Plug-in Standards Necessary for Consumer Acceptance of Electric Vehicles Like the Chevy Volt
By Gery Kissel
Energy Storage Systems Engineering Specialist
Next week during the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) conference in Detroit, the SAE J1772™ Task Force will continue its work by committee to standardize the components that will soon become part of one of the most common driver interactions with a plug-in electric vehicle – plugging in and charging the battery.
In order for plug-in electric vehicles to become part of the mainstream, a plug-in “ecosystem” must be in place when vehicles like the Chevy Volt extended-range electric vehicle hit the market. And for this ecosystem to be robust, there must be commonality, especially when owners are plugging into the electrical grid.
Outlet voltages won’t always be the same and the weather will vary based on location, but the vehicle’s charge cord plug and how you use it should always remain the same – regardless of make or model.
That’s where SAE J1772™ comes into play. You’re already aware we’re working to make the Volt as efficient as possible, but we’re also helping lead the standardization of this plug and how you interact with it as well as the electrical grid.
With SAE J1772™, we’re defining what a common electric vehicle conductive charging system architecture will look like for all major automakers in North America, but more importantly, we’re working to resolve general physical, electrical and performance requirements so these systems can be manufactured for safe public use.
Through SAE, our industry is working together to answer fundamental questions about plug-in electric vehicles such as battery electrochemistry, optimal battery-size and state of charge, and lifecycle among other issues, but zeroing in on the ergonomics, safety and performance of the charging interface is one of the most basic ways we can help build consumer confidence in plug-ins.
Think about it, if you have no reservations or confusion about charging your vehicle, you’re probably going to be more likely to drive one. Drivers shouldn’t have to worry about electromagnetic compatibility, emission and immunity when they need to plug-in – that’s what engineers like me get paid to do.
Only by consensus can we ensure the ownership experience of plug-ins will meet all of our customers’ expectations, and fit into the broader ecosystem we all need for plug-ins to be successful. Safe and convenient vehicle charging is just another step to reaching our shared goal, and we expect to have this standard completed by the end of this summer.
I look forward to reading your thoughts and comments.
81 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.)
“Drivers shouldn’t have to worry about electromagnetic compatibility, emission and immunity when they need to plug-in – that’s what engineers like me get paid to do.”
Right, so why does the vehicle charge cord plug you pictured look so complicated and specific?
As a Volt owner, I’d like to be able to plug the car into any standard household socket, whether in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, or Asia, and have the electronics on the car condition that electrical current (whether 110v or 220/240v, DC or 50 or 60 Hz) to pump electrical energy into the Li-ion battery to be stored for future propulsion use.
Do us all a favor a don’t use the one pictured. I would assume just looking at it that it would be destroyed the first time somebody drove away with it still attached. Use something that will pull away cleanly if it happens to be disconnected by brute force. You know it will happen, engineer for it. I agree there should be a standard, we all hate how cell phone chargers were/are.
Gery Kissel: “Think about it, if you have no reservations or confusion about charging your vehicle, you’re probably going to be more likely to drive one. Drivers shouldn’t have to worry about electromagnetic compatibility, emission and immunity when they need to plug-in…”
We didn’t have reservations, we weren’t confused and we weren’t worried. However, on reading this article, I’m starting to think we should be.
When the Volt is priced at $40K for a modest amount of electric range, installing special hardware to get it charged in your home is not a selling point. Special hardware starts to seem tolerable when electric cars are somewhat more ubiquitous and much more reasonably priced.
“Think about it, if you have no reservations or confusion about charging your vehicle, you’re probably going to be more likely to drive one.”
I wasn’t confused until you posted this blog. I planned on pulling into my garage, and plugging it into the standard 120v / 60hz socket I use for my battery-powered lawnmower and power tools. Now you’ve got me worried. Am I going to have to hire an electrician to run a special circuit to the garage and install a special “Volt friendly” socket.
Exactly what type of electrical infrastructure will we need in our garages to recharge a Volt?
I thought the big selling point behind the Volt was that owners would be able to simply plug in to a standard home outlet to charge the car batteries?!?! Is the crazy looking plug pictured the end that would connect to the car with a standard 3-prong plug on the other end to connect to wall outlet?
Do you mean that when I go spend a weekend at Grandma’s, I won’t be able to run an extension cord from the standard outlet on her porch to recharge? Am I dead in the water unless she has an outlet that one of those funny looking plugs in your picture will fit into?
how are the state and federal govt going to collect road tax on plug ins ?? if you have your own natural gas powered generator you will be able to recharge without anyone knowing you are doing it.
Ryan, damaging the plug by driving off won’t be a problem. Any plug-in electric car can very easily (and certainly should be) programmed to not be ABLE to pull away while still plugged in.
I recommend having a choice.
When visiting grandma, plug into a standard 15amp 110v outlet. After an overnight charge, you may not be “full” again, but you might get home.
For faster charging (than 15 amps), you’ll probably need to wire your garage with 60 amp service, 220 volts. Keep it simple so that home depot will carry the connector and every electrician will be able to put one in.
Few people (other than welders) have 220v service in their garage today.
As others have noticed, the SAE appears to be trying to standardize something, by making it non-standard. My house already HAS standard plugs and receptacles. The Volt will need to be charged by the same electricity that any home appliance uses. Why are you looking to clutter up the current STANDARD set up?
Darnell, et al:
Quick clarification, the picture shown is the coupler that plugs into the charge port on the vehicle…the other end of the charge cord is a standard 3-prong plug that plugs into any standard wall outlet for 120-volt charging.
A standard power cord for charging makes sense as long as it’s easy to repair when a Volt owner jams it in too hard and bends a pin or something. You can’t take your charger into the local Chevy repair shop and a Service Call to your home may be quite expensive.
In the meantime – why stop at standard power cords? How about standardizing on the actual batteries like C and D sizes for flashlights and home electronics. If batteries were standardized, there would be more competition and theoretically lower costs to the consumers.
Mike Woolfolk, Hawkshaw, etc:
I’m banging my head on my desk here. You WILL NOT NEED an specially shaped outlet installed at your home in your garage, or grandma’s, or wherever. What the article is talking about is a standardized connector at the CAR end, no matter what brand of car.
You know, no matter what brand of cell phone you have, you can plug the charger into the same wall outlet. Wouldn’t it be nice if there was ONE standardized connector for all cell phones? This is what they are talking about for plug-in cars.
Darnell, et al:
Phil Colley makes a VERY IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION. He is correct that the picture is intended to show (and the SAE standard is intended to standardize) THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE CHARGING CORDSET AND THE VEHICLE, not the charging cordset and the wall socket.
Phil with GM,
Thanks for the clarification. This was very confusing without it (not just the picture) as to whether the Volt would be able to plug into a standard outlet, one of its fundamental selling points.
Jay
It never stops to amaze me reading some of these responses to an article. Like this one as an example, GM has made it clear in the past multiple times in other blogs that the electrical cord’s end going to a standard 120v outlet would be as Phil Colley explained above. And yet right out of the shute folks somehow misconstrude the contents of the article as to GM doesn’t have a clue and they are confusing things. As Charlie H wrote “installing special hardware to get it charged in your home is not a selling point. ” Were was that mentioned at all???
Was the article confusing or do some readers have this mentallity that as soon as they see a new article they can’t read it for what it really says because it doesn’t fit their agenda.
It was a good point about pulling away with the cord still plugged in and what could be done to make sure that doesn’t happen or damage the cord. GM needs to come back with an answer so that concern can be put to rest. There’s no doubt this has been discussed and looked into here at GM on the Volt program. It is American engineering at it’s best right here, happening right now at GM.
So, yes you can drive to grandma’s house and still plug in your Volt.
Regards
I AM GM
I AM GM asked, “Was the article confusing…”
Yes, it was. Gery Kissel admitted to being an engineer. He may be a good engineer, but he does not write with clarity and brevity. GM did make it clear in the past that the Volt would plug into a standard 120v/60Hz outlet, but what Kissel wrote seemed to counter that.
