Who Killed the EV-1? [Archive]

Cuddles

29th September 2009, 08:11 AM

What I'm interested in here, though, is the community's thoughts on the idea of oil industry collusion/conspiracy in destroying this thing as laid out in the film Who Killed The Electric Car?

From the Wiki article:
GM viewed the program as evidence that electric cars occupied an unprofitable niche of the automobile market, evidenced by their ability to lease only 800 units in face of production costs of US$1 billion over four years...

range of 70 to 100 miles

the car could not be purchased outright

recall for 450 Gen I EV1s... Sixteen "thermal incidents" and at least one fire

eight hours for the cars to charge to full capacity

So you have a car that you can't own yourself, takes incredibly long to charge and still can't go very far once it has, half of which were recalled because of faulty components that made them catch fire. Amazingly enough the people who made it didn't particularly want to keep making a car that nobody wanted and didn't make them any money. No conspiracies needed.

The basic problem is that even now electric cars just aren't viable, and over a decade ago things were even worse. The technology isn't good enough and the infrastructure is essentially non-existent. Electrics are great in certain niches, such as public transport, but they're just not ready for the general consumer yet.

Pantaz

29th September 2009, 03:51 PM

When GM announced the car would be available only by lease, I figured it was essentially an automotive version of a beta test.

JoeyDonuts

29th September 2009, 07:26 PM

When GM announced the car would be available only by lease, I figured it was essentially an automotive version of a beta test.

The whole thing doesn't make sense as far as the leasing option. It sounds like a good idea that was hamstrung from the very beginning by GM.

Sure, electric cars wouldn't be practical for interstate road trips owing to the range. I don't think their towing capability could compete with diesel, although I could be wrong about that. But if I had the option to buy a vehicle I could plug in every night and drive to and from work every day? Hell yes, I'd take it.

Imagine if they'd let a market for this thing form and actually supported it. What kind of advances would have been made in electric propulsion technology once the force of free market competition took hold?

IIRC, the decision not to support the EV-1 is bemoaned by former General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner as (paraphrasing) the worst decision he ever made.

Pantaz

29th September 2009, 08:38 PM

JoeyDonuts

29th September 2009, 08:46 PM

In "beta testing" the EV-1, I looked at the lease fees as GM just trying to offset part of the cost of the research. (IIRC, GM admitted that the vehicles were far more expensive than the leases reflected.) When they recalled all the cars, I fully expected a new model to replace it shortly.

I do recall the most vocal proponents of the thing were folks who would have no problem affording it.

LONGTABBER PE

29th September 2009, 10:19 PM

The whole thing doesn't make sense as far as the leasing option. It sounds like a good idea that was hamstrung from the very beginning by GM.

Sure, electric cars wouldn't be practical for interstate road trips owing to the range. I don't think their towing capability could compete with diesel, although I could be wrong about that. But if I had the option to buy a vehicle I could plug in every night and drive to and from work every day? Hell yes, I'd take it.

Imagine if they'd let a market for this thing form and actually supported it. What kind of advances would have been made in electric propulsion technology once the force of free market competition took hold?
IIRC, the decision not to support the EV-1 is bemoaned by former General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner as (paraphrasing) the worst decision he ever made.

Just additional commentary and adding to Shrike's comments also as an engineer who doesa good portion of work in the automotive industry and has been on some of these projects ( industrial and automotive) over the years.

All things being equal- an electric motor is "true' hp and IC engines are just above .5 ( look at air compressors to see this- a 5 hp pump has a 10-15 hp engine turning it ) so diesel or not- you hook up an equal hp electric ( with proper service factor) to it- it will twist the shaft out of the IC engine.

Put a transmission to it and theres more torque.

You can make a motor in the same configuration as a current car with transmission or put tractor motors on each individual wheel- they all work.

They will also give you several hundred thousand miles with high reliability.

That part of the technology exists now, has for decades ( since before my 30+ year career so this isnt anything new) and has been proven ( diesel locomotive is a prime example)

The problem is ( and has always been) a reliable POWER source that will compete with a gas stop and range and maintain constant power to the motor while it is discharging. ( one of those conservation laws)

I personally dont think any kind of battery will ever be made because of size/weight and draw- if anything, there will need to be like the locomotive and have a generator plant powering it consuming some type of fuel.

