GM Volt Forum banner
41 - 60 of 68 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
Discussion Starter · #41 ·
These super fast chargers would also overload the end user power grid if a bunch of people had home chargers. Night time would become the high demand power time. No one wants to admit that the power grid will have all kinds of issues if the goal of mostly electric vehicles is realized. Much of Europe is better off because home current is already 220 standard. Also really need three phase for most efficiency
Power is free at night almost everywhere. There is an overabundance of it and it gets burned up as heat. It will take a very large increase in BEVs and PHEVs to change that. We are wasting grid resources at non-peak times and EVs are the perfect solution to this. No change is needed in the grid to accommodate EVs if the charging is mostly done at night.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
Discussion Starter · #42 ·
Batteries aren't that heavy and will get lighter (or energy density will get higher depending which way you want to look at it). The Bolt is 200 lbs. lighter than the Volt. One must be careful to not apply 2010 technology to 2020 or 2030 vehicles especially when we are on the onset of said new technology.
People often say technology will fix a problem until it turns out not to be true. Think of recycling of nuclear waste -it was never fixed in spite of all the claims that it would be by those building nuclear reactors. Physics is the issue here and there are limits to energy density and battery weight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
297 Posts
I'm talking 20 years from now when electric is as popular as gasoline
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,344 Posts
Batteries aren't that heavy and will get lighter (or energy density will get higher depending which way you want to look at it). The Bolt is 200 lbs. lighter than the Volt.
If you empty the gas tank on the Volt it's about 100 lbs lighter than a Bolt. And Chevy put the Bolt on a fairly strict diet to keep it as light as it is. Considering what a small car it is on the outside, it's a beast at 3600 lbs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
Discussion Starter · #46 · (Edited)
Not where I live! Don't I wish.
I mean it is free to the energy companies (not to the consumer). This is because there are base load energy generating plants where the energy output of coal, hydoelectric, or nuclear plants can only be reduced so much at night (at off-peak times) because they need to be ramped up again during the times of on-peak demand (daytime, evening).

These power plants cannot be turned off and on like a light switch but must be slowed down (decreased) and speeded up (increased) slowly like a large fly wheel. A significant amount of the energy generated at night gets thrown away since there is no way to store it given the current technology.

This is why energy companies should be encouraging EVs (and Time Of Use or TOU metering) so they can make efficient use of this surplus nighttime energy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
982 Posts
I mean it is free to the energy companies (not to the consumer). This is because there are base load energy generating plants where the energy output of coal, hydoelectric, or nuclear plants can only be reduced so much at night (at off-peak times) because they need to be ramped up again during the times of on-peak demand (daytime, evening).

These power plants cannot be turned off and on like a light switch but must be slowed down (decreased) and speeded up (increased) slowly like a large fly wheel. A significant amount of the energy generated at night gets thrown away since there is no way to store it given the current technology.

This is why energy companies should be encouraging EVs (and Time Of Use or TOU metering) so they can make efficient use of this surplus nighttime energy.
This is very accurate. The utilities like GM are having a hard time getting out of their own way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
297 Posts
If you empty the gas tank on the Volt it's about 100 lbs lighter than a Bolt. And Chevy put the Bolt on a fairly strict diet to keep it as light as it is. Considering what a small car it is on the outside, it's a beast at 3600 lbs.
Gasoline weighs 6.3 lbs a gallon. Almost 16 gallons for 100lbs
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,891 Posts
People often say technology will fix a problem until it turns out not to be true. Think of recycling of nuclear waste -it was never fixed in spite of all the claims that it would be by those building nuclear reactors. Physics is the issue here and there are limits to energy density and battery weight.
Exactly and they are all ready at three times energy density in the labs compared to what they are using now out in the field and they are at the relative start of it all. Companies are spending 10's of billions of dollars each on battery technology. Remember it was at the beginning of the last century it was suggested that the patents department be shut down because everything that could be invented was already invented.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
People often say technology will fix a problem until it turns out not to be true. Think of recycling of nuclear waste -it was never fixed in spite of all the claims that it would be by those building nuclear reactors. Physics is the issue here and there are limits to energy density and battery weight.

