GM teams with utilities to develop electric car charging infrastructure

General Motors has already gotten a bit of cash from the US Department of Energy to further the development of plug-in hybrids, and it now looks like it's taking things one step further on another initiative, with it teaming up with the Electric Power Research Institute and 30 utilities in 37 states to produce a charging infrastructure for electric cars. Among other things, they'll be working to develop an affordable, reliable electricity source that's weather-proof and child-proof, which they say could be installed in places like public garages, curbside meters, or workplace parking lots. The utility companies, in particular, will also apparently be working to ensure that the grid doesn't get overwhelmed during peak hours. All that, GM says, will be done by 2010, which just happens to coincide with the launch of its much-touted Volt hybrid.

[ill trooper @ Jul 22nd 2008 2:33PM]

Watching "Who Killed The Electric Car?" made me not give a $%)t about what happens to GM. They had the future by the nuts and let it go.

[Chad @ Jul 22nd 2008 2:37PM]

That's like watching Bowling for Columbine and blaming Columbine killings on Lockheed Martin. The program cost them $300 million and they produced 300 cars... ($1 million/car). At the time, gas was less than $1.50/gallon it was not feasible to mass market the car.

[Greg D @ Jul 22nd 2008 2:55PM]

Agreed! They already developed an electrical device in the charging paddles that meets all of the requested requirements. Why they have to develop something new is just a flat out lie. Not to mention that most properly designed electric vehicles can be plugged into normal 3 pronged outlets. This announcement is all about delaying what they already have and building proprietary connectors.

[Enigma @ Jul 22nd 2008 2:58PM]

Wow...the armchair engineers in this thread are obviously much smarter than the real ones.

[Rik @ Jul 22nd 2008 3:02PM]

@Greg

1. There needs to be some kind of 'identification' of the car, because then they know who to send the bill to.
2. You're not talking about typical household amounts of power here. To quickly charge a such a car you'll need a little more than your average household socket.

[HondaFlyer @ Jul 22nd 2008 3:09PM]

They're about as dumb as I thought, trying to start the electric car market when gas was $1.50/gallon. I guess they still get props for thinking about the environment when no other car companies were (12 years ago).

[tbone @ Jul 22nd 2008 3:37PM]

thats a dumb and useless analogy chad. i really don't think that the car companies were oblivious to the fact that oil and gas are non-renewable resources. So they, could not have made a grand profit back 10 years ago, but at least they could have started manufacturing the electric in small numbers to get the ball rolling.
corporations like GM have such a me-first and narrow view on their quarter earnings that they don't care about the little guy. look what happened to this whole sub-prime mortgage fiasco , "oh, who would've guessed that poor people would have defaulted on their high interest sub-prime mortgages?" c'mon these economists and business men like at GM go to the best schools to study patterns and predict outcomes and apply what they find out to make money. so screw them.

[Enigma @ Jul 22nd 2008 3:45PM]

@tbone

Corporations are there to make money...and that is what they did. It all comes down to supply and demand - the demand was quite high for those trucks. Corporations aren't there to be your guardian, protector, or nanny. They are there to make money. That's why some of us invest in them...so those companies can make US money.

Now I will concede that they were pretty shortsighted in not paying more attention to their smaller and more efficient car offerings...although that is another subject entirely.

[Chad @ Jul 22nd 2008 4:03PM]

@tbone
I'm not sure what my analogy has to do with your argument; my analogy was a reply to ill trooper and my comment was an explanation of why a market didn't exist for electric cars at the time, and how much they cost to produce. GM had planned to continue the program, but they barely had enough people interested to take leases on the 300 cars... there was not enough demand to keep the ball rolling (less than 500 people indicated they were interested in purchasing such a car).

The unfortunate thing about big companies is stock holders, if something isn't making money then the stockholders get mad and that idea and/or the person who green lighted it go away. You can't blame GM, they produced the product. The public didn't take enough interest in it, and how can you blame them when we hadn't seen "An Inconvenient Truth" yet and gas was $1.50/gallon... why would anyone car? The car was ahead of its time.

