READER COMMENTS ON

"What Happened to GM's EV1?"

(53 Responses so far...)





COMMENT #1 [Permalink]

... Paul McCarthy said on 12/5/2008 @ 9:17 am PT...





The EV1 was a great California car. Someone hZd one where I lived, and I would see it sliding through the shopping center's parking lot at night, making absolutely no noise except the grating of the tires on the pavement. I've read that the batteries wouldn't hold a charge in really cold weather, but they worked fine here. GM came out with the car because California had a requirement for a few years that a certain percentage of the fleet would have to be zero-pollution vehicles. The Air Board got rid of the requirement and GM canceled the EV-1.

COMMENT #2 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 12/5/2008 @ 9:57 am PT...





I still think big oil paid them to sink the EV1 (along with every other idea coming down the pike).

Best comment yesterday appeared on Raw Story: Now that everyone is clamoring for electric cars gas is once again affordable, what a coincidence. Don't fall for it again! Oil imports support Terrorism, therefore,oil companies are supporting terrorism and should be viewed as Terrorist organizations. Quick and directly to the point

COMMENT #3 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 12/5/2008 @ 10:08 am PT...





A hydrogen on demand/electric/fuel cell would make a damn good power plant for a car with the bugs worked out...Why do I say this?, because Popular Mechanics said it was a bad idea.

I don't trust them bastards, big oil more than likely paid them off too.

COMMENT #4 [Permalink]

... chabuka said on 12/5/2008 @ 11:23 am PT...





If I believed in conspiracy theories....I would agree with Floridiot..who else but big oil stood to gain as much from killing the electric car..especially considering they just knew that the stars were about to align in favor of big oil..(Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia told them so...the RNC and the Supreme Court..it just had to be Bush and Cheney..they would all profit handsomely!!))..and this country was going to "elect" a bunch of "oil men" to the White House..(I have my tin foil hat on straight)..a permanent GOP (moral majority!)

COMMENT #5 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 12/5/2008 @ 11:52 am PT...





Hydrogen on demand using a Sodiumborohydride reaction Something happened to this bunch from Israel, they were on to something, one was transferred to the U of Mn. but I think the money ran out. (or he's in Gitmo).

COMMENT #6 [Permalink]

... Peter in St. Paul said on 12/5/2008 @ 1:02 pm PT...





Sometimes you just have to admit that there was a technological problem with the car. The batteries were too, big, heavy and unreliable to be a real production car. It's a bit like complaining that the plane manufacture didn't keep producing the flying wing... Why did they have to wait 40 or 50 years with the B-2 bomber to let technology catch up with their vision? The answer is the technology of fly by wire was invented and the answer about the car is that battery technology just wasn't there. Had they continued production of the car you all could point fingers and say how dumb were they for making a car that didn't go very far, cost a fortune to replace the batteries, didn't drive outside the tropics and therefore nobody wanted one any more. Even the much vaunted Tessla has a battery pack costing $30,000 that has to be replaced roughly at 50,000 miles. So perhaps GM is smart demanding that their batteries for the new Volt last at least 100,000. For those that are interested there was an article in Popular Science about the issue not so long ago.

COMMENT #7 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 12/5/2008 @ 1:26 pm PT...





Batteries do seem to be a problem, but someone threw a wrench into Benz' production...Was it GM? bi goil? Here's exactly what you're looking for big B. Link

COMMENT #8 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 12/5/2008 @ 2:29 pm PT...





Peter in St. Paul - Sometimes you just have to admit that there was a technological problem with the car. The batteries were too, big, heavy and unreliable to be a real production car. Well, that didn't seem to bother the drivers of the car who offered millions to buy 'em! Furthermore, there was a second battery technology for the EV1 that vastly improved the range. That tech was never allowed to be used (though I saw someone recently mention that Chevron bought the technology - haven't confirmed that, however.)

COMMENT #9 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 12/5/2008 @ 3:58 pm PT...





A little snippet for the linky impaired (from the lower #6 link): But GM's Andy Card had been fighting Electric cars for years, and GM's true intention became apparent when on Oct. 10, 2000, GM agreed to sell their control of the EV batteries to Texaco. Less than a week later, on Oct. 16, 2000, only days after Texaco acquired control of the batteries, Chevron agreed to purchase Texaco in a $100 billion merger. Chevron announced the merger even though the GM sale of the batteries to what would become Chevron did not close until July 17, 2000. Perhaps Chevron wanted this sale to be announced prior to the merger so it would not look like Chevron (formerly Standard Oil of California) worked directly with GM. hmmm, must be a couple of Andy Cards...nope, it's the same one

COMMENT #10 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 12/5/2008 @ 4:15 pm PT...





