After government tells GM the Volt is a waste of time, GM asks for $2.6 bln to build it

Well, I have to acknowledge that something is holding back PHEV deployment....excepting, of course, the Hymotion installation that can be done today on a Prius. There definitely is the chicken/egg problem mentioned. However, I do not think government investment works out near as well as government tax credits or state (not national) regulation. The reason being that politics usually ensures the money goes to the best politically connected and not the best engineering solution. Tax credits, done properly, do result in the best engineering getting the benefit.

 

I think that you're missing the scale of investment required and the possibility that a few tax incentives won't be enough to jump start the effort. I'm guessing (admitted this is a guess) that at least several billion - if not up to $10billion US dollars are needed to scale up battery manufacturing to get the costs down to a reasonable level - such as $500 for a 5 to 10Kw-hr battery pack. Given the current economic climate - and the fact that this is an unproven business to a large degree. Who in the US would be willing to invest that massive of a sum to get a high volume - low cost lithium battery manufacturing infrastructure in place? Nobody - I bet. Sorry, but getting us to wean ourselves off of oil is going to take some bold moves or alternatively, extremely unpopular massive gas tax increases that take into account the true cost of oil. Namely, the hidden military costs and climate change/pollution costs. Fortunately, the US public seems receptive to a manhattan project/Apollo Program type of effort to rid us of our dependence on foreign oil. Cheap batteries are the key and again - this seems to scream for a focused and significant investment by the US Government.

 

$ 2.6 Billion is a very reasonable price when you are asking for government financial assistance. If you are going to involve the government the first thing one has to do is to increase the project cost by a factor of three - 3x. The reason is as follows:

A) 1/3 of the money goes back into the government in the form of donations to congressmen (their personal Political Action Committees - PACs) and other government officials. (In simple English - bribes.)

B) 1/3 of the money goes into processing of government paperwork and delays imposed by the government. (With the government helping, one can easily double the amount of time it takes to get things done.)

C) The final 1/3 of the money goes into getting the actual project done....

Keith

P.S. Personally, I don't think that the Volt is a waste of time and money. It makes a lot more sense than developing a new Hummer.

 

Not really. Look at what California was able to accomplish with their zero-pollution mandate. The EV1, the Electric RAV-4, etc. No investment needed at all to get the industry moving with great vehicles still on the road today.

Please note that the vast majority of Lithium Mining and Lithium Battery Manufacturing are done overseas. Is the US going to fund these folks? If not, is the US going to change the environmental regulations to make the manufacturing cost similar to what LG in Korea experiences? Who does the government sell to if nobody is buying? If nobody is buying, then the sales of the battery must be subsidized. If that happens, you actually hurt the situation more than help.

Please don't think I oppose the right steps needed to accomplish the change needed. I just can look at history and see that America needs to accomplish this without depending on Uncle Sam to do it with a failing approach.

 

Did the California CARB requirement actually accomplish anything other than a handful of vehicles that were not economical to produce and that few buyers actually wanted? The EV-1 was an abject failure and given the magnitude of the losses that GM sustained (endured) on the EV-1 - was GM scared off building a Prius fighter?

Remember, plug-in hybrid technology is going straight up against the oil industry and they aren't going to play nice with any US manufacturers that threaten their $trillion dollar business. Given the strategic importance of reducing our dependency on foreign oil, this certainly isn't a case of letting competitive market forces work their magic - otherwise, it's not unreasonable to assume that hybrid (battery) manufacturers will be both intimidated by the oil companies as well as reluctant to commit the vast sums necessary to commericialize the technology. It's tough enough to get a loan to buy a house in the current environment - never mind borrowing $5Billion to build a battery plant. Plus, what major US high tech manufacturers are even interested in commericializing lithium battery tech? None!!! It's time to bring a ringer to the fight - namely the US Government and make 75+mpg cars - in the millions - start hitting our roads in the next few years.

