G.M. Opens Its Own Battery Research Laboratory 173
Al writes "Bankrupt automaker G.M. has taken a significant step towards reinventing itself by opening a battery laboratory in Michigan on a site that once churned out internal combustion engines. The new facility lets G.M. engineers simulate all kinds of conditions to determine how long batteries will last once they're inside its vehicles. Battery packs are charged and discharged while being subjected to high and low temperatures as well as extremes of humidity. Engineers can also simulate different altitudes by placing the packs in barometric chambers. The facility has also been designed so that engineers located in New York and Germany and at the University of Michigan can perform experiments remotely. Despite its financial troubles, G.M. has committed to producing the Volt and is already working on second- and third-generation battery technology at the new lab."
Too little too late (Score:2, Insightful)
Now actually take it in a positive direction... (Score:3, Interesting)
Now actually take it in a positive direction for once.
Many companies have these testing facilities for green sources of energy. How about you do something novel for once.
Make the battery discharging a lot more real world and practicle. Have them discharge to the power grid.
Have it help the plant at least by powering some lights or machines when you discharge the energy instead of creating waste heat in simple electrically resistive or mechanical resistance dummy loads.
Rant/
Show us that you can actually thin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't say it in this article, so I can't RTFA you ;) but in others that I've read it's stated that 90% of the energy goes back into the grid. The plant itself is very "green".
I never thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
...I'd own part of a battery research laboratory!
Re:I never thought... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure is nice that you spent your money on SUVs for the last eight years, that they didn't have any financial incentive to do research like this.
Re: (Score:2)
We could hardly buy what they don't sell.
Fixed that for you... (Score:5, Informative)
Fixed that for you...
"Sure is nice that you spent your money on SUVs for the last eight years, that they didn't have any short term financial incentive to do research like this."
Maybe if they thought a little longer term and remembered "the energy crisis" from 1973 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis [wikipedia.org] as they were designing their vehicles, people would want to buy them now.
Or maybe if GM hadn't discontinued the EV1 in 199 and then taken all the EV1's and crushed them in 2003 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1 [wikipedia.org], they'd have something to sell that people want to buy.
Or maybe if instead of discontinuing them in 2001, they still sold Suzuki G10 XFi engine based Chevy Sprints / Geo Metros which got 51MPG highway, 43 MPg city, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_Cultus [wikipedia.org], they'd have non-hybrid cars that exceeded the new CAFE standards already.
GM had the products and manufacturing capability for success in the current economy, but they squandered it all on short term thinking, like investments in GMAC (which got about 7% of last Novembers TARP bailout money after declaring itself a bank, or $5 billion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMAC [wikipedia.org]).
-- Terry
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's some interest in small cars with small engines in the US, but you've got to admit that it isn't that substantial. Small cars sell in Europe and Japan, but larger cars sell in the US. A large part of this is due to perceptions of safety; your family will be perfectly safe if they're encased by a 4-ton steel cage.
The Top 10 Best-Selling Cars of 2008 [cars.com]
* Ford F-Series: 515,513
* Chevy Silverado: 465,065
* Toyota Camry: 436,617
* Honda Accord: 372,789
* Toyota Corolla: 351,007
* Honda Civic: 339,289
* Nissan Alt
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There's some interest in small cars with small engines in the US, but you've got to admit that it isn't that substantial. Small cars sell in Europe and Japan, but larger cars sell in the US. A large part of this is due to perceptions of safety; your family will be perfectly safe if they're encased by a 4-ton steel cage.
A large part of that is the price of gasoline. Safety is a convenient excuse, but money talks....Europe and Asia have had gasoline selling for over US $6.00 per gallon (EUR 1.30 per liter) for years. Witness what happened last year when gasoline touched US $4.00 in the USA: small cars were flying off the shelf. This year gas is back down to $2.50 and the small cars aren't so hot any more. Government policy/taxation is what drives the small/large car decision.
Re:Fixed that for you... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think another large factor dealing heavily into the American preference for large cars besides safety:
Europe is fairly cramped, overall. Citizens live in dense cities and towns, and drive on narrow roads that were once oxcart paths or cobblestone streets, and small cars are easy to maneuver in these situations. Since this isn't really an issue in most of the US, we prefer to buy larger cars so we can have more legroom, and ride in greater comfort. Performance aside, given the choice between a Golf or a Passat in Europe, I'd take the Golf, but I'd take the Passat in the U.S.
Gas prices factor in somewhat, but most people don't often base a car choice on that alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if people actual had enough interest to mas produce the EV1 they would still be around?