I remember seeing this car at Epcot Center and everyone thought it was cool, but at that time the idea was thought to be a gimmick that would soon go away. Even two years ago I wouldn't have thought (production) electric cars would be on the road next summer (Mini).

[Enigma @ Jul 22nd 2008 4:04PM]

Well...on the subject of who killed the electric car: according to race car driver, science professor, welder, and popular mechanics senior editor Mike Allen - it's the batteries, stupid. Other companies made electric cars too...and all of them are off the market too.

Check him out here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_news/3416406.html

If the link doesn't show up, it's the popular mechanics alternative fuels podcast from July 24, 2006...go check it out.

He also debunks quite a bit of the other garbage and armchair engineering that passes for a valid opinion around here with respect to alternative fuels and energy issues.

[hemmy @ Jul 22nd 2008 5:03PM]

Popular Mechanics ceased to be a worth a shit, long ago.

[Enigma @ Jul 22nd 2008 5:32PM]

So that invalidates any valid points one of their editors makes?

Sound logic there. You sound like someone I should listen to.

[ill trooper @ Jul 22nd 2008 11:54PM]

It seems very few of you replying to my comment watched "Who Killed The Electric Car?".

You might have understood that I was pointing out the way GM had an amazing vehicle, one that helped scare Toyota into developing the tech inside the Prius. A technology that big business and corporate lobbying effectively shut down. And Chad, it's not like your 'gun' comparison at all - GM took info from interested buyers for the car, never followed up or fulfilled a single order, despite demand, and refused sales of the vehicles at the end of all leases despite numerous attempts by those with leases to buy the car, threatening legal action effectively charging the lease-holder with grand theft auto if they refused to return the car for an early termination via crushing.

However, I've noted that this won't make any sense to you, Chad - you seem to think an American car company would balk at the idea of losing money on a line of cars! You ignore that this is the very mindset that has these companies in such trouble right now, with a long history of making cars like the 'new' Thunderbird, the Hummer, the P/T Cruiser, and dozens of other cars. As well as ridiculous ideas like "$1.99 gas for the next two years," a sales gimmick with the cost of a gallon of gas price-locked by the car company covering the gallon's cost past $1.99. If that's not a gamble, then what's $300 mil on the future of getting off of oil's dick? Even odds for profitability against that 'Aztec' SUV, I would say.

Just watch the film and tell me again how GM deserves tax-payer's money to work on something they gave up on, under pressure from Big Oil and lack of an apparent immediate profit. Now they'll be playing catch-up until the inevitable government bail-out.

Inform yourselves, cornballs.

[Chad @ Jul 23rd 2008 1:34AM]

@Ill Trooper
Do you have any sources other than "Who Killed the Electric Car"?

It might be hard for you to understand this, but when you spend $1 million/car on a project, you don't kill the project because big oil wants you to. GM does not have to answer to big oil, GM is much larger than they are and has sued most of them at some point or another (inform yourself cornball).

I know that documentary is very persuasive at convincing people that General Motors thought the Electric Car was a bad idea so they got rid of it. Frankly, I do consulting for the automakers and I'll tell you straight up that GM wanted that program to be successful, they had been researching it for a long time and obviously spent a ton of money.

They have been researching fuel cells for the past 10 years, something Toyota only started 2 years ago. Toyota desperately wanted to trade GM their hybrid-drive system for GM's fuel cell technology, because they know GM is way ahead of them on this.

You're absolutely right, GM did not want to sell their $1 million dollar EV1s at the end of their lease. That was the agreement they had with the lease holders and they kept their side of the deal. Although they did turn some people down for new leases, GM did not have enough of those people to continue the program. Instead of selling the 300 cars they did make, they crushed them. This might sound wasteful, but those 300 cars would be useless soon enough without parts to support their maintenance. Keep in mind that hundreds of cars get crushed by every manufacturer each year in similar programs and tests.

The reason GM deserves your money is because they have been doing more work to make a sustainable electric car technology for longer than any other car company and investing a ton of money in it. Just because they don't have a product yet doesn't mean they're a bad company, it just means they're working on a long term solution. Note: They currently have more hybrid models than any other manufacturer. I'm sorry that one director's opinion has jaded your opinion of a highly underrated car manufacturer. I know you're waiting for GM to die, but it won't happen in your lifetime... keep an eye on them during this year and next, they have tons of cash on hand and they've got a huge lineup of great products.

