GM says by tightly controlling how the battery charges will keep it alive for 10 years/150,000 miles

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/apr/09-can-smart-tech-keep-chevy-volt.s-battery-running

...Unfortunately, also familiar to many cell phone and laptop owners is the fact that Li-ion batteries tend to deteriorate over time and die after a few hundred charge-discharge cycles. In consumer electronics, it is a relatively minor inconvenience to replace an old battery with a new one every couple of years, but this would be unaccept­able in a hybrid car, especially given the large size of the battery pack and the difficulty involved in replacing it.

Chevy got around this problem by carefully managing how the battery pack is charged and discharged. Enough spare capacity is built into the pack so that it has to be charged to only 80 percent of its theoretical capacity to provide a 40-mile driving range. By not charging the battery pack to the max, its life is prolonged. For similar reasons, the pack is never discharged to less than 30 percent of its capacity. GM claims the result is a battery lifetime of 10 years or 150,000 miles without any noticeable deterioration.

Lithium batteries are great but the have to be treated very carefully. The consequences of mistreatment are either a permanently dead battery or a violent gas release with fire.

My planes have software that shuts the motor off at 30% capacity. I would hope GM installs similar idiot proof software in the car instead of leaving it up to the driver.

EX: http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/17inch-battery/

John, it is fine to point out the shortcomings of any technology that is out there, but why don't you at least put 1/20th the effort into fact checking your claims on things other than ethanol?

The fact is that the batteries designed for cars are a DIFFERENT CHEMISTRY than those that have been used in the past for personal electronics. Not only are they much longer lasting (10 years shelf life vs 3 year shelf life) but they also have eliminated the problems of overheating. Battery management systems are extremely important, but ignoring the difference in chemistry when comparing next generation autos to past generation lithium batteries to is plainly dishonest.

did you even go to the link?

It isn't just the energy management system, there has also been significant changes in battery chemistry that makes evaluating the performance of batteries to be used in automobiles by the past performance that people have experienced in their laptops etc, just plain dishonest. If such an error would posted in an article related to ethanol, John would have 15 pages of cut and paste from the ethanol industries pet academics refuting the error.

seems to me like he is passing on info and not making statements here

been concerns (that everybody has been working on, Japanese companies too) about the life of the batteries in automotive applications. I thought it showed some technical expertise on GM's part to come up with this approach - and to get 150,000 miles from their batteries! To me this sounds darn good. (Appparently the editors of the magazine were rather impressed by this too.) (also, I wanted to post something good about GM, considering the news lately).

somebody mentioned "selective" quoting from the article ... I guess I could have posted the whole (damn) article but I think people prefer if you select and print the "juice" of the article (if you can, - some articles it's hard to select what to print and what to leave out) Also, there is the problem of 4 paragraphs from copywrite protected material.

... if I had just printed the last paragraph (which really was the "good" stuff, everyone would have seen this:

"Chevy got around this problem by..." ... well, WHAT Problem? ... so I felt I had to show what was being referred to in the opening of the last paragraph. Also, the achievement by GM wouldn't be much of an achievement worth mentioning if there wasn't a problem that they had overcome. Apparently, that's what magazine writers and editors thought too.

I wasn't questioning you at all, I am concerned about the person who seems hell bent to make everyone see things as he does and that bothers me.
I'm a ford man myself but I'm an American first and GM is good for our country and I'm happy to read some positive news coming from their camp. I wish them well.

Add: I think some here should read this, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5773781

What are they, then? :shrug:

They are car batteries, which are a different chemistry than those batteries the article points to in laptops and other personal electronic devices.

Are you saying that they wasted all that R&D, because they don't know how their own batteries work? But that you do?

The article isn't by GM.

The author of the NON-GM article brings home a supposed weakness of the Volt batteries by pointing to the batteries in laptops of yesterday.

The implicit claim is made that power management is allowing GM to nurse along **those** batteries.

That is a false argument since the chemistry of *those* batteries is different than the batteries GM and other automakers propose to use in their autos.

**those" batteries = the lithium batteries customers have experienced over the last 10 years in personal electronic devices.

The article isn't by GM.

Err, who said it was?

The author of the NON-GM article brings home a supposed weakness of the Volt batteries by pointing to the batteries in laptops of yesterday.

No, he's highlighting the problems by pointing to devices that we are already familiar with. Hence the phrase "familiar to many cell phone and laptop owners". In case you hadn't noticed, there isn't a huge base of volt owners out there.

The implicit claim is made that power management is allowing GM to nurse along **those** batteries.

That is a false argument since the chemistry of *those* batteries is different than the batteries GM and other automakers propose to use in their autos.

Well, you'd better tell GM that, then:

"GM's engineering staff has become increasingly confident that the batteries will be able to meet the 10 year/150,000 mile durability target along with the 40 mile range.
In order achieve this the battery development team led by Denise Gray has developed advanced battery management systems that it believes are the key to maximizing battery life and performance."
from Conditioning will be the key to battery performance and durability says GM at Green Fuels Congress,

and

"The Volt’s lithium-ion battery will be the same kind found in cell phones"
from The Chevy Volt: Unplug it and go! at, err, GM

Surely you intended to include that snip in context and it just got dropped in the C&P process, right?

The Volt’s lithium-ion battery will be the same kind found in cell phones, but the Volt’s battery will be bigger, more expensive, and will have to meet the high standards of GM customers. Making an inexpensive lithium-ion battery, that meets GM’s durability and safety standards, is a challenge that will have to be overcome before you see this vehicle in your driveway.

