Thanks for that. I appreciate the sentiment


Yesssss! Someone else gets it! My work here is done!!!!

But I'll still stick around

 

sorry to disagree, but CARB's kibash of the EV-1 was totally influenced by GM and Big oil imho. If GM and big oil had not campaigned behind the scenes to kill the EV1 CARB would have totally embraced the program. It is very difficult to promote a new clean technology if the manufacturer of that technology is lobbying with the regulators to kill it off.

I really think the major reason that GM killed the EV-1 was due to lack of adaquate income stream after sale of the initial vehicle. The concept of a low maintainence vehicle was very disturbing to a company that had grown up with the opinion that high maintainence and and upkeep was crucial to their long term success.

I am still waiting for some Chinese company with a good electric car to tackle the US market. Once this happens, the US auto companies could go belly up and the Japanese will finally move to electric vehicles to compete with the Chinese.

Sad that the American power elite is so backwards in their thinking. They are leading to a downfall of our country.

Please understand that my passion over this issue stems from my deep dislike for big oil and its horrible effects on the environment and the heightening of world tensions in the mid east. Sadly these powerful and weathly people are killing the people of the world, and the ignorant in this country have continued to vote to keep these bad guys in power - untill recently of course.

 

.....

It really is waaaay simpler than the usual Big Oil / Big Auto conspiracy theories. The EV-1 was put on the market with a requirement for a dedicated infra-structure required to recharge the system. California committed to then reneged on a plan to build the infra-structure. At that point GM basically said "no infra-structure no car". The reason the initial program was restricted to California and Arizona is because the vehicles could only travel to where they could be within a couple hundred miles of the specially outfitted inductive charging units. Customers who leased them had the inductive charge system made available to them in their homes. Others were placed in public areas. You could not for example take your EV-1 for a vacation drive from LA to Seattle. Lobbying was not required to kill it. Simply ignoring the installation of charging stations was sufficient to do that.

The Volt takes the EV-1 two steps closer to practicality because

1. You can plug it in at home or anywhere else without special infra-structure required.
2. If you are on the highway the batteries can be recharged by a small ICE.

The EV-1 required significant additional infrastructure to be viable. The Volt is very much self sufficient.

Peace

Martin

 

I just dont accept that the lack of gov't commitment for infrastructure was the reason the EV1 was killed. If you could plug it in at home, why do you need the infrastructure? The EV1 was intended for short distance commuting. That would work perfect for most people since like over 80% of people drive less than the range of the EV1 every day, and with new better batteries the range would be well over 100 miles.

 

Martin -

I do have a question regarding your statement about the lack of infrastructure. I have never read or saw anything stating that was the reason the car was pulled. All I have heard or read was GM stated there was no interest. I'm just curious why this was never brought up. Also, GM is moving forward with Hydrogen with no infrastructure in place or planned. Just curious, though I do hope the Volt becomes a reality.

 

Every major automaker also offered a zero emissions vehicle when GM leased the EV1 (see Wikapedia Who Killed the Electric Car ) If you isolate California's Zero Emissions inititive, all automakers are guilty. Hybrids and plug-in hybrids are the best current option until the infrastructure exists to make EVs convienient.

 

I agree that refueling is important in a vehicle, but why kill a program where the vehicle can be charged at home and satisfies the needs of over 50% of the market. Battery improvements would have increased the range to 100-150 miles. The EV1 could be plugged in to an outlet in your garage. That is more than adaquate for most of the driving public.

 

Hi Bill,

I can't comment intelligently on the EV1 issue, but I'm starting to watch the H2 issue more closely. While H2 is the highest calorific fuel to potentially be utilized, it is very problematic. Even if the infrastructure issues were resolved (transport, storage, safety, etc). It is simply not that readily available. Until we are able to "crack" it out of water (without expending more energy in the process), we would have to mine it from Jupiter or Saturn to reach any sort of meaningful capacity. I think we're barking up the wrong tree.

 

The problems with H2 are more cost than practicality.

H2 works great, but admittedly there are still water management issues in freezing temps. I worked for a couple years with several fuel cel companies on R&D project and I am convinced that the products work. However, the most practical source of H2 is still reformation of petroleum. This process will be really costly for many many years to come. That is the biggest obstacle.

The fuel cells are actually pretty cool technology.

I still am convinced that electric cars (even those powered by electricity from dirty coal fired power plants) has much lower total emmissions when compared to the best IC engines.

 

It takes 60 kWh to make 1 kg of hydrogen (if using electricity), and a fuel cell vehicle can go 60 miles on that. So, 1 mile per kWh.

But an EV, like the volt, can go 4-5 miles per kWh.

No brainer.