[skulldriveshaft @ Jul 23rd 2008 4:51AM]

@Chad actually GM does have to answer to big oil.

When was the last time an efficient vehicle came out of GM?

Is it really that hard for such a massive company to NOT produce a vehicle that has exceptional build quality and sips gasoline?

The board of directors, and management only give a shit about their paycheques, and they will keep shutting down / idling plants, laying off people, to ensure that their paycheques don't get smaller.

When and if GM, or for that matter, Ford, and Chrysler stop taking hits from the bong pipe, maybe, just maybe, they can get back on track.

[Chad @ Jul 24th 2008 1:35AM]

Maybe I'm just too uncool to follow the GM bashing trend, but you have to realize some things that don't make it into your narrow field of entertainment news where facts don't really matter: in 2007, GM's commercial products reduced the carbon footprint of north america more than all of the Prius owners combined.

Yup, GM makes fuel cell buses that have become very popular in green cities. The amount of fuel that these vehicles save is more than all of Toyota's little jems combined.

Perhaps it is you who is hitting the bong my friend. Don't forget to exhale after the second chamber has depleted, because all of the GM executives have taken a pay cut with the plant closings and they have withheld the latest quarterly dividend payouts to boot.

Thirdly, GM makes lots of fuel efficient vehicles. They have more hybrid models than any other manufacturer. They have the more small block small and medium vehicles than any other manufacturer. They have the most fuel efficient SUVs and pickup trucks in the market place. I don't see where you get off complaining about them.

Maybe you don't like the Hummer, because it is a ridiculous gas guzzler. Did you know that an Audi station wagon is on the governments worst gas guzzler list, and it has the same fuel economy as the Hummer H2? Do you even know off hand what the H2's fuel economy is, or do you just go the easy way, with the masses and make the exaggerated remarks that are widely believed?

I hate to sound like a GM fanboy, but it's nice to defend the big guy when the perception of him couldn't be further from the truth.

[Chad @ Jul 22nd 2008 2:33PM]

GM stock is highly undervalued right now... buy?

[Flit @ Jul 22nd 2008 2:53PM]

Since this "grid" will only work the the "approved VOLT" adapter plug ($500 for any non-VOLT vehicle), I would say yes.

Helloooo, Corporatism.

[Rob @ Jul 22nd 2008 3:24PM]

So it's Ford.
But, as long as the unions keep on making their benefits more expensive than the manufacturing of the vehicles, forget it. The unions are what has killed the auto industry in America. I'm not against unions at all as have served a purpose in the past. But, I'm completely against the abuse in pay and benefits they extort out of companies.

[TheBear91 @ Jul 22nd 2008 2:37PM]

I'm kind of curious of what electricity cost in the 48 contiguous states. In Alaska, electricity is generated from fuel oil and has gone up in cost at the same rate the fuel has.

Electric cars at below zero temps would most likely need to be charged a lot. Cold batteries don't work as well as warm ones, so I'm really not sure of the savings of anything here.

[Chad @ Jul 22nd 2008 2:42PM]

If we built more nuclear plants it would cost a lot less. Even with terrorism, we could build slightly less efficient plants that DO NOT run on weapons grade fuels and are very stable in the event of a terrorist attack. Warm water output and storage of spent fuel are the two main concerns with nuclear, but we've got lots of coal plants and there is much more to be worried about there.

[kjb434 @ Jul 22nd 2008 3:08PM]

Actually warm water and spent fuel rod storage problems have been solved long ago. The only problem is that groups like Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and other environmentalists stop the usage of such technology.

Nuclear technology currently does not produce extremely hot water such as older nuclear power plants. The return water would be not much warmer or the same as the intake temperature.

Spent fuel rod problems were solved back in the 70s, but overblown movies such as the China Syndrome and environmental activist stop the implementation of the practice of recycling fuel rods. Thank you Jimmy Carter. Spent fuel rods only have about 2% that actually needs to be thrown away (i.e. stored). The remaining 98% of the fuel rod can be recycled and reused. This would reduce the current nuclear waste and future to an extremely small amount.