Then, theres always Mr. Fusion

Arus808

29th September 2009, 10:35 PM

LONGTABBER PE

29th September 2009, 11:02 PM

when they make an electric car (or hybrid of some sort) that has manual transmission (automatics are for wussies ^_~), can get 200-500 HP and travel huge distances without charging/refueling (and i mean like a trip for the California/Mexico border to the Oregon/California border) and have it cost under $25K then that would be something Americans would be interested in buying

This has been my huge reason why I havent decided in buying a hybrid now. No manual transmission ( i haven't had an automatic car since i was 17 and that was my only automatic car), and no power (110 HP for the Prius - I currently drive a 200 HP car and RACE a 500 hp Mustang). I feel weird not having a third pedal to drive with.

Even with current mpg for hybrids, I still can get 33/35 mpg freeway for my car.

EV-1 was a piece of crap electric car. A friend of mines, her father owned one of the major dealerships in Hawaii and was able to get an EV-1 (mostly for display). Not impressive, lacked power, broke down often and even the mechanics had no idea on how it was supposed to be fixed.

when they make an electric car (or hybrid of some sort) that has manual transmission (automatics are for wussies ^_~), can get 200-500 HP

Those are on the shelf right now and any transmission ( or no transmission) can be hooked to them. ( thats just a matter of preference)

and travel huge distances without charging/refueling (and i mean like a trip for the California/Mexico border to the Oregon/California

Goes back to the power source

have it cost under $25K then that would be something Americans would be interested in buying

Thats going to be harder- a proper motor with service factor and control package costs way more than that.

Not impressive, lacked power, broke down often and even the mechanics had no idea on how it was supposed to be fixed

side note from my experience. First, the proper motor and construction is on the shelf. What the Automotive industry wants to do is make a smaller motor ( windings, bearings and such) do a larger job. Thats begging for trouble because it stresses the system and the result is constant problems. ( happens every time you undersize a motor/control package)

The proper motors are big and heavy and the power plant ( battery, turbine,engine/generator, hybrid or whatever) is even bigger. ( go back to the locomotive) so to do it right- cars will have to be larger.

Thats one reason I kinda got out of it- what they want ( in a small package) isnt feasible with current materials and technology.

JoeyDonuts

29th September 2009, 11:24 PM

LONGTABBER PE

29th September 2009, 11:59 PM

Good responses all.

LONGTABBER, are you referring to some concepts I've heard about where the propulsion is provided by four smaller motors located nearest the wheels rather than by one larger centrally located powerplant?

Yes, I design these systems for all kinds of industrial applications.

Both are proven and reliable.

The advantage of 4 wheel tractor motors is much higher torque and pull power and obviously less power train components as well as when turning you can maintain control and constant torque thru the radius because each motor can be controlled thru RPM and torque thru the radius as each wheel turns differently.

Its not the motor/controller configuration and thats never been the problem.

Its making them small enough, light enough to do the job ( sacrificing reliability thru weaker components) and a power plant.

A motors heart,soul,power and reliability is in the rotor mass, winding size and bearings. You reduce those things and you have heat, stress and all kinds of feedback/resistance under load and it kills them. If torque/speed is equal- you reduce a motor size to a point where it simply wont work. ( or will work- just not for long)

Thats what the automotive industry wants and nobody is going to be able to build it unless there is a new generation of materials and someone rewrites all the laws concerning energy conservation.

Option 2- use the standard stuff that works off the shelf- the size/weight goes up ( obviously- go to a motor rewind shop and look at a 50hp ( equal to a 110 hp IC engine at the PTO) motor with a 1.5 service factor and its size,weight.)

In either case- "something" has to power them- thats always been the major insurmountable problem.

JoeyDonuts

30th September 2009, 12:20 AM

In either case- "something" has to power them- thats always been the major insurmountable problem.

I noticed that the NiMH "ovonic" batteries place in the 2nd generation EV-1's were able to extend the range of the car, but caused extended charging times and excessive heat gains (necessitating running the AC full blast and reducing the gains in drive time.)

It would appear that the GM shop in charge of the project was expecting breakthroughs in battery/power management technology that didn't happen.

The argument could be made that GM could have devoted more resources to the project, and I'm sure in hindsight they wish they had. If I were to look at this from a GM management/fiscal point of view, I'm not sure that I wouldn't have canceled the program at the time, too.

Arus808

30th September 2009, 12:26 AM

Thats going to be harder- a proper motor with service factor and control package costs way more than that.

-----

Thats one reason I kinda got out of it- what they want ( in a small package) isnt feasible with current materials and technology.

agreed.

Hybrids are too costly. YOu can't get any hyrbid under $22K. In this economy, no one is going to plop down $25K for a car let alone one that is only going to save you pennies instead of the "dollars" that everyone wants you to believe that you will be getting out of your hybrid.

yes, technology and current materials of toda isn't feasible to build a economic, cheap car that uses alternative energy.

and keep in mind that we also want to make these cars safe to drive.

