Speaking as a (teaching) scientist, I want to thank you, Solsticeman, for your last two posts. I'll be using some of this material in my senior level Physical Chemistry class when we get to electrochemistry. Real world examples, as my students would say, "Rock!"
Ha..ha.. I thought the classic example problem was the ice skater on the ice... at least we seemed to use that one a lot in PChem. Boy.. I don't miss PChem at all... it was the hardest class I've ever taken, and as a Chem. Eng. major w/ all the R&D I've done... that's saying something!
One last general post as I don't want to call out anyone or quote anyone specific, well, except for SM.
SM - thanks for posting. I've always enjoyed reading your *fact* based and *math* based posts on this form. We've talked in the past about many things.. always enjoy it, and this is no difference.
To back up what you found on Wikipedia... yeah, that sounds about right from what I know. I still think we know a lot of the same folks... I'm sure you didn't need Wikipedia to back up anything you wrote!!
As to some of the other comments I've read in here... I wouldn't call this a *beta* test at all. This technology is being used in other areas today... take a look at large city buses, dump trucks, garbage trucks, and take a look at a company GM used to own (Allison). You'll see the very heart of this generator system was developed some time back and is in use today. To call this a *beta* test and imply that this is GM's first and only experience with this would be a disservice to GM IMHO.
There are other things throughout the last 4 pages that I've read and felt like responding too.. but that one stood out to me to the most.
I would say that GM is aggressive on their schedule for this vehicle, there's no doubt about that. With the work that has been going on already in testing, it's obvious that GM is serious about the intended Nov. 2010 date. This car is different from any other mass produced vehicle on the road today. This isn't a hybrid, and I hope the EPA doesn't kill the car by classifying it in such a manner that it's lumped in with the Prius or other hybrids... that would kill the development of the technology (again, IMO).
I know there are over 40,000 people currently on the GM-Volt.com waiting list. GM hasn't indicated they will honor that list.. and who knows how many more folks are out there in line at their dealership or other locations thinking they are getting the first car. I'm hoping to get a ride in one, and would consider purchasing one as well... my commute is much larger than 40 miles (about double), and a Tesla Roadster would be a better fit if it's cost structure wasn't so prohibitive. Maybe I could find a way to commute less.. and the Volt would be a perfect fit.
Here is Lyle explaining the Volts proposed MPG: Bloomberg has reported that the EPA has reached a preliminary agreement to awarding GM a 100 mpg window sticker EPA rating for the Chevy Volt.
This information reportedly came from Volt vehicle line director Tony Posawatz who noted that the EPA agreed to use a testing method that would produce at least a 100 mpg result. GM has indicated this article was inaccurate.
GM spokesperson Rob Peterson today advised me that GM has been continuing discussions with both the EPA and CARB. He noted GM has reached a preliminary agreement with CARB (not the EPA) who has agreed to classify the Volt into a “unique” category that sets it aside from hybrids and EVs, calling it a “type G” vehicle. He also advised that we are several months away from determining a Volt sticker rating, and that it will undoubtedly require road testing of pre-Volts to do so. The number 100 or greater is far from final.
I spoke with Mike Duoba who is a national expert on plug-in hybrids at the Argonne National Lab and who chairs the SAE committee charged with developing efficiency labeling standards for plug-in cars.
He describes a methodology typically used called the full charge test. In this test, the E-REV runs through standard federal driving cycles until the car switches from charge-depleting to charge-sustaining mode. It then runs for an additional cycle. One then calculates the gallons of gas used over the number of miles driven.
This number would then be adjusted by a utility factor. This value takes into account the entire population of drivers’ driving habit. For example as is the case of the Volt, 78% of drivers drive less than 40 miles, so since few are at the extremes of range, lower mpgs at those ranges would have a small contribution to the final number.
Mike feels the window stickers will have to be simple and allow people to compare among types of cars, but thinks it is likely and appropriate for the Volts mpg to wind up greater than 100.
He acknowledges that the EPA will take the recommendations of his committee into account when they finally issue the public statement, but are not obligated to be held to them.