This is what he wrote, “And for this ecosystem to be robust, there must be commonality, especially when owners are plugging into the electrical grid. Drivers shouldn’t have to worry about electromagnetic compatibility, emission and immunity when they need to plug-in – that’s what engineers like me get paid to do.”
He makes it sound like he is engineering the commonality when we plug into the grid, not the connector at the car end of the cord.
Andy Oury said, “He is correct that the picture is intended to show (and the SAE standard is intended to standardize) THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE CHARGING CORDSET AND THE VEHICLE, not the charging cordset and the wall socket.”
If one end of the power cord can be the same three-pin plug that fits into a standard outlet in a garage or on a porch, why must the other end be different? What happens over 10 ft or so of power cord that says one end can be the common standard, but that the other end has to be specially designed to some SAE standard in order to plug into a car?
Why not use the commonality that already exists at both ends of the cord instead of inventing something new.
“What the article is talking about is a standardized connector at the CAR end, no matter what brand of car.”
Why does that matter? If I owned a Volt, I would care only about the power cord that fits into my Volt, not what it takes to fit into a Daimler, Fiat, Toyota, or Honda electric car.
If there is an intention to allow Volt owners to use the car’s battery pack as an emergency source of electricity in a power outage (which would be a nifty selling point), why not make the ’smart plug’ interface allow for this?
I imagine a separate wire with conventional 110V sockets on one end, and the SAE (whatever) Volt-end connector on the other. The SAE (whatever) plug for this particular wire, as part of the standard, will let the Volt “know” that this wire is connected, either through a specific shape or a circuit chip. This will allow the Volt’s controller to, instead of supply pulses of power to a variable-speed motor to instead supply regular 60Hz pulses to the socket.
Switching internal circuitry from input to output in the socket itself may increase expense, but might be cheaper than allowing for a separate plug just for this purpose. (On the other hand, I can see how a cheap connector available “under the hood” might be cheaper than what I’ve just described).
I was EPRI’s project manager for EV development, and EV Infrastructure, from 1987 until 1999, and I was involved with the car company guys that wrote J1772 and J1773. You are fortunate that there were a number of very talented persons on the SAE committies to provide the gound work for todays effort. I remember Jon Berisa from GM and Craig Toepfer from Ford that were very involved in writing the standards. Craig did a lot of the J1772 writing, as Ford was more interested in the conductive type connector. I know he is still in Dearborn, and retired from Ford. He would make a good reviewer of the current work.
i still like the J1773 inductive type connector because of its user friendlyness. i realize that the main drawback is mainly efficiency, although some thought it more costly, which I doubted, in high volume. And I liked it because it was an idea I brought to the Hughes Electronics part of the orginal Impact development effort. The orgin for this inductive coupler came from EPRI’s Industrial Program, which was developing it for mining vehicles ( no sparks to set off an explosion in the mine)
I hope someone in thinking ahead about an automatic coupler design. Like a garage door opener it is not really needed, but who would want to do without it I know my wife who wants a plug in EV. would get very bored with nightly pluging in the vehicle, and after a week or so would juat be running on the range entender. Just a thought.
Gary Purcell.
I AM GM, for your information, it was only a few weeks ago in this blog that it was mentioned charging times for 120v would be 8 hours and for 240v using special equipment would be much less.. It has not been completly clear how GM will recomend that you charge your Volt.
Does this actually mean you ‘could’ plug it into the standard wall socket but in reality everyone will be strongly advised to upgrade their garage with some high voltage equipment to get the advantages of faster charge time?
I think everyone was reacting to concern that while they would passionatley love to own a Volt, they may simply not be able to afford one.
It seems Volt could become an unloved car if only Hollywood celebrities and well paid executives can afford one.
Phil,
Thanks for the clarification… Only other point I’d like to make is that the other end could be virtually anything if this spec is designed right. The other end could be a 220 or a 480V plug or it could be connected to some home or public charging station. The idea of this spec is to allow anyone to build charging stations knowing it will work with not just the Volt but any other EV/PHEV’s that will come on the market. This is absolutely critical if we really want adoption of EV’s to take off.
“the picture is intended to show (and the SAE standard is intended to standardize) THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE CHARGING CORDSET AND THE VEHICLE, not the charging cordset and the wall socket.”
WELL THEN – JUST SHOW THE WHOLE ASSEMBLY SO EVERYONE CAN SEE IT!
Car to Charging Cordset to wall socket to breaker panel to electric utility to wallet
What ever happened to the EV1’s “paddle” that was supposed to be “standardised”? I’m surprised it’s not mentioned here.
Going back to Ryan’s comment, about a plug that won’t be destroyed if you drive away with it attached. How about something A~la Apple’s magnetic connector they use for their laptops? And there is no wrong way to plug it in…
“Was the article confusing?”
It was both confusing and verbose. Gery Kissle would have had to write little more than this:
“Hi, I’m the engineer at GM working with the SAE J1772™ Task Force to set a common auto industry standard for the end of the charging cord that will plug into the Volt and other electric cars. Pictured is one of the connectors we are considering. I look forward to reading your thoughts and comments.”
I think a standardized connector at the vehicle is important. Think about it, in order to get charge times down to 10-15 min, you will need a massive electrical conduit. This does not mean you can’t trickle charge it overnight at the house. But a large, standard connector at the vehicle is imperative for “fueling stations” to be developed.
Why does there even have to be a connector to plug into the Volt?
~~~~~A Charging cord take-up reel in the Volt ~~~~
When ready to recharge the battery, why not just open a door on the side or hood of the car and reel out the power cord to plug into an ordinary household electrical outlet? Once recharged, the driver cord would reel the cord back into the car, the driver would close the door and be ready to go. That way, the charging cord would always be with the car. The end of the charging cord in the car would be permanently attached to the car’s electronics, and how that cord is connected inside the car would be irrelevant to the driver.
My wife’s vacuum cleaner has a retractable power cord on a reel that stays with the cleaner, why wouldn’t you want something similar for the Volt?
~~~~~Driving off with the charging cord connected ~~~~
To answer someone’s earlier question of driving off with the cord connected, if the power cord reeled out through a door on the hood or side of the car, there could be an interlock preventing the car from moving when the charging door is open. The car could not move until the cord is reeled up, stowed, and the door closed.
If I want to charge Volt from a solar panel. Is anyone know how to do that ?
Meanwhile, BYD, a Chinese manufacturer of cellphone batteries, is planning to introduce their own electric car in the US, priced under $20,000. They’ll probably use a standard 3-prong 120VAC plug to shave costs.
In the mid ’80s I saw an electric car based on a Porsche Super 90 replica kit. 80 mph top speed, 60 mile range at normal city speeds. With lead-acid batteries. I think the company’s name was Envemo.
K.I.S.S. you all know what that means. 110 volt receptical do not re-invent the wheel or its all OVER!
bluebaby
“If there is an intention to allow Volt owners to use the car’s battery pack as an emergency source of electricity in a power outage…”
Good question Jackson ~ it would be nifty selling point, and not that difficult to put the capability into the Volt. I remember reading of a gentleman in New England last winter who jury-rigged a connection between his house and the battery of his Prius during an ice storm
This question has surfaced several times over the last several months and for some reason GM has always been mute. It’s a reasonable question, and it’s difficult to say why GM refuses to answer. Will you or won’t you give us the capability of plugging into the Volt’s battery as an emergency power supply during emergencies?
Where to plug it in isn’t so much a concern for me as the $40K price tag for a 4 seater that you can only drive 40 miles before requiring a charge. I would LOVE to buy an electric car, but honestly $40K is twice as much as I would pay for a car that will only go 40 miles on a charge. They could have made the car smaller and gotten more range and made it less expensive. But to pay $40K+ for new technology from a floundering company is just crazy. Will they be around in 5 years to replace my batteries? Will they be around to make parts to fix it? Will they lower the price to make it more attractive than buying a cheaper gas-sipping sub-compact? History indicates they will not; they’ll offer it up and blame poor sales on consumers, rather than their inability to understand their buyers.
