Here’s an interesting BBC story about the safety hazards associated with the Chevy Volt — specifically, the risk that its battery pack could catch fire after even a minor impact.
But the real problem may no longer be a technical one, but one of dented consumer confidence. Customers are handing back the keys in droves.
At first, when the problem first came to light, chief executive Dan Akerson offered to buy back Volt models from any concerned customers.
Then, when dozens of customers came forward wanting to hand back the keys to their cars, the company changed tack.
Rather than automatically buying back the Volts, and thus losing its as yet tiny army of early adopters of electric motoring technology, GM started offering them some 6,000 free loan cars while awaiting the outcome of an investigation into the fires.
And here’s why:
It now appears the fire hazard was first discovered back in June, when GM first heard about a fire in a Volt that occurred some three weeks after the vehicle had been crash tested.
Yet, almost five months went by before either GM or the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) told dealers and customers about the potential risks and urged them to drain the battery pack as soon as possible after an accident.
Part of the reason for delaying the disclosure was the “fragility of Volt sales” up until that point, according to Joan Claybrook, a former administrator at NHTSA.
“NHTSA could have put out a consumer alert,” he said, according to industry website Autoguide.com.
“Not to tell [customers] for six months makes no sense to me. They have a duty to inform people when they’ve rated a vehicle as ‘top rated’ and make it clear there’s a problem.”
While it isn’t surprising that GM was reluctant to announce product safety bulletins that would dampen early sales of its much touted hybrid, according to the linked story the NHTSA was an accessory to this as well, and for the same reason:
“Part of the reason for delaying the disclosure was the ‘fragility of Volt sales’ up until that point, according to Joan Claybrook, a former administrator at NHTSA.”
At Autoguide.com, there’s a story saying that Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood responded today saying the accusations were “absolutely not true.”
“We have opened an investigation into battery-related fires that may occur some time after a severe crash,” LaHood said. “Chevy Volt owners can be confident that their cars are safe to drive.”
Meanwhile, the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) filed a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for any and all communications with General Motors (GM).
John-X said:
December 9, 2011 at 11:49 am
Try to imagine if the Bush administration TOOK OVER GM (ponder that for a minute),
then HID safety data in order to protect “fragile sales.”
——————————————————————-
obama and the other neocoms won’t have to worry about fragile sales soon: if they can tell us what medical insurance and light bulbs we can and cannot buy, soon they will be telling us what car we must buy.
There is a Volt in your future – unless you revolt.
Gene and Downdraft … thanks for lending some sanity to this thread.
Gene, Battery packs can be damaged without being punctured by way of the shock of a collision without even showing an outward sign of damage. I’m not sating that’s what happened here because I don’t know. I’m involved with getting electronic devices UL approved.
Your argument seems to suggest that the Volt’s battery system is nearly impervious to damage. I find that rather hard to believe on its face. I’m not sure what the blog proprietors would need to update on this story. All you’ve provided is your personal opinion on what is the car of the future without any real basis for it. The battery powered vehicle was displaced from the roadways by the superior internal combustion engine once already.
Claude, the 3 week delay for the NTHSA post crash fire probably had to do with the coolant surrounding the battery pack… the coolant itself is not conductive or reactive with the undischarged energy in the pack… but when the coolant dries and crystalizes, it can react or become conductive and cause a fire if there is still charge present in the battery cells. This is one of the reasons that damaged battery pack need to be properly discharged… a procedure that the NTHSA failed to follow. The investigation is still necessary because if the NTHSA didn’t follow the discharge procedure, it will surely be missed by salvage operators at some point.
Gene wrote, “Next, it seems many of the commenters are woefully unaware that 0.1% of car crashes in the US result in a fire… As there are 6000 Volts in the US by simple arithmetic there should have been 6 fires…”
Not unless all 6000 Volts have been crashed.
Gene says:
December 9, 2011 at 6:37 pm
“Claude,
I know all about internal run away. I’m in high tech. We use li-ion a lot. It’s life.”
Interesting you didn’t think of that in your “Disconnect the cables” solution. I’m not joining you in “going tribal” over the pros and cons of battery-powered vehicles. The consumer market will be the final arbiter on that one. The fact is that more than one lithium-ion battery has burst into flames for no apparent reason sometime after a crash. I simply pointed out that lithium-ion batteries are notorious for doing exactly that and those reasons have nothing to do with whether or not the battery is connected to load at the time of the failure.