GM invested in long term many times, but people wanted large cars.
Same problem with the Sprint/Metro. I had one of each, btw.
The problem with long term thinking is that people don't want those solutions now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When Federal funding ran out, all the domestic automakers dropped their electric car prototypes including the alt-fuel & hybrids - the ones that would have had real promise.
When the California Air Resources Board gutted their ZEV program by allowing mild hybrid vehicles to count towards the quota, you mean? The moment the changes were passed, GM crushed all the EV1s they could get back, which was virtually all of them. One of the few surviving ones was given to a university with the drivetrain removed, and they still required the university to sign a contract agreeing to never drive the thing on the road. They also built only 200 EV1s and then claimed that there was no demand
Re: (Score:2)
If you meant that I won't see a dividend check in my mail, that's true, but I didn't see a bill when the money was spent either.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The banks who have repaid TARP funds mostly consist of the banks that were strong-armed into taking the money in the first place. They've been itching to get rid of it since they took it, and they tried to give it back months ago but were told that they couldn't, because "then consumers would know which banks are fnord insolvent, and that would cause a crisis." Why the government changed their tune I don't know, but I would not be surprised if we don't see much more than twice what we've recovered so far
Oh really? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd like to make a safe bet that this research lab is going to be used exclusively to butter up Congress with tours for more bailout money.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
We don't call GM Government Motors for nothing! I expect to see large Government matching funds on down payments for Volts to counter the 50% increase we are going to see on the Cap and Trade scam. Guess the Cap and Trade is the secret weapon for the Volt, the national power grid couldn't handle that type of additional load of Volts being plugged in unless the demand for power dropped by equal amount because people can't their power bills.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Guess the Cap and Trade is the secret weapon for the Volt, the national power grid couldn't handle that type of additional load of Volts being plugged in unless the demand for power dropped by equal amount because people can't their power bills.
Read?
Pay?
Eat?
Fondle?
The power grid has baseline generation, and then supplemental generation. Increasing off-peak usage might cause some supplemental generators to remain on all night, sure. But with a more balanced day/night load, it would make more sense to bring online more baseline generation, which in general is more energy efficient and cleaner, too.
And if the grid can handle mid-day August, it can handle charging Volts at night. I'd have no problem requiring houses with car power stations to be Sm
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The power bill for charging the volt will be cheaper then buying gas
Peple will save money.
Most people stay withing 40 miles of their home most of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
In macro economic terms buying an electric/hybrid vehicle that costs more over its lifetime will actually use up more natural resources than its petrol equivalent and is hence not more environmentally friendly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh really? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd like to make a safe bet that this research lab is going to be used exclusively to butter up Congress with tours for more bailout money.
I suspect that, myself. GM already had at least one battery research facility; Charlie Rose was taken on a tour of it, LAST YEAR.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9226 [charlierose.com] (Part 1, or maybe it was in Part 2)
Back to step 1. (Score:5, Informative)
GM was so far ahead of everyone else with the EV1. Sure it was a money loser, but had they kept that line of cars around in limited production they could have worked out all sorts of problems with mass producing electric cars and they would have owned all the patents and know how in the area for 20 years. Instead, they killed the program, dumped all the IP they gained from it and went back to building SUV's and pickup trucks.
Insane.
Re:Back to step 1. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Back to step 1. (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly.
A question for the conspiracy theory crowd:
If the was so much demand for an electric car back in the 90's, why did GM, Ford, Honda, and Toyota all end production? If there's money to be made selling 100% electric cars, why didn't someone, somewhere on this very large globe make them - thus making a killing being the only supplier?
At the very least, why hasn't someone made a fortune refurbing used cars into electric?
My theory is that it's the same reason my laptop dies after about 60 minutes....
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If his notebook is from the 90's, the battery cost well over $100 and it would be a fluke if it held any charge at all.
There are plenty of cars from the 90's, many of them worth less than the replacement cost of a battery for his notebook computer.
If that's too vague, I think what we're trying to say is that battery technology was *REALLY BAD* in the early to mid 90's
Re: (Score:2)
My theory is that it's the same reason my laptop dies after about 60 minutes....
Full screen hardcore transgendered nazi eskimo midget porn? ... Just saying, not like I know...
scuttled by Chevron (Score:3, Insightful)
Read up on the Toyota RAV4EV electric vehicle first sold in the US in 1997. It was based on the RAV4 body and could travel 120 miles per charge.
