Operation Cut $10k Out Of The Volt Is 'On Track'

[William Maley]

Operation Cut $10k Out Of The Volt Is 'On Track'

William Maley - Editor/Reporter - CheersandGears.com

April 14, 2011

Remember when there was news about GM CEO Dan Akerson asking engineers to cut $10,000 out of the Chevrolet Volt. Well it looks like its happening, but for the next and third generation Volts. Alan Taub, GM vice president for global research and development said in an interview at the SAE World Congress that GM is on track for cutting costs.

"We have a cost reduction plan all the way through 2020 and Generation 3. In fact, we've been challenged by our new leadership team to pull those earlier in time, and we're on track to meet our new cost reduction targets."

When asked about if the cuts will be around $10,000, Taub dodged the question.

"We're on track to meet our cost reductions," he said.

Taub also says the next generation will be improved in many ways.

"It's got a lot of improvements. It's not just cost. It's got a lot of improvement on efficiency, on batteries."

Source: The Detroit News

[Satty]

GM needs to walk a fine line here, as long as people are willing to pay $40k it more, they might as well take the money.

[Robert Hall]

I suppose they could really cheapen it by putting the Volt hardware in another, existing model like the Cruze or Sonic..

[PurdueGuy]

I would hope they could bring the cost down by 2020, though $10k is a lot, hope it doesn't mean a lot of cheapening, but simply spreading out overhead & brining down the cost of the tech.

[dwightlooi]

Here's the easy way to cut $10K maybe more from the Volt.

• Replace the $12K 16kWh battery with a $2000 2kWh Battery (still 50% higher capacity than the Prius's battery)
  
• Remove the Plug-in charging hardware
  
• Use the ICE to recharge the batteries and work in parallel mode most of the time
  

Should still hit beat the Prius in fuel economy...

[Satty]

Then you're just making a Cruze hybrid, they'll have to cut $20k from the price after your $10k in cuts.

[Drew Dowdell]

they could have dropped the capacitive touch buttons for one.

[Croc]

Here's the easy way to cut $10K maybe more from the Volt.

• Replace the $12K 16kWh battery with a $2000 2kWh Battery (still 50% higher capacity than the Prius's battery)
• Remove the Plug-in charging hardware
• Use the ICE to recharge the batteries and work in parallel mode most of the time

Should still hit beat the Prius in fuel economy...

I'm sorry, but this is just stupid. The entire point of the Volt is to be a plug-in. Why on earth would GM even think for one second of neutering the talking points of their biggest vehicle intro in decades for its second or third generation??

Then you're just making a Cruze hybrid, they'll have to cut $20k from the price after your $10k in cuts.

Satty gets it.

they could have dropped the capacitive touch buttons for one.

We can debate certain premium items here and there, but honestly I think the biggest cost savings for Gen II and Gen III are going to come from (further) standardization of parts throughout GM. Radios, steering wheels, seats, etc. Like how the Solstice and SKY were cost-contained. Something like that.

The nicest part about the Volt is just how uplevel its interior is. As it should be for its price, but still--that's a nice interior. I'd hope GM achieves greater economies of scale not by downgrading certain aspects of the Volt, but by spreading these features throughout more of GM's products.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Croc

[hyperv6]

The price will drop and the range will improve just because of the investment and volume. Investment into these technologies for Electric cars is much like say a TV set. When the first flat screens came out they were $8K now you can buy a better one now at $800.

They keep coming up with improved parts and pieces as they now have a market to sell them in. In the past most electric cars were limited and few would invest the money. Today there has been more money spent in the last 5 years on batteries than ever.

The key is for companies like GM and Nissan to sell cars in volume to justify the investment in cheaper and better technologies. Investment needs volume and Volume needs a market so that is why todays Volt is so important. it is creating that market that will create the investment needed to improve things and lower cost.

