Communities getting “plug-in ready” for the Chevy Volt
By Britta Gross
Electrical Infrastructure Commercialization
From the growing media attention, you might expect that automakers could easily sell every electric vehicle they can make. But cars don’t necessarily sell themselves, especially with new, unfamiliar and often expensive technology. Our best chance of successfully making the transition from gasoline-powered vehicles to electrically-driven vehicles is to work with communities to help them become “plug-in friendly.”
We’ve already started doing this in cities like San Francisco, Washington, D.C. and some other forward-thinking communities. And yesterday, Rocky Mountain Institute launched a similar initiative called Project Get Ready that outlines many of the same things needed for communities to get involved to become “plug-in ready.”
We know that many Volt drivers will never require a public charging infrastructure, instead depending on the Volt’s range-extender to carry them any distance beyond its electric vehicle range. But public infrastructure is very important for those who live in apartments or houses without garages where they can’t simply plug into a household outlet for a full charge.
San Francisco, whose residents tend to be early-adopters of new and green technologies, is a prime example of a community in need of public infrastructure. This makes their news last week about a broad coalition of Bay Area municipalities joining them to create “plug-in friendly” communities for electric vehicles like the Chevy Volt all the more visionary. Their collective efforts to quickly put in place enablers such as HOV-lane access and consumer-friendly electricity rates and public charging stations will go a long way towards helping consumers and fleet operators become more comfortable adopting plug-in electric vehicles for their daily use.
Organizations like Rocky Mountain Institute – and communities like San Francisco – are helping to create a roadmap for regions around the country to become “plug-in ready,” but they can’t do it alone; and neither can GM. These steps demonstrate that if the right people work together – automakers; local, state and federal governments; EV enthusiasts and advocates; and technology companies – we’ll pave the way for a smoother transition from vehicles powered by petroleum to plug-in electric vehicles powered by clean, domestically produced electricity.
I’m interested to hear your thoughts and questions, so please join me on Twitter @GMblogs later today at 3:30 p.m. Eastern time.
51 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.)
Currently GM has an insurmountable challenge and a stable of brands that have lost their identity, Toyota is more successful with three brands than GM is with their 12 different brands, a clear sign of the times that change and consolidation is inevitable, below listed are the American/international brands owned by GM as well as a strategy to consolidate and help the company to survive in a rapidly changing business market. Below suggestions for merging entire brands into one entity, and reinvigorating certain brands under an international moniker could stave off bankruptcy and give gm the jolt it needs to become relevant in the auto market once again.
Daewoo/Holden/Pontiac merge into Holden Brand (3 Brands become 1 brand) These three brands currently sell similar products. Take three regional players and merge them together under the strongest brand which is Holden. This would introduce a new player to the U.S. market and give the former Pontiac brand more vehicles and a new purpose. The internationalization of the auto market requires that these type of brand-mergers become a reality.
GMC and Chevrolet merge into Chevrolet Brand (2 brands become 1 brand) most GMC and Chevrolet Vehicles overlap and are essentially rebadged copies, this makes it easier and consolidate into the stronger Chevrolet Brand.
Hummer and Saab sold either jointly or separately to a private equity firm or other automaker. (2 brands divested) Hummer and Saab both require huge sums of investment in their product lines, it makes the most sense to sell these two brands either together or separately at market value.
Opel/Vauxhall/Saturn merge to form Opel (3 brands become 1 brand) All of these brands essentially sell similar products. Take these three regional brands and form a strong international player under the Opel brand name. Saturn as a brand in the U.S. has no relevance but the opel logo and insignia could reinvigorate the entire company and product line.
* Possible that in the future Buick as a brand could also be dissolved as they only sell three different vehicles and do not have a strong presence in their operating market. I could see this brand being totally phased out by 2020, the other GM brands would more than make up for the loss in product/branding. This would also allow GM to focus on the core Cadillac/Chevrolet brands and their newly minted international brands of Holden and Opel
If GM keeps Buick they must drastically expand their lineup from 3 cars to 8 cars in order to be a full-service franchise and lure more buyers to their brand. GM could take Cadillac models and edit the styling to offer a mid-market high quality vehicle line-up at Buick with little upfront costs to develop.
Goals:
Reduce duplicative brand management
Reduce duplicative factories producing the same cars under different brand names.
Create strong global players in the automotive business, no more regional brands for GM
Realize economies of scale from consolidation of brand management, advertising, dealership networks.
The above mentioned steps seek to consolidate the GM brand network and dealer network into a more nimble organization. These mergers of core brands eliminate costly dealer-lawsuits from shuttering a brand, while being able to invest in our core surviving brands. The steps outlined above are far overdue and could be the jolt GM needs in order to reinvigorate their core business. The above outlined plan takes 10 regional brands and marketing strategies and whittles them down to 3 global brands.
The surviving names will be able to receive more attention and investment from GM and will be able to produce more relevant products. By merging brands and product lines the cost to GM can be drastically slashed since most brands carry similar products under different brand names. It would also be easier to remove excess production capacity in this manner.
The surviving corporate brands would be Buick, Chevrolet, Holden, Opel, and Cadillac, a drastic and necessary shift in response to market realities. I believe the plan put forth is the best way forward for GM and allows it to realize its many core strengths and keep their most prestigious brands. By cutting the brand and dealership network and merging divisions significant synergies and cost savings can be formed it also allows GM to better respond to market shifts and changes in consumer tastes. This way forward plan seems as though the least harsh and one that could provide the quickest results to the company.
This brand consolidation will streamline the entire company allow GM to get rid of non-core factories and duplicative management for its stable of 12 brands and allow the company to better focus on core brands. Toyota does with three brands, what GM attempts to do with 12. GM needs to keep 4 to 5 core brands and then heavily invest in creating a full line up for each of their strength brands. 2-4 good cars per brand does not do well anymore. This is not the 1950’s and GM’s dated brand strategy must go.
There will be immediate and long terms savings goals from factory/management consolidation of these many brands. Since a lot of the brand consolidation mentioned revolves around brands that each sell the same products under different brand name banners the consolidation should be common sense and is long overdue.
In addition to those mentioned steps GM must go through its line up and cut underperformers from production, do you really need 5 types of GMC Yukon’s to choose from? A faster switch to flex fuel automobiles and hybrid power trains will lift the company and boost sales, but GM must also cut most of its behemoth SUVs from the lineup to focus on fuel efficient crossovers. The changes we have experienced with gas prices and the automotive market are here to stay, it is time GM realized that.
I believe if all of the consolidation steps above are taken and GM invests in those core brands and introduces new products while streamlining factories and duplicative management that they will ultimately become a stronger corporation than even Toyota is today.
“…we’ll pave the way for a smoother transition from vehicles powered by petroleum to plug-in electric vehicles powered by clean, domestically produced electricity.”
Are you doing anything to help those same communities understand and train for how they will handle a high-speed crash of an electric car? One where the battery case may have burst open scattering its contents, or one where the battery catches fire?
How will first responders be trained to handle crashes involving electric cars and the fires and smoke from batteries made from reactive alkaline metals such as lithium? How will first responders be able to rapidly identify what they face as they approach a crash scene?
There has always been an issue handling the gasoline and diesel fires at the crash sites of conventional cars and first responders are well-trained and equipped to handle them, but what issues will come to the forefront when cars have alkaline metal batteries weighing perhaps several hundred pounds?
you forgot to add at some point some idiot is going to really get a good shock (when plugging in their wet car) and probably blame GM for it. There really should be some type of cover or something to prevent this, I havent seen one yet.
Thank you for bringing the Volt Engine Build back to Flint. We can breath a little easier and sleep a little better at night knowing we will have a job to do and a paycheck. We will do you well and make you proud. My husband and I will put our order in for one as soon as we get the Flint built engine into it.
Britta Gross,
There is a fundamental problem with getting people ready for the Volt. That is cost and actual infrastructure. GM isn’t open enough with its electrical system requirements on the Volt to be of any use to the “rest” of us consumers who MIGHT be interested in the volt. The following questions NEED to be answered for the REST of the world:
1) How much power does it take to charge the Volt?
2) How long does it take?
3) Are there other voltage/current combinations available that will allow faster charging (for example 230 or 460 Volt plugs)?
4) How much per month should “I” expect to see my electric bill to go up if I buy a Volt and opt to not use gasoline to run the generator?
Secondly GM seems to be missing the reality that in many parts of the country there just isn’t enough power available from the grid to keep the (grid) system from shutting down if all these new Volts are bought and plugged in. And even if there was current prices put operating a Volt to about $3 to $4 gallon equivalent.
GM needs to get ready with more advanced and aggressive REAL WORLD marketing of the Volt. RIght now it almost seems to be smoke and mirrors.
If you want people to adopt the Volt and prepare for it try being realistic with communications of expectations of the product. All electric is great if it doesn’t cost me more then my current car to fill up with juice… But GM seems to be playing a double game. One where they talk about all the savings of the Volt and how it doesn’t need fuel (gas), yet they gloss over the details of how it works and how much a plug in charge will cost. Then they claim that the range extending feature is going to reduce the fuel used and that because it has the range extender it doesn’t need to be plugged in.
I realize it CAN do both… but I also realize it can’t do both at the same time. GM’s marketing should better reflect this and convey this to the consumer not as familiar with the technical side of things.
If you want to sell Volts be realistic about electrical costs and fuel costs and what it is going to take to operate.
Alex,
I disagree with some of your branding combinations, but we’ve already discussed that in another blog area.
Blue Wing,
“…we’ll pave the way for a smoother transition from vehicles powered by petroleum to plug-in electric vehicles powered by clean, domestically produced electricity.”
The real problem here is that the average person has no clue how much power it is going to take to power a fleet of Volts. And “clean, domestically produced electricity” is a pipe dream by some uneducated person. Generating electricity is often times extremely dirty and when made clean about $3 to $4 equivalent per gallon of gas. Not to mention the fact that we need 50 times the electrical generation capacity then we currently have to really start weening ourselves off of gasoline. It is a worthy goal but no way it will be clean and cheap. In fact anyone with sense should realize that Nuclear is the best way to meet these needs until better alternatives like fusion, solar, wind, hydro and wave power are realized (and even each of these has a significant environmental impact).
I suppose at very least the Volt is a true GM hybrid (to bad it is behind the Toyota in terms of hybrids and is quite expensive).
I encourage GM or others to make some suggestions on how to meet the power grid demands of so many plug ins.
Here’s the problem I have with companies introducing things like these to supposed “Forward-thinking” cities. I live in the Bay Area, and yes, there are tons of extremely wealthy, eccentric, liberal people here who would love to boost their status position in purchasing the latest, trendiest earth-friendly car or product, but there is an unforeseen problem in doing so.
I’m originally from rural TN. When I visit, seeing a new prius in the driveway is about as rare as seeing a Dussenburg Model J. Its not because the cars are anymore expensive than a Ford Taurus or Chevy Malibu, but because the Prius is seen as nothing more than the car of choice for liberals and hippies. And why do you suppose this is? Its because Toyota decided to introduce them to “forward thinking” cities first, and since these cities- like SF- are easily recognized as the bastions of liberal society, the cars were forever branded as the cars that granola-eating, Birkenstock-wearing hippies drive the kiddies to private school every day. While the cars sell well, they sell well in aforementioned cities, but not necessarily in other markets such as smaller metros, more conservative chunks of the country, and rural areas, and likely because the cars have this attached notoriety, which in of itself is rather silly, but that’s how Americans are wired. I speak from experience having grown up in one area and now live in another.
Thus my recommendation would be to carefully consider an introductory marketing campaign than makes the Volt look like the car that the everyday consumer-regardless of where they live- would want to drive. Not just hippies, and not just good ole’ boys, but everybody. Those that want to buy them just because they want to appear environmentally sensitive will buy them anyway. But if you make them seem like more practical cars for middle America, perhaps they will view cars such as these in a less critical light. Purposefully making strides to pinpoint consumers by selling them in obviously liberal cities will automatically brand the cars the same way the Prius is right away.