Honestly, if there is a proprietary plug from the cable to the car, WHO CARES IF IT’S STANDARD? It presumably would come with the car and plug into a standard wall outlet. Why not make BOTH sides like the current standard? Thus cutting R&D for something that ALREADY EXISTS. Perhaps your engineers should explain that, instead of spending oodles of money, reinventing the wheel, only to have it increase the price of the car.
All this speculation about a “vaporware” car… ridiculous.
It seems to me that if the computer industry had standardized on charging plugs a long time ago, we’d have giant, bulky, ugly plugs. I wouldn’t have the magnetic release plug on my MacBook. I guess I just find it funny that the industry under the most duress right now continues to go down the path of consensus and thinks it’s a feature! And then to go down a path of complicated consensus, that takes the cake.
Here’s your solution. Ship the Volt with a cord that works in the garage with standard 110 and charges safely on a 15 amp circuit. As charging stations emerge, work with their developers to develop appropriate adaptors. That lets the technology and market evolve instead of being stillborn in 2010. And it tells us you’re forward thinking rather than stuck in the consensus rut of the past.
I don’t see the need for special cords at all. My laptop can run off of 120/220 volt between 50 and 60 hz.
My welder can be run on 100 V through 440 V at various frequencies, single or three phase…. why would I want or need a power source/supply at my home for something like the Volt (sounds like another gimmick to make GM money)?
Why can’t the volt incorporate a built in inverter/converter for bringing in power at whatever level is available? That is how my welder works it just has a special cord for each volt/amp combination, and a DIP switch to set.
Is this what is being referred to? The plug (outlet) under the “gas cap” so to speak?
Why not have ONE plug on the car that is autosensing and auto switching and then the owner can purchase the cords needed to adapt the car to the wall… OR how about providing a standard 110 V outlet since EVERYONE with electricity has one somewhere. And then a rapid charge kit for other voltage/ current/ frequency combinations?
Also if SAE standardizes on one plug.. what do we do if for some reason higher voltage or current is desired in the future? Will they release another revision of the standard or will the plug be universal enough to cover scooters to buses with one cord?
GM I think you are over thinking this one…. as to the magnetic requirements… I’m assuming you are setting this thing up to plug into the wonderfully over rated smart grid where it will somehow carry data in parallel with power (or possibly in series) to and from the wall outlet. If this is the case… why not go wireless on power management functions? or even Optical it would solve a lot of “magnetic” problems… then again if we are talking 60 Hz power does it even matter? even generation one USB operates outside of the magnetic interference frequency range of most 60 Hz sources. How much data could you possibly need to send through a power cord to support the intelligence you seek in vehicle plugging in?
Again a bit more explanation is in order.
Comments/Questions:
1. Induction? So it is non-contact and somewhat inefficient, like the new Palm Pre charger. How much power will be lost? 5%? 10%? 20%? That can really add up for (ultimately) 3 billlion cars.
2. Repeated insertion and removal can cause wear and fatigue. Will it be easy? That is a good reason why standard plugs/sockets are not so good. They aren’t designed for high-amp high-wear.
3. Why not ZIF – zero insertion force – design like they have for CPUs? Then can be contact, for efficiency. Indeed, you could use standard plugs with a ZIF socket.
4. Will the plug be right by the driver’s door to facilitate remembering? Should be a standard so parking/charging places can be designed.
5. How pricey? $10 110v/20amp cord, $20 220v/60amp, $40 440v/100amp cord? I can imagine keeping cords at home and in the car for convenience. Not so nice if $300 each.
6. Indoor/outdoor – these have to work in the rain and snow, in desert sun and alaskan winters. How does the standard address those issues?
7. Where is the link to the research?
tOM
Another web site has copied much of the information in this article: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=14886
One of the comments to the above site was suggesting a way to identify the car via this connector, which would allow charging the owner of the car through the connection. Obviously, there are privacy and authentication issues to be considered. This would allow a motel to provide charge connection and bill it back to the car owner. The interface could also allow specifying how much the owner was willing to pay, possibly taking a partial charge if the power was too expensive. A motel might need a more sophisticated charging system so that charging multiple cars would not overload their circuits. The interface could tell the car to limit its current to a certain amperage, or report how much it needs, allowing fair allocation among multiple users. A home user would provide just a dumb cord that just plugs into the wall.
Given that the standards committee is meeting shortly, including a 2-wire interface in the connector would allow the above to be added to vehicles over time. This could be an optional part of the standard, but the protocol should be eventually standardized. I’m guessing there would have to
be something to protect against inductive coupling with the charge lines damaging the communication interface on either side.
Ryan; Why something that pulls away gently ?
Something that will the car from moving while it is plugged in is much better. Idiot proof too.
We’re talking about a substantial amp draw so the plug is not going to be mini-usb size, people.
That thing looks just fine to me.
Even if they can’t figure it out on time. Ad adapter won’t take much space.
There is already a standard for the car end of an electrical cord. Or at least there is for marine applications, which are arguably more demanding due to the vehicle being in the water, rather than sitting on insulating rubber tires. Google for “Marine AC power inlet” and decide whether you want 3-wire or 4-wire.
I am Charter Member #14 of the National Electric Drag Racing Association. Would GM have enough guts to sponsor me in the drags with a Volt?
Why not simply have the power cord permanently fixed to the car – and have it come out of the trunk?
Then all you’d have to do is fit the cord with a standard wall-plug connector.. the cord could just be stored in the trunk when not in use!!
Then your plug-in EV would be no different to your plug-in vacuum cleaner….costs less, requires no new standards, makes for an affordable EV!!
Now I see why the Volt is gonna be so expensive.
At home, I see that there usually would not be a need to charge very fast. 4-6 hours or more. But charging at a filling station, would need to be able to pump a great deal of current into the car fairly quickly. The batteries that are being developed may be able to charge to 80-90% of capacity in five minutes, that would be more than a standard household system would have. This will require alot of current.
Here are a couple of requirements that I see:
- Should be able to plug into a standard 120/240 household power. If there is a SAE standard,
there should be something supplied so one end looks like a a standard 110/220 power plug.
GM & EVs would win a lot of points by making sure people can plug into their standard household sockets.
- This plug should be able to allow for a great deal of current for future cars that will be able to charge faster than the Volt version1.
- Should be able to support some Ethernet over Powerline, to allow for communication to the grid. The communication protocols don’t have to be established, but the ability should be there. Someone could plug their car in at 4pm but the car could start charging based upon power rates in their community.
- There should be some mechanism (software or otherwise) for handling an unexpected disconnect from the car. The car should not be allowed to move, parking brakes engaged when plugged in. There are extras that car companies could do to make people feel very comfortable about electrical safety. Additionally, a (smarter) plug could not send any power to the business end of the plug unless it is securely connected to the car (and other car safety systems are engaged)
Once a standard is adopted, the government can pressure filling stations to provide them. If there is no standard, this part can never happen.
Ethan Edwards hit a home run with his assessment about the communication. A better picture would help– one that shows both ends of the cord. Of course, I’m not sure any of this is going to mean much to the average consumer unless GM can produce the Volt and offer it for significantly less than the projected $40,000 starting price!
Hello,
I came across this blog on a google search on electric car. I plan and hope to buy a fully electric vehicle as soon as one is available that meets my utility needs. I am a believer in standardization whenever it doesn’t force too much compromise or preclude any alternatives of specific advantages.
I only choose to comment on the concern of driving away while still plugged in. If the plan is to have a connection at the car as indicated by the (agreeably) confusing illustration, now explained, then wouldn’t it be straight forward to have a sensor or some type of contact switch that will not allow the car to be driven when the plug is connected to the car?
the problem of driving off with the power cord still plugged in can be solved by a interlock that the motor/engine would not start with the power cord still plugged into the wall socket
I am glad GM is pushing for this and now it seems that other car manufactures around the world are agreeing that some sort of standard plug should be made. For those of you still confused let’s compare this to something that we are all more familiar with, the gasoline car.
