LAT: Taking hybrids to next level: "Plug-in"

[DeepModem Mom]

Taking hybrids to next level
GM plans to produce a Saturn Vue that will be able to travel an extended range in an electric-only mode.
By John O'Dell, Times Staff Writer
November 30, 2006

General Motors Corp., often vilified by environmentalists for having pulled the plug on its pioneering battery-powered EV1, on Wednesday became the first major automaker to commit to building a new class of gasoline-electric hybrid.

GM has started development of a so-called plug-in hybrid power system and plans to roll it out in a Saturn Vue sport utility vehicle as soon as battery technology permits, Chief Executive Rick Wagoner said in a speech that kicked off a two-day media preview of the Los Angeles Auto Show, which opens Friday at the Convention Center.

His announcement thrust the Detroit-based automaker to the forefront of the race to build a hybrid that can run for a long period without using its gas engine as the company seeks to make product development the focus of the next phase of its turnaround efforts.

There are "serious concerns about energy supply, energy availability, sustainable growth, the environment, even national security — issues that, collectively, have come to be called 'energy security,' " Wagoner told an audience of more than 1,000 journalists, analysts and industry insiders.

Although the internal-combustion engine will remain the foundation for decades to come, he said, "it is highly unlikely that oil alone is going to supply all of the world's rapidly growing automotive energy requirements."

Wagoner disappointed some industry analysts by failing to specify a timetable for the plug-in. But others gave him credit for raising the bar in the race to build fuelefficient vehicles at a time of growing customer demand in response to persistently high pump prices....

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-gm30nov30,0,20486.story?coll=la-home-business

[Eric J in MN]

1. I hope they manufacture enough to sell and meet demand.

Instead of leasing a fraction of the number of cars people want, and then refusing to sell them (as they did with the 1990s electric car.)

[benh57]

2. "as soon as battery technology permits"?

Battery technology permits TODAY, as seen by the many who have modified their Priuses into plug-in hybrids.

FUD.

[Sherman A1]

4. Now let us not start

using those pesky little facts. I upsets the folks in the corporate boardrooms before they get their massive bonuses. A little consideration for the Uber Wealthy if you please..........:sarcasm:

[krispos42]

5. Still need to do more work

Without the rapid fill-up offered by using a fuel as motive power, battery drain is a critical situation. A compact or midsize car has the room for a big battery pack, and it has the aerodynamics to make it last.

An SUV, on the other hand, has more frontal area and a higher drag coefficient, both of which draw extra power. A modest car might only need 25hp to maintain a 70mph cruising speed, a modest SUV might need 35hp, cutting your range by 29%.

Also they typically weigh more than a car, although that weight difference is lessening as light-duty SUVs based on car unibody frames become more popular.

SUVs may have more of a problem finding battery-storage locations as well. Many SUVs carry their spare tires on the outside of the truck. How many cars do that?

The world lithium-ion battery industry also has to increase capacity before this becomes more widespread. Lithium-ion batteries are so wonderful that now they are used in everything rechargable: mp3 players, PDAs, cell phones, and laptops are HUGE consumers of the batteries.

I think an auxillary internal-combustion engine tied to a generator is the best way to power the plug-in hybrids. The auxillary engine, probably a 10- or 11-hp single-piston 4-stroke, would be tied to a generator that would have the same voltage and amperage ratings as the home-based charger (probably 230 volt, 30-amp service), which would give the car the ability to either run on battery only for local driving or to run IC engine while driving to boost battery life. That's about equal to 9 horsepower, so if your car needed 25hp to cruise on the highway, 9 would come from the IC engine and 16 from the battery. This would boost your cruising range by 56%. It would also enable your car to charge the battery while you are sleeping in a motel, eating lunch, or shopping.

You could even put a few plugs in the car so that in an emergency, you can power small applianaces from the battery and/or IC engine. Awfully handy in a power failure or while camping.

The car could also have a transformer to turn standard household 115-volt service into 230-volt service so you could plug your car into any wall socket. Useful when visiting relatives, but would only be able to charge at one-fourth the rate of the more powerful 230-volt service.