NWO Sentryman

30th September 2009, 12:33 AM

Who holds back the electric car?

Who makes steve gutenberg a star?

We do! We do!

LONGTABBER PE

30th September 2009, 12:47 AM

I noticed that the NiMH "ovonic" batteries place in the 2nd generation EV-1's were able to extend the range of the car, but caused extended charging times and excessive heat gains (necessitating running the AC full blast and reducing the gains in drive time.)
It would appear that the GM shop in charge of the project was expecting breakthroughs in battery/power management technology that didn't happen.

The argument could be made that GM could have devoted more resources to the project, and I'm sure in hindsight they wish they had. If I were to look at this from a GM management/fiscal point of view, I'm not sure that I wouldn't have canceled the program at the time, too.

Not really ( speaking from experience) GM discovered what anyone in industry could have told them.
In order to get what they want the way they want it- they will have to revolutionize the motor/control industry and the battery industry first.

Those are the hurdles- the power train can be put in any casing you want in any configuration you want.

GM knows how to build cars- they arent in the motor/battery design business.

One of the partner companies I worked with on our project was Johnson Controls.

They still experiment but came to the same conclusion regarding electric cars.

Battery technology will NEVER be able to match an IC configuration with routine fill ups for overall ease.

Any battery will have to have not only recharging but periodic conditioning ( gotta do that too)- will be HEAVY and GENERATE HEAT.

All of them will have a duty cycle and for there to be any kind of realistic infrastructure- there would need to be chargers everywhere ( rewiring all kinds of facilities) as well as interchange stations ( all manufacturers will have to standardize) and this will take TIME ( which people dont want to invest)

All the industry proponents i have ever worked with agree the only realistic solution is to have multiple inputs in some kind of power generation system. ( vortex turbines, solar panels and maybe a small engine) all turning some type of generator.

In order for the concept to work- "something" is going to have to generate more power than the prime mover can consume thru all normal ranges and be able to sustain that delivery for a substantial time- otherwise, people still wont buy it.

Someone has to design that "something"

SezMe

30th September 2009, 12:48 AM

From Cuddles quote of the Wiki article:

range of 70 to 100 miles

the car could not be purchased outright

eight hours for the cars to charge to full capacity

For the mass of suburban commuters the first and third are not usually a problem. Most commutes are around 40 miles and the car sits the garage overnight anyway. There should have been a mass market for it.

Regarding lease only, I have never seen any explanation for this. What other car was introduced as a no-buy vehicle? Do you know why this approach was taken.

Finally, much was made in the film Joey cited about the cars not only being recalled but destroyed. Is this true and, if so, again what was the rationale?

SezMe

30th September 2009, 12:50 AM

LONGTABBER PE

30th September 2009, 01:07 AM

From Cuddles quote of the Wiki article:

For the mass of suburban commuters the first and third are not usually a problem. Most commutes are around 40 miles and the car sits the garage overnight anyway. There should have been a mass market for it.

Regarding lease only, I have never seen any explanation for this. What other car was introduced as a no-buy vehicle? Do you know why this approach was taken.

Finally, much was made in the film Joey cited about the cars not only being recalled but destroyed. Is this true and, if so, again what was the rationale?

I can probably tell you why because its the same thing we do with industrial prototype runs

Leasing keeps the owner of the product and its technology in ownership control as well as maintenance/evaluations and such- they need that for evaluation.

As to destruction- same reasons. It keeps their technology from being obtained, it also keeps their product from being modified then something bad happens ( bad press) ( especially from something considered "failed")

JoeyDonuts

30th September 2009, 01:25 AM

Someone has to design that "something"

So, by your professional estimate, a viable 100 percent electric commuter vehicle solution will not be possible until major breakthroughs in battery technology are realized?

Are hydrogen fuel cells workable, or are they still too large, expensive, and inefficient?

This is becoming less and less of a CT thread with every post, which isn't a bad thing. I'm becoming more convinced that the realities of the automotive market, consumer attitudes, and power technology killed this car and not some oil industry cabal.

Oh...one point I'd like to make. The film states that the oil industry "suppressed" the company making the NiMH batteries. Not having seen it in depth, I defer here. What could he be talking about?

LONGTABBER PE

30th September 2009, 01:41 AM

So, by your professional estimate, a viable 100 percent electric commuter vehicle solution will not be possible until major breakthroughs in battery technology are realized?

Are hydrogen fuel cells workable, or are they still too large, expensive, and inefficient?

This is becoming less and less of a CT thread with every post, which isn't a bad thing. I'm becoming more convinced that the realities of the automotive market, consumer attitudes, and power technology killed this car and not some oil industry cabal.