Once we get lower cost electric cars they can be traced back to the risk Nissan and GM did by going high volume on these types of cars. They created a market to make the investment worth while.

[loki]

nice article, assuming in that time span everything else is relatively static, which almost certainly won't happen. in 10 years if they make it $10K cheaper, they'll be lucky if it's still $40k.

[SAmadei]

The price will drop and the range will improve just because of the investment and volume. Investment into these technologies for Electric cars is much like say a TV set. When the first flat screens came out they were $8K now you can buy a better one now at $800.

Using your analog, if gasoline was like flat screens, I was paying $1.07 for regular 87 octane in 1998, so we'd be paying 10.7 cents a gallon for 140 octane gasoline today.

Unfortunately, comparing flat screens to batteries is apples to oranges. Flat screens are not stuck being made from a small group of expensive metals. Batteries are. Lithium is $300/lb before you do anything to it. How much is used in the Volt? Where will this price go if large scale Lithium battery production starts and there is not enough Lithium extraction to go around? Lithium is not exactly common and always requires expensive processing to purify it. Remember, the biggest Lithium fields are in a middle eastern country currently at war with the US.

I'm not saying that there aren't potential savings here... but it ain't going to follow the flat screen price free fall.

[Robert Hall]

The price will drop and the range will improve just because of the investment and volume. Investment into these technologies for Electric cars is much like say a TV set. When the first flat screens came out they were $8K now you can buy a better one now at $800.

Using your analog, if gasoline was like flat screens, I was paying $1.07 for regular 87 octane in 1998, so we'd be paying 10.7 cents a gallon for 140 octane gasoline today.

Unfortunately, comparing flat screens to batteries is apples to oranges. Flat screens are not stuck being made from a small group of expensive metals. Batteries are. Lithium is $300/lb before you do anything to it. How much is used in the Volt? Where will this price go if large scale Lithium battery production starts and there is not enough Lithium extraction to go around? Lithium is not exactly common and always requires expensive processing to purify it. Remember, the biggest Lithium fields are in a middle eastern country currently at war with the US.

I'm not saying that there aren't potential savings here... but it ain't going to follow the flat screen price free fall.

Sounds like it's time for battery companies to work on synthetic lithium or other alternatives...

[SAmadei]

Sounds like it's time for battery companies to work on synthetic lithium or other alternatives...

Alternatives to the lightest metal on the periodic chart? Not many of them. Synthetic Lithium... sure... we'll put the nuclear fusion reactor in your back yard.

I suppose Sodium or Potassium ion batteries could be made, as all the Alkali metals have similar properties. However, these would be heavier and tend to be more reactive... and so are closer to being a munition.

[Robert Hall]

Sounds like it's time for battery companies to work on synthetic lithium or other alternatives...

Alternatives to the lightest metal on the periodic chart? Not many of them. Synthetic Lithium... sure... we'll put the nuclear fusion reactor in your back yard.

I suppose Sodium or Potassium ion batteries could be made, as all the Alkali metals have similar properties. However, these would be heavier and tend to be more reactive... and so are closer to being a munition.

I don't know, I'm not a chemist...but it's time they come up with creative solutions, think outside the box if the electric car strategy is going to be viable and widespread...

[hyperv6]

The price will drop and the range will improve just because of the investment and volume. Investment into these technologies for Electric cars is much like say a TV set. When the first flat screens came out they were $8K now you can buy a better one now at $800.

Using your analog, if gasoline was like flat screens, I was paying $1.07 for regular 87 octane in 1998, so we'd be paying 10.7 cents a gallon for 140 octane gasoline today.

Unfortunately, comparing flat screens to batteries is apples to oranges. Flat screens are not stuck being made from a small group of expensive metals. Batteries are. Lithium is $300/lb before you do anything to it. How much is used in the Volt? Where will this price go if large scale Lithium battery production starts and there is not enough Lithium extraction to go around? Lithium is not exactly common and always requires expensive processing to purify it. Remember, the biggest Lithium fields are in a middle eastern country currently at war with the US.