Now almost every car in the world has hole that lead to the gas tank. Some of them are on the left and some one the right. Some have them behind the license plate, but they all take have the same function; get gas in to the car. Now when you go the pump all the nozzles are the same size and they work on almost every car. Despite that they are all the same shape they can fill up all types of different cars. These nozzles can put in different kinds of gasoline such as Premium, Regular, and even Diesel. Some pumps are slow, some are really fast. And if you want you can pour in gas from a can that has the same size nozzles on it as the normal pumps.
GM is looking to the same for the electric cars. They want a connector that fits on all cars in the same way all over the world. Now the power that comes through that connector may be different, but that is just like gas cars when some only take premium. A charging station in front of an office building might charge your car in 4 hours. While at home with a cord with a normal 120v plug on end and the standard electric car connector on the other end will charge you car in 8 hours.
The whole idea is so that they make it easier for you to charge your car. Think about this for second. When you are sitting in your current gas car and it says “empty”, how long does it take for you to go get gas? It takes almost no time at all. You just go to the nearest station, pay, pump, and you are done. You don’t need to bring funnels with you or have to drive to a gas station across town because they are the only ones that have the same connector as your car.
Hope fully when this get implemented it will become much like gas cars. Pull up to charging station, open plug cover, plug-in, and your done. Even if you do go to some place that have no charging stations. I am sure GM will include in the cars right next to the spare tire and the car jack and small 120v to standard car plug adapter that will allow you to use any normal extension cord to charge you car. It will probably be slower than your normal cord you use at home and take 10 to 12 hours to charge the car but that is understandable.
On side note someone mentioned that they should design the plugs so that if some one just drives away it does break the car or damage it. While a good idea, just remember that even with gas pumps some people have just driven away with the nozzle still attached. So while a good idea thinks the priority should be one other area such as durability. How about a well designed plug that will not shock people, child safe, can be plugged in to the car several thousand times without it breaking, and in the case of charging stations withstand weathering and outside conditions.
Good luck GM hopefully the other automakers that have so far tentatively agreed with a standard plug will fully support it and make it universal.
-Kyle-
IT seems that some people dont realize that if the battery runs down that the gas engine included in combination will get combined 80 miles to the gallon. overall and a very long driving range I beleve well over 300 miles?
Tom Trottier: 5. “How pricey? $10 110v/20amp cord, $20 220v/60amp, $40 440v/100amp cord? I can imagine keeping cords at home and in the car for convenience. Not so nice if $300 each.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~Charging cord on a reel that stays with the car~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom,
All the more reason to have a single power cord that stays on a reel in the car. Open an access door, reel out the charging cord and plug it in.
When the battery is charged, reel the cord back into its storage compartment in the Volt, close the access door and be ready to go. The charging cord should be part of the Volt, ready to be reeled out when needed, and reeled in and stowed when charging is done.
No need to roll it up and store the cord in your garage; or roll it up and stow the cord in the back seat or trunk; or to have two separate cords ~ one for the garage and one to travel with the car.
Having the charging cord that always stays with the car on a reel inside the trunk, under the hood, or in a rear wheel well near the battery seems so obvious I’m surprised GM is not already planning to do that. Beside the convenience of always having the cord with the car, there would also be no need to have a special connector where the cord plugs into the car. The cord at the reel end would be permanently attached to the car.
Agreement reached on common plug for electric cars
“BERLIN (AFP) – Leading automotive and energy companies have reached agreement on a common “plug” to recharge electric cars, a spokeswoman for German energy company RWE said Sunday.
The three-point, 400-volt plug, which will allow electric cars to be recharged anywhere in a matter of minutes, is set to be unveiled Monday at the world’s biggest industrial technology fair in Hanover, northern Germany.”
Mr Kissel,
Did GM provide input to what appears to be a Euro-standard?
Re “Driving away with the cord connected”.
It isn’t rocket science to have, say, a $1.00 relay with it’s coil’s feed across the hydro input, wired so it disconnects the ignition circuit when the cord is plugged in. If it had a pair of change over contacts it could also be wired so a buzzer sounded if the owner tried to turn the ignition on with the cord plugged in.
As far as ‘extra pins go, the house end will still be a standard 3 pin outlet in most cases, so having 5 or more at the car end is a waste of energy. There are dozens of tried and tested ways to superimpose data onto the hydro waveform, TCP/IP superimposed on the hydro power line is one, the old zero crossing X10 standard is another. (I use that all over my house to do everything from controlling the hifi/tv etc to turning on/off and dimming lights. It is surprisingly robust.)
In fact since wifi chips are now costing only cents, why communicate by wire at all? Give each charge station and car an IP address, let them talk via wifi, and all the cabling problems go away.
This opens up a range of thoughts, such as automatic billing, automated logs of distance traveled, power consumption, etc etc. All available at home via a browser.
I’m actually fitting a mac mini in my 1990 Pontiac firefly convertible, (converted by me from ICE to 132V DC) as I write, in part to use the wifi to talk to my house, download mp3s, etc etc..
None of this is bleeding edge technology, it only requires some common sense!
What doesn’t seem to be clear to many is that some of those wires in the plug as control signals; so, yes, you cannot drive off with the car plugged in.
“This opens up a range of thoughts, such as automatic billing, automated logs of distance traveled, power consumption, etc etc. All available at home via a browser.”
Colin,
Of course that would also open up the possibility of government agencies computing road tax and automatically billing Volt owners, since the owner of a Volt that doesn’t burn much liquid fuel won’t pay much fuel tax. (It’s conceivable that a Volt owner who traveled less than 30-40 miles a day would never pay any fuel tax.)
Governments will have to come up with a way of putting a road tax on the electricity each Volt consumes.
Joel Sapp,
Why would you want to make such a charging system so complicated? It should be very simple.. Pick a standard/universal plug give it enough pins to work right (4 should be fine). Make the charging system on board voltage indifferent (aka auto-selecting) then add wireless or something like a USB jack to it. There’s no need for the complexity you or GM were discussing. In fact there is no reason the entire charging control process can’t be accomplished wirelessly. The charging system controller has the ability to use or not use power from the cord. Why not have all of that done with basic WiFi network? All that stuff is in place anyway and will probably soon be finding its way into cars. The communication standards for a cord like this should be easy….
As mentioned above Optics is probably another great alternative to wires for communication. Optics in the form of Plastics are dirt cheap and surely deliver enough data for this application and most importantly are interference free. It would also only need one pin for the optics allowing 4 pins for electric.
A disconnect sensor could be easily accomplished by putting a retractable twist lock sleeve with an optical sensor on it. It would sense the user trying to pull the plug off and stop use of power.
I think the KISS method is in order here.
Electric Cars vs. the Power Grid
We all have to be mindful that the power demands, placed on the power grid on a daily basis, are enormous. With the peaks and valleys made on the power grid, the demand, on a daily basis, our large cities and small towns continue to struggle for electricity. Our power suppliers have to barter from other power suppliers to satisfy their customer’s needs – they have assumed large costs, which are incorporated to higher costs for their customers during peak demands. For the last and current decade, our power suppliers have been looking for solutions, innovative technologies, and ways to implement inventive ideas into cleaner (Green) power to help relieve the high power demand that is presently on the grid, even to the point of asking for their consumers support to help offset the peak demands of power on a daily basis by updating energy saving appliances, HVAC systems and lighting applications. The power companies continue to work with new green technology, with their customers, and other possible solutions to continue to provide service to everyone.
With this understood, it would be irresponsible for any company to place electrical car on the market to only have the plug-N-play power option to charge up our vehicles without regard to the current power demand on our already strained power grid. If the power charging system were independent of the power grid, i.e.; Solar Power Station, Thermal Generation System, Fuel Cell (Hydrogen), or even a Biofuel generator system, it would not have any affect on the power demand presently on the grid, but we know this would be costly to any consumer to implement. Even if any of these systems were to replace the current gas stations, it would not be sustainable, for it would need a several parking lots of overnight parking of vehicles for any large or small community.