France has been using both technologies for years. They get 75%of their power from nuclear energy. We only get 7%. All of Frances nuclear waste (after recycling) would fit into a typical CVS or Walgreens size store (about 15,000 square feet). If the US went to 75% nuclear energy, it is expected we would only need a facility of about the size of a suburban Home Depot or Lowes store if we recycled. We wouldn't need something on the order of Yucca Mountain.

[Kyakko @ Jul 24th 2008 12:42PM]

@kjb

I totally agree. with pebble reactors such as the one south africa is using, the chances of a melt down is negligible. Nuclear plants is the only viable clean option immediately available that can replace coal and all it takes is around 200 plants. Even the founder of green peace supports it.

The only problem right now is political. I mean.. we have over 2000 nuclear (weapons grade) war head and they're safe from terrorist attacks. If we apply the same scrutiny to nuclear power plants, I really don't see any disadvantages.

[BigD145 @ Jul 22nd 2008 7:18PM]

Pebble reactors are not mainstream and France has proven that recycling spent fuel can NOT be done on a large commercial scale. There's also the fact that the US only has enough uranium to run the entire US electric grid for about 3 years. Yeah, that'll help bunches.

[Allen Jazeera @ Jul 22nd 2008 2:37PM]

This has been my major complaint about all the gushing anticipation of all-electric cars. Imagine if the govt mandated that all cars by 2012 must be electric. The grid is simply not able to support them. Even if we were able to build enough additional power generating stations (hydro/coal/nuke/whatever) to generate the electricity to meet the massive increase in demand, the transmission lines and substation grids cannot handle that extra load. You're talking about a MAJOR investment in infrastructure to switch to electric cars. I'm ignoring the whole issue of battery technology since that's a different subject.

[phanbouy @ Jul 22nd 2008 3:17PM]

change is hard.

mmkay?

[Allen Jazeera @ Jul 22nd 2008 3:25PM]

True. But my point was that people are being ridiculously simplistic by saying that automakers are just being lazy and greedy by not making electric cars that apparently everybody wants. I don't think most people realize how incredibly expensive it will be to build the kind of infrastructure needed to replace the gasoline infrastructure we have today. After all, the gas pipelines, refineries, distribution networks, gas stations, and storage and dispensing units that today make up the gasoline network took many decades to create at an untold cost. People need to wake up out of their stupified dreams and realize that ANY replacement of gasoline will cost many billions and take many years (and may not make the resulting energy usage any cheaper).

[Michael Chastain @ Jul 22nd 2008 6:25PM]

"A new study for the Department of Energy finds that "off-peak" electricity production and transmission capacity could fuel 70% percent of the U.S. light-duty vehicle (LDV) fleet, if they were plug-in hybrid electrics." http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=204

Yes, even without electric cars our power grid is in need of being upgraded, but there is plenty of idle capacity to get started. Electric is also the only alternative fuel technology I'm aware of that has a significant infrastructure already in place.

It's not like somebody is going to snap their fingers and everything is suddenly going to be electric. It will take decades for any technology to have a real impact, but that's no reason not to get started.

[Daniel S. @ Jul 22nd 2008 7:40PM]

I can assure you saving earth is worth that money :)

[edward @ Jul 22nd 2008 2:38PM]

You don't need charging stations! You need battery changing stations!!! Switch the empty battery out for a full one. Just like you do with propane tanks. A system like this CAN be implemented look at arminia with natural gas powered cars.

[Jim @ Jul 22nd 2008 2:51PM]

The idea of an industry standard battery is nice, but there is bound to be space constraints among the differing vehicles that require different sizes and shapes of batteries. You don't think a battery from an electric micro car will work in an electric SUV, or let alone an electric 4 door sedan do you? That is why we have different sized (and shaped) gas tanks now.

The fuel is the standard, the carrying capacity is not.

[cesium @ Jul 22nd 2008 2:56PM]

Have fun switching out 1000s of pounds of batteries...

