Design Observer

About
Books
Job Board
Newsletters
Archive
Contact



Change Observer

About
Submissions
Contact


Departments

Audio
Bibliography
Case Studies
Collections
Dialogues
Essays
Event-Aspen
Event-Bellagio
Event-Education
Gallery
Interviews
Miscellaneous
New Ideas
Opinions
Primary Sources
Projects
Report
Reviews
Slideshows
Video


Topics

Advertising
Aid
Architecture
Art
Books
Branding
Business
Cities / Places
Community
Craft
Culture
Design History
Design Practice
Development
Disaster Relief
Ecology
Economy
Education
Energy
Environment
Fashion
Film / Video
Food/Agriculture
Geography
Global / Local
Graphic Design
Health / Safety
History
Housing
Ideas
Illustration
India
Industry
Info Design
Infrastructure
Interaction Design
Internet / Blogs
Journalism
Landscape
Media
Motion Design
Museums
Nature
Obituary
Peace
Philanthropy
Photography
Planning
Politics / Policy
Popular Culture
Poverty
Preservation
Product Design
Public Art
Religion
Science
Shelter
Social Enterprise
Sports
Sustainability
Technology
Theory/Criticism
Transportation
TV / Radio
Typography
Urbanism
Volunteerism
Water


Comments (15) Posted 08.29.09 | PERMALINK | PRINT

Opinion

Triple-Digit Inflation


Phil Patton


"What is 230?" From Chevrolet Volt teaser ad campaign, summer 2009

At first it looked like an infielder’s batting average: the number 230 flashed on signs at baseball stadiums — and in TV sports coverage — this summer. But the zero took the shape of a cartoon happy face.
  
In fact, the mysterious number was put there by General Motors, I learned when I visited the company’s Technical Center in Warren, Michigan, in early August.

It was a teaser: 230 is the "miles per gallon gasoline equivalent" (MPGGE) for the Chevrolet Volt, the so-called extended-range electric car GM promises to introduce by November of next year. The smiley zero represented a happy electrical socket.
 
GM’s marketing mavens were trying to pique curiosity about the number. It is indeed impressive compared with 20 MPG for an average car and 40 or 45 MPG for a diesel or hybrid.

“Volt is becoming very real very fast,” promised Frederick “Fritz” Henderson, the company’s CEO. He was welcoming press and the public to a special sneak peek inside the company’s design studios, labs and factories, offering reassurance to the taxpayer who had just bailed out what was once the world’s largest industrial corporation.

Barely two weeks out of bankruptcy and not quite a year after it had unveiled the production version of the Chevrolet Volt, a present to itself on its 100th birthday, GM was showing off the car’s progress.

“Our Chevrolet Volt extended-range electric vehicle will achieve unprecedented fuel economy,” Henderson said. It would not just break but shatter the 100 MPG mark.


GM explained the meaning of the mysterious number at an August 11 press conference in Warren, Michigan. Photo: Steve Fecht for General Motors

“Triple-digit efficiency” has the sound of something radically new and exciting. The number 230 is magic.

But it’s also misleading. The whole point of the Volt is that it runs on electricity alone, for 40 miles or so, before switching to a small gasoline engine that recharges its battery, which continues to drive the electric motors on the wheels. It gets about 50 MPG in that mode. So if you drive less than 40 miles, you won’t burn any gas at all.

How much electric driving and how much gasoline driving go into the 230 MPGGE calculation? GM says the number comes from an experimental scenario devised by the EPA, which is seeking MPG equivalents to allow comparison of electric- and hydrogen-powered vehicles with conventional and hybrid systems. These are new kinds of measures — a “test test,” if you will — involving a realistic mix of electric and gasoline driving. All MPG tests are to some extent arbitrary, reflecting conditions and assumptions — that’s why they say, “Your mileage may vary.”  But this method is especially random.
 
GM wanted to be able to brag that Volt was the first car ever to earn triple-digit fuel efficiency, even though the number was not official or EPA-endorsed. The EPA, now playing on the same team as GM, released a statement saying that while it has not tested the Volt, it “does applaud GM’s commitment to designing and building the car of the future — an American-made car that will save families money, significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create good-paying American jobs.”

Almost immediately, Nissan claimed that the Leaf, the electric car whose design it had just revealed and plans for next year, also would get 367 MPG according to the same EPA equations GM was using.

