Inside the Chevy Volt's Battery

People who know about batteries, know that when you put 100 3 volt cells in series to get 300 volts, you may be asking for trouble. If any single cell fails, it can overheat and ruin the entire pack. Also 300 volts DC is just as lethal as 300 volts AC and that is very dangerous. I hope they have really thought out how to prevent any possibility of electrocution because that would really put a dent in the demand for electric vehicles. As a conservative approach it might be better to go with a lower voltage battery and DC-DC conversion which is very sophisticated now as a result of 30 years development of solar inverter technology.

But then Chevy has been letting the marketing guys run the company for so long, they may have actually killed the engineering culture in the company. They make beautiful cars that are poorly engineered.

So maybe you know about batteries. However, Chevy has top quality qualified engineers who built this car. Using a significantly lower voltage battery combined with solar panels and inverters would greatly decrease the range. So in essence, electric cars may not be perfect, but they are much better than if they would have used solar technology. In addition, electric cars have exception acceleration capabilities. Combined with above highway regulation speeds, Chevy has created one great car.
Electrocution: I'm sure Chevy has thought of that.

Looking at the battery pack, one wonders how well it would fare being driven through certain areas of Oakland or Richmond where drive-by shootings are common. One well placed bullet could start an interesting chain reaction. Even using a phosphate based cell, a chain reaction would still occur, it would just be slower and more controlled.
Oh, and whoever was worried about electrocution, 1)300VDC is VASTLY more dangerous than 300VAC. Muscles clamp with DC exitation and the victim cannnot often be prized out of circuit until he's well cooked. 2) The prius uses 400+VDC and there have not been any reported deaths from electrocution even though there are one heck of a load of them out there!

I think GM needs to think about body armour around that battery before there is a horribly newsworthy conflagration!

Just like the EV-1, they will lease these out and steal them after a year. I wouldn't trust getting a car from GM.

I'll wait for Toyota or Honda to make an all-electric car.

Ok, check your facts here. It's not Volts that kill people nor is it Volts that hold people to a line when they are being electrocuted. It is Amperes that is the killer.

I'm amazed to see the first 3 posts here are about the dangers of electric/hybrid vehicles. Know what happens when you let a spark hit gasoline? The dangers and disadvantages of internal combustion engines heavily outweigh the rare chance of being electrocuted by a battery hidden behind multiple compartments.

Heck, considering what it would take to meet direct exposure with them (car accident), I would think the batteries would be the least of your worries at that point.

Ramesses: Check out Ohms law. If resistance is the same, more volts = more amps.

I agree with jester2069 lol......we worry about being electrocuted when gasoline is much more dangerous.

<(XoX)>
-THE KID

How long does it take to recharge this thing? Will there be special recharging stations once these types of cars have been mass produced?

Maybe as of this time, gas or ethanol /gas combined with electric hybrids seems more viable. Unless, recharging stations have been put in place that would not take up so much time for the passengers of the vehicle to "charge up" their batteries for that car.

In time as electrical storage devices become more compact and efficient, maybe there will be a future wherein a hybrid solar/electric car would be better with regards to being totally independent from gas and would be better in terms of versatility when it comes to power. The two power sources would help and complement each other.

Expect a lot of people to buy them soon, as the economy would start to rebound and these cars would be mass-produced so that they are cheaper. Although, if they are more costly than your regular gasoline / diesel powered car, I don't see alot of people buying them especially due to the fact that there are no recharging stations yet... or recharging would take a very long time. And for many, the wasted waiting time is not something good and would cost them more in the long run.

Anyways, that's just me... and I don't generally speak for a lot of people but... just maybe, these would be some of their feedback.

Go Green Cars!