 

Yes, the CARB requirement absolutely produced road worthy vehicles. All the governmnent programs have produced vehicles vastly more useless, unusable, far more expensive and eventually discarded. As far as the the EV1 and EV RAV-4 being initially uneconomical, that is something that is solved with with volume (as pointed out in your first post). Do you think that GM and Toyota were planning for electric vehicles to be unprofitable forever? The Prius sure as heck was not profitable for the first few years. GM was calling it an abject failure during that time frame.

Please don't buy into the GM nonsense about the EV-1 being a failure. That is an after the fact rationalization of a really stupid decision as admitted by GM. (Begging the question, Why would GM say the decision to cancel the EV-1 was a huge mistake if it could only fail?--- Hopefully Darrell can provide firsthand comments)

We have agreement on the need for government action to take positive steps. No issue there. Please point out cases where the government successfully commercialized any automotive technology by developing the technology directly. I can certainly point out the vast vacuums left in all cases for the last two decades of automotive technology funding. Why would a government attempt to develop Li batteries turn out differently? In the meantime, I can point out many cases of well conceived regulation and tax incentives having made big differences. (e.g. Emission improvements).

 

Joe, where is the documentation to substantiate this claim? GM refused to sell the EV-1. The attached file documents the Federal program that spurred Toyota's efforts that resulted in the Prius. The auto industry didn't have a problem spending tons of money on legal fees to overturn the CARB's regulations.

[/quote]
Remember, plug-in hybrid technology is going straight up against the oil industry and they aren't going to play nice with any US manufacturers that threaten their $trillion dollar business. Given the strategic importance of reducing our dependency on foreign oil, this certainly isn't a case of letting competitive market forces work their magic - otherwise, it's not unreasonable to assume that hybrid (battery) manufacturers will be both intimidated by the oil companies as well as reluctant to commit the vast sums necessary to commericialize the technology. It's tough enough to get a loan to buy a house in the current environment - never mind borrowing $5Billion to build a battery plant. Plus, what major US high tech manufacturers are even interested in commericializing lithium battery tech? None!!! It's time to bring a ringer to the fight - namely the US Government and make 75+mpg cars - in the millions - start hitting our roads in the next few years.[/quote]
Agreed. Chevron bought GM's large format battery pattents to keep the product off the market. Americans don't want plants that produce toxic byproducts which is why we want them built in poor countries with lax or no environmental regulation.

After reading the attached file which documents the Supercar program and The Prius That Changed the World you'll have a more accurate timeline and an idea of how wasteful government help is.

 

The EV-1 a "failure?" I'm a bit shocked that a handful of folks still believe the GM lies. Facts are, the EV-1 was NEVER offered for sale, it was lease only.

GM rounded up almost all the EV-1's and crushed them.

 

Of course the EV-1 was a commerical failure. The battery technology at the time the EV-1 was introduced wasn't ready and still isn't. Sorry, that's just the facts.

Toyota - on the other hand - identified the optimal engineering solution - namely a gas/electric hybrid and is now clearly moving to the next obvious phase. Short range plug-ins. As battery technology improves, then the range will gradually be extended. The issue is how to accelerate the deployment of PHEV battery technology and ensure that US Manufacturers are major players. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it doesn't make sense (to me at least) to trade dependence on foreign oil to being dependent on Asian battery suppliers. This is a national security issue - not a commercial profit and loss venture. Hence, the US Government has to become involved since market forces are likely ineffective. At least the national dialog has seemed to move towards something has to be done other than the drill baby drill (for imaginary oil) nonsense promoted by the right. And yes, the US Government seems to have 'difficulties' advancing technology. However, with the right motivation and especially the right people - the US Government has been able to accomplish great things.

 

Explain to me how the battery technology wasn't ready.

 

i would gladly pay $25,000 for one of those failures right now... give me a day, i will have cash

 

Given the first battery units in the EV1 were lead acid they were HEAVY, not too cheap and didn't last very long. You'd have to replace them every few years. People definitely wouldn't pay to do that.

Then they used the new NiMH batteries similar to what is still in use. They were lighter and had greater energy density, but were still very costly.