Remember, first 40 miles, infinite mpg. After that roughly 50 mpg, but less than 20% of daily drives go beyond 40 miles. What does this mean to the consumer?
__________________
2008 Black/Black GXP, purchased 7/23 right off the train.
Mod#1 blacked-out headlights
Mod#2 GMPP Intake -I like to hear my turbo.
Mod#3 Special Sauce (23PSI)
Mod#4 Solo Street Race
Mod#5 Repaint w/ Custom Silver Stripes
'07 Charger R/T Mama's car
Ha..ha.. I thought the classic example problem was the ice skater on the ice... at least we seemed to use that one a lot in PChem. Boy.. I don't miss PChem at all... it was the hardest class I've ever taken, and as a Chem. Eng. major w/ all the R&D I've done... that's saying something!
I have my terminal degree in Physical Chemistry and I still think i worked about as hard in undergraduate PChem as I did in a number of my grad level classes (Atomic Quantum Mechanics being a NOTABLE excpetion! ). I'm teaching three young majors PChem this fall and 2 of the 3 are of a like mind with you.
Back at the Volt, I really see this flavor of technology being of great utility in many areas of the country, particularly those with a higher population density. However, in my "neck of the woods," the southern plains of Texas, towns are separated by rather substantial distances. Until the technology can take me 350-400 miles on a charge, I'll still be in need of a conventional vehicle. My office is less than 0.5 miles from my house, so my feet and my bike make fine transportation.
__________________
Envious, ebony leather, loaded, DDM Stage II S/C, headers/cat/exhaust, 4-piston brakes/slotted rotors, Probeam, Backbone, Lil' Chromies, K-sphere pedals, Kazera KZ-L wheels, the TWEETY door unlock/lock button, High Note horn, Brushed Al door sills, etched/lighted WindRestrictor, white LED map/footwell lights, 3rd brake light pulser. --- She moves!
I think it may be a bit easier for the highway part - but you'd have to revamp the whole testing method because these are based on a relatively small sample of testing time.
As discussed with the assumptions before, we think the ICE/generator is a 53 kW system.
If running full time, this means about 8.5 gallons per hour.
This can be estimated as follows:
- 53 kW electrical output at 78% efficiency means ICE engine output of 68 kW.
- in one hour that's an engine output needed of 68kWhr.
- ICE gasoline engines are only 20% efficient in a generator configuration, so running full time to make 68 kWhr of mechanical energy means you need 340 kWhr of gasoline per hour
- there's about 143 mJ or 39.8 kWhr of energy in each gallon of gasoline, or about 8.5 gallons of fuel needed per hour to make 53 kW of power per hour (aka 53 kWhr).
(just keep good track of those units!)
Also as discussed, the highway cycle would be 28 minutes on electricity only, 15 minutes while the ICE/Generator charges, then 28 minutes... and so on.
The expected duty cycle (assuming highway travelling power consumption is 0.28 kWhr per mile) at highway speed for the whole system is the ICE/Generator running for about 37.5% of the time.
8.5 gallons per hour * 37.5% = 3.2 gallons per hour. At 70 mph....
...Hmmm, that's strange. I only calculate an approximate fuel economy on highway of maybe 22 miles per gallon.
This could mean a few things - it all starts with the assumptions:
-maybe the assumption of 0.28 kWhr/mile is too high.
-maybe (but I doubt it) the efficiency of the ICE/generator is too low. (just look at a 10.5 kW honda generator - the generator is powered by a peak 13.5 kWhr engine, consumes 6.9 gallons in 4.4 hours at rated power of 9.5 kW - these are all very much in line with 78% electrical generation efficiency, and gasoline ICE efficiency of 20%)
-something else I missed or forgot.
I suspect that my estimate of the power consumption at highway speed is on the high side. As I said before, 0.28 kWhr/mile is an average for a car that averages about 25ish miles per gallon.