Let us not forget that possibly incorporating Solar Photovoltaic (PV) panels, or cells, technology onto the vehicle’s design, as an additional means, into charging the vehicle batteries, when not being operated, could be an option. Several hours of the day our vehicles are parked in full view of the sun. While our vehicles are parked at work, or shopping, or visiting family and friends from 4 to 6 hours, in full view of the sun, our vehicles batteries could receive a charge from as low as 3% up to 12% of the batteries capacity while at rest. Look at PV as free electrical power and if your electrical vehicle were to get 80 miles on a full charge, this free power would give you from 2.4 to 9.6 miles extra driving distance. This may seem small, but have you ever run out of petrol a few miles from home? Also, incorporating PV as an alternate charging system, to allow for backup power system for the ‘Just in case’ situations, that could provide a possible 10 mile distance as a reserve.
Only with careful planning and design of a sophisticated monitoring of the system, being mindful of the peak power demands, could there be a way to charge the rechargeable batteries within electrical vehicles.
This would require an up-to-date daily power usage data from the electrical supplier that communicates with the vehicle charging, power usage, and monitoring systems. This would require a network interface, WIFI, USB, or others to best communicate with the charging unit, integrated within the electronics of the vehicle, to best allow for charging at a high rate, 200 volts to 400 volts, or a low (trickle) rate at 120 volts.
Quoting Nate (Comment – April 21, 2009), “Make the charging system on board voltage indifferent (aka auto-selecting)…” Nate may be onto something here. This may be the best method in allowing for, and to accommodate for the current peak demand on the grid, and provide the best charging rate for the batteries. To also point out that the K.I.S.S. (Keep it Simple Stupid) concept, that Nate had mentioned in the same comment, is for the vehicle owner and operator.
Most new gasoline vehicles already have an onboard computer. The electrical vehicles would follow the same format by simply incorporating universal software that would control the battery charging system. This software would maintain maintenance logs, detect the voltage applied; auto-select the voltage required to charge the batteries, while monitoring the vehicle power consumption and calculates the best rate of charge verse the time required to allow for the batteries to receive a full charge. This same software would have to be able to have a means of communication with the local power supplier to monitor the usage of peak power demands to best gauge the method of charge for the batteries. Who knows, allowing for the software to determine, if PV charging is an option, to allow for the software to auto-select the PV charging system over the Plug-N-Play power when the batteries only need a small recharge.
The Plug-N-Play method would benefit all electrical car owners as long as we are mindful of the cost to our power suppliers’ mission, to supply adequate power to all at a cost effective rate on a daily basis.
Remember, only a century ago petrol propelled vehicles was the future and it changed our civilization around the world. Today, even with electrical vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, or hybrids is to be our future; we will have to change, to meet the future head on, and to allow for our civilization to continue to the next best thing.
Dennis L.
I don’t think the gas engine is that good. Surely not 80 MPG… I could believe 38 to 45 MPG but not 80.
Redd Nuckles,
I disagree I think GM should provide a universal plug for plugging into whatever is handy. However I do agree that a universal 120 Volt cord be provided as well. I see no reason however to include that with the car or keep it on a reel. GM should make a reel as an option.
In all honesty after using other reel systems for cords, hoses, etc… I think a simple plug I can leave in place in my garage is easier and quicker. A single 120 or 20 V low amp cord on a reel wouldn’t be too bad but certainly not the rapid charge cords which will probably be more like thick jumper cables then anything else.
GM is better off doing both rapid charge and 120/220V plugs.
Unfortunately I don’t see it as such an obvious thing. There are a lot of complexities with that idea. And to me having a charge cord that stays in my garage and a low power one for in the car is the obvious solution.
The best way to solve this one is to give the user the option of a reel if they want one. Again I personally think they would be a hassle compared to a stationary cord.
<i.”…will probably be more like thick jumper cables then anything else.”
A reel that could hold 20 ft or so of heavy-duty jumper cable-type cord wouldn’t be that large ~ and it would always be with the car. Wherever you are are, open the door, unreel the cord, plug in, and charge.
Responding to all of the comments…
While one could use a standard 120V 15A outlet to plug in an electrified vehicle, the power there is limited. Charging time is simply a factor of how much power can be transferred at a time. For any power above what a standard outlet can provide a larger more robust cord must be used. The committee is trying to standardize the vehicle connector and end of the cord so that a user can choose the solution that best works for them. Then they should be able to charge at any location (including grandmas, the grocery store, or at a “fuel station”).
Standard plug (and outlet) not robust to last through thousands of plug/unplug cycles. Standard plug does not provide Ground Fault protection. This is a necessary to protect the users. There are electrical code standards with regards to user protection, wire sizing and acceptable practice installation of charging equipment for electrified vehicles. The outlet must be grounded and must be protected by a GFCI. A simple extension cord will not meet code. The national electrical code standards only allow a permanently installed piece of charging equipment for above 120V 15A, so you cannot just use a 240V “extension cord”. UL is also working with the committee to develop standards for this.
Many proposals for not allowing drive away with plug inserted. Not all are reliable. The extra pins allow a completely reliable communications method for detecting plug insertion. Both the vehicle and the charging equipment will be able to stop the flow of energy in the event of a “hot disconnect”. No power is available at the cord end unless a vehicle is confirmed as plugged in.
There are limits as to how much power can be transferred with a given wire size. Engineering is always a compromise of many conflicting criteria (including cost, size, current, voltage, safety, weight, power, etc). If you want higher power, then you will have a heavier, larger converter on the vehicle, a larger wire, and larger connector. The solution provided is the best estimate of those compromises. Connector size was one of the most important criteria. You cannot practically make one solution that works for scooters and also works for heavy trucks/busses. The scooter might need a cord the size of a heavy duty extension cord. The bus will need a cord with three to five wires each with the size of a garden hose (think about lugging that around). There will be multiple connectors. This one standardized connector is a compromise to meet the needs of light duty passenger vehicles coming out over the next few years.
Reverse energy flow is certainly technically feasible. But again as an engineering solution the cost/size/weight penalties must be considered. There are many safety aspects with regards to reverse energy flow such as grid isolation, personnel protection, and battery life impacts. The automotive manufacturers don’t want to assume the cost of repairing/replacing batteries that are used more extensively in this manner. Charging from a solar panel is technically feasible too. But a sizable solar panel would be needed for even modest charge levels. It would likely cost more than the car to set up a solar charging system that would recharge the vehicle in about the same time as a standard 120V outlet.
SAE is looking into vehicle communications to the utility so that the vehicle can be identified, and could follow electricity rate schedules and the like. There are solutions that allow this to be done without adding additional wires. These other methods have been discussed extensively.
Don’t assume that the engineers at GM or in the SAE committee are trying to overcomplicate this. They are experts in their respective fields worldwide who have been meeting for quite some time to resolve all of the potential issues before it comes to market. They wish to ensure public safety first, cost next, and convenience and delight to the users. There are other criteria. These are all challenges that the team has been working through with compromise.
l3oywonder,
The code while I’m sure is well intended sounds a bit overboard to me. Why do I need or care about a GFCI on a cord? Is my 50 Amp oven or dryer or my 50 or 100 Amp welder required to have similar saftey devices? A little common sense goes a long way in my opinion.
I see no GOOD reason that I can’t simply wire a 220 V 50 or 100 amp plug, and use an outlet like any other appliance. As long as it is a grounded plug what is the big deal?
If we are talking about weather issues why don’t marine cords for voltages over 120 Volts have all these features (or do they)? Last I checked the cord most boats have is pretty simple and standard.
Ok so if no power is available until a vehicle is plugged in are we now talking a special (unneeded) charger box? Just what I want is another BOX to go with the car. It sounds to me more like a way for GM or their partners to make money. Why can’t all the charging gear be in the car? Don’t they use AC Alternators to make the power off the engine? Don’t they still need to convert, charge and maintain the batteries while the engine is running? Why need a second external system to do all this? Makes no sense to me.
