April 14, 2009 11:00 AM PDT
Reporter drives the Chevy Volt (almost)
In its PR efforts around the Chevy Volt, GM is doing something unprecedented, letting journalists get a sneak peak at how the power train drives in a test mule, absent the actual car in which it will be deployed. One of these lucky journalists, Jeff Gilbert of WWJ radio, made a video of his test drive. The test mule uses the Chevy Cruze, a new model, as a platform for the Voltec power train. The video lacks specifics about how the car drives, except that Gilbert says he loves it. There are interviews with GM personnel, good information about how production is proceeding, and driving footage.
%20%7C%20The%20Car%20Tech%20blog%20-%20CNET%20Reviews&srcUrl=http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-10219137-48.html;-can-host-LBS-ads.html){kind=small}
The volt is a pure electric car, unless they've changed the specs. No gasoline generator.
And, yes, 40 miles is about par for any electric car. Those of us knowledgable in electrochemistry are completely unsurprised by this. It's been about 40 miles for 100 years, and will be about 40 miles for the next hundred years. It has nothing to do with technology, and everything to do with physics. Chemical batteries cannot produce the required energy density. Period.
what are you talking about? that volt runs on battery for 40 miles then switches to gas. As far as i know the Volt has always ran like this
The Volt is always driven by electric power. The gasoline engine never actually powers the wheels. It is a 3 cylinder generator designed to make the volt more practical. It has always been designed to be that way. Even the original concept vehicle had a gas motor in it. The idea is that your average commuter will never need to use the gas engine for daily commute, but if they want to take it on a road trip or something, it is still possible, so they don't need two separate cars. This link is to the January 7, 2007 article my Edmunds Insideline reacting to Chevy's "Plug-In Hybrid" concept, the Volt.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=119088
Ain't gonna work. The gas generator can't charge the batteries quickly enough, and if the car is going to run electric off a gasoline generator, why have the batteries in the first place?
Call me after the Bankruptcy and when it goes 300 miles without charge?
Seriously though, 40 miles on a single charge? The Model S gets up to 300, whats the deal GM?
"Save 17 grand extra and opt for the Tesla Model S ;-)"
From Wikipedia, regarding the Tesla Model S:
"Initial pricing is estimated at $57,400 for the standard model with a 150 mi (240 km) range or $65,000 for a premium model with greater performance and a 300 mi (480 km) range."
You are correct, but your post might be misinterpreted by some to think they could save 17K by buying a Tesla S. I guess what you mean is save up $17K and spend it in addition to the $40K to get a 150 mile range. Yeah, right. :-) Since most of us can't afford the payments on a $30,000 car, let alone a $40,000 car, I doubt many except for those in Hollywood, pro sports, medicine or law will be opting to spend $57,400 or $65,000 on their next car. When they come down to $20,000 and go 50 miles on electricity, the middle class will buy them. And that may happen before the Chevy Volt ever sees a showroom floor. There are many new electric car models from many manufacturers planned for release by 2011. It doesn't matter if it's a great car if people can't make the payments. People will expect to be able to pay these cars off within 5 years. I guess the most creative pricing model I've heard is a low-cost car where you lease the battery. Thus your battery payments and extra electricity usage replace your monthly gas bills, and your car payments stay in line with what we pay now. Works for me, because I believe gas prices will rise to the point that I won't be able to afford my 48-mile round-trip drive to work every day.
Completey wrong. The vehicle that "tipoo_" is referring to is the Tesla Model S, a five seat vehicle that's just a bit smaller than the Fisker Karma. In fact the Model S could fit up to 7 people with an optional jumper seat for two children. The Model S has three battery options: 160 miles, 230 miles and 300 miles. The Tesla Model S is the future of American car companies. The Volt is lagging far behind and should never materialize. In fact, Nissan and Aptera (just to name a few) are getting ready to introduce 100+ mile/per charge vehicles in the next 2 years.
P.S. You're thinking about the Tesla Roadster, a two seat sports car capable of 250 miles per charge. Looks like someone needs to brush up on their physics.