From TimH on December 9, 2011 at 7:30 pm:
Not so fast! NHTSA didn’t know there was such a procedure, they can’t be faulted for not following it when they weren’t informed of it!
Nov 11, 2011
http://www.freep.com/article/20111111/BUSINESS0101/111111039/Chevrolet-Volt-catches-fire-weeks-after-crash-prompting-closer-look-safety
For a juicy detail I haven’t seen mentioned previously, the safety protocol didn’t exist. There was an internal GM process, I’d guess like would be needed for prototypes and testing, but no releasable protocol to provide to NHTSA and emergency responders.
Originally Nov 17, 2011, Bloomburg, reported Nov 29 in Bloomburg Businessweek (bold added in text):
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-29/gm-developing-methods-to-handle-volt-batteries-after-crashes.html
First they put the Volt on the market.
Then came the post-NHTSA crash fire.
—where NHTSA was blamed for not following the protocol
—that GM admitted they had never told NHTSA
Now we know there was no emergency protocol, just a “process” suitable for engineers to perform.
NOW they are working on standard procedures so emergency responders and others working on crashed vehicles can stay safe, nearly a year after they started selling them.
How can anyone defend Government Motors for this? No one has died yet, but the potential was there. Emergency responders didn’t know how to deal with crashed Volts, since GM never bothered to develop a standard safety procedure they could reveal to them.
Instead, GM was sending out engineers to quietly examine crashed Volts and do their “process.” How can this not smell like they were covering up something? And how could GM have known they’d be alerted about every crash? Were they counting on their OnStar GPS-capable built-in spying system to notify them every time? Was there one or more GM executives freaking out because crashed Volts were being securely held at NHTSA facilities, where those GM engineers couldn’t get at them?
As said, those standard procedures should have been developed and released to protect people and “…head off potential fires that may jeopardize the safety reputation of the Volt…” I would have said “jeopardize people and property” but then I’m not into marketing. This brings up an interesting question: If it’s bad PR to not develop and release those standard safety procedures so people know how to deal with the dangers after a crash, would it have been even worse PR to let the public know what those hazards are?
I was recently researching the history of a building that had a very odd “flying bridge” structure featuring a tunnel-like entrance to a large covered courtyard. Located in Rochester New York, it was, in fact, an early electric car charging station built in the early twentieth century. In the process, I came across a comprehensive list of American electric automobile companies most of which were located in central and western NY and Ohio. There were quite a lot of them (over 50) and they all have one thing in common – none of them exist today.
Their products had many things in common as well – they featured:
Outrageous cost.
Lack of sufficient power in poor weather (hot or cold).
Limited range (maxxed out at around 35 mi.)
Lack of charging infrastructure.
It seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Fair go kadaka We here in the dominion of oz get shagged on pretty much every deal going, there is no need to draw the audiences attention to the swelling.
It’s a Holden it won’t blow up unless a tree jumps out in front of it.
Gene wrote, “Next, it seems many of the commenters are woefully unaware that 0.1% of car crashes in the US result in a fire. Thats nearly 300,000 fires per year.
Then Gene wrote, “The car is safer than a gas powered car, considering the 300,000 car fires in the US per year!”
That’s not right, either. Depending on what source you believe, there are between 5,000,000 and 10,000,000 motor vehicle accidents per year in the USA, most of them car crashes. 0.1% of 10,000,000 is just 10,000, not 300,000.
Safe use of lithium batteries has been extensively studied by the US military, and the government has understood the safety risks of using this technology for many years. DoD has strict standards and testing requirements that products using this technology must meet before the product is given to soldiers.
A good summary can be found in this brief:
http://proceedings.ndia.org/5670/Lithium_Battery-Winchester.pdf
What testing was done here ? Looks to me like there was none – as the testing agency doesn’t even seem to be aware that there is this problem with this technology.
I find it all rather odd that some worry about a small possibility of a fire weeks after an accident and yet are still driving around in cars that will crumple like tin cans if hit by a modern car. A quick review of crash test videos of the past 15 – 20 years shows massive improvements. When various organizations take cars from the 50s and 60s and smash them into modern cars one thing is immediately evident: you’ll most likely survive in a modern car, you will die in the older car, and in a gruesome way.
The electrification of the automobile is inevitable. Nothing will ever be 100% safe. The fact that some people seem concerned about a risk weeks after an accident to a car that has been utterly destroyed in a wreck astounds me. It’s like worrying about a forthcoming storm damaging the inside of your house the day after your house has burned to the ground.