But the Leaf is a wholly electric car — shouldn’t its MPG be infinite?

These numbers are among many misleading figures flying around the electric-car world. Discussion is likely to be full of such confusing figures as green technologies emerge. How can we compare hybrids with electrics, hydrogen with ethanol?

A technological naïveté, sometimes willful, sometimes wishful, surrounds the whole subject of electric cars. All too glibly, people assume an electric car is green — that is, without emissions. In fact, of course, it is only as green as the means used to make the electricity. Generating the electricity centrally has advantages of scale, but distributing it is wasteful and requires energy expenditure on infrastructure. And with coal and oil still the source of most electricity, an electric car has to be thought of not as fossil-fuel-free but simply as a car with a long tail pipe.

This was another problem with the 230 number: it didn’t account for any fuel — coal, oil, natural gas — that might have been burned to create the electricity used by the Volt.

There are many ways to measure automotive efficiency for comparisons. The simplest is cost per mile. The Volt will cost 2 cents per mile to run, based on a calculation of 10 cents per kilowatt hour, according to GM estimates. A car running wholly on gasoline at $3.50 a gallon costs about 10 cents per mile.

But the best calculation method so far, widely used in Europe and by international organizations, is grams of carbon emissions per mile or kilometer. This gets directly at the issue of global warming by tracking the amount of greenhouse gas generated.
 
The California Air Resources Board uses this test. According to CARB, an SUV such as the Ford Explorer emits 400 grams of carbon per mile and a Prius 200 grams. Frank Weber, chief engineer of the Volt, told me that the Volt’s number would be about 55.

Carbon per mile is an important measure for another reason: coal plants are still the largest source of electricity generated in the U.S. — and overwhelmingly the largest in China. 

Carbon generation by power plants needs to be factored in to MPG equivalents, even if central generation is more efficient than dispersed generation (i.e., by the Volt engine) and even if electric generation plants can be cleaned up more efficiently than individual automobiles.
 
Of course, by the same token, existing electric cars can magically become greener if we shift to wind, solar or hydro to power them.
 
The numbers coming out of Tesla, the Silicon Valley-based startup and media darling, are as big a problem as 230. Tesla’s founder, Elon Musk, constantly invokes Moore’s law to predict improved battery capacity. But the comparison is misleading. Moore’s law, of course, refers to the exponential growth of silicon memory capacity.
 
Yes, the chips in our laptops have improved by leaps and bounds — but not their batteries, which remain a source of discontent for most of us. Considering that engineers have been working on automobile batteries for nearly 125 years, and one recent sober figure suggests that battery capacity will grow at perhaps 8 percent a year, the auto battery graph is a long way from the silicon graph.
   
Tesla claims a range of 220 miles for its $105,000 Roadster but refuses to make cars available to the press for testing to validate these claims. It continues to get upbeat publicity and media coverage. Recently, it announced that it’s developing a 300-mile-capacity battery pack and is constantly proclaimed to be on the verge of “full production.” But when you press a company rep, as I did recently, the picture turns out to be much more modest: At the opening of Tesla’s Manhattan dealership a couple of weeks before GM’s Volt event, Colette Niazmand, senior marketing manager, told me that the company had sold 1,200 cars, of which 550 to 600 had actually been delivered.

Also problematic are the numbers of the Chinese electric car company BYD. It claims it has developed a new kind of battery, which is calls lithium ferrous phosphate, that can run for 250 miles on just three hours of charge — and costs half as much as lithium batteries. Perhaps BYD has indeed made a breakthrough in battery capacity, but no one has been allowed to test that claim either, and it is repeated by credulous media, usually with the justification that the assertion was good enough for Warren Buffett, who invested $230 million in the company.  
 
That 230 again — GM didn’t need it to make the Volt attractive. Running 40 miles on electricity and 50 MPG on gasoline is a respectable start for the reborn company. GM has plenty to be proud of even if the Volt, at a likely price of about $40,000 with production of some 70,000 cars a year, doesn’t change the world.
 
More than a glib number, what made me feel positive about the Volt was seeing real cars being built in the preproduction plant in Warren. The factory floor was covered with cars in various states of completion. Two Volts a day are being finished as part of the preproduction shakedown of manufacturing methods; full production and sales are scheduled for November 2010. Whether the Volt, no beauty, will sell, much less become as fashionable as the homely Prius or other hybrids remains a question.
 
GM made a better sales pitch when it rolled out the Volt with the slogan “You may never buy gasoline again.” This line, frequently repeated by GM’s Bob Lutz, turns on another number, the much quoted stat that 80 per cent of people in the U.S. commute less than 20 miles each way, making the Volt’s 40-mile range practical for daily life. The gasoline engine is left to power you to Thanksgiving at Grandma’s.

Of course, the electric car is only part of the picture: GM has neglected consideration of charging infrastructure. Many electric-car schemes depict charging as a simple matter: just plug in your car in the garage overnight. But many people don’t have a garage. They park in common lots or on the street when they’re home — and they are not home every night.

At the Volt preview in Warren, Fritz Henderson was asked about how owners of Volts without garages were to charge them. “If you’re going to park it on the street,” he admitted, “I don’t know how to address that situation.”

(At least Nissan acknowledges the problem. For its all-electric Leaf car, the company is working with Shai Agassi’s Better Place program, which enlists governments and business to install recharging equipment.)

Companies will have to cooperate on recharging. Ultimately, the number that may matter most in making electric cars practical is J1772.

That number is the designation of the draft standard for a universally agreed on plug being prepared by the Society of Automobile Engineers. They’re the folks who do the dull but important work of promulgating standards for such things as grades of transmission fluid and threads on spark plugs. A plug-in system as universal as, say, USB ports, might be a happy-face socket indeed.  
Share This Story

RELATED POSTS


Visualizing the Ends of Oil


Rise of the Micro-Medici


Ecologies of Gold: The Past and Future Mining Landscapes of Johannesburg


Digital Farm Collective


The Focused Obsession of Photographer Rob Amberg



RSSSubscribe to Comment Feed

Comments (15)   |   JUMP TO MOST RECENT >>

Lots of great points, Phil. Electric cars should be judged by how far they can be driven before resorting to using gas. Giving electric cars an MPG rating confuses consumers. Worse yet, MPG ratings diminish electric cars' uniqueness in the auto market.
Michael Critz
09.03.09 at 03:29

GM's use of an MPG number to describe a plug-in hybrid has disturbed me ever since I first heard it. It's a contradiction in terms that only serves to confuse the marketplace as well as inappropriately play down the importance of electricity.

Sony might as well push the PlayStation 3 as a device that gets infinite MPG; Apple could say the iPhone 3GS gets infinite MPG; Dyson's entire line of vacuum cleaners pulls a nice infinite MPG as well.
Clayton
09.03.09 at 03:31

great article, phil.

as you point out, these mileage numbers don't exist in a vacuum. beyond the problem of factoring in the emissions from electrical plants, there's so much else to consider: emissions from the mining and manufacturing enterprises that produce the raw materials for cars, and shipping those materials and the cars themselves. cars generate waste on so many levels, not only when they're on the road.

ultimately the system of automobile production and consumption is due for an overhaul. but what would automobile manufacture 2.0 look like? and is a full overhaul even possible when the biggest markets for cars in the coming years will be emerging economies less concerned with sustainability? time will tell, i guess...
john cantwell
09.03.09 at 04:58

John: I think automobile 2.0 is pretty much what's happening at Aptera. If you're not familiar with the name, check them out. It's quite an eye-opener.
Clayton
09.03.09 at 11:47

A great article! I have had a similar argument with people who extol the virtues of dishwashers over hand washing the plates. Firstly not everybody uses 100 litres of water and secondly think of all the energy wasted (probably from a coal power station) in the hour long cycle!
professional retouching
09.04.09 at 05:42

GM has neglected consideration of charging infrastructure.



You are so right on with this point! Our design is upside down.

It is all about the Grid.
The “G” in GM + GE should now stand for “Grid.”
The charging infrastructure should come first and NOW.
Great post! Thank you.
Carl W. Smith
09.04.09 at 06:40

Thanks for addressing the 230 issue. I would still like to see what this transmogrified EPA specification entails, as it quite clearly allows for huge interpretation issues.

One note on your information on batteries: The Lithium Ferrous Phosphate battery you spoke of is actually new, but not that new. It's a proven technology that the Chinese have latched onto because they can deliver a less expensive solution with little or no quality trade-off.