Nate,
Your questions might not have an answer yet. How much power will it take you could figure out yourself. If the battery is 8kWh usable, then it will take about that much to charge it (obviously there are some losses). How long it takes probably isn’t known yet. Trickel charging it will probably allow the battery to last longer, but obviously take a long time. Putting 480V to it might only take a few minutes, but the battery won’t last as long. These are all issues I bet GM is working on. They don’t have all the answers yet. When they know, they will let customers know. How much your electric bill will go up is entirely dependant on how much you drive. It goes back to how much storage the battery has, and how much you drive. How can GM possibly know the answer to that?
Nate, even if you never plug in the Volt, I think it will still save fossil fuels. Having the engine run at constant optimal speeds will increase it’s fuel efficiency.
And as for the grid problem…it’s not GM’s problem. GM doesn’t control the grid. They build the car, they need help getting everything else ready. I really don’t understand why people keep asking GM to fix things they have no control over. I do realize there might be a problem with the grid, but consumers wanted a plug-in, and GM is delivering. If the grid can’t handle it, go talk to whoever controls electrical production.
Nate –
Do you ever have anything positive to say about anything or anyone? Life is so much happier if you have a more optimistic point of view.
Edvard said: “Thus my recommendation would be to carefully consider an introductory marketing campaign than makes the Volt look like the car that the everyday consumer-regardless of where they live- would want to drive.”
Edvard,
There is a great deal of wisdom in what you wrote. I do hope GM’s marketing people pay attention. Perhaps GM should even talk NASCAR into having a “special electric division” with races for Volts. A single charge should be good for about 25 laps around a one-mile oval at racing speeds.
If GM is looking at public recharging stations, there should be a standardized electrical connection and an RFID tag on the electric port of every EV. That way, people can be charged for their electricity usage without all the complications of separate subscriptions and other systems. A centralized RFID based electric vehicle registry would make this possible. (Run by department of motor vehicles??? Power utility??) This need to be thought out now, not when cars are on the road.
@Alex. Why get rid of Buick? It is a hugely successful brand in China that could use a bit more investment in the US.
Buick can be salvaged Tom. The Buick Plan had a star next to it as a ” Worst Case Scenario” event. But I too believe Buick can be successful. They cut alot of the fat and slow selling vehicles from their U.S. Brand and all currently selling vehicles have been significantly redesigned and are new or will be brand new for the 2010 model year.
Certainly for the time being Buick can certainly stay. The Ideal scenario would be for GM to have these five brands of Buick,Chevrolet, Cadillac, Holden and Opel. To introduce Holden and Opel to the U.S. market would bring an excellent infusion of european styling and vehicle architecture that is lacking.
I know saturn and Pontiac both sell some rebadged Holen and Opel vehicles but there are many more vehicles in the international market that are made by both Holden and Opel and arent being brought here under the Pontiac or Saturn brand.
My suggestion would merge Daewoo/Holden/Pontiac into the strength brand of Holden. thus creating a huge international player. Then based on sales after the consolidation GM can decide whether or not to leave the U.S. Market.
Another major step would be to take Vauxhall/Opel/Saturn- They also sell similar cars in different countries, Vauxhall and Saturn do not carry the full opel line-up and do not benefit from the international strength of the opel brand. Saturn as a brand and logo makes no sense they are out of touch and have alienated their original target base, if you ask me it is time to infuse the brands and try a consolidation.
GMC/Chevrolet- essentially are the same brand catering to the same exact customer. why do these two different brands that sell the exact same vehicles exist? Merge under the more successful Chevrolet Banner and centralize marketing, R and D and consolidate the dealer network.
Buick can be saved I would like to see their line up expanded however so that they can stand on their own, I dont believe 3 car models will allow the brand to prosper in todays market. A suggestion would be to take some Cadillac models and offer a lower priced Buick-Inspired versions. For a while GM did a horrible Job re-badging their vehicles but have come a long way over the past two years. I think they would be successful to pursue a low cost strategy of redesigning the higher price/scale cadillac vehicles and allowing more options for Buick buyers.
The plans I set forth essentially take 12 lost and dysfunctional brands and whittles them down to 5 successful international brands that would be poised for growth and be able to take on the harsh realities of todays market.
Shutting down a brand costs alot of money as seen in 2000 with the shutdown of Oldsmobile that cost GM nearly $3 billion dollars. it cant afford to spent 6-10 billion shuttering brands so their first move should be consolidation, if that strategy proves inefficient then they might have to actually shutter entire brands and dealer-networks.
I still stand by the immediate sale of Hummer, and a sale of Saab. If there are no takers I would either spin both companies off together into a publicly traded company or see if a private equity firm would take on the challenge of re-investing in those brands.
Lastly, even though Buick is wildly successful in China it could be easily replaced by Holden or Opel, but for the time being I would keep Buick. Only under a worst case scenario would I shutter the brand.
Hope this was helpful.
Tom Talbott said: “That way, people can be charged for their electricity usage without all the complications of separate subscriptions and other systems. A centralized RFID based electric vehicle registry would make this possible. (Run by department of motor vehicles???)”
Mr. Talbott,
Run by the DOT/Division of Motor Vehicles obviously. One of the unanswered questions about electric cars is how their owners will pay road taxes since they should use little fuel, and most road taxes now come from taxes paid at a service station when buying fuel.
An RIFD tag that transmits info about the car, the battery, and its registered owner whenever the battery is charged would help the bureaucracy tax electrics. They could charge a road tax per kWh just as they now do per gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel bought at a service station.
Does anyone know if GM (or Chrysler or Ford) plans of spending any of the billions of dollars in states with Right to Work Laws? After seeing the State of the Union speech last night I was encouraged by the commitment of the feds to support the domestic auto industry. However, I am a bit alarmed to not hear, read or listen to any one comment on where these proposed plants are to be retooled or built.