The auxillary could also run on a variety of fuels. A diesel model, a natural-gas model, etc. Hell, if you use natural gas in your home, you could top off both the battery and the fuel tank in your garage!

[Richard Steele]

9. An obvious solution presents itself: -DON'T- make it an SUV.

Simple.

[trogdor]

15. B-b-b-b-b-but, we need them!

[Dora]

26. Some people do.

My husband is a busy working musican - a drummer. He has large amounts of gear he must haul to and from gigs. Right now his vehicle is a Nissan pickup truck with a topper, but that truck will die of old age soon, and I know that an efficient SUV would be our first-choice vehicle.

I'm certain that there are more people who have a legitimate need for a tall vehicle with lots of cargo room.

[susanna]

47. I have a theory about that...

...back in the 'ol days, folks did not have as much stuff that took up so much room. Or, if they did, they did not transport it as often as we seem to want to in our modern, mobile society.

I think that's part of the issue; many people decry hauling vehicles, but this culture has become a "pack and go" one...we just pack more these days. Vehicle design has kept pace with that, agree with it or not.

Now, if you're talking true behemoths, I'm at a loss. But then there's always a family of 8 who need to haul gear...Gear X 8 = Suburban/Expedition EL, I guess.

[krispos42]

39. "Simple", says the southerner...

"Yeah, right" says the Minnesotan, eyeing the blizzard striking from Missouri to Michigan.

A car-based SUV is an attractive vehicle, giving the ride, handling, and economy of a car while offering the cargo space, 4-wheel-drive, and ground clearance of an SUV. Look at the fuel economy numbers between a Dodge Stratus and a Subaru Forester one day. It's about 1 mpg, about a 4% drop in exchange for a vehicle that is much more able in inclement weather. IMO, it's a good trade-off.

It is true that during the SUV craze of the '90s, there was massive ineffiency. This is because the SUV was a low-volume utility vehicle, more suited for the farm or the mountains than the New York suburbs. When the craze came, the automakers already had the engineering done and the assembly lines set up for Broncos, Explorers, Blazers, and Suburbans, so that is what they made, improving the models as customer demand shifted.

Now these vehicles were over-built for what many of their new owners used them for: battling suburbia while hauling kids and groceries. Their engines and frames came from the Ranger and F-150 and S-10 and C/K-1500 pickup trucks, designed for duties rarely used in the suburbs. Although great for heavy work, the first-wave SUVs were over-designed for the majority of their owners. This lead to poor fuel economy, among other things.

Now, thanks to the RAV4, the car-based SUV is happening. A unibody frame saves weight and increases rigidity and handling, and a lighter-duty suspension, engine, and transmission increase agility while saving more weight. And since many of the engines are from car lineups instead of trucks, they have the extra fuel-efficienty and pollution-control measures that come from passenger vehicles.

[Richard Steele]

41. Does General Motors ONLY sell vehicles in the snow-belt states?

Has GM always designed every vehicle line to suit the needs
of Americans who spend time driving in blizzards?

There are a few hundred million car buyers who have somehow
managed to get by for years with vehicles that WEREN'T SUVs.

SUV's are not a necessary tool for most of their owners,
they are a FASHION CHOICE. The majority of drivers have
no geniune need for one, and never will.

[krispos42]

43. Not at all

The full line of GM vehicles, and all other makers for that matter, are freely available in all states, to all buyers.

And the fact that people were able to 'get by' with something for years does not mean it is the way it always will be, nor it is necessarily the best way. A few hundred million car buyers managed to get buy for years without seatbelts, as well. Or radial tires. Or anti-lock brakes. Or airbags.

I would rather buy myself a light SUV than a car. The extra safety of all-wheel-drive and a couple of extra inches of ground clearance is worth a slight hit in the fuel milage. Besides, a light SUV gets considerably better milage than my current car, a 17-year-old full-size Oldmobile. And I can work a stick, so I'd opt for the 5-speed instead of the automatic and save a couple of hundred pounds of deadweight AND get better milage over the auto.