The RAV4EV was sold direct to consumers in 2002 in California and cost $33,000 after rebates.
The car was discontinued when Chevron gained rights to NiMH battery patents and forced Toyota to stop producing them for their cars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rav4ev
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Discontinuance
Toyota discontinued the RAV4 EV program one day after the passing of new air-quality requirements by CARB. CARB eliminated most of the Zero Emissions Vehicle requirement, substituting a greater number of partial zero-emissions vehicles (PZEVs) to meet the requirement.
Um, seems to me that the reason it was discontinued was because the law made it no longer necessary for car makers to produce them. They only did produce it in the first place because CA required it of them.
Re:scuttled by Chevron (Score:5, Informative)
from the same wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rav4ev
Whether or not Toyota wanted to continue production, it was unlikely to be able to do so, because the EV-95 battery was no longer available. Chevron had inherited control of the worldwide patent rights for the NiMH EV-95 battery when it merged with Texaco, which had purchased them from General Motors. Chevron's unit won a $30,000,000 settlement from Toyota and Panasonic, and the production line for the large NiMH batteries was closed down and dismantled. This case was settled in the ICC International Court of Arbitration, and not publicised due to a gag order placed on all parties involved.[1][2] Only smaller NiMH batteries, incapable of powering an electric vehicle or plugging in, are currently allowed by Chevron-Texaco.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes the battery was discontinued, yes it would have been 'difficult' for Toyota to find another supplier - but certainly not impossible.
Had the law not changed, they STILL WOULD HAVE HAD TO PRODUCE AN EV of some kind, whether the RAV4EV or something else; either that or not sell cars in CA - something they weren't likely to do.
The only actual *reason* Toyota stopped making the RAV4EV was because the law changed and they no
Re: (Score:2)
Not enough people where buying them to justify their price point.
It is really that simple.
They sell cars. You get enough people buying to be able to move 200K cars(min) through the manufacturing process, then you got a keeper.
Trying to sell a car no one wants doesn't work.
The only driver for peple byuing those cars where the emission laws. When those changed people had options and they just weren't choosing electric/Hybrid cars at that time.
Re: (Score:2)
I was simply refuting the OP's claim that they stopped making them because they lost the battery supply.
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevant. If they were a hot seller, they wouldn't ahve been discontinued. American automakers ahve tried electric cars many times. The market just wasn't there for mas production.
That was until gas prices hit 4+ per gallon.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A question for the conspiracy theory crowd:
If the was so much demand for an electric car back in the 90's
[starts singing]
Who keeps back the electric car? Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star? We do! We do!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If there's money to be made selling 100% electric cars, why didn't someone, somewhere on this very large globe make them - thus making a killing being the only supplier?
1) GM didn't actually sell them. They came up with some horrible stupid and mangled "you can only lease this car" scheme.
2) GM only made the car available in a very small amount of markets and even those people who lived in the market never heard about it.
3) The patents for the large automotive NiMH batteries that would be used for such cars had it's controlling stake bought out by an oil company. It doesn't take a conspiracy to see that an oil company isn't going to let their business dry up.
At the very least, why hasn't someone made a fortune refurbing used cars into electric?
Because no on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dealerships still have taken a major hit due to massively increased quality, funds for recall work used to be a major source of revenue . Recall just don't happen much anymore and the issues involved are much smaller.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, dealerships make money on maintenance - but the auto makers don't. The manufacturers make their money on the car & the financing division of their companies. (At least that's the way it worked before it got nationalized...)
I stand by my premise - if an electric car could be mass-marketed, why hasn't it? What hasn't there been a Tesla or Coda popping up every few years since the EV1 died? Someone, somewhere, is going to be greedy enough to want to make money selling them - even if they don't ma
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They looked at the EV-1 as a solution to a legislative (not economic) problem. Once they got California to back down on the zero emission requirement and bought federal laws that said noone could be more restrictive than California they figured there was little need to keep the program around. Since 51+% of passenger vehicles sold were light trucks and SUV's I would say their reasoning was fairly sound.
Actually, that's not quite true.
The mandate came about because of the EV1. GM showed California that an electric car was feasible, and California decided to start mandating manufacturers to produce them. This caused GM to panic and do everything in their power to shut down the EV1 program.
Interesting, BTW, that GM is planning their own battery research facility. One of the reasons the EV1 was so expensive was that GM's partially-owned subsidiary parts manufacturers (Delco and Delphi) insisted that th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Um....notsomuch.