I'm not saying that there aren't potential savings here... but it ain't going to follow the flat screen price free fall.

Sorry but EV cars are not the same as gasoline. Who is to say Lithium batteries will be powering cars in the future. Work is already started on alturnitive batteries and with more people investing in their development odds are they will find better and cheaper alturnitives.

Gas is oil based and a globally traded commodity. A lot of investment has already been done to try to replace gasoline but not near as much has been done for Batteries yet. We are just on the start of the curve were we will see improvments and savings. GM has stimulated growth as has some of the other EV MFG and this will improve spending into better batteries.

Add to this cheaper,smaller, lighter electrivc motors and other components that will improve the cars.

The bottom line in 5 and 10 years technology will explode for these cars as they have only really started to make a dent in what they will do. The key is to keep a market viable so those who are investing into it can make a return on the money they are spending. In other word why invest in better batteries if there is little or no EV market. Few people will invest the needed money based on the few Tesla's that are being sold.

A lot of the investment in this field has to be done by private industry. In the past many of the programs at NASA and other goverment funded programs paid to develope new technologies that gave our industy the lead in many areas. Now that the goverment has gutted NASA it is left to private industry to do it alone. Too few people fail to understand Apollo was not about going to the moon. Apollo was more about how to get to the moon and developing the technology to get there. This is what drove the electronics growth and computer lead our country once had. NASA is still working on power and battery issues here at the Glen Center in Cleveland but it is not funded like it used to be.

It is a shame with all the spending last year they did not cut some of the waste and put it into programs for better batteries and advanced technologies. All we got here in Ohio were some token Union construction jobs that will vanish next year. But that is another story.

Edited April 15, 2011 by hyperv6

[PurdueGuy]

The thing to keep in mind is that battery tech isn't new tech. Costs and effectiveness of technology tends to fall rapidly early in development. Granted, there are promising new findings in battery tech research, but most of them will likely prove either too expensive, too fragile, too difficult to manufacture, or fall short of mass use for some other reason, and it's entirely possible that none of the advancements that prove themselves will end up making more than incremental differences.

I don't think we'll see the Volt's range increase any - any increase in battery efficiency/effectiveness will be used to reduce weight & cost, not extend the range. Smaller, lighter batteries will win out over longer lasting ones.

[Drew Dowdell]

Smaller and lighter batteries do have the side effect of lasting longer because there is less mass to haul around.

[PurdueGuy]

Smaller and lighter batteries do have the side effect of lasting longer because there is less mass to haul around.

That's a gross generalization that, while it holds some truth in theory, holds little water in real life. Smaller & lighter would generally mean new battery structure or chemistry that will have its own set of characteristics. Might be smaller & lighter but less durable. Might be smaller, lighter, and just as durable or moreso, but runs hotter, or doesn't handle being fully discharged as well, or takes longer to charge, etc. There's pretty much always a tradeoff, especially the longer a technology as a whole has been around.

[SAmadei]

Sorry but EV cars are not the same as gasoline. Who is to say Lithium batteries will be powering cars in the future. Work is already started on alturnitive batteries and with more people investing in their development odds are they will find better and cheaper alturnitives.

You are the one comparing EV cars to flat screens. You can't even compare CARS to flat screens... otherwise, cars would only cost 10% of what they did 10 years ago. THAT AIN'T HAPPENING.

You need to start reading through battery R&D... we've been R&Ding batteries for over two hundred years. Batteries are used in all sizes and shapes from watches to locomotives... the biggest earth movers on the planet use huge batteries. We didn't suddenly start researching battery tech in 1999... we've been doing it for over a century. Making a lighter weight, more powerful battery that doesn't suffer degradation has gotten so much money thrown at it, well before we decided to get back into EV cars. Remember, its easy to look at the articles from the last 5-10 years and see huge dollar signs... but when GE puts $30 million into battery tech in 1968, that $30 million goes farther than $1 billion in today's money.

