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."

19 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. I never thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...I'd own part of a battery research laboratory!

    1. Re:I never thought... by SEWilco · · Score: 4, Funny

      So you didn't expect the battery inquisition?

  2. 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 MrLogic17 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly.

      A question for the conspiracy theory crowd:
      If the was so much demand for an electric car back in the 90's, why did GM, Ford, Honda, and Toyota all end production? 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?

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

      My theory is that it's the same reason my laptop dies after about 60 minutes....

    3. 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]

  3. I'm not impressed...no need for research... by PalmKiller · · Score: 4, Funny

    China makes lithium batteries that can release large amounts of energy all at once...the fireballs are spectacular.

  4. 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/

  5. Re:Financing? by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sorry, but you misspelled "the money they're fleecing from the taxpayers."

  6. Ultracapacitors by ickleberry · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Batteries are a dirty, nasty hard to recycle oldschool technology that dies after a few 100 charges, or maybe a few thousand if you're lucky. More research into ultracaps is needed - using better nano-tech to increase the surface area, testing of ultracapacitor-based systems and that sort of thing.

    1. Re:Ultracapacitors by Nautical+Insanity · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Umm...what batteries are you referring to that are dirty, nasty, and hard-to-recycle? Lead-acid batteries, sure, I'll grant that. But that's not what is being proposed for electric cars.

      This http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/03/tesla-electric-car-batteries-non-toxic-recycled.php is closer to it.

      With regards to life, I recall hearing that the newest generation of lithium batteries last far more cycles than your laptop's battery, though I cannot provide a link at the moment.

      As for ultracapacitors, yes they're neat and could work. But the battery tech we have now is much closer to reality than our current ultracapacitor tech. Should ultracapacitors work out, we'll be grateful we started building the infrastructure to support our battery-powered cars.

  7. Re:Financing? by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In all honesty, if we end up spending $100 billion and end up with some amazing battery technology as a result, I will consider it worth it. Better than a lot of the other trillions we've been throwing around.

    --
    Qxe4
  8. Not really that important... by Ceseuron · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not seeing how this story or any other story about GM and their "Volt" is noteworthy. The Volt is not a marvel of engineering. It's not innovative. It's the same crappy "hybrid" concept that every other auto maker has tried to push. The Volt only goes 40 miles on a charge before rolling over to the gas engine. And at the nearly $40,000 price point, why bother buying it? If you spent a bit more money, you can buy a Tesla Model S, priced at about $50,000 (assuming you can get the rebate). The Model S doesn't even have a gasoline engine, goes over 7 times farther than the Volt on a single charge, can go from 0 to 60 in under 6 seconds, and looks a hell of a lot better than the Volt IMO.

    If GM uses this new laboratory to produce cars with no gasoline engine (all electric), I'm on board. But if they use it to push this ridiculous Volt and other similar hybrids onto the market, it'll be just another waste of our taxpayer dollars.

  9. scuttled by Chevron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Read up on the Toyota RAV4EV electric vehicle first sold in the US in 1997. It was based on the RAV4 body and could travel 120 miles per charge.

    The RAV4EV was sold direct to consumers in 2002 in California and cost $33,000 after rebates.

    The car was discontinued when Chevron gained rights to NiMH battery patents and forced Toyota to stop producing them for their cars.

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

    1. 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.

  10. 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

    1. Re:Fixed that for you... by Chabo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think another large factor dealing heavily into the American preference for large cars besides safety:

      Europe is fairly cramped, overall. Citizens live in dense cities and towns, and drive on narrow roads that were once oxcart paths or cobblestone streets, and small cars are easy to maneuver in these situations. Since this isn't really an issue in most of the US, we prefer to buy larger cars so we can have more legroom, and ride in greater comfort. Performance aside, given the choice between a Golf or a Passat in Europe, I'd take the Golf, but I'd take the Passat in the U.S.

      Gas prices factor in somewhat, but most people don't often base a car choice on that alone.

      --
      Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
  11. Re:Oh really? by Artifex · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'd like to make a safe bet that this research lab is going to be used exclusively to butter up Congress with tours for more bailout money.

    I suspect that, myself. GM already had at least one battery research facility; Charlie Rose was taken on a tour of it, LAST YEAR.

    http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9226 (Part 1, or maybe it was in Part 2)

    --
    Get off my launchpad!
  12. They Already HAD a Battery Tech that worked by cc_pirate · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And they sold it to Exxon Mobil, who buried it and laughed all the way back to their oilfields.

    --

    "There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur