Danger, High Voltage
Is the Volt dangerous?
The short answer is yes... and no.
I love big trucks. If you understand physics, you understand that big trucks are more likely to roll over than low slung cars. However, big trucks only tend to roll over due to driver error. This was proven beyond any doubt with the firestone scandal on the Explorer. So are big trucks more likely to roll over? Only if you, as a driver, don't know how to drive.
Is the Volt more likely to catch on fire? Yes - it seems. Li-ion batteries are inherently not that stable. Your iPod is more likely to blow up than your Sony Walkman was. Lithium Ion is inherently not a very stable design, and requires a lot of safeguards to stop it from cascading and going boom, or setting on fire.
So, if you end up in a major accident with your Volt, it is probably more likely to blow up. However, there is no evidence that the battery is a risk if it has not been in a major accident. The findings basically say "if you are in a major crash, remove the battery" - and yeah, don't store the car in your garage.
There are two things which surprise me. First of all, the conservative news outlets have jumped on this as part of their anti-green agenda (here's looking at you Fox News, and your "Hybrid from Hell" segment). Why give GM such a hard time? First, I am actually really proud of GM building a legitimate alternative to the Prius. I mean, I hate the Prius and you would have to pay me to drive one, but it has been a major success story for Toyota. Second, GM has been really open and helpful through the investigation, unlike Toyota, whose strategy with the sudden acceleration "problem" on the Prius (turns out, the real issue was that Prius owners were terrible drivers) was to try and cover it up. And finally, why give the Volt such a hard time? This is an issue with lithium ion batteries, not the Volt.
And as a little background, why are we using li-ion in the first place? In this case, it really is because of big oil.
The short answer is yes... and no.
I love big trucks. If you understand physics, you understand that big trucks are more likely to roll over than low slung cars. However, big trucks only tend to roll over due to driver error. This was proven beyond any doubt with the firestone scandal on the Explorer. So are big trucks more likely to roll over? Only if you, as a driver, don't know how to drive.
Is the Volt more likely to catch on fire? Yes - it seems. Li-ion batteries are inherently not that stable. Your iPod is more likely to blow up than your Sony Walkman was. Lithium Ion is inherently not a very stable design, and requires a lot of safeguards to stop it from cascading and going boom, or setting on fire.
So, if you end up in a major accident with your Volt, it is probably more likely to blow up. However, there is no evidence that the battery is a risk if it has not been in a major accident. The findings basically say "if you are in a major crash, remove the battery" - and yeah, don't store the car in your garage.
There are two things which surprise me. First of all, the conservative news outlets have jumped on this as part of their anti-green agenda (here's looking at you Fox News, and your "Hybrid from Hell" segment). Why give GM such a hard time? First, I am actually really proud of GM building a legitimate alternative to the Prius. I mean, I hate the Prius and you would have to pay me to drive one, but it has been a major success story for Toyota. Second, GM has been really open and helpful through the investigation, unlike Toyota, whose strategy with the sudden acceleration "problem" on the Prius (turns out, the real issue was that Prius owners were terrible drivers) was to try and cover it up. And finally, why give the Volt such a hard time? This is an issue with lithium ion batteries, not the Volt.
And as a little background, why are we using li-ion in the first place? In this case, it really is because of big oil.