Oh...one point I'd like to make. The film states that the oil industry "suppressed" the company making the NiMH batteries. Not having seen it in depth, I defer here. What could he be talking about?

So, by your professional estimate, a viable 100 percent electric commuter vehicle solution will not be possible until major breakthroughs in battery technology are realized?

I'm going to say alternate power generation capability because I do not believe it is even possible to build a "battery" that will equal what you can get from a fill up in terms of time,cost, support infrastructure. Not now or ever.

Are hydrogen fuel cells workable, or are they still too large, expensive, and inefficient?

Not my area of expertise- dont know but from what I read- they have the same problems ( energy conservation laws) as conventional battery designs.

This is becoming less and less of a CT thread with every post, which isn't a bad thing. I'm becoming more convinced that the realities of the automotive market, consumer attitudes, and power technology killed this car and not some oil industry cabal.

Let me kill it for you- i work all over the Oil/Gas industry. They laugh at it. The technology doesnt work. They didnt have to do anything but sit back and watch it die on its own. What has been produced- the market at large doesnt want.

Oh...one point I'd like to make. The film states that the oil industry "suppressed" the company making the NiMH batteries. Not having seen it in depth, I defer here. What could he be talking about

a made up story. How would an alien industry "control" or "suppress' TECHNOLOGY of another?

Arus808

30th September 2009, 01:46 AM

ANY company that designs a car to your specifications will be bankrupt within the week. Your criteria are fine but have nothing to do with the market and viability of the mass market electric car.

actually it does. If the car isn't attractive and affordable, no one would buy it. if no one buys it, then there is no support for going to the next step in building the "next" generation car.

How do you cater to the mass market? Make it fast, make it affordable, appeal to the majority, and have a huge amount of support for it.

until the entire industry is overhauled (meaning stop producing gasoline supported engines) the alternative energy vehicle will not be a reality (meaning that its affordable and everyone can own one). That also means that "gas stations" will need to be refueling stations (as in power or alternative fuel).

JoeyDonuts

30th September 2009, 02:08 AM

Let me kill it for you- i work all over the Oil/Gas industry. They laugh at it. The technology doesnt work. They didnt have to do anything but sit back and watch it die on its own. What has been produced- the market at large doesnt want.

What are your thoughts on the Chevy Volt?

My take on it is this - Price point is too high for middle class consumers. It might see some modest sales in the upper and middle class enviro-conscious set. The 40 mile range is a little off putting, although it's telling that they haven't completely relied on the Li-Ion battery back for power, and it has an IC engine to extend the range to the order of 300 miles.

Do you think this model is going to tank?

LONGTABBER PE

30th September 2009, 02:49 AM

What are your thoughts on the Chevy Volt?

My take on it is this - Price point is too high for middle class consumers. It might see some modest sales in the upper and middle class enviro-conscious set. The 40 mile range is a little off putting, although it's telling that they haven't completely relied on the Li-Ion battery back for power, and it has an IC engine to extend the range to the order of 300 miles.

Do you think this model is going to tank?

As to the model- I think its going to tank for the reasons you state plus its "new' and all that and the other buyers who want speed,performance and stuff wouldnt touch it. ( why these planners think all people think about is going to work escapes me)

As to the technology and theory of operation- I think its the only path that will ever work

SezMe

30th September 2009, 02:54 AM

I can probably tell you why because its the same thing we do with industrial prototype runs
How do you know this was an "industrial prototype run"?

Look, at the risk of being a twoofer, I'm just asking questions. I really don't know.

Leasing keeps the owner of the product and its technology in ownership control as well as maintenance/evaluations and such- they need that for evaluation.
I don't believe this. Any company that wanted to compete could lease one and reverse engineer the whole thing. Once it's on the market, the owner has lost control of the technology. Maybe not the patent but the technology is no longer under anyone's "control".

As to destruction- same reasons. It keeps their technology from being obtained, it also keeps their product from being modified then something bad happens ( bad press) ( especially from something considered "failed")
Same response. Competitors "obtained" the technology the day it went up for lease.

SezMe

30th September 2009, 03:00 AM

I'm going to say alternate power generation capability because I do not believe it is even possible to build a "battery" that will equal what you can get from a fill up in terms of time,cost, support infrastructure. Not now or ever.
This analysis is absolutely correct under current market/regulatory conditions. But those conditions are not likely to persist so the conclusion may become less sure. For example, if the price of oil goes to $200/gallon (for whatever reason) your conclusion fails. If environmental laws driven by global warming concerns become more restrictive, your conclusion fails.