As for the research going on? A huge percentage of the research is tunnel visioned on Lithium.

Regardless of the technology, we are going to be restrained by chemistry and physics. There are no freebies. At some point the energy density will reach the point where the battery is a huge bomb. You think the government is going to allow that?

You ever short out a Lithium ion battery? Its not pretty... I'd hate to see that happen in a EV.

Gas is oil based and a globally traded commodity. A lot of investment has already been done to try to replace gasoline but not near as much has been done for Batteries yet. We are just on the start of the curve were we will see improvments and savings. GM has stimulated growth as has some of the other EV MFG and this will improve spending into better batteries.

Dream on. Lithium batteries date to the 1970s. We are well along the curve with Lithium ion research, and we already know Lithium will have limitations.

GM didn't stimulate this growth... Laptops and cellphones did.

Add to this cheaper,smaller, lighter electrivc motors and other components that will improve the cars.

Motors have been getting lighter since Tesla invented the AC motor... we are waaaayyy down the curve on that technology, too. The current EV electric motors are about 150~200lbs... so we reduce that by 1/3~1/2... now they are 100 lbs. At the rate Americans are getting fatter, that savings will be out the window with a few trips to McDonalds.

As for other components? GM put aluminum regular production parts on cars 30 years ago... that experiment lasted about 2 years. Audi has been doing aluminum components in bulk for decades, but GM can't even trim the 2011 Malibu below the weight of a 1968 Malibu... you really think GM is going to go all out reducing component weight? I'll believe it when I see it.

The bottom line in 5 and 10 years technology will explode for these cars as they have only really started to make a dent in what they will do. The key is to keep a market viable so those who are investing into it can make a return on the money they are spending. In other word why invest in better batteries if there is little or no EV market. Few people will invest the needed money based on the few Tesla's that are being sold.

The bottom line, in 5 years we'll probably see a 5% increase in efficiency... 9% in 10 years. Not really exploding.

The question I have is this... will people still want EVs in 10 years... if EVs turn out to be twice as reliable as my Lithium Ion power tools (dead in 3 years), laptop batteries (majorly limited in 2 years, dead in 4) and cellphone (inconsistent life at 2 years). I'm sure people will still have their Volts... but the engine will probably run nearly all the time. Leafs will be crushed or getting conventional drivetrains.

Again, keep in mind, I'm optimistic on EVs... you guys are unrealistically optimistic. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. In 5 yrs, we're not going to be living the Star Trek lifestyle.

[Robert Hall]

The bottom line, in 5 years we'll probably see a 5% increase in efficiency... 9% in 10 years. Not really exploding.

The question I have is this... will people still want EVs in 10 years... if EVs turn out to be twice as reliable as my Lithium Ion power tools (dead in 3 years), laptop batteries (majorly limited in 2 years, dead in 4) and cellphone (inconsistent life at 2 years). I'm sure people will still have their Volts... but the engine will probably run nearly all the time. Leafs will be crushed or getting conventional drivetrains.

Again, keep in mind, I'm optimistic on EVs... you guys are unrealistically optimistic. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. In 5 yrs, we're not going to be living the Star Trek lifestyle.

<cynical>

One thing also to keep in mind are the big oil companies...I would think they will be doing everything they can to keep down EV adoption and sabotage EV development.

</cynical>

[ZL-1]

What about Warp Drive?

[SAmadei]

<cynical>

One thing also to keep in mind are the big oil companies...I would think they will be doing everything they can to keep down EV adoption and sabotage EV development.

</cynical>

You know, I actually worry about this to a certain degree. Having unrealistic expectations for EV development plays right into their hands.

[hyperv6]

Sorry but EV cars are not the same as gasoline. Who is to say Lithium batteries will be powering cars in the future. Work is already started on alturnitive batteries and with more people investing in their development odds are they will find better and cheaper alturnitives.