[chris @ Jul 22nd 2008 3:00PM]

on the subject of different size batteries.
what about like a certain size pack and larger cars take more packs?

i believe there was an article on here about that very same subject.

[Chad @ Jul 22nd 2008 3:11PM]

@cesium
Electric warehouse equipment (fork lifts...etc) have machines that perform the battery switch/charging for you. If this could be standardized, the same could be applied to automobiles.

[Brent @ Jul 22nd 2008 4:09PM]

Yeah, I worked in a warehouse for a bit in college, and the battery changing process definitely took less time than filling up my car with gas.

[diode3diode @ Jul 22nd 2008 7:10PM]

Battery changing stations is not the same as warehouses. City Supervisors would definitely have something to say if warehouses are needed to be built in their city in order to accommodate electric car drivers.

[glucoseboy @ Jul 22nd 2008 2:44PM]

While infrastructure planning is well in good, the cynical side of me (which I keep under wraps pretty well) can't help but think that this is a stall tactic for GM.
"We can't release the Volt because the infrastructure isn't ready."

[Chad @ Jul 22nd 2008 2:49PM]

I think it's more of a strategy to build a cheaper Volt. Right now, the plan is to include a 1.4L turbo engine that would only run to recharge the battery when no other charging method is available. If there was decent charging network, maybe they could offer a cheaper version without the gas engine.

[Rob @ Jul 22nd 2008 2:58PM]

We're in this message because of the greed from oil companies, and the corrupt and lazy minds of automakers and "elected" government officials. Keep on pushing people. Even if the oil companies lower the oil prices to shut us up again, keep on pushing because they'd raise it back up as soon as they have us by the balls again.

[Rob @ Jul 22nd 2008 3:03PM]

Crap, I meant "mess" instead of "message.

[kjb434 @ Jul 22nd 2008 3:11PM]

How do oil companies raise the price? No one has ever been able to explain without going into a conspiracy theory.

People really should learn how a certain industry actually operates before bashing it using political talking points.

[DBX00 @ Jul 22nd 2008 3:16PM]

This is the first generation of plug-in hybrids, so it may not be cost or energy efficient at the moment. However, if they have enough people utilizing these devices then it becomes economical for all buildings to have some form of off-grid energy sources (solar panels, wind turbines, etc.) which will in turn push those technologies to their respective next generation.

The point is that if we start at the consumer level, it's easier to slowly switch the source of energy to a renewable resource. I can definitely imagine every major building parking garage having fueling stations powered by solar panels along the roof for 25% - 50% of the car fueling needs.

The government has the ability to quickly impact change across the major utility companies but it takes decades to move 300 million consumers in any one direction..Move the consumers and the corporations will quickly adjust.

[Don @ Jul 22nd 2008 3:29PM]

This article does not mention if GM's *idea* is connected to Project Better Place. If not, hopefully they could standardize system specifications with the people they apparently stole the idea from? www.projectbetterplace.com . The inductive charging network idea was originally developed by Shai Agassi a year ago, along with the concept of selling electric cars + charging electricity to consumers for a low monthly payment (similar to cell phone contracts). Shai also pitched this same idea to the US house of representatives on July 1st 2008, and his company is negotiating with over 30 countries to install the system. To my knowledge, Israel, Portugal, Great Britain, and I thought the state of Hawaii had already signed on with PBP. Electric cars for the system are currently being developed by Renault and Nissan. Nissan apparently is thinking about cutting PBP out of the picture in Japan (looking similar to the picture painted by this article about what GM is apparently trying to do in the USA).
..
Standardized specifications for inductive chargers and exchangable battery container dimensions would allow a common system to be installed all countries with an electric car infrastructure. If different countries in Europe (or the USA and Canada) adopted different charging systems, this would be a major concern for travelers between countries. Standardization would provide further advantages to the consumer in terms of reduction of prices due to economy of scale of manufacturing.
..
So, instead of trusting any one car company to install a charging and battery exchange system which would be incompatible with other car companies (or which would be licensed to other companies at anti-competitive cost levels), having a neutral third party oversee and standardize these specifications would seem to be a logical solution. That, in my understanding, is what Project Better Place is all about.