To Earthlight: if you're worried about volatile batteries exploding or catching fire, you've probably seen the videos of lithium-ion battery packs burning up without warning. Cells of nanotitanate or lithium iron phosphate do not have that problem. Altair NanoSafe batteries, which are nanotitanate, will not explode or catch fire if you bake them in ovens at 400 degrees, crush them, drive nails through them or overcharge them. They will only short out and fail to work. Nanophosphate batteries such as those from A123 Systems are also very safe, and both battery types are non-toxic as are older chemistries such as lead acid, nickel cadmium and nickel metal hydride.

Genius15: Sorry, but you are making no sense. Solar panels have nothing to do with the safety of the vehicle. They are a rather low-voltage, low-amperage way to trickle charge the batteries, and could never contribute to safety problems; and you are certainly wrong about solar cells decreasing the range of the car. They could INCREASE it just a bit, especially in applications such as when the car is used to go to work or school and is sitting in the sun for hours before being driven back home. Solar cells might not contribute any charge to the batteries if the car is driven at night, but they could NEVER have any measurable negative effect on the charge level of the batteries.

kiqi: If it were that dangerous to drive through Oakland, I would certainly be worrying about being killed by the bullets themselves, rather than what the bullets would do to the batteries! And as I said above, that would be more a problem with old-style lithium-ion batteries than the lithium iron phosphate batteries that the Chevy Volt is likely to have-- in fact, by the time the Volt is finally sold, they may have some entirely different battery chemistry. If Oakland was really that dangerous I wouldn't be driving through there in the first place.

As for body armor, even with the 300 volt batteries in the Volt, I'd far rather be in that car than one with a full tank of gas, if I happened to be in a collision. There are more than a thousand people killed each year from collisions when the gasoline tanks exploded. No emergency or safety equipment-- helmets, safety belts, air bags, etc-- will protect a passenger from harm in every kind of accident, but EVs are certainly safer than gasoline cars.

Chipper Smoltz: the batteries in the newest EVs are not as pathetic as those we have in our cell phones and laptops that take hours to charge. The NanoSafe is the quickest, being able to be recharged in less than 10 minutes, and can be recharged to 85% of full in about 3 minutes or so, and will also last for decades without needing to be replaced; nanophosphate batteries can be recharged nearly as fast, but fast charging decreases their life slightly.

Most people will not be recharging at recharging stations, where it will be very inexpensive but still cost more than trickle charging at home overnight. And when charging at home they will not have to waste time waiting like they would at gas stations or charging stations.

Thanks very much billdale for enlightening all of us.

However, some important things to consider are - how far would this car go assuming it would be running from the start with the batteries full?

Another would be the cost of the vehicle. Would it be cheaper compared to gas/diesel powered vehicles?

And, if it would be recharging using the power from the electricity grid, how much power would it consume? Since most of the grids still use fossil fuels to run, it means that is it not totally independent of fossil fuels to power it up.

And one more thing, the battery pack is so big and heavy that it might possibly be difficult to navigate through steep hilly terrain, or has it been drive-tested in those occasions. How about manuevaerability? Aside from this is the fact that every sort of battery lasts for a finite amount of time before it actually degrades and becomes more inefficient. For how long will these batteries be effective until replacements have to be made?

Again, if someone missed this out... Go Green Cars.... !!!

Thanks again billdale =)