Are some SUVs bought for status symbols? Of course. The Escalade comes to mind, as do the various models of the Hummer. These vehicles are part of the broad array of status symbols that people blow their money on. I watch Paris Hilton spend on shoes in one store on one trip what I make in a year, for example

But the fact is that all vehicles are a compromise between a variety of needs. If I was able to have a stable full of cars, I'd be on an 80mpg scooter during the summer for my commute. When it was cold, I'd switch to a Civic or Focus. When it was snowy or slippery, I'd switch to a Wrangler. When I had to haul a bunch of people, I'd switch to a Five Hundred or a Caravan. And when I had to move, I'd have an F-150. But I don't. So in my case, a light SUV like a Forester works well for me and my son, plus any hot dates I might have, and it works year-round. If I can make one extra day to work that I would otherwise not be able to make in a car, I've just made enough money to more than pay for the slight hit in gas milage.

[Richard Steele]

44. I won't disagree with anything you said there.

I just don't feel that any of that constitutes a valid
reason for GM to build ZERO energy-efficient vehicles
while WAITING to build their planned energy-efficient SUVs.

Given the current GM "big picture", I suspect these desireable
new vehicles will be introduced RIGHT after GM sheds its
billion$ in credit/pension obligations in bankrupcy court.

I think they are deliberately planning to go "bankrupt" as
an EXTREMELY profitable business ploy, and any overly successful
new product would interfere with that plan.

But all of that is really a different subject than the
one this thread is adressing, so I should probably stop
ranting about it now.

[susanna]

48. See my theory post up a ways...

I work in the automotive industry, and I myself decried the rise of the SUVs, which I can assure you was a career non-starter in the blazing 90s. Now, of course, they think I'm a genius 'cuz I was bitching a long time ago about the lack of other type vehicles. Fickleness, people; fickleness.

My use of vehicle space was based on my own experience: I'm a thrifty packer, and I don't take my entire world on a camping trip. That said, I honed my skills at packing minimally over many, many years; I had very small cars to work with during the 80s. A lot of younger (than me) folks seem to think they need to take the world on their travels...and they DO (take the world with them, I mean). So, those vehicles (SUVs) were a siren's song to that sort of consumer. I'm not surprised at the ground they gained.

I think people forget that aspect...times change and people want more. It's kinda an obvious evolution. Is it beneficial? No, mostly. But it happens. There is a part of me that understands the domestic automakers; what were people buying in the 90s? SUVs. Who would not want to head for that market? The profits are huge, it's a win-win. Now they're seeing the fallout. It's actually painful for me, since I saw this coming. But then, I made no friends in the SUV-lovin' 90s. That was painful too. ;-)

on edit: extension of thought (it's rare, so I hope you enjoy it).

[lfairban]

10. This is a separate issue.

My understanding is that modifying a typical ICE to run on natural gas is not very hard. Why is it that a natural gas vehicle needs to find a NG filling station? Why is it that the NG that is available in most homes cannot be used? I am sure that it would require a compressor or something to fill the tank, but that should not be much of a problem.

Is there a barrier based on highway usage taxes? I would think that the decrease in pollution output would make NG engines desirable enough to offset the tax concerns.

:shrug:

[Strelnikov_]

17. Natural Gas Is A Dead End. North America Is Well Into Depletion

Imported LNG has massive safety, cost and energy security issues.

Conversion of distant NG to GTL Diesel (Fuel Oil) makes a lot more sense from a safety, security, and probably a cost standpoint.

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/11/8/6636/36918

[krispos42]

38. The tax issue should be easy to fix

A meter attached to the compressor that fills your tank, and a Bluetooth or WiFi secure wireless link to transmit useage data to th government so you could be assessed a tax.

The only minor hitch would be optimizing the engine for LNG. It might need a different compression ratio or spark timing to operate efficiently. But the gasoline is burned as a gas, just like LNG, so the principles are the same.

A modern gasoline engine is actually very clean-burning, only producing carbon dioxide and water vapor. Nitrates of oxygen, carbon monoxide, and unburnt fuel are virtually eliminated. So running on LNG I don't believe is inheirently cleaner; however, there are other nations besides angry MidEast nations to sell us LNG. Like Russian and some other former Soviet republics that probably wouldn't use the LNG dollars to fund terrorists to blow us up.