I also find it funny the same people moaning about a potential risk in the Volt walk around with a Li-Ion battery pack in their pants.
As someone who has had a car catch fire and then burn to the ground, I feel perfectly safe driving gas-powered vehicles. I feel even more safe driving the Volt because GM has gone the extra mile worrying about the very negative nancies out there that seem hell-bent on stopping progress that’s good for everyone.
And for the curious, I’m getting 350+mpg in the Volt. The horror. The shame. I might even have to fill it up in, oh, February or March at this rate. And the cold-weather range is about 25 miles per charge. Not the 10 someone posted above. I don’t know of any Volt owner getting 10 unless his commute is up hill, both ways, in the snow at -20F all winter long.
Ref: Gene says:
December 10, 2011 at 10:32 am
Are you going to pay me back that $15,000.00 you took from my family and my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren to pay for your (unsafe-but-feel-good) toy?
Today’s CAFE standards and light-weight cars are estimated to increase the death rate by over 4,500 people per year – compared to those of the earlier (pre-2000) cars.
Electric Vehicle Problems:
I wonder what the price of ‘electric gasoline’ is:
I see the EPA is reported to say that 33.7 kWh of electricity is equivalent to a gallon of gasoline, and the *average* cost of electricity is 12 cents per kWh in the USA. That would give a net cost equivalent of just over four dollars a gallon from an electrical power grid that, now, does not have the capacity to support the load of total conversion to electric vehicles. Your cost may vary depending on your local electric rate, mileage, and efficiency factors.
Note: I have seen some green activists saying that the cost of electricity should be increased (or ‘sky rocketed’) to more than 30 cents per kWh in the USA and Canada to compensate for power plant environmental impacts and encourage conservation. That rate would make ‘electric gasoline’ cost over ten dollars an equivalent gallon.
RACookPE1978.
Why should I pay you back anything I didn’t take any of your money, let alone “$15,000”.
First off, the credit in the US is $7500. It’s a tax credit — i.e., a tax cut. Meaning, if you don’t have the revenue pursuant to that credit you won’t realize it on your tax form. Secondly, I’m a Canadian so you’re posturing is even more amusing. Third, since I’ve paid millions in taxes over the years, getting a few bucks back for a car seems like a fair exchange. I could have worked to park that money away from the tax man. I believe in paying my fair share, but have no qualms of taking advantage of something if it allows a technology to emerge more quickly. As an early adopter I’ve paid a premium for technology for years you probably now buy cheaply (computers, flat panels, Li-Ion batteries for portable devices, …). You don’t see me asking you to repay my largesse for ensuring you can buy a 50″ LCD for $1000 when 10 years ago it was closer to $10k! Or paying $5 – 10k for a computer 20 years ago?
As to today’s cars being less safe, let me tell you a story. My daughter was hit broadside by a Crown Victoria in a modern, small vehicle at 40mph. Both cars were totalled. She walked away with minor bruising and a couple of minor cuts. Weight has nothing to do with safety. Take a behemoth from the 60s or 70s weighing twice what a modern Ford Focus or Chevy Cruze and the occupants of the Cruze will survive while the occupants of that 60s or 70s car will most probably perish. And go look up crash tests on pre-2000 cars, such as the 1997 Grand Prix, and watch how it crumples during the crash tests. Then watch the same tests on a Cruze or Focus.
If anything, people have taken the safety of the cars as a reason to be reckless believing they can now drive like morons and not have to pay the consequences. If you think you’re indestructible you’ll behave in utterly moronic ways. It’s why people go climb peaks when they shouldn’t, fully aware the rescue teams will come and save their arse. But I’d rather have the safety gear and a totalled car than not have it and have to bury my daughter.
For those fine readers willing to read a great article on this whole over-reaction, Car & Driver has an excellent post on their blog.
http://blog.caranddriver.com/chevy-volt-hysteria-we’re-all-going-to-die-or-an-application-of-facts-and-rationality-to-flaming-batteries-and-melting-chargers/
Spector,
The estimate by the EPA is obviously ludicrous. The EPA is using the total energy in a gallon of gas, but no car is anywhere close to 100% efficient.
Here are real numbers I see, and that are seen by many Volt owners.