Background
The modern nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) electric vehicle battery was invented by Dr. Masahiko Oshitani, of the GS Yuasa Corporation, and Stanford Ovshinsky, the founder of the Ovonics Battery Company.[1] The current trend in the industry is towards the development of lithium-ion (Li-Ion) technology to replace NiMH in electric vehicles. Some manufacturers[who?] maintain that NiMH batteries are important to the commercialization of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV)s and battery electric vehicles (BEVs) because Li-Ion technology, while functionally superior due to its higher specific energy and specific power, is prohibitively expensive and relatively untested with regards to its long-term reliability.[2]
[edit]General Motors and the US Auto Battery Consortium
In an interview in the 2006 documentary Who Killed the Electric Car?, Ovshinsky stated that in the early 1990s, the auto industry created the US Auto Battery Consortium (USABC) to stifle the development of electric vehicle technology by preventing the dissemination of knowledge about Ovshinky's battery-related patents to the public through the California Air Resources Board (CARB).[3]
According to Ovshinsky, the auto industry falsely suggested that NiMH technology was not yet ready for widespread use in road cars.[4]Members of the USABC, including General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler, threatened to take legal action against Ovshinsky if he continued to promote NiMH's potential for use in BEVs, and if he continued to lend test batteries to Solectria, a start-up electric vehicle maker that was not part of the USABC. The Big Three car companies argued that his behavior violated their exclusive rights to the battery technology, because they had matched a federal government grant given to Ovonics to develop NiMH technology. Critics argue that the Big Three were more interested in convincing CARB members that electric vehicles were not technologically and commercially viable.[3]
In 1994, General Motors acquired a controlling interest in Ovonics's battery development and manufacture, including patents controlling the manufacture of large NiMH batteries. The original intent of the equity alliance was to develop NiMH batteries for GM's EV1 BEV. Sales of GM-Ovonics batteries were later taken over by GM manager and critic of CARB John Williams, leading Ovshinsky to wonder whether his decision to sell to GM had been naive.[3] The EV1 program was shut down by GM before the new NiMH battery could be commercialized, despite field tests that indicated the Ovonics battery extended the EV1's range to over 150 miles.[3]
[edit]Chevron and Cobasys
In 2001, oil company Texaco purchased General Motors' share in GM Ovonics. Texaco was itself acquired by rival Chevron several months later. The same year, Ovonics filed a patent infringement suit against Toyota's battery supplier, Panasonic, that ultimately succeeded in restricting the use of its large format NiMH batteries to certain transportation uses.[5] In 2003, Texaco Ovonics Battery Systems was restructured into Cobasys, a 50/50 joint venture between ChevronTexaco and Ovonics, now known as Energy Conversion Devices (ECD) Ovonics.[6] Chevron's influence over Cobasys extends beyond a strict 50/50 joint venture. Chevron held a 19.99% interest in ECD Ovonics as of a public filing made January 15, 2003.[7] In a later filing on May 17, 2005,[8] Energy Conversion Devices announced that they had exercised an option to purchase back 4,376,633 shares of stock from a Chevron subsidiary, and would cancel and return them to authorized-unissued status. This is the exact number of shares that was listed as owned by ChevronTexaco in the January 15, 2003 filing.
ChevronTexaco also maintained veto power over any sale or licensing of NiMH technology.[9] In addition, ChevronTexaco maintained the right to seize all of Cobasys' intellectual property rights in the event that ECD Ovonics did not fulfill its contractual obligations.[9] On September 10, 2007, ChevronTexaco (now known as simply "Chevron") filed suit claiming that ECD Ovonics had not fulfilled its obligations. ECD Ovonics disputed this claim.[10] The arbitration hearing has been repeatedly suspended while the parties negotiated with General Motors over the sale of Cobasys back to GM. As of March 2008, no agreement had been reached with GM.[11]
Cobasys contracts demonstrated that the company was willing to sell smaller NiMH batteries (less than 10 amp-hours) for use with hybrid electric vehicles (HEV). For instance, in March 2007, GM announced that it would use Cobasys NiMH batteries in the model year 2008 Chevrolet Malibu hybrid.[12] Toyota uses NiMH batteries in all of its HEV models. However, Cobasys' sales policies raised questions about its willingness to sell larger format batteries for use in EVs and PHEVs.
In her 2007 book Plug-in Hybrids: The Cars that Will Recharge America, Sherry Boschert argues that large-format NiMH batteries (i.e., 25 amp-hours or more) are commercially viable but that Cobasys would only accept very large orders (more than 10,000) for these batteries. The effect is that this policy precludes small companies and individuals from buying them. It also precludes larger auto manufacturers from developing test fleets of new PHEV and EV designs. Toyota employees complained about the difficulty in getting smaller orders of large format NiMH batteries to service the existing 825 RAV4 EVs. Since no other companies were willing to make large orders, Cobasys was not manufacturing nor licensing any large format NiMH battery technology for automotive purposes. Boschert quotes Dave Goldstein, president of the Electric Vehicle Association of Washington D.C., as saying this policy is necessary because the cost of setting up a multimillion dollar battery assembly line could not be justified without guaranteed orders of 100,000 batteries (~12,000 EVs) per year for 3 years. Boschert concludes that, "it's possible that Cobasys (Chevron) is squelching all access to large NiMH batteries through its control of patent licenses in order to remove a competitor to gasoline. Or it's possible that Cobasys simply wants the market for itself and is waiting for a major automaker to start producing plug-in hybrids or electric vehicles."[13]
Comments
Post a Comment