It sounds to me like you assume that since the EV1 actually worked (in a you-can-actually-drive-it sense) that it made economical sense. The cost of producing them would have been too high, and very few people would have been able to afford them. Compounded with batteries that DO wear out and would be costly to replace, the EV1 was not ready.

A pure plug in vehicle will be 'ready' when it has enough range to satisfy many customers (personally, I'd want 100+, since my round trip commute is 50 miles) with a battery that is not exorbitantly expensive, AND lasts the life of the vehicle.

We're getting there, and will hit that goal within the next decade, IMO. The EV1 was a nice demonstration, but it was not ready for mass market acceptance.

 

I think the price is the most important and overlooked aspect. For 2010 PHEV Prius, Toyota had stated that the technical/safety part of Lithium pack have been engineered. The durability of multiple packs with different Lithium chemistry are being tested. The final challenge is to mass produce it cheaply. I believe they already have the solution since they are scheduled to ramp up mass production later this year. I am guessing the real-world data is holding back the decision of the winning Lithium chemistry to be mass produced.

A battery fire or an early replacement of the pack can set back the Lithium. I think Toyota is wise not to rush. It is important to point out that PHEV Prius demands less from the battery pack (unlike Chevy Volt) because the gas engine is available to assist (with Exhaust Heat Recovery system for cabin and battery warmth). I think the incremental step is a safer and better approach because of the premium price and history of the Lithium.

GM may be able to leapfrog (more to this later) the Prius with the 40 miles EV range with the Volt. This requires a lot of risk. I am seeing 2-3x more demand from the battery pack with half the time to design, engineer, test and "mass" produce. I wish GM succeed because competition will drive down the price.

Toyota had been leapfrog before by Honda in term of MPG in the US. The Insight was the king of the MPG introduced back in 2000 (beat Prius by a year) but the Prius was a more realistic/better car with available rear passenger seats. It seems Toyota just have the instinct (crystal ball) that tells which technology is mass market ready or not. Honda used Aluminum frame in the Insight but Toyota ruled it out due to cost/benefit factor.

Toyota is now ruling out the 40 miles EV range due to cost/benefit factor and going with 8-10 miles PHEV Prius. I have total confident that this is the right approach because Toyota should be able to make profit off 2010 PHEV Prius and will do so again in 2015 PHEV Prius (with 20-40 miles EV range). Meanwhile, the Chevy Volt is not expected to make profit until the 3rd generation even with the government's help and tax payer incentive.

 

The "facts" are that GM never offered the EV-1 for sale, it was strictly lease only. Rarely advertised (Actually advertised far less than the Prius was at first). The same car platform could readily accept a wide variety of battery technologies

I suggest you view "Who Killed the Electric Car" before making any more statements about the EV-1 being a "commercial" failure, despite the fact those lease customers BEGGED to buy the car

Who Killed the Electric Car?

In a long line of fumbles and fubars, the EV-1 cancellation was near the top of GM's blunders

 

Another issue not being mentioned too loudly is the fact that battery technology falls into the "chicken and egg" syndrome. Without mass production scales, the unit price of battery technology will remain high. High unit price of battery technology impedes commercial acceptance, and results in small production

Of course, Chevron and later, Cobasys, wouldn'tt have anything to do with NiMH restrictions

After Gutenberg ECD Ovonics Licenses NiMH Battery Technology

Would they?

 

Oh, I watched it. Several times. Again, battery tech for all electrics wasn't ready then and it still isn't ready now. Buyers want cars that can go for more than a few miles before needing recharged. However, as pointed out, the technology for inexpensive 75+mpg short range plug-in hybrids is pretty much ready TODAY. Namely that the US can starting moving TODAY towards a 75mpg fleet - and no - the Volt is not the solution.