It takes about 10 – 12kWh to fill up a Volt. That gives you 40 or so miles of range (60km). We’ve had 50 miles in the warmer weather (about 75km)). It’s dropped to about 30 miles now (about 45km). Since off-peak charging costs about 8 – 10 cents here, you’re looking at $1 or so. Since 40mpg is more than most cars can achieve on a combined cycle, the price is equivalent to $0.50 – $1.00 per gallon of gas not $4+ as you stated.
The problem is equating the two. The EPA has a difficult time sorting this out because this is all new. But it should be based on range and cost of electricity. If you can go 40 miles on $1 on electric but only 20 miles on $1 of gas, then the electric car is more efficient. For some vehicles, even 20 miles on a $1 of gas is far fetched, it’s more like 10 miles per $1 of gas.
BTW, since 80% of North Americans commute less than 40 mile (60km) per day, owners of Volts use next to no gas during said commutes. That means no imported oil, etc. (Not that that matters much to Canadians as we’re energy self-sufficient, but pumping less pollution into the air is good — most of my power is nuclear and hydro, besides). If one could snap their fingers and replace all the passenger cars with Volt-like cars in the US the fuel savings would be huge. That money could go to build new, efficient nuclear, power and other power plants. And the money would stay in North America, providing jobs for Americans and Canadians as opposed to providing guns and ammo for those who wish to see the West destroyed.
All in all I see the Volt and its successors and copiers as one of the most profoundly patriotic purchases one can make. An advanced technology, designed and built in North America, keeping cash in North America, employing North Americans in Detroit and across the continent while reducing the need for “blood” oil.
Gene has obviously never driven a BMW 635D!
DaveE.
David,
No, never a 635D. But I have driven a 750iL, 330, M5, CTS-V, and a slew of Mercedes. Plus Pontiacs and Toyotas and Hondas and Buicks and Fords and Chryslers and Chevs.
A diesel engine isn’t cool, the Volt is cool. And to realize how cool, BMW hired the Volt designer away from GM to build an equivalent vehicle for them. Hence the i-series of cars from BMW that are forthcoming. Obviously the GM-haters will fall in love with BMW’s offerings being that they’re from BMW and hence automatically superior, even if the design will be, in effect, the same as the Volt…
Gene says:
December 10, 2011 at 12:08 pm
“First off, the credit in the US is $7500. It’s a tax credit — i.e., a tax cut. Meaning, if you don’t have the revenue pursuant to that credit you won’t realize it on your tax form.”
====================
And our already bankrupt government goes further into debt.
Would you buy the car if the $7500 was added to your credit card ?
The current U.S. debt is about 14 Trillion dollars.
Anyone here ever slam the trunk on their Ford Taurus a tad too hard? Like while out, stopped in traffic, and the stupid hood just pops open for no reason? Then, less than a minute later the car dies in that same traffic on account of “the crash-detection fuel-cutoff switch” to the fuel pump has activated?
Not too funny at the time, but I can grin about it now … the point of all this, in the event of an actual *crash* the fuel pump would cut off pumping no more fuel, either to an engine (that could catch on fire) or fueling an actual fire that might have started … maybe the “Volt” needs a manually-activated “Discharge” switch to begin draining the battery … an appropriately-sized (bank of) resistor(s) as part of the hood assembly maybe (to act as a ‘heat sink’ for the energy dissipated in this process) …
.
Gene says:
December 10, 2011 at 1:52 pm
…Obviously the GM-haters will fall in love with BMW’s offerings being that they’re from BMW and hence automatically superior, even if the design will be, in effect, the same as the Volt…
———————–
I don’t have a problem with GM per se. Even though I’m a Ford guy I have utmost respect for GM’s LSX series of V8 engines, which power vehicles like the Corvette, for example. The jury is still out on EV’s in general. You can toss the Leaf in there too. Current priorities of GM in terms of pushing the Volt are suspect at best. The imposition of the Volt on consumers and tax payers does not appear to be foremostly based on engineering or even a response to the market place. If you know what I mean.
As far as the safety concerns go I agree with you in part. The safety concerns may not be a great issue. Time will tell (if the car lasts that long). However, the concern of this story is that since the govt has a vested interest in this vehicle’s ‘success’ will the car be given proper scrutiny considering the administration’s ‘green’ at any cost thrust.
Like most people I’ll take a pass on all of the EV’s Volt included. In most cases a car with only about 6000 sold (who knows how many to the Govt.) and half of those units the buyers want to return it seems would be deemed a flop.
RE: Gene: (December 10, 2011 at 12:24 pm)
“Spector, … Here are real numbers I see, and that are seen by many Volt owners.