LiFePo batteries (Google this, for more information on the technology) have some intrinsic advantages over the accepted Lithium mix. First, they're substantially safer, in that they don't tend to turn into an uncontrollable fireball when pierced or overheated. Second, they tend to have much longer life cycles when treated fairly. Last, and this is a big one for electric cars, they can accept and distribute energy at much higher levels than conventional lithium batteries. Like a lot higher. So charging is faster, and power to the motor is higher without the excessive strain and heat (read: battery-killing conditions).
John Date
09.04.09 at 06:40

Complaining that electric cars are not truly green because they rely on energy from power plants is ridiculous.

The power generation efficiently of a power plant is better than what any car engine can manage. Additionally, the environmental impact of distributing that power (setting up power lines, installing recharging stations) is far less than the impact of manufacturing and distributing gasoline.
Colin Fahrion
09.04.09 at 11:12

The Chevy Volt is to energy efficiency what a solar-powered vibrator is to masturbation.

Lets get real: we could have 150mpg machines tomorrow, using our existing fuel infrastructure, if we could wean ourselves from our pig lifestyles. Get a car that weighs 1000lbs, give it a small diesel electric plant, change the driving laws/enforcement such that 0-60 in 20 seconds is sufficient to enter our primary means of transport, and we'd be done with this discussion.

Instead, we're spending billions upon billions to figure out how to lug around a 4000lb rare-earth laden carcass, have the smog discharged in the fly-over zones so the greenies can ad to their smugness, and we think we're doing good?!?!?

Its all a bunch of shit. If you are driving regularly, you are killing the planet.

If you think buying a prius/volt/tesla/solar-powered vibrator absolves the cost of your 80 mile solo commute, you are wrong.

Cars are our death. Kill them before they kill us.

Pessimist
09.04.09 at 08:58

Moore’s law, of course, refers to the exponential growth of silicon memory capacity.

Moore's law actually refers to the exponential growth in the density of transistors on a silicon die. This has applicability to memory devices, but is much more general than that.
Jerry Vandesic
09.05.09 at 01:08

I'm with pessimist, and have given up car ownership thanks to a walkable city, the occasional bus trip, and rare zipcar share.

But it's worth pointing out that electric can, in fact, be green. Here in Seattle, our electricity is carbon-neutral. And even where it's not yet, it will be easier to affect change at the level of municipal power production then convincing people to invest personally in greener cars. So the more we shift the problem to the grid, the better off we'll be in the time between infrastructure upgrades and fleet retirement.
Hans Gerwitz
09.10.09 at 11:39

It’s good to know that electric cars are being developed for personal use, but the thing I would like to hear more of is this kind of technology being developed for the more commercial vehicles. Semis and other big vehicles don't seem to come up in the conversations about MPG, but they have the worse out of all the vehicles on the road. I drove a small dump truck that was brand new and only got 9 MPG, the one before that that was about 8yrs old only got 7MPG. Personal vehicles have come a long way in being greener and getting better MPG, but it seems like commercial vehicles are flying under the radar. Just some kind of progress would make a lot of difference. I know that these types of vehicles can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, but when they replace to old ones, even a hybrid would be an improvement for the environment and lessening our gas consumption. It would also give the companies who use these vehicles time to change over their fleet instead of trying to do it all at once.
Stacie Budek
09.29.09 at 01:16

This article is definitely flowing with great points and a ton of information. As for our economy and what we have been going through the past couple years, it's great to see that we are still pushing forward and still in competition with other country's car companies. As for cars not having infinite MPGs maybe someday that will be possible but for now, at least we are developing products that are more eco-friendly and will aid in improving the environment.

I also agree with the comment above, we need to not only develop personal cars but also develop better technology for commercial transportation. However, good improvements come with time...
Katie Klumb
10.12.09 at 02:20

You have some great points in here. The advertisement and the claims given by GM on its chevy volt is quite misleading as there are still many factors to consider. However, creating green car is also one of the innovative products that is happening today. Automakers will eventually provide type of vehicles capable of offering longer distance
chevy auto parts
11.20.09 at 01:51

I was wondering if what else will be the worth of tail pipe on these electric vehicles. And there was this issue about the white smoke from extreme heats from these electric cars. But not sure if it has to pass through pipe.. haha
Dan
01.25.11 at 08:23



LOG IN TO POST A COMMENT
Don't have an account? Create an account. Forgot your password? Click here.

Email


Password




|
Share This Story



ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Phil Patton is an author and curator who writes on autos for The New York Times.
More Bio >>

DESIGN OBSERVER JOBS