But - they have obviously worked out a ton of efficiency improvements for the car. In fact, since it's the whole reason they drastically changed the styling so much and departed so far from the concept, in an attempt to make 40 miles on an initial charge, I wouldn't be surprised in the least to find the 70 mph road load power is more like the same type of power needed for most other conventional cars to go 50 mph.
Maybe even as low as 0.160 kWhr/mile driven.
This would make the car close to a constant 40 miles per gallon. The duty cycle is what would change:
-at only 0.16 kWhr/mile, you would actually get about 50 miles (about 41 minutes) on pure electricity (8 kWhr).
-This is a power required of 11.2 kW, leaving a capacity of 41.8 kW for charging.
-When the engine kicks on, it would only charge for about 5.5 minutes (a bit less than 5 miles) at 41.8 kW, assuming the charging is not limited.
-The new effective ICE/Generator duty cycle would only be 11.5%
8.5 gallons per hour * 11.5% = 0.98 gallons per hour. At 70 mph.... you'd calculate a bit less than 72 miles per gallon.
In reality, the acutal highway road load power is prolly somewhere in between - ON AVERAGE it's 0.28 kWhr to calc out most user's needs to get 40 miles on a 100% SOC to 30% SOC... but on highway maybe closer to get a 17%-18% ICE/Gen duty cycle.
BUT, you can easily see how much the actual efficiency really matters in these calculations. This is because of pure physics - it take a certain road load power to propel something down the road at a given speed. This power is the propelling force required multiplied by the speed - it is that simple. You can work the units to energy per mile, power at given speed, but if you consume 0.20 kiloWatt-Hours worth of energy for every mile you drive, AND you use an ICE engine to make that electricity, you can't change this relationship - the tank to road efficiency remains remarkably similar.
What this does give us, however, is the ability to recapture the deceleration energy. Since the battery is now large enough, we can come much closer to capturing the elusive 100% of deceleration energy, rather than just a fraction of it like a Prius does.
It also now frees up the ability to supply the energy, now that it's in a useful form.
High efficiency diesel CDTi Generator? Chuck the Gasoline ICE/Gen and plug 'er in.
Better battery? Chuck the ICE/Gen and plug 'er in, charge it at home or hi-power charging station.
Hydrogen Fuel Cell? Chuck the ICE/Gen and plug 'er in.
Multi-fuel useage recuperating turbine? Chuck the ICE/Gen and plug 'er in.
SolsticeMan, great numbers but I think you need the exact numbers with exact driving dynamics to figure this all out.
I have read that the 1.4l will run at different speeds depending on required load. The engine will run with computer controlled-variable cams, direct injection. and advanced ignition to help maximize fuel consumption. The 1.4L operating as a generator will be much more dynamic then your regular Honda.
Although I highly agree that a diesel generator, or high compression gas/turbo with methanol injection would be better. A turbine generator would be awesome but of course the cost would not be so awesome.
40+-something highway mpg with ICE is what GM is leaking through gm-volt.com. 300+ mile range from 6 gallons of fuel has been mentioned as well.
I kind of wished they would have kept the second 6 gallon tank for a possible 560 mile range, with the battery pack running down the middle they were planning a corvette-style split tank.
__________________
2008 Black/Black GXP, purchased 7/23 right off the train.
Mod#1 blacked-out headlights
Mod#2 GMPP Intake -I like to hear my turbo.
Mod#3 Special Sauce (23PSI)
Mod#4 Solo Street Race
Mod#5 Repaint w/ Custom Silver Stripes
'07 Charger R/T Mama's car
It also now frees up the ability to supply the energy, now that it's in a useful form.
High efficiency diesel CDTi Generator? Chuck the Gasoline ICE/Gen and plug 'er in.
Better battery? Chuck the ICE/Gen and plug 'er in, charge it at home or hi-power charging station.
Hydrogen Fuel Cell? Chuck the ICE/Gen and plug 'er in.
Multi-fuel useage recuperating turbine? Chuck the ICE/Gen and plug 'er in.