“It takes about 10 – 12kWh to fill up a Volt. That gives you 40 or so miles of range (60km). We’ve had 50 miles in the warmer weather (about 75km)). It’s dropped to about 30 miles now (about 45km). Since off-peak charging costs about 8 – 10 cents here, you’re looking at $1 or so. Since 40mpg is more than most cars can achieve on a combined cycle, the price is equivalent to $0.50 – $1.00 per gallon of gas not $4+ as you stated.”
Point taken.
Of course, I assume you are talking about kWh from the power mains, not the battery. Today, I believe most electric power in the USA is derived by burning carbon, in one form or another. If all your neighbors go electric, there may no longer be an ‘off-peak usage’ cost break.
In California, I understand there is now a move afoot, possibly related to the Fukushima disaster, to force all nuclear power plants in that state to shut down. I think that would noticeably increase the cost of electricity in that state and any other state choosing the same course of action.
I don’t have a dog in this race save the objection to ‘tax credits’ as an inducement to buy; “no life support” (tax credits or tax dollars) for unsustainable, unworkable ‘economics’ seeking the green nirvana, no matter how forceful the proponents: for Wind, for Solar or for ‘the Volt’ …
.
Justa Joe,
Few have asked for the car to be taken back. Certainly not half! That’d be 3000. Every article has said a half dozen to a dozen. Don’t exaggerate.
As to the sales numbers, it’s a new type of car. Sales will be slowly damped up and are actually in line with what GM stated were targets for 2011 back in 2008. Next year GM’s plan is for 45,000 Volt sales in the US. Since it’s on target according to GM’s original estimates from 3 years ago it can’t be a flop. It’s new tech and as such will sell to early adopters and thus in small numbers initially. Compared to the first year the Prius came out, about a decade ago, the Volt is well ahead of those sales figures. And the Prius really wasn’t that new or innovative.
Ultimately sales of electric cars will hit millions per year, but they will be a small percentage initially because that’s how all new technologies roll out. Look how long it took LCDs to become mainstream! And that’s just a big TV, nothing overtly radical.
Most deliveries have been to individuals, like myself, who put an order for one in months in advance. The waiting list is still 5-6 months, though GM is hoping to get that down as the factory continues to ramp up.
And remember, the Volt was a reaction to the market’s demand for GM to have a greener fleet and an answer to the Prius. GM opted to leapfrog everyone and has. Sadly many people seem incapable of comprehending this, instead biased by poor reporting from incompetent media.
And, Jim, I’d recommend you look at the larger outlays in credits going to big oil or to ethanol — billions — rather than the millions going to the EV credits. And as a Canadian I’m not contributing to the deficit or debt down there.
The Volt gets about 2.5 mi/KWH under absolutely ideal conditions and, more typically about 1.5 – 2 mi/KWH. Somewhere around 100K mi the battery pack will need to be replaced at a cost of abour $10K US. Total cost for power, somewhere in the range of 20 cents per mile giving a gas true equivalent of about 20 mi/gal in moderate climate conditions.
.
The Volt cannot be argued to be a less expensive alternative with the Chevy Cruze logging 42 MPG at a cost of about $16K US. The price difference alone will buy about 6500 gallons of gasoline or another Cruze and 2500 gallons of gas.
The Volt cannot be considered “greener” since it burns coal and presents significant future toxic landfill issues.
As far as safety goes, 6000 Volts sold with about 2000 of those going to private buyers and two house fires – wellllllll?
It is an interesting and expensive toy that does not seem to indicate the future of automobile technology. Direct injection of gasoline and air along with better fuel metering algorithms and improved transmission technologies will boost economy cars close to 50 MPG. This will make it hard for the Volts of the world to compete without the intervention of government. That intervention is in force now with gasoline around $4/gal even as the US becomes a significant exporter. Forced use of ETOH in gasoline and ETOH subsidies add to cost. Significant gov’t givebacks and purchases for EVs further attempts to slant in favor of the EV.
With all of that in mind and the added fact that all of us taxpayers have to foot part of the bill for each EV sold makes it an onerous idea to most of us. Every dollar rebated or forgiven one taxpayer must be covered by the remaining taxpayers making it everyone’s cost. Every dollar payed by a utility company for excess and unuseable wind or solar power must be paid for by all other users of power.
Speaking for myself, I don’t care if you squander your own money on magical technology – just stop spending my money!