You are the one comparing EV cars to flat screens. You can't even compare CARS to flat screens... otherwise, cars would only cost 10% of what they did 10 years ago. THAT AIN'T HAPPENING.

You need to start reading through battery R&D... we've been R&Ding batteries for over two hundred years. Batteries are used in all sizes and shapes from watches to locomotives... the biggest earth movers on the planet use huge batteries. We didn't suddenly start researching battery tech in 1999... we've been doing it for over a century. Making a lighter weight, more powerful battery that doesn't suffer degradation has gotten so much money thrown at it, well before we decided to get back into EV cars. Remember, its easy to look at the articles from the last 5-10 years and see huge dollar signs... but when GE puts $30 million into battery tech in 1968, that $30 million goes farther than $1 billion in today's money.

As for the research going on? A huge percentage of the research is tunnel visioned on Lithium.

Regardless of the technology, we are going to be restrained by chemistry and physics. There are no freebies. At some point the energy density will reach the point where the battery is a huge bomb. You think the government is going to allow that?

You ever short out a Lithium ion battery? Its not pretty... I'd hate to see that happen in a EV.

Gas is oil based and a globally traded commodity. A lot of investment has already been done to try to replace gasoline but not near as much has been done for Batteries yet. We are just on the start of the curve were we will see improvments and savings. GM has stimulated growth as has some of the other EV MFG and this will improve spending into better batteries.

Dream on. Lithium batteries date to the 1970s. We are well along the curve with Lithium ion research, and we already know Lithium will have limitations.

GM didn't stimulate this growth... Laptops and cellphones did.

Add to this cheaper,smaller, lighter electrivc motors and other components that will improve the cars.

Motors have been getting lighter since Tesla invented the AC motor... we are waaaayyy down the curve on that technology, too. The current EV electric motors are about 150~200lbs... so we reduce that by 1/3~1/2... now they are 100 lbs. At the rate Americans are getting fatter, that savings will be out the window with a few trips to McDonalds.

As for other components? GM put aluminum regular production parts on cars 30 years ago... that experiment lasted about 2 years. Audi has been doing aluminum components in bulk for decades, but GM can't even trim the 2011 Malibu below the weight of a 1968 Malibu... you really think GM is going to go all out reducing component weight? I'll believe it when I see it.

The bottom line in 5 and 10 years technology will explode for these cars as they have only really started to make a dent in what they will do. The key is to keep a market viable so those who are investing into it can make a return on the money they are spending. In other word why invest in better batteries if there is little or no EV market. Few people will invest the needed money based on the few Tesla's that are being sold.

The bottom line, in 5 years we'll probably see a 5% increase in efficiency... 9% in 10 years. Not really exploding.

The question I have is this... will people still want EVs in 10 years... if EVs turn out to be twice as reliable as my Lithium Ion power tools (dead in 3 years), laptop batteries (majorly limited in 2 years, dead in 4) and cellphone (inconsistent life at 2 years). I'm sure people will still have their Volts... but the engine will probably run nearly all the time. Leafs will be crushed or getting conventional drivetrains.

Again, keep in mind, I'm optimistic on EVs... you guys are unrealistically optimistic. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. In 5 yrs, we're not going to be living the Star Trek lifestyle.

I never said it would be a Star Trek Life Style. I just said things would improve and get cheaper. Get a grip. The EV is here to stay but it will not replace the gasoline car soon if ever. It will offer a choice as will other type power systems.

Hell if they could find a way to fuel the Hydrogen Cells easier, faster and in more places it is viable today. GM has the system just few places to fuel them up and in a short time.

Lap tops and cell phone did help but their batteries are far short of what cars need. The batteries cars need demand so much more than you cell phone it is crazy. You had better read up on how the industry is working and where the new investments are being made.