Hmm... can anyone say Solar on Surface... such as the "black" roof area / trunk area. Hmm... GM has a group working on this technology currently I believe.
As to some of the other comments I've read in here... I wouldn't call this a *beta* test at all. This technology is being used in other areas today... take a look at large city buses, dump trucks, garbage trucks, and take a look at a company GM used to own (Allison). You'll see the very heart of this generator system was developed some time back and is in use today. To call this a *beta* test and imply that this is GM's first and only experience with this would be a disservice to GM IMHO.
It most definitely is a beta. GM has experience making large diesel electrics for trains, buses, and other mass-transit systems. They've not done something similar for something as small as a car, nor have they accumulated many miles on real roads to back up the system. Sure, they've vetted parts of the system, and these components share commonality with previous work, but they are not the same.
The trains don't have all the same control functions and don't have batteries to keep charged, either - the diesels run the alternator and the electrons go straight to the motors. Likewise, braking creates a charge in the motor and the energy is not stored but rather dissipated through resistors at the top of the locomotive. Bus-based systems are the first ones to look more like the Volt, with regenerative braking and a diesel generator that runs all of the time. IIRC their battery packs are small, similar in relative size to the Prius, and meant only to store a few moments worth of power coming from the brakes and allowing the generator to run at lower RPM. Like I said before, I don't think GM will have problems with the 1.4L engine, the generator, or the drive motors. Any problems will be with the battery and the control software, primarily because they don't yet exist anywhere outside R&D facilities.
And again, I completely agree they need to do this. I also agree it's overall a much more efficient thing to do than a straight ICE and it's a bridge to a completely electric vehicle. Conversion to electric drive also makes the components far more interchangeable. The point remains that there will be problems, the first couple model years will have issues, some off the bat, others with longevity (e.g. battery durability), and that how they handle this issues will likely make or break the company. No engineer or team of engineers are perfect - errors happen, some expected, some not. It's how you tackle them that makes or breaks you.
Hmm... can anyone say Solar on Surface... such as the "black" roof area / trunk area. Hmm... GM has a group working on this technology currently I believe.
Non starter argument. Nice thought, but physics don't really support it.
at 100% efficiency, solar is about 1 kW per square meter in full sunlight striking the surface at 90º. Best solar cells today are only about 15% efficient - so each square meter will produce at max about 0.15 kW or one 150 watt lightbulb worth of energy.
It will only do so when the sun is shining. Any incident angle will reduce the power output.
A Cobalt is roughly 4.5m X 1.75m - including the hood, glass, roof and decklid. At most, it's about 7.75 square meters - but the roof and decklid (minus the hood and glass) are probably only about half or less of that, call it 3.5 square meters.
I remember from sizing systems for my house on average (too expensive, and another discussion) you needed to size about 1 square meter of photovoltaics per 100Watts - solar cells (silicon-based) have a non-trivial halflife to worry about - it's long, but at some point you'll deal with reduced output or replacement.
With really efficient solar cells on the roof and decklid (call them a fictional 20%), 3.5 square meters (a bit optimistic) and 90º incident angle (it's noon the whole time the sun is up) and a very sunny summer in Michigan (yearly average is 4 solar hours per day for an entire year, central/southeast michigan - call it a very optimistic 12 solar hours each day from May-August), assuming you always park it in an unshaded area:
1 kW X 20% X 3.5 m^2 X 12 hours = 8.4 kWhr per day. Yes, that's on average about 30 miles of range, but it took an infeasible solar cell and a very optimistic cloud free perpetually noon day to do it.... in 12 hours.
But in reality, we're really talking:
1 kW X 12% X 3.5 m^2 X 5.5 hours X 65% (incidence factor) = 1.5 kWhr per day. About 5 miles range.
The expected charging speed for straight-on noon sunlight and current tech solar cells is 1kW X 12% X 3.5 m^2 = .42 kW per hour - or at .280 kWhr/mile about 2 miles range charged per hour.
With a really efficient solar cell, a whopping 2.5 miles range charged per hour.