There is no way you're going to get 160 miles out of a battery pack in a 7 passenger vehicle fully loaded. Li-Ion batteries can't store enough energy.
But the bottom line is that despite it being BIGGER than the Volt, it acheives a range that the Volt could only dream of on electricity alone.
Technically, clean coal does not exist. It is possible to use cleaner methods to mine coal BUT it is NOT economically feasible. There's really no argument here. The days of mining coal for electricity is nearing an end. As wind generated energy becomes more commonplace, as solar cells become for efficient, as houses become more efficient, as the power grid becomes more efficient, and as hydropower becomes more efficient, continuing to burn coal, even "clean" coal, is stupid. Let's break away from the chains of archaic traditions and set an example for the rest of the world.
P.S. Look what PG&E's getting into:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/15/solaren-corp-to-supply-california-with-space-based-solar-power/
If it happens in 2016, the space idea might power 60,000 customers and will make for great public relations stories. PG&E also generates electricity for only 25,000 customers using solar power. Wind could work in the Midwest, but most of the Eastern states have many days with no wind at all, including most of the summer months. The reality is that coal is here to stay for the foreseeable future. If the days of mining coal are over, you'd better tell the Department of Energy, because they're sponsoring clean coal projects, and the coal industry and America's electric companies. According to the DOE, "Coal-fired electric generating plants are the cornerstone of America's central power system. Currently, the existing U.S. coal fleet accounts for over half of all electricity generated domestically." I think your statement that, "The days of mining coal for electricity is nearing an end" is not only grammatically incorrect, it's just incorrect altogether.
I agree with you that we should increase renewable energy sources. I would favor making ALL new power plants renewable types. But according to MIT, "Growing electricity demand in the U.S. and in the world will require increases in all generation options (renewables, coal, and nuclear) in addition to increased efficiency and conservation in its use. Coal will continue to play a significant role in power generation and as such carbon dioxide management from it will become increasingly important." The reality is that, according to the DOE, over 40 percent of the existing U.S. coal generating capacity is located directly above potential geologic sequestration sites--almost 150 electric generating sites. If you think Obama is really going to shut down the coal industry, close all the plants that produce more than 50% or our total electric capacity, replace them with solar, and double or triple everyone's electric bill at the same time that we're trying to re-invent the automobile industry into electric cars, you need to get a grip on reality. All those new, expensive technologies will someday replace coal. But while we're waiting, let's clean up our coal-fired plants, because they're not going away any time soon. The technology exists. Let's make them install it.
http://web.mit.edu/coal/
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200701/coal.asp
http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/pollutioncontrols/index.html
It's not "40 miles and stop". If you drive under 40 miles you never use the gas.
As to the comment about coal. That's gratuitous. If you move something you need energy - gas , coal, nuclear - something. If you want to sound moderately thoughtful you might want to discuss the various options. Unless you just think everyone will stay home huddled beneath blankets.
Expect this little gasoline generator to kick on after about 5 miles and run continuously thereafter until your batteries are drained after about 60 miles. Then the gasoline engine will run for the next four hours while your car is parked at the office to charge the batteries back up.
The Volt can go about 600 miles before adding more GASOLINE. 40 miles on a charged battery and then a gasoline engine provides more electricity.
b_baggins !! Wake up !!! A modern train works EXACTLY the same way as the Volt, only it uses diesel fuel. The diesel engines of a train never power the wheels, just the electric motors do. The train's diesel engines only produce electricity and it can pull/push hundreds of tons.
A three-cylinder engine could probably run a 25KW generator, which is what you'd need cruising. It might be able to handle 100KW peak loads, which is also what you'd need. But that's not what I said. I said the engine can't charge the batteries quickly enough.
Of course, your comment brings up another point. Why even have the batteries in the first place? It's an unneeded inefficiency. It adds weight and cost and isn't needed. Just have a gas-electric car where the gasoline engine runs a generator supplying power to the drive-train.