Card was the one that told Bush to put down the upside down book he was reading at Booker elementary on 9-11. I'm gonna have to say that Card killed the EV1

COMMENT #11 [Permalink]

... Permial Darkling said on 12/5/2008 @ 4:39 pm PT...





I must agree, the EV1 was a wonderful conveyance. The LAFD had a couple of them for testing and I got to ride in one used by the Helicopter mechanics a few times. Plenty of power, good distance on a charge, I'd buy one today and use it to commute. I wouldn't get rid of my matched set of 928's but they could be garaged most of the time.

COMMENT #12 [Permalink]

... EMPY said on 12/5/2008 @ 5:15 pm PT...





Peter in St. Paul.......... You need to do some research on this subject. There were no tech problems with these cars. Their biggest problem was they didn't generate any income for the dealerships service department. No regular dealer service was needed. Toyota had a similar electric only version of the RAV4 that they made the mistake of actually selling to a small number of customers. It used the same battery technology as the EV1. These small SUV are now worth their weight in gold and have proven very reliable 15 years later. I say mistake because they never wanted anyone to know this was a viable, long term vehicle. The NiMH battery technology for these cars was developed in the early 80's by Stan and Iris Ovshinsky. Both cars used a version of his design called the EV-95 that was deep-cycle, no memory, high output and long life (over 100,000 miles). They were also non-toxic and recyclable. This battery is far better than the dirty lithium-ion type used in current hybrids. So why aren't they being used today? Google "Ovshinsky Battery, Chevron". Chevron OIL company owns this patent and will not license it to anyone. The patent covers any NiMH battery with a capacity large enough to power a vehicle. Mr. Ovshinsky sold his patent to GM for the EV-1 project who licensed it to Toyota for the Rav-EV. When California dropped it's requirement for ZEV's, GM sold the patent to Texeco on Oct. 10, 2000. Six days later, before the patent deal was even complete, Chevron merged with Texeco for this technology. http://pppad.blogspot.co...e-by-chevron-texaco.html

COMMENT #13 [Permalink]

... EMPY said on 12/5/2008 @ 5:27 pm PT...





So now we have GM in front of Congress, hat in hand, asking for bailout money. They had the Golden Goose with the EV-95 battery and gave it away. Imagine how this technology could have advanced in the last 10 years if given the money that has been thrown at inferior Lithium-Ion. So now GM is trying to fast-track the Volt to market and have admitted they do not have the battery needed to power it. Ha! I'm no socialist, but I'm all for taking this battery patent away from Chevron and giving it to the entire world, free of charge, for the good of the planet. If they refuse to make it available when it's most needed, they shouldn't profit from it later when their wells are dry.

COMMENT #14 [Permalink]

... EMPY said on 12/5/2008 @ 5:35 pm PT...





More proof of Chevron keeping this technology from the market. Refuses to allow battery for Mercedes Hybrid SUV. http://www.autobloggreen...des-ml-450-hybrid-merce/

COMMENT #15 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 12/5/2008 @ 6:15 pm PT...





It's time to take some patents away from Chevro(let)n and a few of the drug companies now. Like Michael Moore said, "why bail GM out when you can buy them for 1/8th of the cost"

COMMENT #16 [Permalink]

... Bill Bucolo said on 12/5/2008 @ 6:55 pm PT...





GM's biggest nightmare. Screw em!

Congressional Committee members- especially Barney Frank's office and all other Democrats (even f*cking Republicans) on the committee need to be reminded about this. FAX ONE PAGE LETTERS... best way to get attention of aids and congressmembers. Also, as Michael Moore said, "Why not just buy them for $3B?"

COMMENT #17 [Permalink]

... apeweek said on 12/5/2008 @ 8:02 pm PT...





Don't believe the misinformation you read about the EV1. Cold temps are fine for electric cars (just charge overnight, the batteries are toasty warm in the morning. Driving warms the batteries, too.) The gen II EV1 had NIMH batteries, that can last 125,000 miles or longer. GM can't revive the car because they gave away the battery patents to Chevron, who won't make the EV-sized NIMH batteries anymore. But you don't need GM. Reasonably priced electric cars are out there. See http://www.squidoo.com/cheap-electric-car

COMMENT #18 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 12/5/2008 @ 8:10 pm PT...





Think of it: They have no problem breaking the Constitution so Hillary can become SoS, but they wouldn't dream of breaking Chevron's battery patent to save the planet. Let that sink in.

COMMENT #19 [Permalink]

... the zapkitty said on 12/5/2008 @ 10:30 pm PT...