This means any driving faster than 2.5 miles per hour will outstrip any energy output by your solar cell. If you're driving on a rainy day or at night, you're fu... unhh... screwed.
Not to say this won't work at all (solar powering your Volt). Have a look at Martin Eberhard's teslafounders.com blog (Martin was ousted from Tesla Motors - nobody knows the full story - but then founded his blog) - there's a guy who actually put his money where his mouth is. He converted his home in the mountains to Solar - and sized the system to charge his Tesla too, and over any given year actually net-generates electricity.
It can be done, and I don't recall the exact figures, it was near the six-figure range to do (not millions). You can use solar to power your Volt - but packing cells on your roof is prolly a waste of time, and depending on how much mass it adds and whether it changes the shape of the car, might actually be worse than if you just used grid-sourced or home-solar sourced electricity to charge it.
What we really need is an invisible air-deflecting electro-magneto-gravitational forcefield that generates an invisible and fully optimized aerodynamic shape around any vehicle - you could have a dune buggy with a Cd of 0.002 and produces significant downforce when required...
Truthfully - solar and wind are power sources that are best used as fixed base power/energy generators. You only need 155 square meters (about 1600 square feet) of today's technology solar cells to power a large 2500 sq ft house with electric heat, charge your car for 60 miles per day, in southeast michigan given average solar insolation for the state. That's about half of the roof of such a house if it has no garage and is close to a 12/12 pitch (optimum angle for southern facing solar array for mid-michigan). If you have a garage, you can utilize the roof of that portion too...
SM, have you seen a lot of the setups in California and Arizona? Many companies and state facilities are erecting car shades over their parking lots which are covered with solar panels. These then feed back into the grid, or, at the more forward-thinking facilities, fast-charging stations for some of the pure-EVs out there. There is definitely no shortage of sun out here and since cars are usually parked in office lots it's a very sensible solution. Workers get shady, cool spots and less oxidation damage to their cars, the facilities get a break on energy bills, and cars get charged in an effective manner. While this may not work for cooler states such as Michigan, you have more than enough wind to compensate.
As for the argument against the Volt, I think this about sums it up.
As for the argument against the Volt, I think this about sums it up.
It's going to be a long two years, I don't think anyone is going to care what the Volt looks like Fall of 2010. Everyone will just want to know if it works and make sure the $7,500 tax credit is good for 2010.
I'm thinking a red metallic, black leather interior and a black metallic center stack. Also lower it 1.5 inches and get a light weight set of 18s.
__________________
2008 Black/Black GXP, purchased 7/23 right off the train.
Mod#1 blacked-out headlights
Mod#2 GMPP Intake -I like to hear my turbo.
Mod#3 Special Sauce (23PSI)
Mod#4 Solo Street Race
Mod#5 Repaint w/ Custom Silver Stripes
'07 Charger R/T Mama's car
Everything about the Volt, he says, works like a conventional car, except there's no noise. "There's one thing we can do, for people who miss the sound of the engines, we sell them a CD…with various engine sounds. So you'll be able to pick a Ferrari V12 or, you know, Le Mans Corvette," Lutz explains.
Quote:
"$40,000 is not an everyman car by any stretch," Stahl remarks.
"That's true," he agrees.
To get buyers, GM will have to sell the car at a loss, which is bad news for a company already burning a billion dollars in cash every month. "I'll tell you what, we can afford a tiny little loss on a car. But we can't afford a $20,000 loss per car. That's just not on," Lutz tells Stahl.
That’s because GM is in financial straits. Bob Lutz is trying not only to produce a moneymaker, but also prove with the Chevy Volt that his company and his town are still the address for innovative cars.
"So, a lot about General Motors' reputation and image is riding on this? To say the least?" Stahl asks.
"That is probably an understatement," Lutz admits.
"So basically in your mind, it has to succeed?" Stahl asks.
Says Lutz, laughing, "Of course, it does. For what it's worth, I stake my reputation on it."