[trogdor]

14. Didn't stop them from rolling out the Vega.

Remember the Vega? Nasty little bugger with aluminum engine blocks that burned oil like crazy (when it ran) and had serious self-destructive tendencies. Horrible little cars.

[amandabeech]

51. Or the Pinto. It had the gas tank in the rear,

which often exploded on impact.

Then there's the Omni/Horizon. That car barely made it off the dealer's lot before it had to head for the service bay.

My former landlord, whose son-in-law has a Chevy dealership, says that the latest version of the Aveo, not to be confused with earlier versions, is pretty nice. I hope so.

[JawJaw]

3. Thinking Ahead

I thnk there should be legislation compelling housing developers (high or low density) to provide a suitable external recharge point for all parking spaces on new builds. Maybe some sort of pay-as-you-go version for all new car parks. These things should be as ubiquitous as street lighting.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

6. Link

http://www.hydrogencommerce.com/



"I am trying to find a way of talking sense to power," he said, demanding that GM come clean about what he claims was its role in squashing electric car production, killing mass transportation, dividing cities along highway routes and exploiting its own wealth and influence to keep gas guzzlers on the road.
"They are shameless, they can not be shamed. If they had shame, they would not be foisting Hummers on women," Black said of what he deems the American auto industry's efforts to create customer dependence on gas-run vehicles.
"Nobody woke up and said 'I want a Hummer.' Nobody woke up and said, 'We have to have Escalades.' What about corporate leadership? How about the right thing?"
...Still, Black isn't about to let up. He blames GM, Ford and Chrysler for the anti-American attitudes in the Middle East that led to the World Trade Center attacks and, ultimately, the U.S. war in Iraq.
"We got an oil shock in 1973. They've had almost two generations, a generation and a half to get it right and what did they reward us with? Escalade, Navigator," he said.

[zeemike]

7. Exactly right

If we wait for the corporate industry to give us an electric car we will die of old age still waiting.
They have a money making machine and are well invested in energy stocks so why would they want change? They have no vision other than keeping that money making machine working.
If an electric car was made using motors in the wheels (like they do for the largest trucks) it would eliminate a huge amount of the cost of producing the car...no drive train and transmission and diferentual...but it is not that they can't do it it is that they won't because it messes with there money maker.
We can only hope that some rich people will get together and start a new company to produce what is necessary for the future.

[spinbaby]

8. A side question about electric cars

Hybrids and electric cars have batteries that need to be charged. They often sit in sunny parking lots and drive down sunny highways. Why aren't these cars being built with solar panels on the roof to help recharge the battery? Can you not get enough charge from solar panels? It seems like such an obvious thing to me.

[w4rma]

19. There are so many uses and offshoots from hybrid motor technology that it is ticks me off

that American auto companies have been so short sighted over this.

At least buying Japanese autos helps Japan buy American debt.

[donkeyotay]

22. But then we couldn't queue up in long lines to purchase from monopolies?

That's a very unpatriotic thing to think, let alone say. Why, if we could use the sun to refuel our cars it would hurt the profits of the oil gangsters that run our country. And consumers would keep more of their money which is what king george said he wants. And the air would be cleaner, and we wouldn't be dependent on the Middle East. What, are you some kind of leftist kook or something?

Long live the EV1.

[Orsino]

11. Translation: GM *still* doesn't make any hybrids...

...and won't commit to a timetable for same. An empty promise is not "raising the bar."

[mainer]

12. check out the most gorgeous all-electric car for sale:

It's pricey, but it's beautiful.

http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1

[yurbud]

21. LA Times had a road test of that the other day--said it lives up to the hype

[susanna]

53. That thing is gorgeous, really.

I'm loving that thing. I hope they do very, very well.

[Ian David]

13. I don't care if GM builds a car that spreads happiness and sunshine with every mile

GM is dead to me.

They've blown it.

I will never, EVER buy a car from GM.

Their company needs to be thrown in the trash.