As far as voltage goes why not accept a 440V or 240 V as the max? At 50 amps that is enough to charge a 22KW battery in about an hour (440v).
Why not step the voltage up for heavy duty vehicles? Use a special high voltage version?
Why is SAE talking about communications with the Utility company? Isn’t it the consumers decision as to what they are willing to pay to charge an electric car? What business is it of the Utilities to be given that information for rate purposes?
The problem I have with the SAE proposals is that they just seem complicated. Regular cords have been in use on millions of consumer and industrial products where apparently they work well enough and are safe enough to have been used for years. The whole idea of needing a special smart charger just to plug into the car is ridiculously stupid from a consumer standpoint. This forces a reliance on the charger manufacturer. It is one thing to have smart rapid chargers another to require a charger just to charge the car. There is no good reason not to be able to plug the car into a standard 220V 50 amp line.
Why not simply outfit the lines with GFCI rather then the cord.
As for being able to move the car while on the charger why require the engine to be off. Why can’t the engine run while the car is plugged in. It could operate as a generator that way.
As for moving the car shouldn’t that be a simple thing to prevent the motion and have a sensor that can tell when it is plugged in.
If I were buying an E car I would probably opt for a rapid charge option but expect a slow charge to be standard on a regular plug. From that regard the only difference between it and my laptop is the cost…. $100.00 for a charger for a laptop isn’t so bad… what will an E Charger cost a few thousand?
Nate,
You say “A little common sense goes a long way”. I would say “Common sense is not so common”.
Your oven or welder is probably not parked in a puddle. Small children don’t typically plug in ovens or welders on a regular basis. The oven is not going to drive over its own cord (not while plugged in, but while just laying on the floor when not in use). The auto OEMs and charger manufacturers think about these kinds of things. Marine shore power hookups have GFCI built into the dock box. It cannot be guaranteed that all standard outlets are protected by GFCI, so the cordset or wall box must provide this. You can appeal concern to the National Fire Protection Agency to change the National Electric Code, but I doubt that they will change it. A specialized cord ensures that GFCI is present, grounding is present, that the connector can be locked into the inlet, that ventilation is working (for batteries that vent dangerous gasses) and that the circuit can be de-energized upon disconnection.
Regarding drive away protection… The proposed cord connector has proximity sensing which is used to tell if the cord is plugged in. Both the vehicle and charging equipment know when the plug is connected. How would this be done reliably with _any_ style NEMA 5-15 plug or extension cord? The proposed cord and connector are specified for an environment where they may be driven over by a vehicle, left outside in the winter, and still be safe and easy to handle and use.
There are issues with rapidly charging batteries. The most prevalent is how that affects battery life. Who will pay for battery replacement? Have you priced fully automotive qualified 22KW battery pack lately? Other issues are related to how the high power gets to the charging location. The electrical utility infrastructure in housing neighborhoods is not set up to supply 22KW to any homes. A typical home consumes ~2KW average with brief peaks in the 10KW range. Even convenience charging at 120V 15A has the utility companies concerned when mass acceptance of plug-in vehicles occurs. Above some power level the on-vehicle converter becomes too bulky and large to package in the vehicle so an off-vehicle DC converter becomes necessary; a new connector would be needed for that application.
Regarding utility communications… The utilities want to offer rate incentives to customers of plug-in vehicles to allow the utility to manage the loading of the electrical grid. They cannot have millions of plug-in customers all plugging in when they get home in the evening and turning on their A/C in the home. This would have adverse affects on the reliability of the electrical infrastructure. If the utility companies can control when charging occurs, then reliability will be ensured. The vehicle or charging equipment needs access to this information (data) via some communications method.
Using the vehicle as a charger seems like a good idea on the surface. But then, packaging an inverter on a vehicle that has to survive 15yrs of bumpy, dusty, wet roads while still being inexpensive is no simple task. Sure, it has been proposed to use the inverter that drives the wheels, there are extra switches and complicated controls needed to accomplish that. Give the auto companies some time on this. There are huge issues with reverse power flow in terms of back feeding the electrical grid and running the gas engine in enclosed spaces. It is actually cheaper to buy a separate stand-alone generator if stand-by power is needed.
Some things seem simple until you dig into the details (where the devils are). Technical issues can be solved, but at what cost? Who pays for it?
“Reverse energy flow is certainly technically feasible. But again as an engineering solution the cost/size/weight penalties must be considered. There are many safety aspects with regards to reverse energy flow such as grid isolation, personnel protection, and battery life impacts. The automotive manufacturers don’t want to assume the cost of repairing/replacing batteries that are used more extensively in this manner.”
I3oywonder,
Are you a GM representative or speaking officially for GM? Does what you say mean the GM is not going to offer the option of being able to plug into the Volt’s battery for use as an emergency power supply? From the problems you outlined, it sounds like the lawyers have more say than the engineers.
l3oywonder,
I am thinking of installing solar panels on my house roof. How much more kW do I need to add on top of my regular electricity (about 2 to 3 kW) if I buy a VOLT when it hits the market ? I want to size the solar panel system to reduce my CO2 footprint to almost zero (VOLT+Solar Panels). With the solar panel system price reducing recently and the tax credits, I think I will pay off my extra solar panels cost in less than10 years. I will be possible of energy self-sustain and almost zero CO2 footprint for next 25 years. The price for VOLT or any other electrical vehicles will improve over time (meaning need less kW power and cheaper when I buy the next one). My solar panel system will sustain me for 25 years. Let me know you think i am dreaming on the EARTH DAY.
I am not GM. I don’t speak for GM.
I am just an interested spectator following the action.
l3oywonder,
You are right my oven isn’t parked in a puddle… but my welder IS dangerous on its own. AND an E-Vehicle has rubber tires last I checked so it would have to be a deep puddle to worry about grounding. Secondarily a proper ground in the plug is all that SHOULD be required.
Small children shouldn’t be plugging this vehicle in. Small children generally don’t put gas in a car according to laws where I live (16 is the minimum age for legally pumping gas at a gas station). Parents should treat a high power plug as they would gasoline… with respect and care.
If the car is designed right it will be tough to drive over the cord.
A cord should be resilient enough to be run over. And at that a normal cord with a normal rubber tire on a paved surface shouldn’t damage a cord. It hasn’t damaged any cords I own… that includes 110V, 220V, or even the #2 jumper cables I have. The same applies to a garden hose. I can’t see it being that tough to make a robust cord especially with materials like dakron (spelling) and kevlar available.
Why not require a GFCI? and if people don’t have one… how is that GM’s fault? There is nothing stopping me from hooking a high power extension cord to a boat or running a non GFCI plug to a boat docked in the water. Common sense or perhaps a bit of education goes a long way in these matters. You can’t idiot proof everything someone will make a better idiot. Best bet is to provide reasonable measures (such as recommending GFCI plugs) etc…
It is one thing if the NFPA or NEC requires all these complications to a simple electric wire. But if SAE and GM are asking for user input… well it appears much has been already said. No need to overcomplicate a simple thing. Perhaps all that is needed is a special wall plug with all the control technology in it. I can foresee a mass manufactured GFCI plug with wireless data capability and a few relays or electronic relays going for less then 100 bucks. All that is needed then is a standard cord and a few electronics in the car. Seems like the smart/simple way to go.
How is it done now with a NEMA 5-15 plug? I have seen many cords pulled while devices are on. So far no big deal. Sure it makes a spark that could be dangerous and might wear out the connections… but such an outlet is very common. On top of that if you are worried about hazardous gas fumes in garages… note that few if any outlets now have any such safety mechanisms. Again the proposed cord seems to be over kill. If you are that worried about it have a solenoid that locks the pins via the holes in them when there is electric in the cord. This would require the user to turn the charging power off (via a switch) prior to disconnecting. AND you can still use a standard cord.