Looks like Lutz's plug-in Volt may have some more competition. The Audi A1 Sportback will provide more electric range than the Volt and also offer sportier performance with its 1.4L Turbo/Supercharged engine. Anybody rushing out to buy some GM stock?
Quote:
Audi A1 Sportback Concept offers serious competition to Chevy Volt!
At work under the hood is a 1.4-litre TFSI engine developing 110 kW (150 hp), whose power is directed to the front wheels by means of the S tronic dual-clutch transmission. A 20 kW (27 hp) electric motor integrated in the drive train is able to deliver up to an additional 150 Nm of torque (110.63 lb-ft) when the vehicle is accelerating. During the boosting phase, i.e. when the TFSI engine and electric motor operate simultaneously to enable a sporty driving style, the two power packs deliver impressive propulsion. The tried-and-tested front-wheel drive – supplemented by the newly developed, ESP-controlled active front differential lock – ensures optimum transfer of power to the road.
The electric motor is furthermore capable of powering the vehicle alone for zero-emission driving in residential areas, for instance. The capacity of the lithium-ion batteries gives the vehicle a range of up to 100 km (62.14 miles) in pure electric mode; the motor can be recharged from any power socket. The automatic start/stop facility, energy regeneration and phases of purely electrical operation reduce the fuel consumption and emissions of the Audi A1 Sportback concept by almost 30 percent compared to when it is running on the combustion engine alone. Despite its sporty performance, with acceleration of 0 to 100 km/h (62.14 mph) in 7.9 seconds and a top speed of 200 km/h (124.27 mph), the Audi A1 Sportback concept requires only 3.9 liters of premium fuel per 100 km (60.31 US mpg); CO2 emissions are an efficient 92 g/km (148.06 g/mile)
I swear the front end of this thing looks like something out of a cartoon. Those headlights reveal some repressed German anger. While it looks nice it remains to be seen if it's produced, how much it will cost, and whether the actual engineering comes through on the powertrain. GM has a few months head start in all this but the Volt is still a huge gamble they have to win with.
GM has a few months head start in all this but the Volt is still a huge gamble they have to win with.
Not sure what your involvement with the auto industry is, but you often speak as if you have some good insight...
With that said, I'll respectively disagree... I would say GM has much more than a few months head start. Granted I certainly don't follow Audi's development (only worked with them on a few projects and have no good contacts that I keep in touch with currently), but I have a good knowledge of where the Volt stands, testing that has been done, is being done, as well as the timing plans internally to pull this off.
I'll say GM has the ability to pull this off, on time (Nov. 2010), and with the business decisions I've seen made... well, there's a commitment. Anyone who questions that, should ask why the C7 has been canceled and the Volt is moving on if they don't believe there is commitment to the highest levels of the company. Heck... just about every single person working on the Volt program has been hand picked / recommended by their supervisor and many in critical areas (either critical to the cars success or critical by timing) have had most / all of their other responsibilities handed off so they can focus on the Volt.
While I wish I could openly comment on everything I am aware of.. I can say GM is ahead of where they would be on a normal car launch at this time, and things are every bit accelerated.
I'm just not sure Audi or any of the others out there (Chrysler) are this far along... and that the difference is much closer to a full year, if not slightly more. As I said, I follow GM much closer than other OEM's, so I could be wrong... but for GM, this car is *the* car they are working on and it seems to show. I hope for all of us that the other OEM's are closer.. nothing wrong with competition.
Location: Rosamond, CA - Home of Willow Springs Raceway
The Audi isn't a serial hybrid, it's a standard hybrid. No new ground here. The Volt is serial. New ground here and no comparison. Besides, I'd bet my left testie that the Audi is closer to $50k base and I think I'm being conservative.
__________________
2007 Cool GXP with Darkside Top, 5 spd, Ebony Cloth, Monsoon with Single CD, Sport Pedals, XM, A/C Mods: K&N Drop-in Filter, Solo Performance Street/Race Exhaust, Dunlop Direzza Sport Z1 Star Spec Tires, Eibach Pro-Kit Springs
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
Linear Mode