For example, the EV-1 couldn't be driven anywhere that gets cold in the winter. Hence it was only available in Southern California and Arizona. It was not a vehicle that was ready for "prime time". It only came to market due to CA's emissions laws.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
THIS IS WHY WE CANT HAVE NICE THINGS.
*sigh* (Score:2)
But keep in mind that there are cars running around powered by lead-acid batteries, and HIMH batteries are much lighter and efficient, while being much much cheaper than lithium-ion and other tech being pursued today. And Texaco was conc
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not impressed...no need for research... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Awesome! Then all we need to do is devise a system whereby these batteries are loaded into a cylinder, compressed, exploded, and the force of the explosion used to drive the cylinder piston and perform the other stages of the process in the other cylinders. Then we could build a bunch of battery stations where you go to fill up your batter tank with fresh batteries. The earth is saved!
Re: (Score:2)
Mmm, Terminator waffles!
This lab has been there for years (Score:5, Informative)
This lab has been there for some time.
I saw it on PBS comparing the old EV1 battery to the new Volt pack.
Apparently it was recorded in 2005.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1046766/ [imdb.com]
Financing? (Score:2, Insightful)
How can GM afford such an expensive, long-term research facility? Oh, that's right: the money they saved by stiffing workers, pensioners, and their families in bankruptcy.
Re:Financing? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but you misspelled "the money they're fleecing from the taxpayers."
Re:Financing? (Score:4, Interesting)
Our last $800 billion bought us... (Score:3, Funny)
Very true... Our last $800 billion only bought us a bunch of dead Arabs.
I don't like the odds (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, IF. On the other hand, maybe GM will produce mediocre batteries, but will use its government subsidy to undercut and crush a great battery-producing startup. Or maybe batteries are a dead end, and fuel cells are the answer, but GM/Congress are not astute enough to figure it out.
Why are we betting
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You do know financial institution are starting to pay that back, right? Do you understand that until they do, they fall under TARP rules; which they hate?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is an x-prize for batteries, it's called the market.
You build a better battery, you will make lots of money.
You build a space ship to go to space and you make...no money.
See why one needed an X-Prize and the other doesn't?
Not quite... (Score:2)
Point of the X-prize is not in the money given out to the winner. Money is a nice bonus, and a short term incentive but...
Actual prize is in the credentials and the publicity that the winner would receive.
Credentials from a body of experts certifying that your invention works and is a solid investment, and the publicity surrounding the prize makes certain that your future investors hear about you.
Both of those work in any case. Batteries, space, cupcakes...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're paying less than your part, as is everyone else who considers this an appropriate and/or worthwhile endeavor. The remainder is being distributed across those who do not consider a bit of hypothetical battery technology--which they'll naturally still end up paying full price for when and if it ever reaches mass-market--worth what they're being forced to pay right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can We Right Wingers Be Honest on This? (Score:2)
I have a right wing web site and find that Republican condemnation of the GM bailout is self serving and utterly hypocritical.
1) Northern manufacturing states are being hammered by the effects of free trade. Red states, primarily agricultural, are utterly protectionist. Farmers have gotten at least 300 billion dollars in bailouts during the course of the Bush administration alone, and perhaps near a trillion dollars in bailouts over the last few years, through direct federal subsidies, and on top of that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except this was prbably budgeted and paid for 2 years ago.
The projects take time to get to this stage.
And what do you want them to do? not look at ways to innovate? lts see where that gets the workers and retirees.
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to
Source snippet:
In a November 18, 2008, New York Times editorial, Andrew Ross Sorkin claimed that, counting benefits, each UAW worker receives $74 per hour while Toyota workers receive about $44 per hour.[13] The UAW asserts that most of this labor cost disparity comes from legacy pension and healthcare benefits to retired members, of which the Japanese automakers have none.
The UAW itself says the bulk of the difference
Re: (Score:2)
I was talking about how [bloggingstocks.com] widely [mediamatters.org] debunked [brainseepage.com] $70/hour [walletpop.com] is.
Ultracapacitors (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ultracapacitors (Score:5, Interesting)
Umm...what batteries are you referring to that are dirty, nasty, and hard-to-recycle? Lead-acid batteries, sure, I'll grant that. But that's not what is being proposed for electric cars.
This http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/03/tesla-electric-car-batteries-non-toxic-recycled.php [treehugger.com] is closer to it.
With regards to life, I recall hearing that the newest generation of lithium batteries last far more cycles than your laptop's battery, though I cannot provide a link at the moment.