Seeing that the Democratic Party wants to build it’s ranks it makes sense for them to steer those bucks towards Democratically influenced states, but as a taxpayer I would consider it unfair that 100% goes to these states simply because it does not foster any real competition between US workers who are union or and non-union.
With no competition, there is no real change for one of the underlying issues where a good portion of the US population feels the Unions have possibly outlived their time.
I did enjoy the comment on Shared sacrifice from the Prez and watched Nancy Pelosi’s whole body language change for a good 2 to 3 minutes while OBama chatted about his expectations. She looked like she chomped on a sour grape or two.
My 2 cents (or more if you consider the taxes we pay)
With respect to infrastructure development, there should be a standardized system for plug-in vehicles. If Toyota’s hybrid requires a different coupler or a different voltage from a GM or a Nissan, it’s going to get very expensive very quick, so before the first public charging stations are installed, those standards have to be decided. A lot is riding on this, so it has to be done right the first time.
Buddha Uber said: “. . the euros have it right on this, this is why we have no light duty diesels under $25K. Drive an Astra with their best diesel, you’d be shocked how good it is).”
Of course they do. I’ve never driven a diesel Astra, but I’m familiar with the Jetta TDI. If GM could build a car in the U.S. like the VW Jetta TDI, GM would be selling them just as fast as they could churn them out.
And the ironic thing is, GM’s Opel division does know how to build a compact car with a turbo-diesel just as well as VW, so GM obviously has the knowledge.
When CEO Rick Wagoner finally gets the ear of the eight members of the new Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry, one of the first things he needs to tell them is, “Get rid of some of this EPA regulatory B.S. I’m burdened with, and we can build cars just as good as those they build in Europe.”
Tim,
I’m aware of how long it takes to charge… but I’d rather get a number from GM. The math is simple but the rest of the world needs to be aware of all this. 8kWh isn’t that much power… about as much as a house with A/C and a dryer on and a few lights and a TV. but… once everyone gets me that is a concern. I wish GM would address this. I fear that to many consumers think of the Volt as a big Power Wheels electric car like their kids used to have and think that charging off of electricity is going to be cheaper. Additionally if we are talking environmental impact I worry about the fossil fuel used to make the power, the losses etc.. and wonder if it really make sense. Of course I AM a proponent of nuclear power because of the amount of energy that is easily, cheaply and cleanly available.
Sure GM doesn’t own the grid…. but I’d at least like to know they are closely working with the power companies to prepare for these new cars. Electric, Hydrogen, CNG and a few other fuels are the way of the future… however I don’t hear much about new infrastructure (outside of last night’s Presidential speech).
I think GM would go a long way in informing its potential customers of how they are helping the US prepare for their new cars…..
The fear I have is that people will be disappointed by not having a power grid to use and thus not having the plug in ability they should have … thus making the Volt another gimmick that consumers (GM buyers) will laugh at and mock.
Hi Nate -
We definitely want to be as transparent about the Volt program as possible – let me answer your questions…
1) The Volt can be plugged in and charged in any normal household 120V outlet. It can also be charged at 240V (many/most homes are wired to run electric dryers, for example, at 240V). An empty Volt battery needs about 8 kWh of energy to charge.
2) At 120V the battery can be fully charged in approximately 8 hours; at 240V the battery charges in about 3 hours.
3) 120V and 240V (see above notes)
4) A full charge of the Volt’s battery requires about 8kWh of energy. The average electricity rate across U.S. households last year was about 10cents/kWhr. That means on average a full charge of the Volt’s battery will cost 80 cents. That’s $5.60 per week if you charge the battery once each day for the average U.S. household (like gasoline prices, electricity prices vary across the U.S.).
In designing the Volt and the charging interface, in particular, we work very closely with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and more than 40 large and progressive utilities all around North America (including Duke Energy, Progress Energy, DTE, SCE, PG&E, Austin Energy, ComEd, Northeast Utilities, BC Hydro, etc…). These utilities and EPRI assure us that meeting the needs of plug-in vehicles is not much different than meeting the ever-increasing needs of air conditioners, computers and plasma screen TVs. In other words, the car is just another appliance – and in fact it’s a pretty smart appliance. We’re working together now to develop the standards that will define smart charging – i.e. how utilities in the future will “talk” to vehicles and help consumers make smart decisions about when to charge their vehicle for the lowest possible electricity rates. By encouraging consumers through low electricity rates to charge off-peak (for example, at night), utilities can shift vehicle charging loads to times when they have excess power generating capacity. This is a win-win for the utilities and consumers.
We really are working very hard to develop this vehicle and bring it to the market. We’ve taken everything we learned from EV1, our two-mode hybrid programs and even our hydrogen fuel cell program and are putting it into the Chevy Volt – it’s a complex technology, but it is an elegant solution. Education and outreach is critical – thanks for helping us grow the dialogue!
Britta
Kate,
Of course I have positive things to say. But GM doesn’t need all good things… they need to know what to fix. Additionally I feel people need to be aware of reality. They can always choose to ignore me and continue on their merry way. However being an engineer I realize that there are always limits to things in the real world.
Additionally in this case I hope that the readers of this blog realize just how far fetched some of the writings above are. To many people in this country don’t know about how things really work (as far as engineering and technology goes). They happily follow what sounds good with little regard for whether or not it makes sense or works.
For instance a current analysis of gasoline cost and the amount of energy it contains reveals that at $1.90 /gallon gasoline has the equivalent energy as $0.05/ killo watt hour (vs the $0.18/ killo watt I pay for electricity).
I guess I would hate to see GM go under or its customers be upset because GM didn’t’ give them all the details….
Part of this blog is for discussion… part of discussion is considering alternative views and potential problems and raising them so GM can answer them (for us or for themselves). The more we discuss these issues the more clearly GM will be able to launch cars like the Volt.
I do agree with you that life is happier with a more optimistic point of view, but life isn’t always happy and fun….
Rex Metcalfe,
I agree a hybrid racing league would surely be neat and exciting with all kinda of new technology.
Tom Talbot,
I like that idea but can you ever see companies giving up competitive advantage of proprietary charging ports for the common good?
