Compact Power CEO Describes How Their New Chevy Volt Cells are Better
In our previous post, we told you that GM had received the second prototype Chevy Volt battery pack. The packs give a full 16 kWh of power which GM engineers feel is sufficient to propel the car for 40 miles without gasoline.
Jon Lauckner also mentioned that the second pack offers an improvement over the first.
Compact Power CEO Prabhakar Patil has publicly stated what it is about their cells that they’ve had to improve to meet GM specs. He notes that “CPI is adjusting the mix of the cathode material with the intention of strongly increasing the energy density of its cells”, “while retaining the safety aspects of its chemistry, packaging and management.”
Remember that energy density has to do with how much energy (usually expressed in watt-hours/kilogram) the lithium ion battery can hold. More energy dense batteries allow for longer driving ranges while at the same time adding less weight to the vehicle. It is indeed increased energy (and power) density that makes lithium-ion so much better for electric cars than nickel metal hydride.
For more on how some battery companies lithium-ion cells compare with one another, see this previous post: (LINK)
Source: (GreenCarCongress)
Popularity: 1%
Join the forum discussion
on this post
Related posts:
- GM-Volt Interview: Compact Power VP of Engineering, Martin Klein, Part 1
- GM Takes Delivery of Second LG Chem/Compact Power Chevy Volt Battery Pack, and it’s Better Than the First
- CEO of Compact Power on the Current Status of Chevy Volt Battery Pack Development and Thermal Management
- GM-Volt Interview: Compact Power VP of Engineering, Martin Klein, Part 2
- GM-Volt EXCLUSIVE Interview/Podcast: Compact Power Inc. Executives Discuss Volt Battery Pack Development
(No Ratings Yet) 
Loading ...
42 Responses to “Compact Power CEO Describes How Their New Chevy Volt Cells are Better”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- Production Volt Interior Further Refined: Center LCD Screen, Center Stack Buttons, and Vents
- GM CEO Calls Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Filing a “Fantasy”
- How the Chevy Volt is Expected to Beat the 100 MPG Designation
- Pelosi Lays Out Conditions For Automaker Aid
- Auto Bailout Bill Will be Brought to Senate on Monday
- GM-Volt.com Letter to the US Government
- Poll: Should the US Government Give Emergency Loans to GM, or Let Them Fail?
- Automaker Aid Plan Gathers Steam in Advance of Next Week’s Sessions
- Paulson Says Auto Industry Aid Should Not Come From Wall Street Bailout, Congressional Democrats Disagree
- Lame Duck Congress Could Pass Auto Industry Aid Next Week
December 5th, 2007 at 10:24 am
excellent! with some posters posting complaints about batteries, i like to see constant updates on them.
as most know, opec has decided to keep oil at current levels…what will saudi arabia do, lol? apparently opec feels that upper 80s per barrel and near 3 bucks at the pump is good enough. they did however leave the door open by scheduling a meeting for january, which some see as a possibility to open the spigots, should prices climb again.
so, two bits of good news today, batteries looking good for the volt, and opec isn’t letting pump prices fall below the pain threshold. although, a lot of people may feel that anything close to $3 at the pump is cheap these days.
still, when the volt and nanosolar are up and running, they will beat 3 bucks at the pump hands down.
death to oil! god bless the e-rev electric chevy volt, god bless nanosolar, god bless a123 and lg, and God Bless the United States of America!
December 5th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Confusing. I thought that the first battery pack from LG had met all specs, but now this news seems to indicate that it did not
but now does with the second battery pack.
But I thought Lutz mentioned a 45 mile range the last time he spoke, which led me
to believe that either the Volt was more efficient than they thought (except for the aero problems) or the batteries better than they anticipated.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Hi Kent,
After having read some papers of the searchers from Argonne labs, see
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/media_center/evs23_papers.html
I must admit that I am puzzled.
Li-ion batteries seem doing better than thought formely even more if the controls are fine tuned.
See for instance :
“PHEV hymotion Prius model validation and control improvements,” by Qiandong Cao, Sylvain Pagerit, Richard Carlson, Aymeric Rousseau. (1.5Mb pdf)
They even do not need to be cooled in normal conditions it seems.
I think you are right.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:38 am
I have yet to see a battery announcement that didn’t seem to be intentionally lying by omission.
GM raves about batteries only days (a day?) after receiving them and we later find out that they didn’t meet their density requirements.
I’m sure we have heard that these batteries have no safety concerns. However now we hear that they need to increase density and that could affect safety.
Enerdel (?) announces pricing for their amazing battery pack. Later we find that the pack’s power is much less than implied and the pricing is an estimate for years off.
Keep in mind that we don’t yet know if even this new pack meets GM’s energy density requirements. I haven’t seen the full quote, but I suspect if the pack did meet GM’s requirements they would specifically state it.