"Not now or ever" is a foolish position to take. Ask the buggy whip manufacturers.

LONGTABBER PE

30th September 2009, 03:02 AM

How do you know this was an "industrial prototype run"?

Look, at the risk of being a twoofer, I'm just asking questions. I really don't know.

I don't believe this. Any company that wanted to compete could lease one and reverse engineer the whole thing. Once it's on the market, the owner has lost control of the technology. Maybe not the patent but the technology is no longer under anyone's "control".

Same response. Competitors "obtained" the technology the day it went up for lease.

How do you know this was an "industrial prototype run"?

Look, at the risk of being a twoofer, I'm just asking questions. I really don't know.

I "know it" because I'm an Engineer and this is how the process works because i DO it( for a living).

You have a radical new design ( no predecessor) with new technologies in it. It has to have a market run in controlled circumstances because since you dont have histories and longevity- you have to make it.

You have to know performance histories, what works, doesnt, fails prematurely, glitches and everything else. All industries do this.

I don't believe this. Any company that wanted to compete could lease one and reverse engineer the whole thing. Once it's on the market, the owner has lost control of the technology. Maybe not the patent but the technology is no longer under anyone's "control".

Its correct whether you believe it or not. Thats how it works

Same response. Competitors "obtained" the technology the day it went up for lease

see above

SezMe

30th September 2009, 03:04 AM

How do you cater to the mass market? Make it fast, make it affordable, appeal to the majority, and have a huge amount of support for it.
I just want to point out the error here. You are assuming that the mass market wants "fast". I know you do and others as well. The fallacy is that the mass market wants fast because you want fast. Can you point to any evidence that "fast" is an important criterion for current/future car buyers?

LONGTABBER PE

30th September 2009, 03:18 AM

This analysis is absolutely correct under current market/regulatory conditions. But those conditions are not likely to persist so the conclusion may become less sure. For example, if the price of oil goes to $200/gallon (for whatever reason) your conclusion fails. If environmental laws driven by global warming concerns become more restrictive, your conclusion fails.

"Not now or ever" is a foolish position to take. Ask the buggy whip manufacturers.

The market doesnt have anything to do with it. I'm speaking from a detailed knowledge of the industry and its technology so unless and until you find some loopholes in the laws of thermodynamics and make some additions to the periodic table- theres a limit to what type of battery you can build thats small enough to be usable for the desired size.

Ambrosia

30th September 2009, 03:50 AM

Who needs to cater to the mass market when you can make electric cars that are this good (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster)?

I want one. Nowhere near being able to afford one but hey.

I'd love to see some kind of alternative powered car that doesn't burn oil. Until either oil prices get much higher, or some kind of new technology is worked out that can power a car cheaper and better than oil does, it's not going to happen.

Hydrogen fuel cars look promising presently. I'd *love* to see some kind of zero point energy technology developed, but I'm certainly not going to hold my breath for that.

SezMe

30th September 2009, 04:14 AM

The market doesnt have anything to do with it.
Riiight. You'll excuse me for ignoring any further contributions you may chose to make to this thread.

LONGTABBER PE

30th September 2009, 04:30 AM

Riiight. You'll excuse me for ignoring any further contributions you may chose to make to this thread.

Consider yourself excused because you obviously dont understand the technology being discussed and how it works.

The "market' be damned- if the properties of the materials and chemical reactions within a given range wont do it-theres not much else anyone can do regardless of the market or need.

There are many devices now we know can be built if we had the technology and materials to do it.

Using this as an example ( hidden note for those who read beyond the obvious)- these new cars are being market as sports cars or commuting cars.

Heres why ( what we discovered too) This is trying to make a low weight, low PAYLOAD ( forget stuffing the family and trunk for a long ride and dont ask for the pick up or towing package) to get what they advertise.

As weight/drag goes up- performance drops drastically.

Another problem for the battery only and small battery hybrid.

Remember that cause-effect thing- part of what they arent telling you about them and a major factor in their selling.

Rogue1stclass

30th September 2009, 05:18 AM

GM sells cars, not oil. At least not directly.

Can you imagine the benefits to the Auto Industry were it to go gas-free? Emissions standards? Gone. Efficiency standards? Gone. Having your success depend on the whims of Middle Eastern dictators? Gone. And that's just long term.

Short term, if you were the first out of the gate, you could pretty much set your price. Your service department would be rake it in because at least initially the corner mechanic would have no clue how to fix it. And as the technology became standardized, everyone would have to buy a new car.

I just don't think there is incentive there for GM to protect a commodity it doesn't produce.