I certainly hope they do….
Alex D,
Buick has a lot of potential if they target the youth and bring cars like the Concerj into the Buick lineup.
I really am not sure GM needs so many brands…. Either more brands less (shared) models or less brands more (unique) models.
I think GM could actually cut back to Opel, Chevy, Buick and Caddy.
And even Opel, an Caddy as my preferred branding.
mike,
I agree I hope GM has some right to work plants out there. I really do get tired of hearing about the Union problems they keep having.
Beaugrand,
I am under the impression that GM will have on board chargers. So that the car can be plugged into any standard plug (whether that is 120 volt, 240 volt, or 460 volt… single or tripple phase). Otherwise GM would need to sell battery chargers for them and thus need special cables.
Buddha Uber,
If I could buy a diesel GM I’d have one already (probably a CTS). But in the US its not even a consideration…
Blue Wing,
As much as I hate regulations… I think the EPA is doing a decent job with things. if the EPA weren’t there people would be doing whatever they want. I value my clean air. I only hope everyone else does too….
Now if you are saying adopt euro standards… I may be up for that…
I think things just need to change with the times when it comes to these EPA regulations. They have been a good thing in a lot of ways even if slightly a nuisance to the auto makers.
Mike -
First of all, why would GM, Ford or Chrysler want to build a new plant in a “right to work state” (if you want to call it that) when they are the very states that the Senators were hell bent on putting the U.S. Auto Makers out of business? They not only tried to attack the UAW (unsuccessfully) they tried to block all LOAN funding to the companies themselves. I would paste the internal memo that surfaced during the time the Senate was due to vote in December on the pass/fail for the Loan, but it probably won’t be published here. It’s on MSNBC’s website and You Tube.
Even if the U.S. Auto Makers were to build a plant in one of those states that does not leave the UAW out. Do you honestly think the UAW would allow them to function non-unionized? If you do, I am laughing really hard and loudly right now.
Apparently you have no idea what the union is, what the union does and how and why they came about. Go to http://www.uaw.org and read the history. You may learn some history and facts.
Here is the latest Poll Statisics regarding the Free Choice Act…..
“The latest good news for backers of the bill came with new polling released Thursday by Hart Research Associates that found 78 percent of the public favors legislation that would make it easier for workers to bargain with their employers. Unlike some skewed polls offered before the election by business critics of the legislation, Hart’s research, commissioned by the AFL-CIO, gave a fair description of its three key elements, as outlined in the memo available here, including majority sign-up. A striking 75% of the public favored the provision of the bill that “allows employees to have a union once a majority of employees in a workplace sign authorization cards indicating they want to form a union.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-levine/have-anti-union-smear-ads_b_156483.html)
“January 2009
If elected leaders want to help their constituents through these difficult economic times, they might be well-advised to read the results of a recent Gallup poll that shows 59 percent of Americans support unions and 77 percent support strong union laws such as the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).” (http://www.seafarers.org/log/2009/012009/efca.xml)
Therefore, you are in the minority. If you have no desire to work for a union you will either have to land a managerial job or stay away from industrial/production work all together. The choice is available. BTW, we have a president now, President Obama, that supports the Employee Free Choice Act and congress will be acting on it soon.
Hi Alex,
Just to be upfront, I’m a GM engineer who has worked on the Volt program. Here’s a website that will answer most of your questions (Note that it is a site independent of GM):
http://gm-volt.com/chevy-volt-faqs/
Also, in response to your question about electrical capacity. Right now, most utilities have excess capacity that they use during peak times. Also, electrical demands are less at night, when most vehicles would be recharged. Many studies suggest that millions of vehicles could be replaced with plug-ins without building any more power plants. Here’s another independent source that supports this (look at the FAQ about will more coal or nuclear plants be required):
http://pluginamerica.org/learn-about-plug-ins/frequently-asked-questions.html#Q3
I hope this helps.
“First of all, why would GM, Ford or Chrysler want to build a new plant in a “right to work state”
Kate,
First: Because of a concept called “freedom” that our Founding Fathers believed in pretty strongly. Why should a union be allowed to take away my right to work where I want? My right to work at a job where I can be free of union strong arm tactics and intimidation.
Second: Because labor costs in those states are likely to be lower, and the Big Three can be more competitive in the world market.
“Many studies suggest that millions of vehicles could be replaced with plug-ins without building any more power plants.”
Power plants, perhaps. But what about the power lines to connect the plants to where the people need the electricity?
Where I live, there are constant zoning battles between the power companies who say they need to build new power lines to meet future demand, and the land owners and environmentalists who say they aren’t needed.
“First of all, why would GM, Ford or Chrysler want to build a new plant in a “right to work state””
Kate,
Because of a concept called “freedom” and a little thing called the U.S. Constitution.
The Constitution guarantees the “right of association,” and workers should be free to either join or not join a union. If I live in a “forced-union” state, why should someone have the right to tell me I must join a union and pay union dues if I work at a particular company?
In a supposedly free country, why should union membership be a condition of employment?
Second, labor costs may be lower in a “right to work” state, making car companies that build plants in those states a bit more competitive.
edvard: “Its because Toyota decided to introduce them to “forward thinking” cities first, and since these cities- like SF- are easily recognized as the bastions of liberal society, the cars were forever branded as the cars that granola-eating, Birkenstock-wearing hippies drive the kiddies to private school every day. ”
First, Toyota didn’t introduce the Prius in any particular place… they simply had people all over the US sign up for it and sent the cars wherever there were buyers interested (they used the internet). Now, it may be that people in “forward-thinking” or “liberal” cities signed up first and got most of the cars but I’d expect “forward-thinking” people who want a “forward-thinking” car would sort of define a “forward-looking” place.
Second, I’m not surprised that some people would not buy a perfectly useful, amazingly economical, very reliable, highly capacious car with excellent resale value because they’re so insecure that they can’t be seen driving a “liberal” car. Their loss. I hope all of tennessee isn’t like that.
GMEngineer,
I think the real issue here is much simpler… there is a lot of extra capacity much of it in gas turbine and combined cycle units who run on heavy oil or natural gas. Does it really make sense from a dollar and efficiency standpoint to produce electricity from fuels we could more directly be running in cars? Is there really that much of a thermal efficiency gain in using stationary power plants running on the same fuels as we COULD be running our cars on (with more range I might add).
In all honesty Nuclear power makes the most sense as the cost of energy is much lower then that produced by the excess capacity that is normally fossil fired plants. Not to mention nuclear fuels can be reprocessed and reused. Thus the total fuel cost is much lower then anything else out there. Not to mention the per ton energy density is huge compared to coal.
Could you please discuss GM’s thinking on this issue?
Additionally how can ANYONE say that a Volt gets infinite MPG… that is very misleading and blatantly (technically) wrong. The Volt will use electricity generated from one of several fuels including but not limited to: Oil, Wood, Trash, Coal, Natural gas, Nuclear, and other energy sources that can generate heat. To say that the Volt will not use any fuel is incorrect. All GM has done is shifted where in the energy chain the fuel is being burned. It is quite annoying to hear people say their car uses no fuel at all and completely miss the point that it does require an equivalent amount of energy to operate. That energy HAS to come from SOMEWHERE. It is much easier to not know where the energy being used to drive comes from. I will be willing to be that much of it comes from natural gas and coal (in fact I’m sure of it).
Additionally how will off peak usage of electricity effect the operating costs of power plants. If enough people have Volts the night time power cost will go up as the day/night load balances out. At which point the night time rate will no longer exist. Again GM has failed to discuss this with the buying public.
Rowdy Rasmussen,
You are right putting in new power lines is a major chore. I would think the easiest solution is to simply up rate the current lines. Replace them with higher voltage lines. This would require very little extra space and only extra money to make sure they are safe and compatible with higher voltage power. Then the only chore is finding a suitable location for sub stations.
There is still an issue of new power plants to contend with. Many people don’t want them, yet here we are looking at electricity (once again) as the future of cars.
To me the sad part of all this is that people overlook nuclear fuels because they aren’t really aware of the benefits. Not to mention people aren’t aware of the percentage of load handled by nuclear plants today (somewhere around 30% base load) or the fact that many of them are being renewed for another 30 years of run time, when they should be building more of them.
A nuclear plant produces upward of 900 thousand kWh on only a few tons of fuel annually. Not to mention reactors in the current Navy ships run on a similar amount of fuel but will run for 30 years without needing to be refueled.
Meanwhile we (as a nation) burn millions of tons of fossil fuels daily to generate similar amounts of energy with coal, oil, natural gas and other combustion fuels. It simply makes no sense to deplete our supply of coal, and natural gas when we could be processing that into fuel for cars like the Volt.
What if a Volt could be run on natural gas (possibly generated from coal) and charged on power from nuclear, solar or wind? There would be enough energy for generations to use.
Again these are issues that need to be answered but how can we answer these when we can’t even do something as simple as put in power lines for the power plants we already have.
Britta Gross,
I recently read an article in Utility/T&D Automation Engineering that discussed the smart grid. What bothers me is a brief mention of the ability to use the Plug in cars for peaking loads and buying/selling power from the car at a profit/loss. Will users of such smart grid devices be allowed to opt out of supplying energy back to the grid at a loss?
My only concern for the “win/win” is that utilities throttle back their production at night. This causes less wear on equipment and of course much less fuel usage. Won’t consumers have to pick up the bill for the increased demand during the day?
As a last remark… from what I know about power engineering are batteries really more efficient then hydrogen fuel cells?
By the time Volt hits the market I hope GM has answered all of the questions people have. Its good to see electricity in cars, but also frustrating to see that people don’t fully understand the technology and ramifications of it in the long run.
“Additionally how can ANYONE say that a Volt gets infinite MPG…”
Anyone who says that is blowing smoke. There is a direct correlation between the energy in gasoline and the energy in electricity — a gallon of gasoline is about 115,000 BTU and that equals 33.7 kWh of electricity.
The Volt is supposed to be able to go 40 miles on 8 kWh, or 5 miles per kWh. That means the Volt’s “fuel economy” in liquid fuel terms would be pretty good, but not infinite.
If you take a thousand dollar bill – yes $1,000.00 and BURN IT and then repeat this process EVERY MINUTE FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR – that would be EQUAL to what GM LOST last year – 30.9 Billion Dollars.
Put this in another way – 84 MILLION DOLLARS/DAY LOSS X 365
WHERE YOU GOING TO GO WITH THE VOLT WHICH IS GOING TO LOSE MONEY FOR GM ANYWAY?
“To me the sad part of all this is that people overlook nuclear fuels because they aren’t really aware of the benefits.”
Nate,
I think everyone is well aware of the benefits of nuclear fuels ~ after all, everyone on Earth is absolutely dependent on that huge fusion reactor in the sky ~ the Sun!
m,
You are pretty close to spot on. I usually work in lbsm which is about 18,000 BTUs/lbsm. I have found that metric is much easier to convert (megajoules/kilogram).
That is exactly my concern for this notion that GM is claiming a zero gas use and infinite MPG (which btw is a myth since mathematically miles/0 gallons is undefined).
Sure the economy would be pretty good but comparing the Volt’s energy input usage (from the wall to the battery) is only HALF the picture. Who is tracking and accounting for the total energy losses in converting some fossil fuel to electricity and sending it to your home? GM never talks about NET SYSTEM EFFICIENCY, and they need to. I could argue that a Toyota Prius hybrid gets great gas mileage but it has NOTHING to do with the grid. All GM has done with the Volt is make a series hybrid maybe slightly more competitive then the Prius. What I, and everyone else should be interested in is the average, net energy cost or thermal efficiency.