As far as the design of the battery and drive system, there are a couple of very GM'y thinking points. Why is this beast so BIG? All the successful hybrid manufactuerers except Ford (of course) started with a small car and got lots of experience before putting the system into anything larger. GM of course starts with the other direction making an albeit impressive looking car with lots of gravitas, pronounced "excess weight". Thinking back the EV1 taught that smaller is better while you develop your systems. Oh I forgot, GM junked the entire EV1 team and burnt all their design work as way too close to an actually working idea which only needed development. At that time design work desperately needed to be dedicated to the really large vehicles (Hummers/monster truck/the obscene Escalade/etc). However... There was one really bright red herring to dangle before the general public. HYDROGEN. THE least practical fuel by a VERY LONG WAY. Playing the Hydrogen card meant that they could have a small team with a very small budget spending years proving how difficult it would be to use Hydrogen as a fuel. They could wheel the team out whenever they needed to prove their Greenness and the rest was just some corporate PR and advertizing with a generally warm fuzzy greeness as the central thread. Believe it or not, BMW used exactly the same ploy to prevent their having to do any real work on improving the lousy environmental impact of their entire fleet. What is SO tiresome about this is that the problems of transport storage and dispensing of gasses which can't be liquified by pressure alone, is equally applicable to methane. While methane is not carbon-free, it's the lowest carbon practical fuel we have and a lot better than propane or butane. So with methane prices nose-diving, why are we not looking at the "Methane Economy"? We have an inbuilt distribution network in place for most towns and cities. The stuff does not have to be "manufactured" like H2 it comes out of the ground/landfill "ready to use". Conversion of a vehicle like a Prius/Honda Hybrid to burn it would be expensive initially but... Designing a home refuelling compressor fed directly off the gas tap seems way simpler than a home Hydrogen generator. So GM take up this idea? Not a chance. T Boon Pickens has seen the light but he needs to really convince Toyota to get a largish test fleet of Prii on the road as soon as possible. Yes when it catches on, GM will sink further into the "dear old impractical" category and probably be mercifully laid to rest with the next major oil shock. One might be sad were it not for the incredible perpetual stupidity they have shown over the last 20 years. Always doing the wrong thing until years after it became blindingly obvious it was wrong then blundering on into yet more stupid mistakes. Sad really...

Ken,

There are theoretically 28.5 millions tons of lithium in the whole world (Only 5 million have been discovered to date). Since it would take 9 billion tons to power the worlds cars (just the cars) for the next 5 years, doesn't it seem just a little intellectually vacant to plan our transportation futures with electric or hybrid vehicles? Do all of you people think that you invented the internet? Can anyone even spell physics?

I'm very happy to see intelligent comments made on EVs on this PopSci thread.

Before I respond to some of the other reader comments, I have exciting stuff to tell you: Ohio State University may have a game-changing breakthrough in solar cells.

233 watts of electricity strikes every square foot of the planet in the noontime sun; if we could really make use of most of that energy, we could generate enough electricity from solar panels on an electric vehicle to drive it at a constant speed of, say, about 50 mph.

The problem is that all of today's solar panels use just a small slice of the spectrum; also, when the sunlight strikes the panel, the electrons that are released are only free for a few nanoseconds (billionths of a second), and must be harvested for use immediately before they drop back in the holes they came from.

OSU's Mark Chisholm leads a team of researchers that have tackled both of these problems. Not only can their experimental solar panels harvest energy from the entire spectrum, but those panels have 7 million times longer to grab and channel the resulting electric charge. They think it will take a few more years before they will be able to bring their panels to market, but imagine being able to produce, say, 100,000 watts of electricity from solar panels mounted on the roof of your house. An electric grid would no longer be necessary-- you'd have far in excess of the energy to run your home.

Chipper: You asked about the lifespan of the batteries used. Their lifespans run the gamut, and I'm somewhat disappointed to see GM's use of the batteries they are using-- I wish that batteries offered by EV makers would be options in the same way you can order different engine, tranny or suspension packages for a new car you buy.

There is not one battery that would be ideal for everyone, and the battery I wish GM would make available for ME to choose in a Volt if I bought one would be the Altair NanoSafe battery. In testing, the NanoSafe has survived more than 30,000 fast charge/ discharge cycles (10 minute charge, 2 hour discharge to simulate a real-world 10 minute charge cycle at charging stations, and a two hour drive at highway speeds.)

30,000 charge cycles is equivalent to roughly 60- 80 years of average daily use. Even after so many charge cycles, the batteries did not decrease in storage capacity. There is also less internal resistance in the NanoSafe battery, which means it would cost you less to charge one kilowatt of energy in a NanoSafe than in other battery types.