TjW

30th September 2009, 09:26 AM

I can't tell you how to make an electric car. I can tell you how to make an electric car simulator:

Remove the big gas tank and replace it with one that holds two gallons. Bolt on ballast to the weight of the battery technology you're using. Fill up enough volume in the car to simulate the density of the battery technology you're using.
Use hypodermic tubing for the tank filler neck, so that it will only pass about a quart an hour.

Enjoy.

Tolls

30th September 2009, 09:37 AM

For the mass of suburban commuters the first and third are not usually a problem. Most commutes are around 40 miles and the car sits the garage overnight anyway. There should have been a mass market for it.

Only if you expect people to have maybe two cars. Or to never do anything with their car than commute in a 40 mile radius, that is.

Cuddles

30th September 2009, 10:14 AM

But if I had the option to buy a vehicle I could plug in every night and drive to and from work every day? Hell yes, I'd take it.

Unfortunately this is where electric cars really fall down, for a reason that their proponents never seem to consider. There simply isn't that much electricity available. Transport accounts for a significant proportion of our total energy usage - according to this (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yp3qEgHrsJ4C&pg=PA247&lpg=PA247&dq=transport+energy+use+proportion&source=bl&ots=F30uQV_68y&sig=VmTqHyeKS1NkemWMsFgkVcassZA&hl=en&ei=pH3DSpmMGo7h-QbNl4zvCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=transport%20energy%20use%20proportion&f=false) it's around 35%. If everyone suddenly stops using oil and starts trying to charge their cars at home, the entire electricity grid would collapse.

It's not enough for car manufacturers to produce a decent electric car, it also needs something like 50% more power stations and some serious upgrades to the grid to allow that kind of heavy, continuous domestic use. This is even more of a problem than people might think, since the UK, for example, is currently struggling to generate enough power to satisfy current demand and has no chance of coping with an increase on that scale.

Are hydrogen fuel cells workable, or are they still too large, expensive, and inefficient?

Fuel cells are viable from the point of view of weight. Hydrogen is not as energy dense as petrol, but it can be a lot better than batteries. However, it has plenty of its own problems. The biggest one is that hydrogen is not all that safe. It may not be as dangerous as some people claim, but putting tanks of it in the hands of every idiot in the country, especially ones crashing in to each other at 70mph, is not necessarily the best idea. There's also the big problem of infrastructure, since hydrogen is a lot trickier to work with and cart around the place than oil.

Limited resources are also a problem. Most fuel cells currently require rare elements like platinum. It's not just that it's expensive, there just isn't that much of it available once you start trying to put it in things like cars.

Oh...one point I'd like to make. The film states that the oil industry "suppressed" the company making the NiMH batteries. Not having seen it in depth, I defer here. What could he be talking about?

No idea. I assume he's claiming that since the NiMH batteries were not available as soon as originally hoped, that means someone must have done it on purpose. Classic conspiracy thinking really.

GM sells cars, not oil. At least not directly.

This is just about the best counter to conspiracy claims. However, it's actually even better than that. Not only are companies like GM not actually involved with oil and have no interest in suppressing technology that would allow them to sell more cars, the companies that actually are involved with oil are generally the ones best placed to take advantage of new energy technology. They already have a lot of the infrastructure, contacts and so on to make things work, and they certainly have the money to invest in things. In fact, they're often the ones actually developing it. If a company like BP or Shell knew of some brilliant new technology that would solve all our energy problems they wouldn't cover it up, they'd use it to wipe their competitors off the map.

I'd love to see some kind of alternative powered car that doesn't burn oil. Until either oil prices get much higher, or some kind of new technology is worked out that can power a car cheaper and better than oil does, it's not going to happen.

Hydrogen fuel cars look promising presently.

And the hydrogen comes from where? This is the problem with all this sort of thing. Trying to get away from fossil fuels is all very well, but at the moment the only thing it will be replaced by is fossil fuels. If you have electric cars, you need to generate electricity. If you have hydrogen cars you need to generate hydrogen.

That sort of thing is certainly a step in the right direction, since you can then slowly switch your electricity generation to renewables, nuclear and so on. But it's not an answer in itself. You don't save the environment by changing from burning oil in your car to burning coal down the road.

Ambrosia

30th September 2009, 10:52 AM

And the hydrogen comes from where? This is the problem with all this sort of thing. Trying to get away from fossil fuels is all very well, but at the moment the only thing it will be replaced by is fossil fuels. If you have electric cars, you need to generate electricity. If you have hydrogen cars you need to generate hydrogen.

That sort of thing is certainly a step in the right direction, since you can then slowly switch your electricity generation to renewables, nuclear and so on. But it's not an answer in itself. You don't save the environment by changing from burning oil in your car to burning coal down the road.

