Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

G.M. Opens Its Own Battery Research Laboratory

Posted by timothy on from the under-pressure dept.

Al writes "Bankrupt automaker G.M. has taken a significant step towards reinventing itself by opening a battery laboratory in Michigan on a site that once churned out internal combustion engines. The new facility lets G.M. engineers simulate all kinds of conditions to determine how long batteries will last once they're inside its vehicles. Battery packs are charged and discharged while being subjected to high and low temperatures as well as extremes of humidity. Engineers can also simulate different altitudes by placing the packs in barometric chambers. The facility has also been designed so that engineers located in New York and Germany and at the University of Michigan can perform experiments remotely. Despite its financial troubles, G.M. has committed to producing the Volt and is already working on second- and third-generation battery technology at the new lab."

11 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. Back to step 1. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    GM was so far ahead of everyone else with the EV1. Sure it was a money loser, but had they kept that line of cars around in limited production they could have worked out all sorts of problems with mass producing electric cars and they would have owned all the patents and know how in the area for 20 years. Instead, they killed the program, dumped all the IP they gained from it and went back to building SUV's and pickup trucks.

    Insane.

    1. Re:Back to step 1. by afidel · · Score: 4, Informative

      They looked at the EV-1 as a solution to a legislative (not economic) problem. Once they got California to back down on the zero emission requirement and bought federal laws that said noone could be more restrictive than California they figured there was little need to keep the program around. Since 51+% of passenger vehicles sold were light trucks and SUV's I would say their reasoning was fairly sound.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Back to step 1. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      If there's money to be made selling 100% electric cars, why didn't someone, somewhere on this very large globe make them - thus making a killing being the only supplier?

      1) GM didn't actually sell them. They came up with some horrible stupid and mangled "you can only lease this car" scheme.
      2) GM only made the car available in a very small amount of markets and even those people who lived in the market never heard about it.
      3) The patents for the large automotive NiMH batteries that would be used for such cars had it's controlling stake bought out by an oil company. It doesn't take a conspiracy to see that an oil company isn't going to let their business dry up.

      At the very least, why hasn't someone made a fortune refurbing used cars into electric?

      Because no one except on a huge scale, and even then it's hard, can buy Cobasys' NiMH batteries?

      Finally, it's amusing to hear two big executives at GM commenting on how canceling the EV1 was actually one of the biggest mistakes that GM made if we are to believe you and the GP.

      According to former GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner, his worst decision of his tenure at GM was "axing the EV1 electric-car program and not putting the right resources into hybrids. It didnâ(TM)t affect profitability, but it did affect image."[17] Wagoner repeated this assertion during an NPR interview after the December 2008 Senate hearings on the U.S. auto industry bailout request.[18]

      According to the March 13, 2007, issue of Newsweek, "GM R&D chief Larry Burns . . . now wishes GM hadn't killed the plug-in hybrid EV1 prototype his engineers had on the road a decade ago: 'If we could turn back the hands of time,' says Burns, 'we could have had the Chevy Volt 10 years earlier.'"[19]

  2. This lab has been there for years by Mr.Zuka · · Score: 5, Informative

    This lab has been there for some time.
    I saw it on PBS comparing the old EV1 battery to the new Volt pack.
    Apparently it was recorded in 2005.
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1046766/

  3. Re:scuttled by Chevron by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1, Informative

    source snippet:
    Discontinuance
    Toyota discontinued the RAV4 EV program one day after the passing of new air-quality requirements by CARB. CARB eliminated most of the Zero Emissions Vehicle requirement, substituting a greater number of partial zero-emissions vehicles (PZEVs) to meet the requirement.

    Um, seems to me that the reason it was discontinued was because the law made it no longer necessary for car makers to produce them. They only did produce it in the first place because CA required it of them.

    The part you probably mean to cite refers to the fact that Chevron discontinued production of the battery. This just meant that Toyota would need a new supplier; no small task indeed. But hardly the reason it was discontinued. The law still stated they had to produce zero emission vehicles, that is until the law changed. The very next day they stopped offering the RAV4EV.

    But nice try anyway.

    --
    People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  4. Re:scuttled by Chevron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    from the same wikipedia article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rav4ev

    Whether or not Toyota wanted to continue production, it was unlikely to be able to do so, because the EV-95 battery was no longer available. Chevron had inherited control of the worldwide patent rights for the NiMH EV-95 battery when it merged with Texaco, which had purchased them from General Motors. Chevron's unit won a $30,000,000 settlement from Toyota and Panasonic, and the production line for the large NiMH batteries was closed down and dismantled. This case was settled in the ICC International Court of Arbitration, and not publicised due to a gag order placed on all parties involved.[1][2] Only smaller NiMH batteries, incapable of powering an electric vehicle or plugging in, are currently allowed by Chevron-Texaco.

  5. Fixed that for you... by tlambert · · Score: 5, Informative

    Fixed that for you...

    "Sure is nice that you spent your money on SUVs for the last eight years, that they didn't have any short term financial incentive to do research like this."

    Maybe if they thought a little longer term and remembered "the energy crisis" from 1973 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis as they were designing their vehicles, people would want to buy them now.

    Or maybe if GM hadn't discontinued the EV1 in 199 and then taken all the EV1's and crushed them in 2003 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1, they'd have something to sell that people want to buy.

    Or maybe if instead of discontinuing them in 2001, they still sold Suzuki G10 XFi engine based Chevy Sprints / Geo Metros which got 51MPG highway, 43 MPg city, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_Cultus, they'd have non-hybrid cars that exceeded the new CAFE standards already.

    GM had the products and manufacturing capability for success in the current economy, but they squandered it all on short term thinking, like investments in GMAC (which got about 7% of last Novembers TARP bailout money after declaring itself a bank, or $5 billion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMAC).

    -- Terry

  6. Re:Not really that important... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Because they charge a fortune for their car?

    It's easy to make an electric car. Making a *cheap* electric car is the hard part.

  7. Re:I never thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Don't worry: If it ever turns a profit, you won't see any of it.

  8. Re:I never thought... by FiloEleven · · Score: 2, Informative

    The banks who have repaid TARP funds mostly consist of the banks that were strong-armed into taking the money in the first place. They've been itching to get rid of it since they took it, and they tried to give it back months ago but were told that they couldn't, because "then consumers would know which banks are fnord insolvent, and that would cause a crisis." Why the government changed their tune I don't know, but I would not be surprised if we don't see much more than twice what we've recovered so far (around $60 billion IIRC) because the banks who have yet to pay the money back are the ones who won't be able to.

    Also keep in mind that TARP is worded to allow $750 billion worth of bailout at once. That is, as soon as money starts coming back in, it can be pushed right back out the door again. This is why I'm skeptical that they are using the conventional definition of "profit."

    Regarding the bill for all of this, it's on its way as either tax increases if we're lucky or a drop in purchasing power if we're not. The third option, to stop spending ridiculous amounts of money overseas and on defense (read: offense) and use that money to pay off the debt, well...that's just not supported by the people in power.

    --
    Your brain is not a computer.
  9. Re:Now actually take it in a positive direction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    TFA is fairly poorly written, and misses out on a lot of worthwhile detail.

    From a much better article:

    "The facility has green technology, and has a center hallway with LED lights and floor made from recycled tires. 90% of the battery electricity testing is returned to the grid and GM is experimenting with wind turbines to help power the lab."

    Also missing is that this is a replacement for the "old" battery lab they've been using for the Volt battery packs.