This is a false comparison. Creating better batteries is an engineering problem with new knowledge appearing almost weekly. Getting rid of (vs "recycling") nuclear waste requires either a change in the laws of physics or a far greater understanding of the workings of the universe than is currently available. Or maybe we can ship it all to the sun on a BFR :).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
Discussion Starter · #51 · (Edited)
This is a false comparison. Creating better batteries is an engineering problem with new knowledge appearing almost weekly. Getting rid of (vs "recycling") nuclear waste requires either a change in the laws of physics or a far greater understanding of the workings of the universe than is currently available. Or maybe we can ship it all to the sun on a BFR :).
False comparison? Battery technology and nuclear technology are both "physics" and depend on the properties of matter. The fact that we do not have a better battery at present is because we do not yet have a "greater understanding of the workings of the universe". Nuclear chemisrty/physica is not somehow in another realm that is walled off from other forms of chemistry (i.e., battery/electrical chemistry).

Spending allot of money on R&D does not always lead to a breakthrough. The Lithium Ion battery was invented in 1980. We have had almost 40 years to find a better battery chemistry. So far, we are not doing that well but I hope you are right and a breakthrough is just around the corner. But in spite of all the promising developments, you could also easily be wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
444 Posts
False comparison? Battery technology and nuclear technology are both "physics" and depend on the properties of matter. The fact that we do not have a better battery at present is because we do not yet have a "greater understanding of the workings of the universe". Nuclear chemisrty/physica is not somehow in another realm that is walled off from other forms of chemistry (i.e., battery/electrical chemistry).

Spending allot of money on R&D does not always lead to a breakthrough. The Lithium Ion battery was invented in 1980. We have had almost 40 years to find a better battery chemistry. So far, we are not doing that well but I hope you are right and a breakthrough is just around the corner. But in spite of all the promising developments, you could also easily be wrong.
This. We've been steadily improving battery storage density at ~5-8% annually for ~140 years (over long time spans). But this is not linear, it tends to come in "jumps" as new battery chemistries give us greater energy density in an instant, then small improvements usually amounting to ~2-4% annually occur to existing chemistry before a new one comes along with a large improvement.

That said, while lithium battery chemistry likely has some more room to improve, at some point it's likely to start slowing down until the next big chemistry change occurs. When that will happen? Who knows..


History of battery storage density:

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,891 Posts
We had the lead acid battery which leaked and gave off fumes, then we had the sealed lead acid battery where you could have a battery in your house in any position (used in UPS's), and the carbon-zinc dry cell, then alkaline the rechargeable alkalines, then Ni-Cad but they lost energy unless you completely discharged them every other time, them NiMetal Hyride that didn't lose their capacity except they did an you had the discharge them every tenth recharge, then lithium ion, now solid state Lithium where you could cut the battery in pieces and it would still work except they used cobalt which is expensive and only found in a few places, then they found you could diminish cobalt and use other metals like nickel etc. then the guy that invented the lithium battery is working on lithium silicone (one of the most common elements, sand) battery with much higher energy storage. Who knows where it will end up. It does go in bits and squirts because that's how discoveries have always worked. And it's not physics (for the most part) it's chemistry. VW's working on a semi solid state battery which sounds like it's half way to solid state. The stakes are high. Lithium will likely be around for a long time because of it's position in the periodic table which makes it light, able to have a high storage capacity, is plentiful and found around the world and can be reclaimed for reuse. The question is the rest of the equation. There is no indication that there are hard t overcome brick walls like there was for containable fusion energy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,798 Posts
People often say technology will fix a problem until it turns out not to be true. Think of recycling of nuclear waste -it was never fixed in spite of all the claims that it would be by those building nuclear reactors. Physics is the issue here and there are limits to energy density and battery weight.
I could be argued in the case of nuclear energy the problem is more Politics than Physics. Getting off topic though. I don't think BEVs are going to substantially replace ICE as quickly as some believe. I think if suddenly tomorrow BEVs cost 25% less than a comparable ICE car, it would still be quite a while before they outnumbered and replace ICE cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,891 Posts
I could be argued in the case of nuclear energy the problem is more Politics than Physics. Getting off topic though. I don't think BEVs are going to substantially replace ICE as quickly as some believe. I think if suddenly tomorrow BEVs cost 25% less than a comparable ICE car, it would still be quite a while before they outnumbered and replace ICE cars.
I don't see them becoming less than ICE cars but I think they will become equal to ICE cars in MSRP sooner than we think. Mind you there will always be the "luxury" cars in both categories, out of range for most house poor families. The more cars people seeing plugged into free convenience chargers the more they will want some of that (even if it's not that great amount). That's human nature. The more people know of EV's, the more they know someone that has an EV, the sooner they will want one as well. It will spread like an epidemic, only not as fast but with the same algorithm. That speed variable will be due to technological advances, infrastructure build out more than inherent general acceptance or resistance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
I think the Bolt answers part of the question. The entire battery-inverter-motor drivetrain is manufactured by a division of LG for that car. GM did not use any of the Voltec technology in the Bolt. I agree with the commenters who can't buy a primary vehicle with limited range, even with the longer range of the Bolt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
I got the "Volt book" with my 2012 Volt and read it cover-to-cover. Two things stand out six years later: 1) GM created a very special team to create the Volt, and I'm sure many people here would say that GM let that spirit evaporate too quickly, and 2) one of the key things about the Voltec system (in contrast to non-plug-in hybrids) is how the generator RPM is not tied to the car's speed on the road - the generator can run at whatever speed it needs to at the moment. Disconcerting at first, though, when you hear parts of the car rev up and slow down "independently".

So yes, it was "revolutionary", but the charging infrastructure here in Florida has barely ramped up in six years, other than some conspicuous Tesla stations.

If we're going to build infrastructure, though, why not built out hydrogen infrastructure. I've written here before how I wish Toyota's Marai was available here in Florida.

Even a Tesla takes time to recharge - I still like fast re-fueling. In general, this era of battery-based vehicles may confuse the public about what could be the next great thing - hydrogen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,891 Posts
Infrastructure: Hydrogen: Would need to build out starting from basically scratch.
Electricity: Already under way for fast chargers. Every house already has built in charging as do many apartments, businesses (you just need an outlet).

Refueling time. Hydrogen: It takes about 20+ minutes to pull into a station, fill with hydrogen (it's not like filling with gasoline) pay for it and pull out into traffic.
Electricity: It takes 30 seconds to plug in and 30 seconds to unplug so about a minute of your time at home.


Generation: Huge plants would have to be built generate hydrogen from water (requires electricity) or plants built to generate from biomass (also requires some electricity) plus the pipelines to carry it and/or trucks to transport it (more dangerous). The opposition to pipelines is massive. Using electricity/hydrogen/gasoline to transport hydrogen is counter productive.

Cost: Because of the many steps necessary to get hydrogen to your vehicle it would be very expensive only to convert it back to electricity to drive electric motors (which is what a fuel cell does).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
257 Posts
... Electricity: It takes 30 seconds to plug in and 30 seconds to unplug so about a minute of your time at home. ...
It takes a bit longer than one minute waiting for your battery to power up. Regardless, the future is going to veerry interesting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,891 Posts
It takes a bit longer than one minute waiting for your battery to power up. Regardless, the future is going to veerry interesting.
True but you aren't waiting beside it for it to do it. You are raking up leaves in the front yard, watering the garden, cutting the grass or watching TV or the hundred other things your wife wants you to do or even sleeping. Things you can't/aren't doing at the hydrogen refill station.
 
41 - 60 of 68 Posts
Top