[Dead_Rebel @ Jul 22nd 2008 4:16PM]

How come nobody mentions an alternation system? Such as the one that constantly recharges the battery already in your car.

Simple setup:
Wheels turned by motors.
Motors powered by batteries.
Motors have a flywheel that is frictionless and doesn't affect performance.
Flywheel acts as alternator continually recharging batteries as the wheels turn.

Bam, I just made somebody millions for not filing the patent application myself!

[Allen Jazeera @ Jul 22nd 2008 4:53PM]

That is genius! But you should patent multiple new inventions here:
1) the perpetual motion machine
2) the frictionless flywheel
3) the device that invalidates the law of conservation of energy

400 years of physical science overturned in one blog post.

[Andrew @ Jul 22nd 2008 5:20PM]

I am part of a campaign aimed at General Motors to become Green Motors and become a hybrid/electric car manufacturer. Check it out here: http://www.thepoint.com/campaigns/save-general-motors-and-the-planet-at-the-same-time

General Motors is falling apart, losing billions, and in jeopardy of going out of business. If we can convince them that there is a viable market for them taking drastic action to convert their cars and trucks to being the most environmentally efficient in the world, they have nothing to lose by unconditionally embracing the green movement.

[Chad Upton @ Jul 22nd 2008 11:10PM]

I think they understand and believe this too... I think they're working on it. They're about to release a hybrid Escalade that gets the same city fuel economy as a 2009 Toyota Camry. No, most people don't need an Escalade... but some people need a big truck for towing boats, horses, trailers...etc and it's pretty awesome if that same truck consumes fuel like a Toyota Camry when they're not towing (and could be hauling 8 people to boot).

[kaslings @ Jul 22nd 2008 5:13PM]

Don't forget this could be a lot of time of use stuff, too. the power grid is already taxed during the day, when all the big companies are running, but there is a TON of excess at night, when no one is using it. that would be the optimal time to charge the car, but right now, there are very few utilities that charge on a time of use scale.

[diode3diode @ Jul 22nd 2008 7:00PM]

Has anyone thought about the problems that may come when electric cars become the norm?

Food for thought:
1. Recycling issues. The average lifespan of a family car is 5-10 years which would mean in a decade or so at least 1/5 of these cars would be in junkyards with their batteries still intact. This would indicate that not only are these cancer-on-the-environment junkyards include: rusting metal fenders, coolant leaking radiators, and oil-ridden transmissions, but also would have corrosive batteries 1/2 the size of a compact car. I've been to junkyards and it's no trip in the park. Another concern is that recycling batteries 1/2 the size of a car would indicate pricey transportation and road hazard on the highway.

2. Demand issues: When an electric plant goes down my bill goes up. When the demand of the electric car becomes the norm and an electric plant goes down then this would mean my electric bill will skyrocket. As of now the soaring gas prices have not affected me as much since I take mass transit. What can be the solution? Nuclear power plants? Not for me, sorry. All these talk about redundancies to keep nuclear power plants safe does not negate the most basic function of man's nature to ere. We live on profit margins and corporations need to save a buck for its shareholders. With this in mind, I can't trust them to put a nuclear plant within 100 miles from me.

[Bstage @ Jul 22nd 2008 7:15PM]

Why GM is not NOW a major investor in solar/wind/thermal/wave/nuke power is beyond me. Oil is failing them and its not going to get better without a green overhaul fast! Why wait for the big energy slugs to build infrastructure when they could simply charge more for the obvious demand that is going to be generated?

If they (GM) were more proactive, they could package a seperate product (think solar lease) into the volt sale.. That way the strain is reduced on the grid (solar panels or wind props), and the consumer gets a hedge on power price inflation.

Obviously this plan is only solving local travel, but as contracts are inked with big corps, that allow more panels/prop and plug stations to be built...

Think anywhere you shop, or have fun as being a "gas" station...Stadiums, Disnyland, parking garages, schools, theatres... yadayadayada.. They (land owners) work out a fee to recoup station expenses and pocket profit in $$ - carbon credits, and are price controlled within reason to protect the consumers from gouging.

The only difference is which energy source is used for which climate the cars are sold. Those in Apartments would need to look for green complexes.