The real issue though is that the marketing people don’t get the real world side of the Volt. All they are doing is SHIFTING the energy from burning gasoline to burning other products in power plants (like oil and natural gas). I am fine with that shift if they claim it as such. Tell us how much fuel an average natural gas plant burns for the amount of power to run the volt 40 miles. Where I am at the day time electric rate is 17 cents per kWh the night time isn’t much better then 14 cents… With that said and gas currently at <$2.00/gallon how much savings is there? And what is the net loss from power plant fuel to power at my wheels. I would be willing to bet that it is almost as inefficient as using a gas engine in a hybrid car.
Secondly if Nuclear fission and wind/solar are used most of these arguments are moot as the energy is much much cheaper. But what will infrastructure cost to put these things in, and who is going to pay for it? Right now nuclear fission is the cheapest option per kWh. Solar and wind are to my knowledge more expensive possibly then coal technology. So from a cost and energy standpoint I still question the Volt’s credibility if the power used from the grid comes from fossil fuel based sources (which over 50% of the grid currently does).
Rowdy Rasmussen,
People apparently don’t know much about nuclear fission, reprocessing of fuels and long life reactors (like the US Navy uses- that can run 20 to 30 years on one fuel load and produce nearly 0.6 to 1 gigawatt of power). If they did people would be putting nuclear plants in or pushing for the reprocessing of (old, previously used) “spent” fuel.
How hard is it to understand E=mc^2? The amount of energy in one TON of nuclear fuel is equivalent to its mass times the speed of light squared…. that is a HUGE amount of energy in a small, cheap package.
The only thing better then nuclear is cheap solar (which to my knowledge doesn’t exist yet).
I’m interested to hear further discussion on this one.
“The amount of energy in one TON of nuclear fuel is equivalent to its mass times the speed of light squared”
That’s incorrect. The energy produced is related to the amount of mass converted, not to the entire weight of the fuel charge. Fission splits atoms, some of the binding forces are released as heat, but more than 99% of the total mass remains as “waste.” At that, US reactors are horribly inefficient at extracting energy from fuel, as compared to contemporary French-built reactors.
Even with all the bureaucratic constraints, US nuclear power is still cheaper than most other kinds.
Our nuclear fuel policy could and should be changed to allow for more reprocessing of waste into more fuel, and to build “breeder” reactors that make more of their own fuel. Present nuclear policy is based on the fear that evil people could steal some reactor core material (US nuclear reactors are the most secure facilities on the planet, so the fear is ‘way too paranoid), but ignores the hundreds of breeder reactors outside the US.
Terrorists who steal fissionable material would more likely get it from cash-starved former Soviet facilities, or one of the less-secure French facilities.
Rowdy Rasmussen,
If everyone was aware of the benefits of Nuclear power we wouldn’t have a president pushing “Clean” Coal technology at a higher cost then nuclear.
~ “If everyone was aware of the benefits of Nuclear power we wouldn’t have a president pushing “Clean” Coal technology at a higher cost then nuclear.”
I was being facetious Nate. EVERYONE on Earth is a direct benefactor of fusion power (from the Sun) but only a very small percentage of the people are cognizant enough to realize it.
Anytime anyone objects to nuclear power, I always point to the Sun and say, “You want to turn that off?”
Life on Earth would not be possible w/o that great fusion reactor in the sky ~ the Sun.
Rowdy Rasmussen,
I agree the sun is there every day all day… (irony that I use the word DAY). But right now we can’t cost effectively harness enough power to meet our needs (and if we could imagine what all that solar and wind capturing would do to weather patterns).
My point was regarding fission and future fusion reactors.
“If everyone was aware of the benefits of Nuclear power we wouldn’t have a president pushing “Clean” Coal technology at a higher cost then nuclear”
Yes – nuclear power offers great opportunities. But the risks involved are about as great – do you happen to remember Sellafield, Three Mile Island, Tshernobyl..? What’s the plan dealing with nuclear waste piling up and emitting heavy radiation for thousands of years ? What I am trying to say: every potential solution has pros AND cons, haven’t seen one with pros only yet.
Uli,
What can you tell me about the accidents listed? Of them Tshernobyl was the most dangerous…but what about the other two?
Do you know of any REAL accidents in the US that caused any real problems?
Secondly… do you know anything about fuel reprocessing?
Waste storage is something that CAN be safely handled. Future efforts should eventually figure out how to dispose of it in a safe way (aka render it non radioactive).
But until then I suppose using all available combustible fuels sounds like a more responsible plan (sarcasm).
I think a look at the US Navy ships is good indicator of what CAN be done…. 20-40 years worth of energy only using a few tons of fuel? Doe that sound like that bad an idea?
If energy demand can’t be satisfied without more power plants wouldn’t they be the best choice?
I guess cost is no longer a factor?
“I think a look at the US Navy ships is good indicator of what CAN be done…. 20-40 years worth of energy only using a few tons of fuel? Doe that sound like that bad an idea?”
Nate,
Do you have any idea what percentage of the national GDP it took to make those “few tons” of nuclear fuel? (And by the way, it’s not just a few tons ~ the United States uses about 53 million pounds of uranium oxide each year to fuel the nation’s 103 nuclear power reactors.)
Augie Churchill,
You have a good point. However I will emphasize one key word in what you said “took to make”. These fuels have already been processed. What does further processing them cost? What about waste products what does that cost?
I am slightly amused by the fact that you listed it in thousands of pounds rather then tons…. what does that equate to 26,500 tons? How does that compare to coal? I would be willing to bet a handful of plants burn that much in a year. Not to mention transportation energy costs for that fuel.
Sure Nuclear may look expensive but last I looked it is THE cheapest power around (excluding Hydro, Wind, and Solar).
So do we want to talk cost, availability or environmental impact? Each topic will yield a totally different conversation.
The world has hundreds of tons of nuclear fuel floating around that we really can’t do much with now that it has been processed into refined nuclear materials. What is the alternative put it back into ore?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to use it, reprocess it until it was all spent meanwhile we spend money on fusion research and get operational fusion reactors made? (of course also solar, wind, hydro, tidal and a few other types of natural power).
I’m open to suggestion and discussion. Nuclear does have some disadvantages but it seems like a better solution then Coal or Oil. The harsh and hard truth though is America’s energy consumption/addition. Fortunately it hasn’t turned into a real problem yet.
Nate,
I’m not opposed to nuclear reactors, and if I was in charge, the U.S. would be building 100 new reactors, all to a standard modular design as they’ve done in France. One reason our designs cost so much is that each is engineered starting with a blank piece of paper.
But let’s not kid ourselves about cost. They are expensive, and the actual EROEI probably isn’t very good. When the Oak Ridge plant was separating U235 from U238 to build the first atomic bomb, it was using most of the electricity the TVA could produce to do it.
Just when you think the Volt is impressive:
from http://avt.inl.gov/pdf/fsev/eva/s10.pdf
1998 Chevrolet S-10E Specs:
ACCELERATION 0-50 mph
At 100% SOC: 9.9 sec
At 50% SOC: 10.9 sec
Max. Power: 98.5 kW
Performance Goal: 13.5 sec
MAXIMUM SPEED @ 50% SOC
At 1/4 Mile: 65.9 mph
At 1 Mile: 71.0 mph
Performance Goal: 70 mph in One Mile
CONSTANT SPEED RANGE @ 45 mph1,2,3
Range: 130.6 miles
Energy Used: 27.92 kWh
Average Power: 9.69 kW
Efficiency: 214 Wh/mile
Specific Energy: 56.9 Wh/kg
CONSTANT SPEED RANGE @ 60 mph1,2,3
Range: 87.7 miles <——————————————— !!!!!!!
Energy Used: 27.17 kWh
Average Power: 18.96 kW
Efficiency: 310 Wh/mile
Specific Energy: 55.4 Wh/kg
DRIVING CYCLE RANGE1,2,3
Range per SAE J1634: 95.3 miles <—————————————!!!!!!!
Energy Used: 26.35 kWh
Average Power: 7.69 kW
Efficiency: 276 Wh/mile
Specific Energy: 53.7 Wh/kg
Performance Goal: 60 miles
BRAKING FROM 60 mph
Controlled Dry: 177.9 feet
Controlled Wet: 196.6 feet
Panic Wet: 194.1 feet
Course Deviation: 0.0 feet
HANDLING
Avg Time @ 90% SOC: 56.0 sec
Avg Time @ 50% SOC: 56.0 sec
Avg Time @ 20% SOC: 56.0 sec
Avg S-10 ICE Time: 58.3 sec
GRADEABILITY (Calculated)
Maximum Speed @ 3%: 69.3 mph
Maximum Speed @ 6%: 66.3 mph
Maximum Grade: 31.4%
Time on 3% Grade: 23 min 50 sec4
Performance Goal: 15 Min from 50% SOC
CHARGING EFFICIENCY
Efficiency: 794 Wh-AC/mile
Energy Cost @ 10 ¢/kWh: 7.94 ¢/mile
CHARGER
Max Charger Ground Current: <0.01 mA
Max Battery Leakage Current: <0.01 MIU
Max DC Charge Current: 13.13 Amps
Max AC Charge Current: 31.55 Amps
Pwr Factor @ Max Current: 0.999
THD(I) @ Max Current: 5.0 %
Peak Demand: 6.46 kW
Time to Recharge: 8 Hrs 54 min
Performance Goal: 8 hours
I’m particularly impressed wit the Mile/Wh rating. Thats pretty cool.. that trumps MPG ratings any day of the week. It is concise. Now… the neat thing… take the W/h and graph them with respect tho the MPH… the curve should be parabolic (second order). This would make sense because it follows the drag equations… however some variation should be expected considering tire losses, bearing losses etc…
And there we have what GM can do with OLD battery technology. 93 Miles or 130 miles at lower speeds… thats worth while in my opinion. Throw in a gen-set in there and you have a Truck version of the Volt…..
Nice find..
“Do you know of any REAL accidents in the US that caused any real problems?”
These are major incidents involving nuclear materials, reactors, and weapons. There have been a number of fatalities and some near-catastrophes.
List of Nuclear accidents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents
List of Civilian Radiation Accidents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_radiation_accidents
List of Civilian Nuclear Accidents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents
List of Military Nuclear Accidents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents
“And there we have what GM can do with OLD battery technology.”
Yes. And exactly why I’m seriously NOT impressed with the (’way too expensive!!) Volt or it’s Badge Engineered Caddy Voltec twin-with-the-awkward-name.
Beaugrand,
What I find particularly laughable at this point is the fact that no matter what power source we look at there are HUGE down sides… Nuclear is dangerous, Coal is dirty and will run out, Solar costs a lot and is environmentally unfriendly to produce the initial hardware, wind is to unreliable, hydroelectric has its own problems….
Its any wonder people are worried about global warming and other issues… the energy reality isn’t pretty.
With all that said I still say nuclear it is the cheapest and frees up the most energy for other consumption.
I don’t think we’re going to find “the answer” for some time. We’re going to need many answers, using a blend of all of the available technologies- nuclear, coal, oil, wind, solar, wave and tidal. I don’t think we can afford to ignore any of them. Eventually, however, we will have to use personal transport powered by centrally-generated electric power. For now, that means developing electric vehicles (and not just the 4-wheel kind, motorcycles work just fine with electricity, better than cars), improving batteries and generating technologies. I’m convinced that electrified roadways and wireless power transfer are the way to go, but I doubt I’ll see it in my lifetime.
Why doesn’t GM think that the Chevy Volt is good enough to sell worldwide? GM needs to lose the mentality that they need to re-face and re-badge every car it makes. They don’t have the money for what is essentially a mid cycle enhancement on a vehicle that hasn’t even gone into production yet. (see Opel Ampera)
Chris,
I honestly think the Ampera is the best looking of the three Volt based cars…. why not sell all three in the US?
Bring back the EV-1! Just kidding… I’m glad to see Volt making progress though. Electric cars are extremely important. I just wish that GM hadn’t sold the NiMH battery patents to texaco/chevron, because although li-ion batteries have come a long ways, I believe that the best way forward is backwards, to use the NiMH batteries in 100% electric vehicles.