Hydrogen comes from water via electrolysis as an alternative to taking it from methane? Yes I know presently it's way too expensive to do that and extracting it from other fossil fuels is the preferred method. It doesn't *have* to come from fossil fuel though. Also I don't mean that hydrogen fuelled cars will replace oil fuelled cars, more that pursuing hydrogen fuel technology will lead onto other better technologies, like perhaps a much more efficient way to split water.

I agree that electic cars are a non starter cos you are shifting where the oil is burnt to some other place. Not to mention that we just don't have anything like the infrastrucure to cope with increased power demands.

I think the future lies, or the nearer future at least, in replacing oil with synthetic oil from designer microbes in large vats a la LS9. I'm surprised there isn't a large fast food chain that is recycling it's waste fryer oil into biodiesel and making a big thing out of it. Tho I think growing crops like corn purely for biodiesel is a non starter as well.

It's going to take a huge scientific jump forwards in our collective understanding to produce non-fossil fuel powered cars that are comparable or better than present day cars.

JCL

30th September 2009, 11:04 AM

What are your thoughts on the Chevy Volt?

My take on it is this - Price point is too high for middle class consumers. It might see some modest sales in the upper and middle class enviro-conscious set. The 40 mile range is a little off putting, although it's telling that they haven't completely relied on the Li-Ion battery back for power, and it has an IC engine to extend the range to the order of 300 miles.

Do you think this model is going to tank?

It will tank, not so much for the price point but the ridiculous 260mpg rating the feds plan on giving it and GM is bragging about.

In reality it will get around 100mpg, if used as the 40 mile a day commuter car, when the customer sees they are getting less than ½ the expected fuel economy they will not be happy.

Only GM could sell a 100 miles to the gallon car and piss people off about the fuel economy it gets.

dropzone

30th September 2009, 10:11 PM

The EV-1 was only leased, not purchased, because it was experimental. Yes, the leasers were beta-testers paying for the privilege. The lease thing also shows how the experiment was closed-ended, as the lease cost was much lower than what an actual, profit implied, purchase price would be, the lease cost being there only to sort out the riff-raff. GM made no bones about it being experimental. CTers, however, do not.

dropzone

30th September 2009, 10:20 PM

Note: I live in an area where the winter temperatures regularly dip to the 0F or lower point. I need my car to get me to work, which most recently was 24 miles one way. A battery that loses capacity as it cools from its optimal, longest range, 80F, is very likely to strand me far from home in the dead of winter. This I don't need. A gas/electric hybrid makes some sense, though when running on gas alone they are even more underpowered than my Datsun 510 wagon with an automatic.

Note: Datsun 510 fans, please note the "with an automatic." A Borg-Warner automatic. The mofo could scarcely get out of its own way.

Arus808

30th September 2009, 10:34 PM

A gas/electric hybrid makes some sense, though when running on gas alone they are even more underpowered than my Datsun 510 wagon with an automatic.

Note: Datsun 510 fans, please note the "with an automatic." A Borg-Warner automatic. The mofo could scarcely get out of its own way.

that is also a concern with these electric cars; extreme heat and extreme cold. how would these cars function?

By the way, I learned to drive manual on a Datsun B210 when I was 11 years old. Our next car was a Datsun Maxima hatch and then a Datsun Maxima Station Wagon. We also owned a Datsun 240 that was apple Green. My family was a huge Datsun (pre Nissan) ownership till I "broke" off and went the way of Honda. ^_^

JoeyDonuts

1st October 2009, 12:20 AM

A gas/electric hybrid makes some sense, though when running on gas alone they are even more underpowered than my Datsun 510 wagon with an automatic.

I understand that one feature of the Chevy Volt's IC engine is to heat the battery compartment to acceptable operating temperature in cold weather conditions. I know over-heat conditions can degrade battery performance as well. Not sure how they planned to address that.

Eddie Dane

1st October 2009, 06:03 AM

I caught a documentary on electric cars on German TV yesterday.

They had a guy from MIT on who'd greatly improved battery technology.
He couldn't sell his greatly improved battery design to the car industry, they showed no interest. He's doing good business with a power tool manufacturer (Bosch?), who jumped right on it.

The documentary claimed that car manufacturers are just not that happy about building cars with "outside" technology, because they have spend 100 years refining their internal combustion technology. Their engines are full of patents they own themselves, rather than an outside party.

I have no idea, just repeating what I heard.

Cuddles

2nd October 2009, 09:09 AM

Hydrogen comes from water via electrolysis as an alternative to taking it from methane? Yes I know presently it's way too expensive to do that and extracting it from other fossil fuels is the preferred method. It doesn't *have* to come from fossil fuel though.