The NanoSafe is the most expensive of all batteries I know of, and it has something like 15-20 percent less charge capacity than other batteries, but if it's costing you far less to drive an EV than a gasoline car, and it can be recharged quickly and easily at, say, a Starbucks or Costco as you shop or dine, a reduced charge capacity is of no great importance, and you save a fortune overall once the car's mortgage is paid. EVs have none of the enormous continuing expenses such as tune-ups, air filters, oil filters, oil changes, replacement mufflers, replacement catalytic converters, smog tests, brake jobs, tranny service, etc.; all of that not only costs money but require hours of our time as well at service centers. (EVs use their motors to help stop the car, extending not only the range between charges but brake pad life as well. EVs have different transmission requirements that mean far less tranny service-- EVs need no reverse gears, & don't need four to six forward gears like gas cars.)

Even if gasoline seems affordable now, consider that with dramatically increasing use of cars in China and India are bound to speed worldwide depletion of oil supplies driving prices up. And since studies show a much greater increase in disease and a lower life span the closer you live to a freeway, we are obviously paying more not only our own health care, but for the health plans we pay for that spread the costs between us all. If we begin driving EVs in great numbers, all of us will start to have better health, especially regarding asthma and lung disease, and if we are not sending 700 billion dollars a year to OPEC countries, that will dramatically increase our usable income.

Re: battery pack weight: yes, the batteries might be very heavy, but it is replacing the weight of a gasoline engine, tranny, gas tank, muffler and other components. (A typical electric motor currently weighs about 75- 150 lbs, and the new innovative motors that are due to hit the streets may weigh much less than that and still retain excellent performance.)

As to your comment/ question of the use of fossil fuels to power EVs, the game is changing daily-- the percentage of energy generated by coal is decreasing; in time the coal that is being generated will, hopefully, be "scrubbed" to reduce the most harmful components; and developments such as the OSU solar panels may change how we get our energy before it has a chance to become an intractable problem.

kiqi: Thanks for your input, but please put your comments in paragraphs! It's too hard to follow what you say!

I am totally in agreement with your view on hydrogen-- I have used that same description: red herring... smoke screen. Hydrogen has allowed car makers to divert attention from true energy solutions. Car makers did not want to make EVs because once the car leaves the show room, they can make virtually no residual profits from sales and service of tune-ups, filters, etc; EVs are very close to maintenance-free.

Hydrogen has far too many major problems, and all of them would have to be handled before it would be a practical fuel. And who wants to risk financing a hydrogen infrastructure costing many tens of billions of dollars until there are cars to fuel, and what car owner wants to buy an expensive, iffy hydrogen car if there are no stations to fuel up? Can you say Chicken and the Egg?

To jisom@usa.com: Yes, lithium is a problem for several reasons, perhaps chief of which is that China has most of the supplies discovered so far, but I have never seen the mumbers you mention, and am skeptical of their accuracy.
I would wonder if those numbers may have been provided by someone such as the oil or automobile industry to discourage EV sales.

China could try to take severe advantage of their near monopoly of lithium eventually in the same way OPEC has taken regarding oil. As long as we have any alternatives-- EEStor supercapacitors that use cheap, plentiful phosphate, for example, or compressed air motors as India, Australia and France are now doing-- China will be reluctant to play that card.

oops-- correction-- that's Malcolm Chisholm that is conducting the solar panel research at OSU.

Thanks billdale for patiently explaining everything again.

Just a thought, if these cars become mainstream, it's a scary thought that all of them would be getting the power to recharge from a grid which uses fossil fuels to generate electricity. It's like, the dependence on the fossil fuels have been eliminated in the vehicle or car but it still depends on it indirectly. Unless the grid would be generating electricity from other sources like solar, wind, wave, etc. then this could be something that really is "Green"

I do hope that there are huge breakthroughs in solar panel / technology in the same way that there are breakthroughs in other areas - mainly due to nanotechnology (although am grasping at straws here so to speak). Even though the car or vehicle would not look good but the addition of solar panels would aid in making them more "green" then it would be nice for me. I do hope though that they would not make them so expensive that it would discourage future buyers.