When money is put into any dedicated technology giant gains are made. Litte was put into dedicated EV car other than some token programs that often were aborted.

The EV is only at the start of a long road and advancements will come and things will get better as cost drop. We all will not be in EV cars and some of us here will never own one in our life time. But that is not to say there will not be a growing market for them.

The Day GM drops the ICE engine is when the EV car become the norm. I do not see that in the near term.

As for car weights they all have to come down as with the CAFE they can not affor too many 1.4 powered 4000 pound cars. Many are working on lighter materials and cheap light materials for the future. I see them getting many advances here and even some creative use of present materials.

Sorry your if you glass is half empty but the truth is the markets glass is half full and thing will not remain static. It would be so ignorent to thing thing remain the same for the next 10 years.

Let me make this clear since you don't seem to get it. In 10 years EV's will get more miles and be cheaper and I will be the first to say they will still not be the notm mode of transportation for a while now. Nor will EV's be Aveo cheap in 10 years.

My whole point is that now there is a EV market people and companies will invest in things for it as they can now sell them. In the past few would spend much for a car that would never be sold to the public. Mass production and larger markets help drive the cost of products down and drive up investment improving them. It is simple econmics.

Edited April 16, 2011 by hyperv6

[hyperv6]

The bottom line, in 5 years we'll probably see a 5% increase in efficiency... 9% in 10 years. Not really exploding.

The question I have is this... will people still want EVs in 10 years... if EVs turn out to be twice as reliable as my Lithium Ion power tools (dead in 3 years), laptop batteries (majorly limited in 2 years, dead in 4) and cellphone (inconsistent life at 2 years). I'm sure people will still have their Volts... but the engine will probably run nearly all the time. Leafs will be crushed or getting conventional drivetrains.

Again, keep in mind, I'm optimistic on EVs... you guys are unrealistically optimistic. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. In 5 yrs, we're not going to be living the Star Trek lifestyle.

<cynical>

One thing also to keep in mind are the big oil companies...I would think they will be doing everything they can to keep down EV adoption and sabotage EV development.

</cynical>

I think too many get fooled with the old tales of the high mileage carberator tales. They are like Big Foot everyone has heard of them but never has seen one. Besides would auto makers still be going bankrupt spending billions on cars with only marginal improvments. The car company that makes a car with ultra high MPG would stand to make more money than any oil company could pay.

Most Oil companies are invested in many forms of power including Coal and even Hydro power. They no longer are just dedicated to oil. Note even when GM showed the Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars Shell was one of the largest supporters and was willing to help provide more fueling stations if some of the issues could be worked out.

Oil companies are in little danger of lossing out here. There are so many places for the oil to go and they know that Gasoline will still be the prime mover for years to come. Hell you still have got to have something in the Volts tank don't you?

[SAmadei]

Lap tops and cell phone did help but their batteries are far short of what cars need. The batteries cars need demand so much more than you cell phone it is crazy. You had better read up on how the industry is working and where the new investments are being made.

Unless you are going to specifically point out a 40 year trend of research projects with a statistically significantly increase in research coinciding with the 2006-current development of the Volt, you are talking generalities.

If you are so ignorant to think that I am comparing my cellular battery to the Volt's battery pack, then you are completely lost in this conversation and need a primer in battery tech. Perhaps you should go back to counting cupholders and measuring dashboard gaps.

But know this... all batteries are based on cells... My cellular phone battery has one or two (I forget its voltage)... Will that run my laptop? No... But lets wrap up 6 or 9 slightly larger cells and it will. The technology underlying it is roughly the same... either the anode or cathode has some exotic Lithium based compound or doping, and we develop newer and newer ways to sandwich the anode and cathode closer together... nanotechnology, anyone?... to the point where they are build like semiconductors. Now will that run a car by itself? No... but lets scale it up again... 2000 cells, 4000 cells. At some point the mundane Lithium Ion battery is running a car. Scale it up more, its running your house.

