Detroit Auto Show: Will the Volt generate new EPA regulations and ratings?
While the Chevy Volt continues to reap industry praise, some insiders at GM are contemplating the "ifs" should this vehicle come to market. While at the Detroit Auto Show, I was talking to three key GM product planners and asked about potential emissions regulations for the Volt.
"Technically, the Volt's E-flex 3-cylinder ICE is like a remote generator," I suggested. "Wouldn't it have to follow the same EPA regulations as a Honda generator or irrigation pump on a farm?"
"It's an issue that needs addressing," said one of the planners.
"Isn't the same, as say the homemade electric vehicles with genset trailers to charge the car while driving?" I asked. "is it any different than a generator running on a RV?"
"No one knows what kind of regulations (the Volt) would be subjected to," said the planner.
Given that the ICE in a vehicle like the Volt would run on a limited basis, current EPA smog regulations need not be toughened for these applications. In fact, it benefits the movement to open up the regulations and allow diesels to operate in such a part-time application because they could generate electricity more efficiently. The upside is that the ICE can be tuned to run at just one or two rpm levels very efficiently.
The EPA, said one of the GM guys, could also institute some type efficiency program, much like CAFE. In other words, electric vehicles could be rated based on how much juice they draw from the grid per mile driven. That figure could be slapped with a pro-rated carbon penalty based on the overall CO2 output of generating plants in the country. Such a program could be used to penalize manufacturers if they don't develop more efficient vehicles or it could be used by consumers in their purchasing decisions. The ratings could also reflect the amount of fuel used by the ICE to generate electricity for each mile on a long trip, not just small daily commutes where it might not come on at all.
That's why I asked Martin Eberhard of Tesla Motors a similar question, and he said the car owners could "skirt the issue" by installing solar panels.
Right now the federal government should embrace the Volt's concept and encourage more progress without the threat of regulation or penalties. New tests are needed for both mileage estimates and emissions. EPA administrator Steve Johnson did receive a briefing on the Volt (that's him with GM's Beth Lowery), but I could find no comments from him about the vehicle. Let's hope he was impressed.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Cheezedog 10:39AM (1/12/2007)
Intresting problem.... but If the car can deliver 150 MPG and is made my US manufacture in the United States, you think lawmakers would be stepping over each other to easy any worry on its construction.
Anyway.... (As a moderate american that really does not pay enought attention to what is happening in his state's capital, much less Washington...) I like to say that this is almost just the type of car I be looking for if I was in the market for a new car. Sure, I wish it was electric AWD, hugged the ground more, and a little more sporty like in wheel hub motor powered BMW Mini from a year back.
But the basics of what I need out of a car are still there... Nearly impossible to beat gas milage... Respectable acceleration.... room for 4.... good looks, and a play for my wallet being prewraped in a the flag of a american manufacture... A good little American like me can't refuse that... Now can I.
Reply
Roy Harvie 11:11AM (1/12/2007)
I understand that GM has given out contracts for $15M to research low cost Lithium Ion batteries for the Volt. I think they should offer to finance a small startup company http://www.europositron.com that is trying to raise $2M to build its prototype aluminum battery. This battery is projected to be very low cost and far superior to Lithium Ion.
Reply
cheezedog 12:41PM (1/12/2007)
http://www.europositron.com
Intresting Roy... It could be real... but it could be a scam though...
The person that wrote this obviously knows a thing or two about battery technology, and latched there teeth into the idea of making a better battery... If one can make a aluminum battery that holds more charge better, longer, and with more cycles, then lithium Ion, that be hella great...
But the problem is this guy only hints at problems, and does not want to show any solutions into the matter... So what he really is asking you to do is, "lets take all the solutions used in the past, put them into a new Aluminum battery, and see how far this one can go..."
Eventualy that has to be done... but in the mean time I would want to see some scientific language be used to explain what he thinks might happen.. Im no scientist, but I think he should be able to explain well enough how his idea will work. (or atleast as soon as he pattents it... That could be why he does not want to explain what he thinks he has solved.)
Reply
OhmExcited 1:29PM (1/12/2007)
There is no way GM will entertain a theory at this point, at least for the first edition of the Volt. People want the cars soon, and they've made it abundantly clear that this program is on a fast track. 2 or 3 years is a blink in the auto industry for brand new vehicles, let alone new vehicles with profoundly different engineering design. They will pick a grownup company with proven track records, while still offering technology that is in the forefront. a123systems fits that bill.
Reply
Tim 1:32PM (1/12/2007)
The key here is the E-Flex architecture. With E-Flex, GM can begin with current battery and/or "range extender" tech and future upgrades to will be a simple matter of “plug-n-play.” As power tech improves, so can your E-Flex car whatever body style you have chosen. 2x2, 4x4, all electric, natural gas, H2, Biofuel or some unknown future tech. It’s all good with E-Flex.
Reply
Sebastian 10:15AM (1/13/2007)
Will someone please explain me how come having an ICE motor charging a battery is more environmental friendly/efficient than having the same motor power the wheels in a plug-in hybrid?
Reply
Nathan 2:16AM (1/13/2007)
Sebastian: IC engines can be tuned to a specific RPM where they are most efficient. When you're using an IC engine to power a drivetrain, its speed is continually varying, so it's almost never at peak efficiency. You're simply wasting energy, especially when braking or idling. GM's E-flex architecture runs the ICE at a constant optimum speed, getting the most possible energy out of the fuel to the batteries and not wasting a joule at the traffic lights. :)
Reply
jokuvaan 11:40AM (1/13/2007)
Engine would be only backup, main energy would come from outside of car, grid or own solar panels or whatever.