Kent, no offense meant because I think you already get it, but Lutz talks out of the side of his mouth so often (or is it just through incredibly rosy glasses?) that anyone who takes what he says at face value is a rube.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:45 am
anyone who uses the term rube as an insult, must by definition be an idiot…
December 5th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Hold on a second. Does it really say that the previous LG/CP battery pack did not meet the energy density requirement? All this bit of news says is that the current pack meets it. There is no mention of the previous pack being insufficient in this area…unless I am missing something. Maybe that is implied by the language of this news release, but let’s not speculate too much.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Kent-
The first CPI pack probably met the Volt’s goals in that it held 16kWh total. The probable difference is that this new pack is much lighter than the first, which weighed 200kg (440 pounds).
With regards to what Lutz said: the original 40 mile range seems to have been based on a rather conservative estimate of 200Wh (0.2kWh) of electricity consumed every mile, and 8kWh of the 16kWh pack used up.
Keep in mind that the EV1 used significantly less energy/mile than that.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
This pretty much didn’t tell us anything. Also there are usually tradeoffs when you adjust a battery design to increase energy density. Will this correspond to undesirable losses in the aspects of safety, cycle life, efficiency, power, thermal characteristics, etc?
December 5th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
I suggest waiting until GM actually tests these packs in the vehicle for a significant amount of time before assuming everything is honky-dory. Oh, and wait until they test and qualify the mileage before believing the computer simulation estimate.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
[quote comment="17849"]I have yet to see a battery announcement that didn’t seem to be intentionally lying by omission.
GM raves about batteries only days (a day?) after receiving them and we later find out that they didn’t meet their density requirements.[/quote]
GXT - There has been NO indication anywhere that the first battery pack did not meet the requirements. The rather simple point of this story is that the second prototype EXCEEDS the requirements, and is an improvement over the first.
I am constantly amazed at your ability to irrationally and illogically interpret everything in a negative manner.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
It could also be LG Chem’s first batteries were fine but they were able to make them even better. It is funny how we all speculate sometimes. We need to be careful drawing conclusions from the information provided.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Lyle,
Could you clarify “Patil has publicly stated what it is about their cells that they’ve had to improve to meet GM specs”? Several of us are concluding that this means the first packs did not meet specs, whereas the greencarcongress article doesn’t seem to imply that. Thanks.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
I wouldn’t assume anything about what the 2nd “improved” pack is like, A123 could be better than it with their first pack, but in the end GM should string both battery makers along and use both company’s products.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Jim G and all
Good news.
I am organizing a new interview with the CPI people so that we can get all of these issues clarified.
Feel free to ask questions here in the comments.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Lyle-
Get pics of the pack!!! Clarify exact dimensions if possible!!
December 5th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Lyle: This is great!
I would like to know about size and weight of the individual packs, and how many packs will be in the total unit.
I can’t say this enough - You Did Good Bud!!
December 5th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
AES:
You beat me!
December 5th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
AES:
Lyle wrote: “Compact Power CEO Prabhakar Patil has publicly stated what it is about their cells that they’ve had to improve to meet GM specs.”
What part of “improve to meet GM specs” suggests that the first battery met specs? Or even that the current battery meets specs? Why does it surprise you that I read this to mean that the first pack didn’t meet GM’s specs? It is possible that Lyle mis-wrote, but this is the evidence at hand.
That you read that and concluded, “There has been NO indication anywhere that the first battery pack did not meet the requirements.” seems to speaks to your “ability to irrationally and illogically interpret”, not mine.
Time will tell, but I believe “realistic” best describes my current attitude.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
james, #1:
Yeah, $3.09 at the local ARCO yesterday and cars were lined up out into the street.
What a deal!
December 5th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
GXT, I don’t believe that anything in that indicates that the cells that needed improvement were the ones in the first battery supplied to GM. Compact Power has been improving their cells for years in order to get to the point where they meet GM’s current standards, and will continue to improve them for the Volt 2.0 or they will be replaced by other battery makers.
From the improvements that have been going on in the past few years, I don’t think GM will have a problem getting the LiIon batteries they want with regard to range or power, the problems will be ensuring that they aren’t too expensive or short lived, with the former being the most significant problem, IMHO.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
GXT-
Good to see you come back and actually debate a point for once!
Here’s a quote from when the first pack arrived:
“The pack they got meets all of GM set requirements and is indeed a fully operational 16 kwh pack.”
December 5th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Observation: the GCC article may have been speaking to general improvements that CPI has made with their cells over the course of the GM collaboration. Not necessarily specific to the second pack. The language isn’t so specific. But at least it’s catalyzed discussion enough to prompt an interview.
In its work with GM, CPI is adjusting the mix of the cathode material with the intention of strongly increasing the energy density of its cells, according to Dr. Prabhakar Patil, CEO, while retaining the safety aspects of its chemistry, packaging and management.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
GXT,
I hope Compact Power are starting down a long path of improvement, next years cells will naturally be better than this years.
Lyle, thank you for arranging an interview with Compact Power.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
I found an article on another blog that mention that sodium may be a suitable replacement for lithium in battery production.
http://entropyproduction.blogspot.com/2007/10/sodium-ion-batteries.html
If this pans out it could mean much cheaper batteries as sodium is much more abundant than lithium.