As for ultracapacitors, yes they're neat and could work. But the battery tech we have now is much closer to reality than our current ultracapacitor tech. Should ultracapacitors work out, we'll be grateful we started building the infrastructure to support our battery-powered cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because magic technology that doesn't exist in production will improve ultra capacitors and not batteries~
Not really that important... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not seeing how this story or any other story about GM and their "Volt" is noteworthy. The Volt is not a marvel of engineering. It's not innovative. It's the same crappy "hybrid" concept that every other auto maker has tried to push. The Volt only goes 40 miles on a charge before rolling over to the gas engine. And at the nearly $40,000 price point, why bother buying it? If you spent a bit more money, you can buy a Tesla Model S [teslamotors.com], priced at about $50,000 (assuming you can get the rebate). The Model S doesn't even have a gasoline engine, goes over 7 times farther than the Volt on a single charge, can go from 0 to 60 in under 6 seconds, and looks a hell of a lot better than the Volt IMO.
If GM uses this new laboratory to produce cars with no gasoline engine (all electric), I'm on board. But if they use it to push this ridiculous Volt and other similar hybrids onto the market, it'll be just another waste of our taxpayer dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Volt is nothing like current hybrids, and the Tesla is still as much a pipe dream as the Volt right now.
Re: (Score:2)
40 miles on a charge means I would seldom burn fuels.
I drive less then 30 a day, me wife drive less then 15.
The occasional trip[ to the coast and camping are the exceptions.
Look at any base price 35K acr and compar to the base price 50(58) K car and you will see a similar jump in quality.
Of course, if the idea is to reduce admission, then you really need a 15K car.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not innovative. It's the same crappy "hybrid" concept that every other auto maker has tried to push.
No it isn't all that innovative, but it's not the same as other hybrids at all. As far as I know, it's the only in-line hybrid for consumer use that's in the pipe. And that makes a big difference. First, you can make your daily commute on pure electric power. Second, since the only function of the gas engine is to charge the batteries, not provide power to the wheels, this means that it can be small
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No it is not. GM went bankrupt because Government and the UAW. Government foisted CAFE mileage standards on them that forced them to build and sell cars that they couldn't make money on and retarded their ability to sell larger cars and trucks that they were better and building. UAW has a MONOPOLY on all labor for the big 3 and forced them into higher labor costs and kept them from importing the smaller cars that their European subsidiary already produced (now the Govt. is tr
Re: (Score:2)
Honda and Toyota already made smaller cars, that was what they were good at so CAFE gave them an advantage to the point that they have even entered the more profitable truck market. Ford mortgaged off the company just before the financial meltdown so they still have lots of cash reserves, they still are not making profits. The Aztec and many other "crossovers" might never have existed without the CAFE standards.
The Volt is not a hybrid (Score:2)
The Volt is a pure electric vehicle. The only means of propulsion is via the electric motor. The gasoline engine is actually an electric generator, that runs at a single, highly-efficient RPM, and only runs when the batter
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I dismissed the Volt initially, too. However, part of why they only get 40 miles on those batteries is because they don't let it discharge below 35%, or charge above 85%. That lengthens the lifetime of the battery pack to 10 years.
So far, I haven't heard any other EV manufacturer claim that they can get 10 years out of their batteries. I'm in love with the Aptera, but they are only saying 6 years now.
I would rather buy one $40K hybrid that uses EV for my commute once every 10 years than a $30K pure EV o
Government Motors is investing in itself! (Score:2, Funny)
I wonder if they are eligible for any tax credits.
Clearly, they started implementing this (Score:2)
before the current melt down happens. These things can take a few year to get going.
They Already HAD a Battery Tech that worked (Score:4, Interesting)
And they sold it to Exxon Mobil, who buried it and laughed all the way back to their oilfields.
Why not have GM go into the Battery lease Business (Score:2, Insightful)
When you buy your EV car, you don't OWN the battery, you lease it for a small periodic fee. GM would have to make it so these batteries can easily be removed and new ones replaced. Not unlike a simple docking system. You pull into a participating "gas" station, now eventually could be called a "Battery Replacement" station. A motorist pulls into station, pays a small and reasonable "battery replacement" fee, a new one is popped in, and away they go. The dead battery is then placed on a charg
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It took Q four suitcases to fit a gyrocopter in...although I suppose without the anti-air defenses we could shrink that to three...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah because everyone knows that computers, phones etc etc. all got electricity to be so expensive, right?
Even if it was expensive, it would still be more ecological and enable the US to be more energy-independent.
Re: (Score:2)