Hmmm I leave my NEMA 5-15 cords out on occasion for various reasons. No problems so far. How dangerous is a female NEMA 5-15 cord end electrified at 115 Volts with no exposed contacts and a bit of water in the end? Last I checked rain water isn’t that great a conductor unless it has a bit of salt in it. Granted there is always a chance for electrocution but what kind of probability are we really talking?
Sure you are right rapidly charging modern LI-Po and Li Ion batteries requires special charging electronics which should already be on board the car. Who will pay for battery replacement? Isn’t that kind of a fundamental problem with E-Vehicles? The whole Volt program hinges on decent batteries. Are you saying that they aren’t that great?
According to what you said and GM’s marketing people the volt won’t have high current rapid charging.
My house has a 220V single phase service at 200 Amps… last I checked my house service could fully charge that battery in 1 hour. But there really isn’t a need for that.
It seems to me all this should have been figured out long ago. There has ALWAYs been a real world concern by anyone in the know with electric vehicles as to the ability to charge them and more importantly the net efficiency. So far I’mnot convinced that the break even energy usage is better then gas.
Of course building new power plants is a great option for all these new cars…
As to the power converter… this seems to be a flaw in your thinking. The vehicle needs a power converter to charge itself doesn’t it? Why can’t the internal converter be configured for external charging? Last I checked GM put a converter internal to the Volt that can run the car on electricity straight from the engine. Why not utilize this feature? Doesn’t this mean that the onboard converter can handle at least 5 to 10KW if not more?
I’m not sure I see where the adverse effects on the utility infrastructure. At present the utilities probably don’t have enough capacity to support many electric vehicles. And certainly load balancing will happen as it is. Last I checked they do a decent job of load management now.
Are the utility companies going to offer leasing on chargers like Cable TV providers do on Cable and Internet boxes?
I don’t think I would want to have to shell out a few thousand dollars for a charger… of course if they can get the price down to sub $500.00 it wouldn’t be too bad.
If the Utility companies control when charging occurs doesn’t that mean there is a possibility the user may get short changed on a charge? I have a hard time believing the user will be alright with this.
Why not use wireless or Cellphone internet technology. It is already in place and requires nearly no new infrastructure. Simply put a wireless internet card into the car that way upgrades are possible as wireless internet and cell phone technology changes. I would be willing to bet that the data required for such a system per user is only a few KB per charge. This would barely tax the current cell phone based internet systems….
This also gets companies specializing in information into the picture which is probably a good thing compared to the utility companies doing this. Piggy backing and leasing existing communications fabric that already exists makes the most sense.
Sure things are in the details… but thats what matters and what GM typically misses in the past (or appears to). Switches are expensive but why not tap into the onboard bus and disconnect the generator. There are a dozen ways to accomplish using the on board converter… why not use it?
The details are what matter. if GM wants this to succeed they have to pull know where the line between simple, easy to use and cheap is. Something I’m not sure GM is the greatest at in the past.
Grid isolation isn’t a big deal if companies like Kohler can offer stand alone generators that automatically start up. Again this is an installation issue for those wanting to use their car as a backup power source. You may be right that generators are cheaper but if I only occasionally need this ability why not hook into a preexisting power source?
Don’t they have memory chips in the battery like my laptop does that monitor battery usage for warranty purposes?
Regarding GM and Lawyers:
Some people believe that products should be engineered and built in a way that protects people from foolish acts (e.g. Electric hedge trimmers cannot cut their own power cords because they are manufactured with cords that are too short to reach the cutting blade). I will not comment on whether that is a good thing or bad, but one effect of that belief is that when someone is injured or killed the manufacturer may bear some responsibility.
In the case of auto manufacturers, this thinking keeps large teams of lawyers busy defending them. Those suits, whether won, lost, or settled out of court all cost money; lots of it.
In order to reduce the number of these suits and the money spent do defend them, auto manufacturers take extraordinary care to protect people from foolish actions. This care may seem to be overreaching, but it is less costly to reduce the risk through engineering than to defend its lack through litigation.
Example: Automobiles with automatic transmissions cannot be put into gear without first pressing the brake pedal.
Given the American penchant for litigation, I believe the auto manufacturers are behaving in a rational fashion.
Best Wishes,
Val
Regarding information transfer:
One contributor to the weakness in our electrical grid is the lack of control. The teams that are working on electrically powered automobiles are, in my opinion taking brave steps that will give the electrical providers some of the control they require in order to maintain a stable electrical infrastructure. These steps may also provide a way to collect highway use taxes.
I don’t pretend to know much about this stuff, bit it appears that there will be many ways to replenish the charge in a Volt’s battery.
1 – The on-board range extender will charge the batteries using gasoline to power it’s engine.
2 – A standard household outlet (120 V in the U.S.) can charge the batteries at the prevailing electrical rate.
3 – A solar panel, wind turbine, generator, or some other power source may be substituted for the standard outlet.
4 – A “smart grid” can charge the batteries faster and/or at a lower cost.
Being a thrifty person, I would value option 4 higher than the others, but only if the total cost (electricity, state taxes, highway taxes, and other) was less. If option 2 is the lowest cost, people like me will choose it, frustrating the power companys’ effort to manage its resources. This, then brings up the balancing act that must keep the cost low enough to make the smart grid attractive.
Best Wishes,
Val
Regarding wireless information transfer:
People that don’t have your best interests in mind can infer things by monitoring seemingly innocent things like utility usage. I would rather not make their work easier by broadcasting any of it wirelessly, thank you.
An electrical connection must be made to economically and efficiently charge the batteries; it should be no big deal to add an electrical or optical link for information transfer.
Best Wishes,
Val
Val,
You are right to an extent. When I buy a product I expect it to do what it claims. The real issue here is what claims GM and SAE need to put on a power cord. People operate many things on a daily basis which require thinking an responsibility a car is just one (perhaps one of the most dangerous). There is a certain amount of responsibility that goes with use of a car. And as someone once said you can’t protect stupid.
If GM is asking our input on this cord process I believe they have much of it. There is nothing wrong with making a smart cord if smart design is used. Such things as using copper, optics or wireless on a cord whose standard is likely to change in less then 5 years anway is just a small part of it.
The reality is that despite all these lawsuits GM can’t and should have to think of everything.
If someone is foolish enough to plug their car in while holding the metal contacts on the plug while being wet… then that is their problem.
I think in this case GM is over thinking it. Two cords one for 110/220 V and one for rapid charge with wireless or optical communication is all they really need. People just need to own up to the responsibility of handling this type of power with the care it deserves (and that many already do).
The question when will it end? A smart cord? A robot to plug the car in? Training classes? There comes a point where enough is enough.
In reality GM could accomplish all the wish to with a simple specialized outlet with a few piece of computer circuitry and electrical relays in it, an optical communication cord and a 3 or 4 wire electrical cord.
In the car an optical transmitter would transmit a connection signal to the outlet which would then turn the power on. I don’t see why GM needs to make this complicated. Such a plug and wire could be sold for less then $200.00 and it avoids all the complexity while allowing GM to meet its target goals.
I still think Wireless is the way to go though as the car becomes the metering point and it requires no special cord at all. Imagine how thrilled customers would be to buy cords anywhere that sells normal electrical supplies. Keep the fancy electronics in the car and in the wall. Leave the cord be simple. Even at that bluetooth or 802.11a/b/g/n could be used at very low cost in the car AND in the outlet which consumers could buy and install themselves (or have electricians install).
It would be a smart outlet with a standard plug (perhaps marine style).
Problem solved.
I think the problem with a Smart grid is more political then technological. Who builds it, runs it and gets access to the data it collects is a huge area of concern for many people.
Do you really want the ability to charge you an exact road tax? Is this good or bad?
What if they decide to up the cost on electric for cars only? Fair for them, but what about for you?
Again wireless makes the best sense for a smart grid. Since nearly everyone buying a Smart Grid capable car probably already owns a computer or cell phone. All that data could be piped through existing networks at a lower cost then a new one.