Go Green Cars !!!

Thanks again billdale =)

I've seen some very good comments here obviously authored by some knowledgable people. Perhaps one of you can answer my question. All the comments made by manufacturers and others rate batteries (like in the Volt) typically in a way such as "The Volt will be able to run for two hours on a charge" or " The Volt will go up to 200 miles on a charge" or whatever. This is obviously in a lab invironment. How about real world? How many miles will I be able to drive when the lights, A/C, radio, heater and/or other electrical devices are being used at the same time? How about being caught in a traffic jam and it's 98 degrees/100% humidity outside (like in Florida)? These cars must be able to accomodate not only going to/from work or the store with nothing else running but rather with a full load and I wonder what affect turning on all the normal devices will have on these vehicles being practical. Thanks for any response.

I find it funny how you guys are debating this considering what I stated earlier.

Even if they release this new car, they won't sell them. They will be leased and will be taken from you after a year. I don't think crashes or busted batteries would be the least of our concerns for the time being.

Hey, gas in southern california is down under 3 bucks a gallon! yay!

OK, great comments so far. First, after 40 miles the engine starts and runs the 53kW generator....53kW is huge, you can run a couple of houses on that, what happens to the mileage then? Second, when I come home and plug this thing in (assuming that I remember to) how many kW hours is it gonna take to top the batteries up...if we are talking a 300 volt battery is this going to be like leaving the oven on all night? What effect is this going to have on my electric bill? As for me, I think I'll wait for diesels to make a comeback, I just don't see the viability in terms of cost/benefit of this. I recently totaled my jetta diesel (47mpg) and explored going with a hybrid, forget it! I calculated a 7 year to payback for the premium over non-hybrids, I wound up going with a relative gas hog mazda 6 as a bridge til I can afford one of the new jetta diesels that just came out. Sure diesels are not going to help from a carbon emissions perspective but from a "getting us off foreign oil" argument, perhaps. jet

Billdale: You are making no sense. In my post I never even touched on the safety of solar panels. I merely commented on the range and functionality of solar panels and their uses in electric vehicles.

And you are completely wrong regarding range. The definition of range is not how far the car will go including stopping for multiple hours or charging between trips. Range refers to how far the vehicle can go without stopping. At all. So your comment on solar panels increasing the range because they will charge the batteries when parked is completely useless as it doesn’t apply to the real meaning of the word “Range.”

An electric car with solar panels DECREASES the range because the amount of electrical energy harvested is far less than needed to power the car in order to compensate for the added weight of the solar panels. Thus, an electric car gets better range (distance driven without stopping to charge) without solar panels, because of the weight to electrical output ratio. So, solar panels so have negative affects on the range.

Hydrogen cars are good ideas, but only by themselves. However, if considered as a secondary way to charge batteries on an electric vehicle (a water/electricity hybrid) the weight to electricity harvested ratio is similar to that of solar panels, and therefore would again decrease the range.

These ideas (hydrogen and solar power) are not bad, but at the current stage of their development are too heavy and weak to be of any use in a long-range electric vehicle.

As for your comment on charging stations being slow and time-wasting, it is completely wrong. Charging stations would use technology known as dump-charging, where a large amount of DC current energy is surged (dumped) into the batteries, charging them almost to full capacity in a very short amount of time. This amount of time would be equal to, if not less than the amount of time a person would take filling their gas tank at a gas station.

Hey, gas in southern california is down under 3 bucks a gallon! yay!
http://www.hedefnakliyat.com

Voltec = name of the extended range EV drive line that'll be used in the Chevy Volt, Opel Ampera, Cadillac Converj and others yet to be announced.