[Bandit]

16. They will be lucky to stay in business long enough to do this

They are still talking about down the road sometime...Everyone else has product on the road... GM has "jumped the shark" and I doubt they will be able to recover...

[yurbud]

18. deathbed conversion? they did make EV1, but could you trust them to support and continue product

after what they did there?

That was just another example why I haven't owned an American made car for over 20 years.

I bought a Ford Courier pick up (used) way back then because I thought it was made by Mazda and just had a Ford badge. The truck was an unreliable piece of shit. Turns out, Mazda made the BODY but Ford put in the engine & guts.

[kestrel91316]

23. I had a Ford Pinto wagon way back in college, and for a

POS it actually was a pretty fair little POS, great in snow and it got me around. My Chevy Citation, OTOH, was a total POS from the get-go.

Now I drive a Honda Accord, and I plan to stick with Honda or Toyota until something BETTER comes along. I'm not holding my breath.

I REALLY want a plug-in hybrid Prius!!!!!!!!!!

[Boxturtle]

24. You may not have to wait too long.

I remember reading that Toyoto was planning on selling a plug-in hybrid Prius next year.

[yurbud]

29. my parents had a pinto when I was a kid. The backseat was small for an 8 year old

the seats were right on the floor, and backseat passengers didn't have their own doors, so whenever I'm a passenger now, I'm always the first one out when we stop.

I drove that Pinto in high school too. once when I closed the door, he handled came off in my hand.

[yurbud]

20. somewhere in the late 60s to early 70s, American car companies went Enron, focusing on accounting

tricks (How can we make more money on a shittier product? How can we pad the bottom line when we aren't moving more product?) instead of making cars that people will want to buy even after they own one.

[HughBeaumont]

25. Saw "Who Killed the Electric Car" 2 weeks ago.

Disgusting.

GM purposely killed their own product in order to produce more houseboat gashogs.

It's no wonder they're getting slaughtered by the Asian car makers.

[Lisa]

27. the sight of them furtively snatching those last cars and crushing them ...

It would have been almost laughable, except that it showed how bitter, mindless, and vindictive the people at the top of the company were. They betrayed not just the customers, but their own staff. The employees who built the car were trying to make GM a better company, and that was the reward they got -- being undermined, and seeing the products of their labor destroyed.

[HughBeaumont]

28. It was sad and purely selfish.

But they had all of those owners by the short hairs with the lease w/o option to buy deals. I seriously think they went out of their way to the tune of millions upon millions to purposely kill California's ZEV law and keep it from spreading nationwide. Shot themselves in the foot for the greater good of Big Oil.

The combustion engine and it's ever-eroding and replaceable parts are their bread and butter. Long-lasting vehicles aren't what they or Ford are in business for.

Like the woman said - "this shouldn't be part of automotive history".

I'm truly interested in converting my Cav to electric when it's time comes.

[Gregorian]

30. Isn't this putting the cart before the horse?

Granted, powerplants are more efficient than automobile engines. And this does alter the point of pollution. But take the coal fired plant as an example. The particulate pollution from coal is horrible. It includes mercury and plutonium. An automobile does not emit mercury.

I am not comfortable with the timing of this. I'm all for plug-in. But we should focus on where the energy is coming from first.

This has the potential for massively increasing the demand on nuclear and coal power plants.

[skids]

31. Nope, the horse sits on your roof.

The big obstacle to small scale renewables for the large number of people that can use them is the cost of a battery system to store the power for use -- here it is embedded in the car. Some hybrid and fuel cell car manufacturers have gone so far as to develop prototype systems where the car plugs into the house to provide house power. In any case, once a person has a way to store a lot of power for future use (and electricity for driving is a better bang for the buck than socket electricity) it is much easier to justify the purchase of rooftop wind or solar (though in the case of solar for the average person who is at work during the day it is not the best source for this particular application, so I'd expect mostly these would be used by those with good wind or microhydro resources.)

[Gregorian]

32. That works if

The number of watts one collects is at least the number of watts it takes to commute.