And the electricity to split the water comes from...

Hydrogen fuel cells are not an alternative to electric cars, they are simply a different kind of battery for them. Obviously our electricity doesn't have to come from fossil fuels, but the fact is that at the moment it does. As long as that's true, changing to electric cars will make very little difference. And for all the fuss politicians like to make about carbon, there are really no serious plans to significantly increase the proportion of renewables and nuclear for our current power needs, let alone by the amount required to provide for all our transport as well.

It's going to take a huge scientific jump forwards in our collective understanding to produce non-fossil fuel powered cars that are comparable or better than present day cars.

This may be an important point to think about. Do we really need them to be comparable or better than present day cars? Range is often pointed out as one of the major issues but, as has already been noted in this thread, most journeys don't actually need a huge range. As for performance, there's no need for cars to go at 100mph and accelerate to 60 in a few seconds. Sure it can be fun, but if it's a choice between something a little less powerful and not having a car at all, I know which I'd choose.

I think a big part of the problem with electric cars is that people reject them as not being as good as modern cars, rather than just considering whether they're good enough.

Note: I live in an area where the winter temperatures regularly dip to the 0F or lower point. I need my car to get me to work, which most recently was 24 miles one way. A battery that loses capacity as it cools from its optimal, longest range, 80F, is very likely to strand me far from home in the dead of winter.

This is one area where fuel cells have a big advantage over batteries, and even over internal combustion. There is no problem with capacity reducing, as with batteries, and no chance of the fuel freezing, as with petrol and diesel. The efficiency will be lower at lower temperatures, but since the cell will be self-heating, and will often have a small external heater anyway, that's more of a minor inconvenience than a major problem.

TjW

2nd October 2009, 09:19 AM

This may be an important point to think about. Do we really need them to be comparable or better than present day cars?

Only if you want to sell them.
Electric cars will do ninety percent of what people do with cars.
They cost more.
A more expensive product with less utility is a tough sell.

Ambrosia

2nd October 2009, 09:51 AM

Hydrogen fuel cells are not an alternative to electric cars, they are simply a different kind of battery for them.

In which case I have misunderstood hydrogen fuelled cars.

This may be an important point to think about. Do we really need them to be comparable or better than present day cars?

I think a big part of the problem with electric cars is that people reject them as not being as good as modern cars, rather than just considering whether they're good enough.

Barring some major motivational change in customers yes. People grow accustomed to a certain lifestyle and will fight tooth and nail not to return to the old lifestyle.

Until oil is so costly that combustion engines are out of reach for the consumer they will never accept a n other powered car that is 'inferior' to what they are used to. Never mind it being perfectly adequate for what they actually need.

Most people don't need a dual core PC with 4GB RAM, or a 40" Plasma 1080 TV or 8Mb broadband.

You can't sell Pentium desktops with 32MB RAM, 21" CRT TVs, or dialup internet access these days despite all of the above being perfectly adequate for most peoples use.

Speed and size are ingrained into our society as being good things.

WildCat

2nd October 2009, 11:26 AM

But if I had the option to buy a vehicle I could plug in every night and drive to and from work every day? Hell yes, I'd take it.
Even if that car cost $80,000? Which is, IIRC, what it cost GM to make them.

JoeyDonuts

2nd October 2009, 04:26 PM

Even if that car cost $80,000? Which is, IIRC, what it cost GM to make them.

Yeesh. Well, a solution that bankrupts the company producing it isn't going to be a solution for very long. I guess in my enthusiasm about never going to a filling station again, I forgot about economic equilibrium.

LONGTABBER PE

3rd October 2009, 12:00 AM

Only if you want to sell them.
Electric cars will do ninety percent of what people do with cars.
They cost more.
A more expensive product with less utility is a tough sell.

Its even more than that- its about the entire infrastructure.

If these vehicles were out there in substantial numbers- there would have to be Chilton manuals, parts at every parts house and service outlets like GoodYear, Precision Tune and such trained to service them as well as the home mechanic.

The majority of people avoid dealers because of price and wait. ( except for warranty work, dealers are usually the most expensive place to go and you always have to leave it for days) Also dealers dont have enough bays to keep a fleet going.

Now you are talking literally BILLIONS of dollars to build a support system for these vehicles.

Then theres the service cost. ( these vehicles arent going to be maintenance/repair free- nothing made by man is)

The batteries alone cost more than many decent used cars. Theres little to be done to reduce that due to the way these batteries work. Cells would probably be even worse.

If they cannot bring the maintenance costs down as well- the public wont accept it.