Reply
LaughingTooHard 1:47PM (1/13/2007)
Sebastian, see the above post. ICE engines are most efficient when running at a set RPM. Think of a gas generator, it runs at small RPM range. If you use this system, the weight and cost of combustible fuel - at this time - is more efficient than carrying around a heavy battery pack to mimic the 640 mile range of the combo.
In addition, a ULEV small motor is nearly as clean as getting power from your plug even in the most green energy states. You can improve the design by incorporating solar, wind or hydro into your home so when you charge it is zero emissions. Then when you need to travel farther than 40miles you can use E100, E85 or BioDiesel and eliminate gasoline entirely.
A ethanol still can installed in your home which can make the 12 gallons of fuel in a single day, provided you can supply the mash (organic material). The concept is nearly perfect for today. In 5-10 years it may be better but as it stands it is much better than ICE alone or a parallel hybrid like the Prius.
Sounds like a well thought out design and most people are excited about it.
Reply
seaplaneguy 10:07PM (1/15/2007)
Electric car is 25% efficient because power plants are 30%. The problem is 1/2 the power can be used for heating and cooling. Your 40 miles is now 20 miles. At -10F where I am, it would take half a charge just to make it warm enough to drive. An IC engine can use waste heat, which is the waste heat the power plant wasted into space.
The key is to make an engine 60% efficient all the time. This would yield at least 100 mpg at 70 mph and about 200 mpg at 35 mpg. Such an engine can go from 0- max RPM. It also has regenerative braking. Such an engine can use the wate heat, and on a cold day the 40% loss is now in the car keeping my family warm.
Even if you were to have 400 mile range and 5 minute recharge, you will always be less efficient. A IC engine when properly designed is a fuel to co2 converter with no smog or emissions other than h20 and co2. A power plant is not designed correctly to do that.
CO2 is a fertilizer and is very important to plant growth. The more co2 we make the better and greener our planet will become, so long as the combustion is done corretly. A classical pison crank engine cannot get there because it violates needed requirements of the combustion and thermodynamics.
Reply
CM 3:26AM (1/16/2007)
Sorry, seaplaneguy, but your figures are way off.
The latest GE "combined cycle" powerplant hits 60%, and even older powerplants routinely exceed 40%. Why? Being stationary, they can use huge cooling towers or water from rivers or oceans for cooling, thus getting closer to maximun thermal efficiency. Theoretical and practical thermodynamic efficiency is determined by the temperature difference between the hot and cold end of the cycle - the greater the temp difference, the greater the efficiency.
Electrical systems are not affected by the thermal limitations of heat engines, and can routinely exceed 80% efficiency.
IC auto engines cannot reach 60% efficiency, it would require a far larger radiator than could possibly fit on a car. "High efficiency" Atkinson cycle hybrids and diesels are usually 30% - 40%.
It would hardly take "1/2 the power for heating and cooling", typically 1-2 kw for AC, 4 kw for heating vs. up to 125 kw (depending on power demand) for the drive motor. Also, a "pluggable" hybrid design might choose to run the IC engine specifically to provide heat during cold weather.
Even the cleanest best designed IC engines emit more than just H2O and CO2, though emissions of unburned HC, CO, and NOx are now very low. Any "emissions reduction" technology usable on IC engines could also be applied to fuel burning powerplants - and a single stationary locale is easier to maintain and "keep clesn" that a million moving cars. Also, some powerplants (hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal) have no emissions at all.
While plants do use CO2, there is plenty in the air for them and it is usually not a limiting factor in their growth. Rising CO2 levels will not make the planet "greener".
Reply
Tim 9:57AM (1/16/2007)
CM- You appear to be pretty current on this subject. What do you think about the StarRotor continuous-cycle engine as the "range extender?" http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:StarRotor_Corporation The StarRotor is said to be 3-4 times more efficient than the best IC engines and can be tuned to run on almost any combustible liquid or gaseous fuel. I know new engine tech is a really hard sell, but this concept is interesting regarding your above thermal efficiency comment. Any thoughts?
Reply
seaplaneguy 4:51PM (1/22/2007)
CM,
A well designed car will use 0-11 hp at 0-70 mph.
The average speed of a car is 25 mph in the usa, or about 1.4 hp. If you average your figures you get 3.66 hp for climate control year round. On average then climate loads are 2.7 times driving loads. Your calculation are NOT accurate, sorry.
When an IC engine is correctly designed it will have an efficiency of 50-60% from 1-100% of power. IC engines have power control methods that make them very poor when used off one setting. Correct this and they will perform. Current designs do NOT respect the needs of thermodynamics. Electric motors have similar issues with crude controls, but recent advances have correct these.
To solve the IC problem you cannot use a crank, and I will leave it at that.
CO2 is in saturation and therefore has no effect on temperature. Global Warming is a hoax. More over, the co2 concentrations of 370 ppm are much lower than they should be for plant growth and water conservation. 1100 ppm is where it should be and it would take many decades to get there at current co2 output.
A car should get around 250 mpg at 55 mph and around town it should be around 525 mpg. The climate loads for an IC engine are possibly FREE from waste, unlike an electric design.
Reply