I'm also skeptical about that news report given GM's record and how they not only dropped the ball, but fumbled it across the opponents goal line regarding the EV1 project.

Before hybridfest 2006 I hadn't seen a EV1, not even photos. Back in the 90's I saw something like a Rav4 with Ga. Power logos on the side and thought that was EV1.
So while at hybridfest I came across a beautifully styled, slick looking red car with some kind of frankenstein experimental looking electric motor thingy under the hood and thought to myself
"Wow! This is soooo cool....bet this would sell even faster than hybrids if they made them!" I was quite enthusiastic about it.

Later I saw Eric Powers and asked if the EV1 made it to the show and was suprised it was the really cool car I saw. Took another look and sure enough said EV1 on the side. The people sponsoring it told how GM ripped all the electronics and motors out of it so they had to start from scratch.
I refuse to view the "Who killed the electric car" because I know I'd boil over.

Let's wait "someday" for a "might be" hydrogen car while we have the technology and plans today, right now for an electric car with a primed red-hot market.

Suuure. I believe GM's press reports.
Bet those new "someday" hydrogen cars will only be available for corporate lease? Then taken away from their satisfied, happy owners for destruction?

Does GM think Chinese will be buying +$60,000 American hydrogen vehicles when the communist state would produce their own cheap copies with forced labor for $5,000 a pop?
-Steve

 

I'm glad you did at least get to see an EV1. It's too bad you and many others have a rather skewed view of the whole project. There's a lot more to it than what was in the documentary. I recently (within the past 5 years) worked for one of the people who led the project so I know more than I could ever tell and I guarantee you the documentary is VERY one-sided. Just a few things I CAN say about the program.....

• It was GM's response to the original California mandate that all manufacturers selling in California by a certain date (I forget the date & I ain't lookin' it up) had to sell 10% of their volume in electric vehicles. The EV1 was one of the first and certainly the most commercially viable.<<
• EV1 was available for lease only in California, Arizona, and later New York.<<
• California committed to investing in the infra-structure (charging stations). California reneged. Never came through.<<
• The initial EV1 program was CLEARLY communicated to the potential lessees of the vehicles as a limited term lease with no option to purchase the car at the end of the lease. The lessees were also provided access to charging stations at GM's cost (see bullet#3)<<
• After the launch of the EV1, when it was clear that other automakers would not be able to introduce commercially viable EVs, and through legal challenges to the original ZEV mandate, California dropped the 10% EV requirement and develop new legislation.<<

Bottom line, without commitment to an infra-structure for inductive charging, the EV1 is a non-viable vehicle. Because of the then ever-changing state of battery technology and the skepticism about California's intent to ever follow through on the infra-structure, GM chose to PROTECT the consumer by not allowing them to be stuck with a cool vehicle that they would have no efficient way to "refuel". Thus the lease and return program.

Similar to the EV1, they will be placed with PRIVATE CITIZEN OWNERS not corporations, and yes, the terms communicated to these owners AT THE START OF THE PROGRAM will likely be that it is a closed end lease. The vehicles will come back to GM.


You gotta put on your global hat. China is not now and certainly will not be in the next decade, the low cost third world country we've all come to know and love. Japan used to be the place to go for cheap labor. Now Japanese companies locate here because of the lower labor costs. China is well along that same path of modernization and technological maturity. China is also becoming a hot-bed of consumer activity. Personal electronics, including cell phones and gaming systems, are growing at a much more rapid pace there than in the US. The auto market is very polarized. There is a lot of demand at the lower end of the market for small Honda Fit / Chevy Aveo sized vehicles. On the other end, the Cadillac STS sold in China is actually LARGER than the STS sold in the US. Why? To accomodate a larger rear seating area because most people who own them have personal drivers.


Bottom line......GM said "We'll have fuel cells available in 2011". GM is delivering a limited number of fuel cells in 2007. Chill out. Let it happen. If it does, we're all the better for it. If it doesn't, your sketicism will be rewarded.

Peace,

Martin

 

If the EV didnt make it because of (party, at any rate) uncommitted infrastructure, then how is the hydrogen fuel cell goning to fare any better? Is hydrogen generation, distribution, and implementation costs much less than those charging stations?

Anyways, this is hot and great debate, and we'll see how things turn out in our near future.

In the meantime, enjoy this:

http://www.youtube.com/v/ry6w3mRm-FM

 

You have hit the nail right on the head. As with the EV, government mandates are driving technological development. Industry technology leaders are having ongoing conversation with state and federal governments on the infra-structure requirements to support a hydrogen economy. Will they respond with infra-structure support? The auto industry is watching and waiting.


Peace,

James

 

How can anyone seriously entertain the notion of a hydrogen economy when it is so clearly established that it is a hugely inefficient way of doing things?

We are at a time when we can't afford to waste energy - why all this talk of hydrogen? It's just crazy.

 

Yet somehow, Dick Cheney had time to meet with energy companies in early 2001. Face it, bud: the American auto industry has been hung out to dry like the rest of us.