I'm familiar with diesel-electric. They don't use batteries, they use a diesel engine to produce electricity. It works precisely BECAUSE trains are so massive and have a continuous heavy power load. The advantage of diesel electric is that it allows the engine to run at peak efficiency continuously regardless of how quickly or slowly the train is moving. Diesel-electric locomotives also do not employ batteries because it's stupid. Batteries are heavy, expensive, and don't store nearly as much energy as the diesel fuel. The space taken by the batteries can instead be used to store more fuel.
If the volt were not being driven by political propaganda, and chevy wanted to make a true gas-electric car, they'd ditch the batteries, use the extra space for a bigger gas tank and have a car that could get 1800 miles a tank.
Also it is built by a company that didn`t take any Govt. handouts and whose stock has quadrupled in little more than a month. ($$$$$$)
Best midsize mileage in the USA is a Fusion Hybrid. $2 gas = GM Volt flop. Ford FTW !
They have spent more developing this car than anything in the recent past and every car maker will be playing catchup. They hope that it will open the doors to new and exciting advances (read batteries). The first car led us to where we are now.
Remember though a massive shift to electricity will require a step change in how we produce electricity (read nuclear fuel) or the increase in electric rates will again make gasoline the cheaper alternative
I applaud GM for taking a giant step forward.
Here are some giant steps forward:
Tesla Model S:
http://www.teslamotors.com/models/index.php
Aptera 2h:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptera_hybrid_car
This is nothing more than a test car, a concept car. I guess it'd be 5 years or so before it hits the 20k range...
What killed the electric car was physics, not conspiracy. So get over it.
The Volt has a small gas engine that provides charge to the batteries when they drop below a certain charge level. This is a modular approach in that the gas engine can be replaced by a different power source in the future (e.g. diesel engine, fuel cells, etc.). I read that the batteries will be maintained between 30% and 80% charge to prolong their life (outside of that range, Li Ion batteries lose their charge capacity more quickly over time). So when the state of charge drops below the minimum, the gas engine kicks in to charge the batteries, which then drive the car. Your previous post is not correct... the engine *will* charge the batteries as long as needed while you are driving and still have gas. The car will run in this mode until you run out of gas. So the range is around 40 miles on battery power then another ~400 miles running with the engine powering the batteries.
And if you're using a gasoline generator to generate electricity, why have batteries at all? They are heavy, expensive and can't store as much energy as the gasoline you're using the charge them. Ditch the batteries run the vehicle directly from the generator to make it a gas-electric car.
No, the only reason Chevy is doing this stupid engineering with batteries is because of politics.
The car will drive ~40 miles on battery power alone. At which point the gasoline engine kicks in (I believe it's a small turbocharged 4 cyl) which will generate enough electricity to power the vehicle.
One of the biggest downfalls of an electric only vehicle is that you MUST recharge it which takes hours. If you happen to need to travel more than 50% of its total range away you cant, for fear of not being able to make it back.
What the Volt does it gives you the option to fuel up and continue your trip making it a viable replacement for any sedan. Even if you need to drive accross the country. Try that in a Tesla.
How is this not a huge step in the right direction?
I'm sure in the real world that 40 miles will be substatially less probably more like 20 with the A/C on and a passenger or two. But still, if you travel for 20 miles and dont use ANY gas how much money could you be saving?
Think of places where renewable energy sources are used to make electricity (wind farms, geothermal, tidal, solar). If your commute is less than 20-30 miles and the energy used to charge the vehicle came from a zero emission source (solar panels on your roof =FREE FUEL!).......you really cant grasp the potential of this?
Kudos to GM for getting this one right, God knows they get mostly everything else wrong lately.
-
by TZZDC
April 15, 2009 1:04 PM PDT
- Proving once again that the mass American public is NOT ready for future technology as I cant even count the number of posts here made by ignorant retards (yes I said it retards I'm not going to sugar coat it folks). They hear a glimmer of information about the volt and perceive to spread FUD about something they obviously dont know well enough about. The car as stated before runs up to 40 miles purely on electric, a small gas engine attached to a generator powers the car, recharges/maintains batteries BEYOND those initial 40 miles. The power train is COMPLETELY ELECTRIC as in ELECTRIC MOTORS cause the WHEELS to spin.
-
Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (55 Comments)