Now this likely won’t be available in time for the initial volt release but it could enable a wider rollout when and if GM decides to expand the technology to other vehicle segments.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
pstoller78,
That impressive. Thanks for posting it.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
I really love how many people take the smallest detail and extrapolate to such lengths. Remember these are the *very first* of many prototypes. We don’t know the goals for these packs - just what aspects were expected to be tested in each at this stage of development. Yet the comments suggest our posters expect the first prototype to be a fully certified production quality battery. Lets chill and see how the movie plays. I know that’s not much fun, but some of you guys may have ulcers before the volt gets built. cheers
December 5th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Believe me ..I have been trying for pics of the pack for awhile..GM isn’t ready to release them yet, and CPI tells me to ask GM.
What I can tell you for sure is, when GM does release photos, you will see them here.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
To pstoller78 #24 :
Not only sodium, as written by the International Energy agency, see :
http://www.ieahev.org/electric.html
“The current cost of lithium batteries would have to decrease significantly before they become practical for vehicles. This may well happen over the next 5-10 years. In addition, there are several other technologies based on zinc, sodium, and other metals that are not considered frontrunners at this time but that may yet emerge as competitors in the future.”
This was written in 2006, …
And remember the Chinese from BYD announce an IRON battery for their F6 Plug-in to be presented in Detroit in january, as said on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BYD_Auto):
“BYD Auto is involved in the development of electric vehicles. It currently makes the F3e, which is the electric version of the F3 model, which has a claimed cruise range of 350 kilometers on a single charge. Electric versions of all its models, as well as plug-in versions are planned. The company also produces electric vehicle charge stations and car batteries specifically designed for electric vehicle applications.
On October 11, 2007, BYD announced that they would be introducing a production plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) sedan in China in the second half of 2008. BYD plans to exhibit the PHEV, which has a 60 mile all-electric range in January 2008 at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit. Based on BYD’s midsize F6 sedan, it uses iron-based batteries instead of lithium-ion, and can be recharged to 70 percent of capacity in 10 minutes.”
Let’s see and try not to get an ulcer as Mark said on #26
December 5th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Intereresting note about the sodium ion battery, esp since it uses the same cathode as A123.
I have a subscription to Nature so if anyone is dying to see the full text of the article shoot let me know.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
My bigger concern with the batteries is shelf life and durability. I don’t know how they can quantify the 10 year time-based degradation of brand new batteries.
Cycles they can conceivably test. If they cycle between 80% and 30% for enough cycles to represent 100,000 miles with less than 10-15% degradation in the battery, that would be really exciting.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
- #1 james
Nanosolar… I like how you threw that in there at the end.
Seriously though, the US seems to be leading a mad rush of sorts for greener technology. I’m all about CPI and LG but having the Volt’s battery supplied by an American supplier (A123/Cobasys) would be awesome.
While your blessing American green technology, don’t leave out our buddies at GE, Bell Labs Innovations, and a little company called Google. All of these guys are getting prepped to play it big with green, in more than one way
December 5th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
To Jean-Charles #28,
That is good information, the thing I found interesting about the article above was the ability at the chemistry level to simply substitute sodium for lithium in existing lithium ion chemistries. I tried to find the entire article but one has to either pay for it or subscribe to the nature website.
From the article it appears that advances in lithium ion chemistries could directly apply to a sodium ion chemistry.
All in all I think it a great thing that battery technology is being explored to the extent that is has over the past few years.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
To AES # 29
I would be interested in reading that article if possible.
December 5th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
pstoller78-
Make a comment on my site so I can get your email.
December 5th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
I just left a comment in the About section of your site. Thanks again.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Isn’t this what GM wants? A lil’ battery competition? Nothing like it to spur innovation and get the ball rolling.
I believe that A123 will have an answer, then CPI and so on….
M.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
noel p. yeah, 3 bucks and everyone’s screaming “cheap gas”, lol. but, what the heck, like i said, if opec keeps it there, the greens will overtake oil. so let’s hope that opec hangs in there (at $3 at the pump for another year or two) just to make certain that greens get off the ground…
24 pstoller, yes, salt batteries, very exciting stuff! http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/447556/general_electric_ge_releases_the_cleanest.html
31 harvest i will ad ‘em…(GE, Bell Labs Innovations, and a little company called Google).
December 5th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
death to oil! god bless the e-rev electric chevy volt, god bless nanosolar, god bless a123 and l.g., god bless g.e., bell labs innovations, and a little company called google and God Bless the United States of America!
December 6th, 2007 at 11:51 am
james, #37:
Amen.
I really have hopes that a lot of us have figured out the game. Next time they bump the price down to wake up the truck/SUV market, I’m not going for it. Get a Volt and get ready for when it inevitably turns back up.
“In time of peace, prepare for war.”
December 6th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Article: “Remember that energy density has to do with how much energy (usually expressed in watt-hours/kilogram) the lithium ion battery can hold.”
Sorry about being critical.
Energy Density is Wh/volume, not Wh/kg which is “Specific Power”
Article: “More energy dense batteries allow for longer driving ranges while at the same time adding less weight to the vehicle.”
More energy dense allows a smaller battery pack- still important if we want to put huge packs in pass cars.
Love the site!
December 6th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
I stand corrected LabRat.
Thanks.
December 7th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
LabRat
Actually “Wh/kg” is specific “ENERGY”