Lithium supplies: the CEO of Compact Power (the LG Chem subsidiary building Volts battery) was on a large Detroit radio station a couple months ago and was asked about this. He said that recent advances in LiIon chemistry have reduced the amount needed to the point where today's reserves were enough for billions of batteries.

Crashes: several Volts have already undergone crash tests and the battery suffered no damage. It's sensors detect collisions and cut it off internally. Armored and smart.

Cold/Hot battery: if the battery temp is outside the operating range the vehicle uses the range extender generator (1.4L 4 cyl 160hp) to power the car until the batteries active environmental system heats/cools it to within the operational range. After a short bit the range extender shuts down and you're on battery power.

Accessories: those formerly driven by belts are now electric (no belt drive during EV), but very high efficiency electric. Automakers have been headed this way for years and even today there are cars with electric power steering. AC too, and with CO2 as the coolant (it and ammonia were used for years before Freon).

Charging: the battery discharges to a 30% state of charge (SOC) then the range extender starts. From the 30% SOC charging takes 3 hours using 240v and 6 hours using 120v. There have been rumors that the system is also set up for 440v charging using third party hardware (custom cable, voltage up-converter, phase multiplier etc.)

The charger is also smart; you can program the date/time of charge using the center console's touch-screen LCD charging page (it's a multi-function/multi-page display) or it can 'talk' to utilities that have 'smart grid' through the charging plug to coordinate automatic charging when off-hour rates kick in (much cheaper).

Range: the DOT says that the average US driver travels 36 miles or less. Volt can travel 40 miles on a full charge then it switches to the range extender for another 300+ miles.

Cost of charge: from the 'empty' 30% state of charge and with an $0.08/kWh off-hour utility rate (overnight) as it is here near Detroit, the Volt would cost about $0.40 to charge full up. This would allow about 1200 miles of gas free driving at a cost of ~$12 in a 30 day month. Dunno about you but that's about 300 miles more than our monthly total for 2 cars since we have everything including doctor, hospital, work and schools of all levels, within 5 miles.

30% SOC: this extends the life of the battery enormously, to the point GM's warranty will cover it for 100,000 miles or 10 years. The system can dip into this reserve in an emergency, such as if the range extender breaks or if a burst of power is needed at a low SOC (battery + range extender kick in).

GM has also generated a lot of patents during Volts development, including and very importantly the means to smooth the transitions between EV and range extender modes. Not easy to do, some conventional hybrids are very rough doing this transition, and they've spent a lot of time and money on getting it right.

I'm amazed to see the first 3 posts here are about the dangers of electric/hybrid vehicles Know what happens when you let a spark hit gasoline? The dangers and disadvantages of internal combustion engines heavily outweigh the rare chance of being electrocuted by a battery hidden behind multiple compartments. his worry is correct
http://www.firmoo.com/

These battery "systems" are much more sophisticated than what you find in your car today. They are equipped with a variety of sensors that constantaly monitor their health. Each battery communicates with a central battery managment computer through a communications network. Any temperature anomaly or short circuit problems immediately disconnect the batteries from the vehicle.
www.promdresspicture.com
The high voltage design provides power conversion efficiencies required to produce a vehicle range that is acceptable to the automotive market. Low voltage architectures require larger cables and other devices: increasing weight, increasing resistance leading to a less efficient product. It would take more of the precious battery energy and turn it into heat.