In all honesty I’m not worried as much with people monitoring what I do as much as the utility companies themselves. They after all are the ones who can change my rates, deny me charging etc…
Wires are no more secure then wireless. Besides that most people give out more information in their normal internet use then their car could give out.
I suppose though that you do have a point about wireless as multiple cars in one area could confuse plugs. Though it would be easy enough to encode a plug ID number on the connector using RFID or similar.
Technically speaking they can transfer data along the actual power cable. Many devices do this now. One of the reasons I don’t understand GM and SAE’s decisions. There are many netter ways to do this why not use them? Optical is probably the cheapest and best except for running over the cable or exceeding the bend radius of the optic (which I see as improbable).
I guess all I’m saying is why make it more complicated then it needs to be? Add an optical line to it and be done with it. The cord has then solved all the problems, all that is left is making the car and wall socket to use it. Can it be any more obvious?
I think that is the plug on the vehicle end not your wall outlet, but I might be wrong.
I have wondered on these hybrids could be used as generators for our geothermal houses as they 5K generators will not even come close.
one more question..
will anyone be replying to the many great suggestions and questions that people have posted in this blog?
feels like a whole lot of great discussion has taken place but is anybody listening?
“If someone is foolish enough to plug their car in while holding the metal contacts on the plug while being wet… then that is their problem.”
Nate,
No, unfortunately our overabundance of lawyers and current litigation system says it’s GM’s problem.
Remember the lady that sued McDonald’s and won after she spilled a hot cup of their coffee and claimed she scalded herself? You would think a reasonable person would be expected to realize coffee is supposed to be hot and would be expected to exercise some care, but that’s not what our legal system thought.
It’s hard to say what needing to protect themselves against litigation adds to the cost of one of their cars, but it’s not insignificant.
Protecting against litigation is just one of the costs that get added to cars that has nothing to do with the actual resources or labor that goes into them. The others are healthcare and pension costs. Cars would probably costs only half of what we now pay for them if we only paid for the raw materials (steel, rubber, glass, plastic) and the actual labor needed to shape those materials into a car.
Lionel Mandrake,
People need to take responsibility for their own lives. GM should offer training courses or videos to show how to use the charging cord. But beyond that if people can’t remember how to use it safely thats their problem end of story.
As to the coffee… I’ve burned myself one to many times to NOT put an ice cube or two in BEFORE I drink it. There is a reason people have a brain… to learn and use it. Ignorance and stupidity is no excuse to blame it on others.
Sure the costs aren’t large because the consumer pays them. I personally don’t want to spend more then 30 bucks on a heavy duty power cord (the cost of a 50 foot 30 A 125 V marine cord is more like $60.00). Adding all these neat little accessories to the Volt generally ticks me off. Its like cell phone chargers you pay 25 or 30 dollars for a charger that probably costs less then $5.00 to make. Everyone sells them at that price so you have no choice. In the case of my phone they seem to wear connectors out quickly. Of course the connectors aren’t sold by themselves…. so now I own 6 chargers and none of them work at 20 bucks each…. do the math….. who is the fool in this case?
I wouldn’t put up with that from GM especially if they are giving their consumers some voice (as they are with this blog).
I would hate to see GM adopt such a product model simply to make money. In fact I would not consider a Volt if the cord was more then $100.00 on the idea of it all. Electronic components are cheap enough today that a cord and any circuitry that goes in it shouldn’t cost more then $100.00. But I fear that GM will try to sell the cord for a few hundred dollars like so many other companies try to.
$100 to $200 for a wall outlet that can be installed into my wall is no big deal. A special cord that is over priced forget it. I’ll go to the hardware store and make one… even if it costs me more then buying a GM cord.
“People need to take responsibility for their own lives.”
Of course they do, but that’s not how our litigation system works. Unfortunately, people can do some very dumb things and then find overly clever lawyers who can convince a jury that a corporation with so-called “deep pockets” can pay for that mistake.
[...] [Source: GM Fast Lane] [...]
Regarding GM and Lawyers:
Whether it is right or wrong to hold manufacturers accountable for every possible (mis)use of their products is something I am not prepared to say. However, the economics of our current system often make it less expensive to consider the possibilities and eliminate them rather than assume the risk of defending them. In some cases, cool things haven’t been included in a product because the dollar value of the risk of litigation outweighs the dollar value of the benefit as perceived by the consumer.
Here’s an example of the cost of litigation:
People that live in LCA (Large Corporate America) know about the hidden cost of ILM (Information Lifecycle Management). Those that don’t may learn something here.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys have, in the past unearthed documents (letters, e-mail, presentations, handwritten notes in the margins of reports…) that may seem to support their claim that the defendant knew of a risk, evaluated it, and decided not to do anything about it. This arguement has been used to successfully sue for large amounts of money. This technique was so successful, and used by so many plaintiffs’ attorneys that the cost of discovery became significant. As a result, LCA launched programs and processes called ILM to weed out and discard any information that is no longer necessary. If there is little information to look through, the logic goes, it will be less costly to look through. I am not privy to the costs, but discovery must have been a pretty big cost because ILM was far from free.
I am sure that someone that is poorly informed will claim this is a way for LCA to avoid having their dirty little secrets disclosed. It may look that way, but part of the large cost of ILM is checking to see if any of the information that wil be discarded is subject to a Litigation Hold. Those items must be protected, not discarded.
Best wishes,
Val
Regarding wireless information transfer:
It may not be practical to spy on one home at a time, but if you can do hundreds, thousands, or hundreds of thousands at once, the proposition may be quite different.
In an area where wireless networking is used to report utility consumption, a nefarious person could monitor the usage over time and see occupancy and even activity patterns. This knowledge could be used to time criminal events. There may even be a market for information that shows where and when all the houses on a block are vacant and can efficiently be raided with little risk of discovery.
I can plug in a cable. I would sooner make my life a little harder than make their job a little easier.
Best wishes,
Val
While you are working on the plug standards, what has GM’s research and analysis department discovered about the world’s supply of lithium, and whether the price of lithium will remain affordable as more and more car makers put out hybrids and plug-ins that depend on lithium? Have you sent any teams into Bolivia to start buying up the rights to lithium reserves?
The Problem of Lithium
“…virtually everyone readily agrees that the world’s current production of lithium — approximately 20,000 tons — is woefully short of what’s needed if electric car production really takes off.
Argentina, Australia and Chile account for more than 50% of the world’s lithium production; Russia also produces significant amounts.
But the real power player in the lithium market is Bolivia. Whether you take the pessimistic or optimistic estimate of its reserves, the South American country’s Salar de Uyuni salt desert has about 40% of the world’s lithium, so far untapped.”
This is a dumb idea, what the hell, at my house we have so many cars that they dont all fit in the garage. So how would I plug in the car thats parked along the side of the street?? Come on GM, you guys aren’t thinking.. You to worried about the goverment taking away your golden parachutes.
Travis,
If you had an electric car, wouldn’t that be the one you parked in your garage, while leaving the liquid fuel cars parked along the street?
I drive a 1998 Chevy S-10 Electric. Its 11 yrs old and uses a large paddle conductive that plugs in under the license plate. Its worked perfectly all these years, and in all kinds of weather. I did have to run a 50amp 220V dedicated line to my garage from my solar system, but it was worth it. 41000 miles and never a problem, except range. I can now only get about 35 to 40 miles, and driving to the top of Mt. Tamalpais where I work is a bit of a challenge now. GM came up with some great technology with the EV-1, and I hope they plan to use a lot of it in the Volt. Too bad they went and crushed all the EV-1’s My S-10 is one of the very few left using that technology. GM will not help with any parts, so when a key part dies, the truck will also. What a shame.
Standardization is the key. Standardization means that anyone can make the cables, so prices will be cheap.
And yes, ovens often DO sit in puddles of water, or even oil. Clothes washers are filled with water and sometimes it overflows out. These are high voltage devices and we’re fine with them, and the various power connectors they use. The important thing is that they’re inexpensive, and any electrician can install them.