It's a study. Do we want 100 million solar cells and battery banks? It probably works. But it does get dark at night. And on days like today, I doubt I have enough watts per square meter to get me charged enough to go to work tomorrow.

All in all, the photovoltaic is probably better than what we're doing with gasoline. Once the initial energy cost of each system is paid off, it's all free.

Sorry, I'm thinking out loud. When it comes to energy, I am very cautious. It's hard to do worse than what we're doing now.

This whole process is going to be so slow, it hardly matters what we do. Technology is screaming along at a high pace. And the dorks who drive monster trucks in my area (almost everyone) are not going to be changing their lives any time soon. Gun racks just don't have the same appeal in electric cars. :)

[LetsGoMurphys]

33. What I dont get about the "plug in" thing...

where is that energy coming from? Oil. Is it more efficient?

[frankenforpres]

34. coal, nuclear would be cleaner

nuclear plus electric is clean. dont think many on DU would support it.

[LetsGoMurphys]

35. why is that? n/t

[frankenforpres]

36. i think safety, but not sure

i think there was a poll long ago, but im not positive.

[LetsGoMurphys]

37. ohhh i thought maybe because it was hard to pronounce

be nice to see coal make a comeback. Ive seen some commercials lately pluggin it.

[NickB79]

42. Not to be rude, but a coal resurgence is not a good thing

The daily news about the ever-increasing effects of climate change makes the increased use of coal a scary, scary prospect.

Those commercials promote clean-coal technology, but since they don't consider CO2 a pollutant, clean-coal plants don't stop it's release into the atmosphere.

[LetsGoMurphys]

45. im familiar w/ the dirty properties

of coal, great grandson of miners ( I think everyone was then where im from). I meant to add clean coal, and thank you for the info. but what are the adverse effects of CO2? worse than the adverse effects of our leaders practicing imperialism to get oil?

[NickB79]

46. Global warming is the adverse effect of CO2 release

And it will probably kill billions by the end of the century if nothing is done to mitigate it. If you have the time, the Environmental board here has some very informative, and at times disturbing, news stories of the current and projected effects of climate change on the planet.

The only way leaders practicing imperialism could be worse is by launching an all-out nuclear war.

[Odin2005]

49. There is no such thing as clean coal.

It's only "clean" bcause CO2 is ignored, and the "carbon sequestration" stuff Big Coal is pushing is a PR stunt. The only truely clean sources of energy, until we get fusion, is nuclear and renewables.

[krispos42]

40. It is more efficient to due things in bulk

except, apparently, for the government to buy pharmacuticals in bulk, but I digress...

Most electricity comes from coal, nuclear fission, or natural gas power plants. In the case of the fossil-fuel plants, you can have more pollution-control hardware and higher efficiencies with one big plant than a hundred thousand automotive engines. In addition, the coal is a domestic product, one which we have enough of to last a couple of centuries. In other words, no sucking up to oil nations.

Plus, because the car charges off the of the electrical grid, we can get energy from whatever non-polluting and/or domestic source we want. Wind, waves, hydroelectric, solar, biomass, coal, whatever. No reason the entire Midwest can't have a windmill every couple of hundred yards, pumping megawatts across the country. No reason that large portions of the Pacific and Atlantic can't have wave-powered electrical generators anchored in 'farms' off the coast, pumping megawatts to the urban centers. No reason that the Southwest and Texas can't have arrays of mirrors that turn water into high-pressure steam to turn a turbine to pump megawatts across the country.

But we have to change the laws to make such private ventures possible and profitable.

And figuring out how to make nuclear fusion, which, unlike nuclear fission, only generates helium as a by-product of energy production. Thanks, Newt, for killing federal funding for that back in the '90s.

[Odin2005]

50. Gingrich cut funding for fusion back in the 90's!?!

Must of gotten some nice bribes from Big Coal. :mad:

[krispos42]

52. Yeah, the Red-Inkers did

Might not have been Newt, but I think it was. Couldn't waste government money on that, now, could we?

Of course, the Europeans just approved funding for a nuclear fusion reactor development project, so they'll develop it first and we'll have to pay them for the licencing technology. With money we don't have.