Alors peut-être vous savoir sur les batteries. Toutefois, Chevrolet a ingénieurs qualifiés de haute qualité qui a construit cette voiture. Utilisation d'une batterie nettement inférieur tension combinée avec des panneaux solaires et onduleurs considérablement diminuer la portée. Donc, en substance, les voitures électriques ne peuvent pas être parfaits, mais ils sont beaucoup mieux que si ils auraient utilisé la technologie solaire. En outre, les voitures électriques ont des capacités d'accélération exception. Combiné avec des vitesses ci-dessus la réglementation routière, Chevrolet a créé une très bonne voiture.
Electrocution: Je suis sûr que Chevrolet a pensé à cela.

www.porsche-carz.com
www.saturn-carz.com
www.scion-carz.com
www.thaicarnews.com

@Genius15
You are wrong about solar panels. They add a lot of plastic to cars to cover various parts and to generate downforce without adding extra weight. They have also had success with very lightweight spray on solar cells. In addition to this they can use lighter materials on the roof, hood and trunk and add solar panels in those places for almost no extra weight(especially considering the rate at which they are reducing the weight and increasing the efficiency of solar panels).

And another interesting thought is special windmills that engage through a clutch to a generator when the car is breaking to generate extra charging capacity(much like regenerative breaking does now. Of course tests would have to be done to see if the drag generated by these windmills when they are free spinning while the car is under power, or the extra weight of a mechanism to move them out of the airstream would offset the extra power generation during breaking. But a short time in a wind tunnel would answer these questions quite quickly.

The Volt is A JOKE, as is the Nissan Leaf!

Firstly, the Volt still emits c02 emissions because of the gas that is used.

Second, a full charge only getting a 40 mile range is laughable, especially with all the new technology out that can push the batteries limits way beyond 100 miles per charge,upwards of 300 miles per charge.

Lastly, anyone who is keeping up on battery technology and EV evolution knows that the Tesla Model S can achieve 300 miles per charge, and has basically revolutionized the EV industry.

What a beauty and incredible car this is! http://www.teslamotors.com/models

Washington and the DOE would be better served if they supported an amazing car and company like Tesla instead of throwing away monies on crap EV's like the Volt or Nissan Leaf. They both get subsidizes for making lower emission vehicles; but seriously, range anxiety and infrastructure are two barriers that will keep the EV from reaching their full potential, unless more and more companies invest in longer range EV's, more infrastructure projects, and quick charge technology.

The proof is in the pudding; Tesla Model S, for me at least, is the Electric Vehicle that could/should launch a new generation of great quality EV's and get us off the dependence of gas, which with tighter C02 emission limits, the DOE should make every single vehicle mandatory to limit a ZERO C02 Emission standard across the country.

With any luck, we'll see the roads full of great quality EV's like the Tesla.

It is evident that education is failing the country. The junk science in this thread is appalling, right out of Plan 9.

10-minute recharges? Jeez! Has anyone run the numbers? GM has stated that the Volt battery would supply about 10 kilowatt-hours maximum before the engine-driven generator starts. To avoid using that EEEEE-vil engine, plug a cord into a wall receptacle and 10 minutes later it's recharged. RI-I-IGHT! For a 120-volt line to supply 10 KWH in ten minutes, it would have to supply 60 KW for those 10 minutes. That requires 500 amperes of current. The typical branch circuit for a wall receptacle is rated at 15 or 20 amps. Using 240 volts, the current is reduced to 250 amps. The typical house has a 200-amp main breaker.

10 minutes? Only in an ecowacko's dreams. Try 6 hours minimum for a 120-volt source.

Re the solar power fantasy: at high noon on a totally clear day, with the sun directly overhead, the insolation at Earth's surface is 1000 watts/square meter or 93 watts/square foot. SPV cells are about 15% efficient, meaning that the maximum power output per square foot is 14 watts. Assuming a rooftop SPV panel of 20 square feet on the car, it will provide 280 watts peak. It might give a little extra range to the voltmobile, as long as the sun doesn't move from the zenith and the day remains cloudless.

In the real world, accounting for weather, the cosine effect and nighttime, the average daily insolation is 250 watts/sq meter or 23 watts/sq foot, and latitude affects that. The above panel would thus supply a daily average of 70 watts.

The solar panel on the voltmobile would cause more energy loss due to drag than it could provide.

Conclusion: despite AlBore's egregious mythology, petrochemical fuels will be powering our vehicles for many years to come.