All electrics - such as the Tesla - are a distraction from reality and only serve to confuse a relatively unsophisticated US car buying public. Let the battery technology catch up before banging the drum for all electrics. The issue (to me at least) seems to be what needs to be done to accelerate the conversion of the US fleet (of 100 million vehicles) to 75+mpg cars? Should the US Government step in with directed investment, incentives, gas taxes, and/or regulatory changes (i.e, mandate higher mpg)? Obviously, from my earlier posts - I believe that the US Government has an important role in this case and we can't rely on market forces (only) to push the US fleet to >75mpg.

 

I'm trying to get some precision and thinking into this discussion rather than listen to posters repeat what GM claims. That is not saying I'm right (yet). I am saying that the NiMh batteries of the EV RAV-4 are still in use after all these years and the Prius NiMh are incredibly reliable. So I fail to see what inherent or unsolvable engineering defects ensuring failure of the EV-1. I also see universal comments from EV-1 drivers stating that the car was a masterpiece.

I can fully understand the high initial cost of the EV-1 batteries would have to come down to make it a profitable market. I made the question clear before and I will ask it again. Did GM introduce the EV-1 planning for it to fail? Did they understand what needed to happen to make it succeed?......or did they WANT it to fail.

The GM claims that the EV-1 was a failure are identical to GM claims that the Prius would fail. This is well known. I'm just a little surprised that Prius Drivers know that the latter claim is BS and yet take the former claim as fact. If it is fact, there should be something to show it is fact. This is what I am looking for.

 

Ok, here's a few facts on electric vehicles. First, the downside.

On the plus side, a 75mpg 10 mile (short range) PHEV only requires a 100 pound 5Kw-hr battery - assuming a Lithium-Iron-Phosphate battery with 0.1 Kw-Hr/Kg capacity. Hence, surprisingly, weight isn't that big of a problem. Instead, cost is the major factor holding back a 10 mile plug-in hybrid (PHEV10). After some digging, it looks like the safe Li-Fe-PO4 batteries from A123Systems may run about $750 per KW-Hr (2007 prices), while conventional lithium batteries (the ones that can explode) seem to be closer to $500 per Kw-Hr as mentioned in the article above.

Hence, a 5Kw-Hr Li-Fe-PO4 battery pack (10 mile range) would cost around $4000. Although, I suspect that Toyota will be able to manufacture these somewhat (if not a lot) cheaper via their partnership with Panasonic. So, maybe an extra couple thousand dollars for a short range plug-in Prius that gets 75+mpg which seems just about commercially viable - TODAY.

So, skip the corinthian leather interior option and go for the 75mpg plug-in option instead.

 

It would aid the discussion if you would answer the questions previously asked. You keep stating your position, so I know what that is, but you need to back it up. For example, you state "Let the battery
technology catch up..." What exactly do you mean? Who gets the be the "judge of catching up" if not the buying public? The EV1 and EV RAV-4 drivers were very satisfied with the technology. I have yet to see any unhappy Tesla owners. Who is it that claims they were dupped into buying an electric vehicle that was a failure?

How does the Tesla "confuse" the public. If the public is uneducated, it seems that education is in order, not slamming Tesla for accomplishing their goals. As far as the 75+ mpg cars, that was tried and the US auto manufacturers completely rejected the results in the "Supercar" program, so the ability to "force" the high mpg is beyond the government's power.

 

Sorry to be rude - but the facts seem so speak for themselves The Tesla is what $100K. Perhaps I'm in the minority on this board - but I personally can't afford a $100K vehicle and neither can most car buyers. As for the EV-1, the facts speak for themselves. The batteries for all electrics are still too expensive to provide any reasonable range. 60 miles range for $15K min. doesn't seem viable (that doesn't even include the cost of the vehicle minus the battery or any profit - plus it assumes standard Lithium batteries - not the more expensive LiFePO4 chemistry). Most car buyers expect their cars to be able to run for about 400 miles - before refilling. Plus, who even knows what the EV-1 actually cost GM to make - but we can certainly use a little judgement to estimate what an all electric would cost today.

As for 75mpg short range plug-ins, Toyota has already paved the way to consumer acceptance. If anything, it looks like there's quite a few buyers that can't wait for Toyota to start selling a plug-in Prius.