That sounds suspiciously like they are talking about something 'like' but 'different'. Is that what the OP wrote? Wait, you can't even keep track of what you wrote, so forget the question.

No, I missed out the "bigger and more expensive" part because I assumed, that it would actually be fucking obvious to anybody you wouldn't be able to run a car off a 3Wh Nokia battery costing ten bucks.

Obviously, I forgot who I was talking to.

So yes, it's the same kind but BIGGER. And it's more expensive, because it's bigger and presumably has to withstand side impacts the average mobile phone doesn't. Happy?

And it has to meet "the high standards of GM customers" & "GM’s durability and safety standards", but having seen the hummer that's a mixed blessing.

edit: Now, how about addressing the management system? Remember, the thing the article talks about? The thing GM are quite pleased with themselves for developing? The thing you reckon they don't need?

Is it a curable condition or are you permanently impaired? At no time did I say or imply that battery management technology wasn't crucial, you just made that up like you do so many other things you post.

The OP was made by poster that slams electric vehicles every chance he gets because he is desperate to see ethanol retain its place as the favored government alternative to gasoline.
The OP opens with a paragraph designed to reinforce negative public perceptions of battery performance.
The OP was designed to transfer the negative associations and frustrations related to last generation battery performance to the use of batteries in electric vehicles thereby discouraging public support for EV technology.

Goodnite.

But since he didn't comment on the article, it's irrelevant. We've both read it, so what sections Wxy quoted is also irrelevant.

You, on the other hand, are making claims about "different chemistry" in the GM/LG battery tech that even they aren't making: And instead of linking to a paper or two about GM's revolutionary batteries, you're just running around crying because mean ol' John is picking on batteries.

It's not terribly convincing, but I guess if you keeps you happy...
:shrug:

Thank you, but I'll do my own cost benefit calculations regarding the need to substantiate every word I write. There have already been several articles posted here on the Volt batteries, the Lightening's batteries, the tesla's batteries and others. Finally I believe in the ability of people to use the google for themselves. If you think my claim is wrong about the chemistry being different from your basic past laptop chemistry, then prove me wrong.
As far as your reading skills go, you've demonstrated them well again - "You, on the other hand, are making claims about "different chemistry" in the GM/LG battery tech that even they aren't making" The only thing you put up was a page from an EV primer (pecifically labeled for 9th-12th graders) and because they didn't specifically go into the topic under the heading of "chemistries" then the conclusion you reach is "even they aren't making" the claim I am?
Please, please grow up.

It's a lithium-ion polymer battery with a manganese cathode: This is new technology if you have fallen through a worm-hole and popped up in 1994, or readily available tech if you end up in 1999.

And yes, they are quite common in R/C models, as well as laptops, phones and the like

GM seem to have gone with them not because they're ultra efficient, or high tech, or high capacity, but because they're dirt cheap, which is good for two reasons: Firstly, it encourages people who can't afford a Telsa to think about an EV, and secondly we get to watch you spinning around in high umbrage. :)

Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

I was operating under the (obviously false) idea that A123 had landed the contract with GM and that they were going with this:
http://www.a123systems.com/products

At A123Systems we have developed patented Nanophosphate™ lithium ion battery technology that provides engineers and application developers with high power, excellent abuse tolerance, and very long life.

Designed for price-performance, A123Systems’ products are applicable to a wide range of industries, allowing OEMs expanded flexibility in system design by removing many traditional technology constraints. Our company offers an array of products from single cells like our award-winning ANR26650M1 to large format, integrated, high power systems like our Heavy Duty packs.


That said, there does seem to be significant design differences in the battery structure from the common idea of the "exploding lithium battery".

Chevrolet Volt Battery Packs Will Be Manufactured by GM in the U.S.
Topic started by kristopher on Feb-12-09 08:58 AM (10 replies)
LG Chem has been selected to supply the lithium-ion battery cells for the Chevrolet Volt

Nevermind, it happens... :)

And yes, they are less likely to go bang than their cobalt-based cousins, and not having a liquid electrolyte should make them less unpleasant in a smash. These factors, along with price & being a mature technology, makes them a fairly sane choice for mass-produced EV/HEVs - even if they need careful looking after and the performance is a bit naff.

(Generally, portable electronics don't take corners at 60mph with people sitting in them, and don't have over 200 cells, so the trade-off between price & thermal stability vs. energy density means it isn't worth using manganese).

Although as Peterson points out, the casing does look like it's designed to explode in one direction, so maybe there's still a non-zero risk...

http://bioage.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef01156f2a62d8970b-800wi

They are building a cool eclectic car.

Have you ever built an eclectic vehicle of any kind or better yet have you ever built a hybrid vehicle?

I have. I get over 200 mpg in the city.

Let me know when you learn to read and think logically.

If you only charge the battery to 80% of capacity and discharge it to 30% capacity, that means that you are only using about 50% of the capacity. That effectively halves the energy density, to something about equivalent to a Lead Acid battery, which is so cheap, you could replace it every 20 thousand miles, just like you do tires.

This is an advance?

If you shoveled 9KWh of lead acid batteries in the same car, you wouldn't get much luggage space. I'm also not sure you'd get away with that many cycles without regular maintenance: This seems like the cheapest option.

Completely draining them wears them out a lot faster. That's the case with almost all batteries.