This is how Jesse James' electric drag car worked... a trunk full of 384 18V Lithium Ion batteries... probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 5000 cells. This is how the Teslas work... a few thousand Lithium Ion batteries barely bigger than an AA cell. You can run your car on 5000 AAA batteries if you don't mind changing them every day.

Problem is, that everytime you add cells, your rate of failure goes up. Even if cells don't fail completely, equalized cells waste energy and drag the whole pack down.

How do I know? Simple, I run the one house on batteries, a small solar array and a Onan 6.5KW generator. Its old tech, so I have to equalize the batteries every so often. Its not Lith Ion, as I'm not a millionaire, but the concept is the same... when Lith Ion comes down in price to the same point in storage as the Lead Acids, I'll be all over it.

As for the underlying technology, the same research and development in Lithium Ion batteries floods into all areas of battery applications. Cellphone batteries are required to be just as cutting edge as EV batteries, as the devices are requiring more and more power every year. Its costs a lot of power to run those big CPUs in BB's, iPhones and Androids. It costs a lot of power to use WiFi all day. If you think your cell phone battery from a RAZR a few years ago can power the new Android Thunderbolt for 4 days, you've lost it.

Again, I KNOW battery power will get better... I've never said anything to the contrary.

When money is put into any dedicated technology giant gains are made. Litte was put into dedicated EV car other than some token programs that often were aborted.

Money has been put into battery technology for decades... but the gains are not really giant. A battery is a battery is a battery... being put in an EV does not make it special. Research money goes to making batteries store more, store faster, degrade less, weigh less and increase reliability because this affects ALL battery uses.

I love how every EV project is a token, aborted project until the Volt comes along. There are a lot of researchers who would punch you in the face for belittling their hard work.

Sorry your if you glass is half empty but the truth is the markets glass is half full and thing will not remain static. It would be so ignorent to thing thing remain the same for the next 10 years.

I'm sorry that your reading comprehension is nonexistent. Did you read that I'm predicting 5% gains in 5 years? 9% in the next decade. This is my take on roughly the rate battery tech has increased for the last 30 years.

Whats your prediction? 50% in 5 years? 100%? 200%? At some point, in order to achieve these rates, we'd be making advances in material engineering that we'd have to be living the Star Trek lifestyle.

I already lived through ultra-optimistic predictions of battery advances... 25 years go when I was writing research papers about it.

Let me make this clear since you don't seem to get it. In 10 years EV's will get more miles and be cheaper and I will be the first to say they will still not be the notm mode of transportation for a while now. Nor will EV's be Aveo cheap in 10 years.

Predicting that EVs will get more miles is like predicting the sun will come up tomorrow. But then again, people have been predicting greater gas efficiency, yet that peaked in 1987.

I think predicting more miles comes under my 5% in 5 years prediction, assuming we don't add a half ton of entertainment hardware to our EVs in the meantime.

My whole point is that now there is a EV market people and companies will invest in things for it as they can now sell them. In the past few would spend much for a car that would never be sold to the public. Mass production and larger markets help drive the cost of products down and drive up investment improving them. It is simple econmics.

Sure, they will invest in things like EV-specific floormats, spoilers and custom sound-tones so people hear them coming.

Simple economics tells me that when a lot of these current research grants don't show immediate results, the venture capitalists will pull the rest of the money before its spent. We have a VERY short attention span anymore. Others will turn out to be completely fraudulent science. The rest of the big battery development companies will continue to develop slightly better batteries to keep ahead of the competition... as they already have the resources and understand the chemistry and physics of the problem at hand.

The reason I am rebutting you is because people with exaggerated expectations are going to be what hurts the EVs. People predicting a utopia of cheap transportation... sure, no Aveo cheap, but $1.07 1999 gas prices cheap. EVs are not going to get established in 2011... they will be established over the next 15, 20 years... and people need to understand its going to be a long road of slower advances.

[hyperv6]

I am not even going to bother reading this as you just don't get it.

I guess you are right and the things I read in the WSJ and other buisness/tech publications are all wrong.

Yes I understand very well what they are saying I just don't agree with where you are coming from.

5 years ago most people said the Volt would never be built and then it would not do what it is doing today. The fact is when enough time and investment is made in anything often [note I did not say always] things can be accomplished. That Cancer thing is a tough one but some of it has been taken care of and they are still working on the rest. The key with any research as long a work goes on improvments can always be made.

Good thing Kennedy did not give up when they told him the Moon was impossible. History has a good track record of accomplishments that were once termed impossible. Never underestimate what needs can be conquered with hard work, investment and a little luck. The real key is investment.

This is only my opinion please accept it. You don't have to agree to it anymore than I have to agree with your opinion but it is what it is.

Edited April 17, 2011 by hyperv6

[SAmadei]

I am not even going to bother reading this as you just don't get it.

Yeah, close your eyes. Don't read this either. Put your fingers in your ears and dismiss anyone who disagrees with your view.

I guess you are right and the things I read in the WSJ and other buisness/tech publications are all wrong.

Yes I understand very well what they are saying I just don't agree with where you are coming from.

BFD...I've read WSJ and various business/tech pubs on and off for 30 years. Its your library, mailbox or internet connection somehow different than mine? I'm not trying to pigeon-hole your expertise, but for many its easy for someone to open a WSJ for the first time, found at the doctor's office, in 2011 and think that science research is just going absolutely gonzo. The problem is the WSJ, Popular Science, American Scientific, etc. is not presenting the historical context. Its always about the now... and its because a lot of this "news" is PR fluff at some level... get people excited... get them to invest in us.

5 years ago most people said the Volt would never be built and then it would not do what it is doing today. The fact is when enough time and investment is made in anything often [note I did not say always] things can be accomplished. That Cancer thing is a tough one but some of it has been taken care of and they are still working on the rest. The key with any research as long a work goes on improvments can always be made.

Not me. I feel the Volt could have been built a decade ago and would have had passable performance... but perhaps not the same exterior design.

Tesla has been at it since 2003... but I suppose they are another token, aborted EV attempt. Nissan has been working on it since 1997... amateurs, right?

Good thing Kennedy did not give up when they told him the Moon was impossible. History has a good track record of accomplishments that were once termed impossible. Never underestimate what needs can be conquered with hard work, investment and a little luck. The real key is investment.

Going to the moon is NOTHING like building an EV. You love to mix and match your analogies.

Lets say Kennedy offered up a cure for cancer, not a run for the moon. It would have gotten the same funding and it WOULD HAVE FAILED. Its 50 years later and cancer research has had the benefit of all the other medical advancements (and the research valve applied to them) and easily has had as much money thrown at it as the Apollo program, plus the benefit of 40 extra years and a couple generations of extra minds to chew on the problem. Wheres the cure for cancer? Its had investment... but its a HUGE problem... we may have only scratched the surface of the understanding needed to cure cancer.

This is only my opinion please accept it. You don't have to agree to it anymore than I have to agree with your opinion but it is what it is.

Accepted. Sure, next year a GM battery tech might build a perfect battery... I'll eat my hat... but I doubt it... because in 100+ years of serious development there have been few huge jumps in battery technology. And for all we know, someone may already have the tech... but nobody wants to license it... "Not invented here". In the end we are dealing with a limited set of compounds and the physical and chemical combinations of the three basic parts of the battery to discover.

If you didn't read this, I'm fine with that, too. Back to the topic at hand.

[Drew Dowdell]

Why all the focus on the batteries? There can be efficiencies gained in making the power train more efficient, adding solar cells to the roof, making the car electronics more energy efficient, making the HVAC more energy efficient, even just turning the regenerative braking up to be more aggressive.... all would incrementally help with range.