone to jump on the wagon “of the future”. How many trillions of dollars will be needed to outfit the entire country with the proper infrastructure (filling stations and whatnot)? More government subsidized programs that taxpayers will be paying for.
I’m all for cheap, efficient transportation – but it has to be both!
Chevy Volt Fan said:
Maybe, maybe not.
The one thing Larry Burns has not addressed about the Volt is how much embodied energy will be in the car and its lithium-ion batteries.
Embodied energy is the total energy used for mineral extraction, processing and refining, fabrication, transportation, infrastructure, et al. In short, it’s all the energy needed to bring a product onto the showroom floor where it’s ready to be purchased by an eager GM consumer.
Recent studies of the embodied energy in the Toyota Prius shows that car is not nearly as green as Toyota and many environmentalists would like us to believe. In fact, they show that over its lifespan, a typical Prius would consume more total energy than a normal, internal combustion car. (It would consume less fossil fuel energy, but its total energy consumption would be greater.)
The main reason for the high embodied energy of the Prius is its nickel-hydride battery and the large amount of energy needed to extract and process nickel and to turn it into a battery.
Do we know the Volt will be any better than the Prius in terms of embodied energy? No, we don’t.
We do know the lithium extraction industry is as energy-intensive (if not more so) than the nickel extraction industry, so there is a good chance the embodied energy of the Volt may be as high or higher than that of the Prius.
Note to Larry: Are you ready to address the issue of how much embodied energy will be in the Volt?
Best regards,
Gary Dikkers
Gary, the amount of the embodied “captured” energy is not as important as its source and the ease and efficiency of recapturing/recycling it. Unlike nickel-hydride, nano-structured lithium batteries will have a very long life and be easily and efficiently recycled. The electric car is back and I want one NOW. GM, please forget this Hydrogen Economy fantasy/fiction http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/h_scam.htm and concentrate on small and efficient biodiesel engine technologies. Piston IC is only one of MANY possibilities http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Engines
dhanks– why bother having two sets? By your reasoning, you could simply run one motor off of one windmill once you got the thing moving!
Larry,
It has long been known that the most efficient way to move goods was by rail. The locomotive is diesel-electric. That technology has been around for a long time. When developing the Volt, please think about dynamic braking and capturing that energy also. In the Diesel Electric locomotives the transmission is copper wire direct to a traction motor on each axel.
Planning for the Volt by using the locomotive model may be useful. At one point in the past Locomotive manufactures looked at alternative fuels and engines, such as the Sterling Engine. Can this bear fruit to your current quest?
Thanks for listening.
Sincerely,
Don Severson
A not so “new” thought… Why store energy in expensive and complex batteries? Why wait years and spend $Billions globally on their development? Why risk explosion, fire and electricution?
All technologies are comprimizes, however the simplicity in using ordinary compressed air vs. complex, heavy and dangerous electricity storage methods including chemical batteries and hydrogen/fuel cells cannot be overlooked. We can use renewable electricity to compress and transfer non-polluting air right now with and long life carbon fiber tanks won’t explode, cost thousands of dollars each or have a limited lifespan like l-ion batteries. We are also not risking releasing large amounts of greenhouse causing hydrogen into the upper atmosphere or risk explosive flaming meltdown or electrocution associated with high voltages in an accident. I’m sure the EMS teams will be happy with this. This reminds me of GM’s old skateboard tech sans the $Trillions for the lunacy of an all new hydrogen infrastructure. We can have our cake and eat it to without the wait, expense, risk or guilt!
Instead of using a range-extender generator, we could use range-extender compressors. This should mean less weight and less complexity (no electric motors) thus increasing efficiency and further reducing maintenance. The lack of copper windings in and other “precious” metals should further reduce weight, manufacturing and operating costs. You know, KI.S.S.!
Here is some more info on the Aircar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4
It may not be perfect, but with the help of biofuels Aircars could help us off foreign oil quickly, cheaply and safely. Any thoughts?
Flex? i like what you guys are doing but you need to stop keeping the cool new stuff over seas, you are losing lots and lots of sales on U.S. soil.
Now for some REAL Flex you can start workinging on a ethanol powered z06. 505 horsepower with an alternative fuel? how could people turn that down? be the first to start the eco-friendly super cars!
Tim said:
You may well be correct Tim, but I would like some assurance that Larry Burns and his co-workers in Research, Development and Strategic Planning have at least considered the issue of embodied energy.
They’ve already missed the boat on the issue of efficient, turbo-charged diesel engines, and also don’t seem to understand the relationship between hydrogen as a fuel and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I hope the concept of embodied energy is also not foreign to them.
Regards,
Gary Dikkers