... Agent 99 said... Think of it:

They have no problem breaking the Constitution so Hillary can become SoS, They're not breaking the Constitution, certainly not in the sense that the Bush regime did. They simply need to lower the salary or a similar workaround... which has been done before. ... but they wouldn't dream of breaking Chevron's battery patent to save the planet. First you have to convince them that the planet is really at risk... ... and climate scientists aren't helping with their corpneotheocon-inspired whimpering around on the subject. By moderate estimates, instead of *-con-mandated conservative estimates we're already past any number of "tipping points" and need to start thinking in terms of cool-down... Fast.

COMMENT #20 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 12/5/2008 @ 10:42 pm PT...





zap, I agree it isn't in the way that * and Fudd have done it, but it is breaking the Constitution. That it's been done before doesn't make it okay. One might accuse me of splitting hairs, but certainly the need to break patents that would immediately ease the planetary mess is infinitely more pressing than having Hillary for SoS. And WHY would convincing them of the need to clean up the planet be so much harder than convincing them to break the Constitution to put Hillary in? That doesn't make ANY fucking sense to me! And, yes, I'm thinking we need to start carting carbon to the moon really quickly....

COMMENT #21 [Permalink]

... Rick Cain said on 12/6/2008 @ 12:00 am PT...





Don't believe the hydrogen car scam. Fuel cell cars will NEVER be cheap, the range will never improve, and they are too finicky in bad weather.

Its just a cynical move to pretend they are researching green cars, and hydrogen keeps real battery powered cars out of the hands of the consumer. So in the meantime....the next 100 years or so we will still be using gasoline while we chase the hydrogen phantom dream.

COMMENT #22 [Permalink]

... Phil said on 12/6/2008 @ 4:32 am PT...





I remember a Nash Bridges episode where Nash's Plymouth Barracuda broke down, and he had to ride in his girlfriend and fellow cop's electric car. I couldn't tell you which episode, season it was. MGM has only released season 1 of Nash Bridges recently. (Yeah there are those VHS bootlegs, but not a trustable source if you ask me) Anyway, I am sick and tired of hearing how the Hydrogen On Demand car's don't work, there was a news reel that had Stanley Meyers's VW running down the road on it. Now try to track down where that car is now, and someone will pop out of the woodwork saying it's in a basement gathering dust. Utter nonsense, if it's in a basement gathering dust, show it, let's see the dust on it, better yet, for national security, reverse engineer it and mandate that it's technology be rolled out and phased into every car that currently exists. Still can't find that car? Put the NSA on it, track everyone that ever knew Stan, familly, friends, Business, Search everywhere. Meanwhile make the big three create rust resistant heads and blocks and research and make the plasma spark be tuned to the frequency of the size of the molecules that comprise water atoms. It doesn't work for these grease monkeys at popular mechanics (Who I had a row with on electronic vote tabulation devices) because they grew up learning physics from a book. Where they never learned to experiment until learning something new. They really don't even know commone sense physics. The Fact is, Hydrogen is more plentiful on this planet than crude oil ever will be. It's only that rotten greedy bastards can't make a profit off of water that it isn't already available in the mainstream. Now think about this. What if everyone had a portable 30-40KW Hydrogen On Demand (HOD) generator instead of an electric bill. It might just make up for some of the devaluation of the dollar the Treasury is doing by printing their way out their debt. Think beyond just cars. Everybody is saying manufacturing. You now have your goal. Manufacture HOD technology. Tool up those fucking Big Three Factories. (We already gave em fucking 25 Billion right? We OWN THEIR ASS NOW) They need to do OUR bidding, Cars, Energy. Think all the money wasted on transmission lines and power lines and transformer crap. Eliminate the grid. Make these power companies irrelevant (except for certain circumstances) and you make a strong independant America. After all they are bitching about how hackable the existing system infrastructure is. (At least the fake CIA docs are) So what say you if you make your OWN god damn energy onsite? Let the terrorists hack your 30KW generator in your back yard next to your doghouse! This fucking country is being run by fuckers that don't have no common sense. All they have is power and money, and they brainwash and hire people to attack the truth. The Federal Treasury isn't Federal, it's CRIMINAL! The sooner that is understood the sooner we can get through the pain. Meanwile, FUCK these Automaker CEO's. JAIL is where then need to have their next flight to. Same thing for the Bankers. This shit needs to happen fast. The longer we don't demand it the WORSE the shit is going to be.

COMMENT #23 [Permalink]

... Phil said on 12/6/2008 @ 4:44 am PT...





Rick Cain. WARNING: (WEAR SAFETY GLASSES AND GLOVES, HYDROGEN IS SIMILAR TO GASOLINE IN THAT IT CAN DAMAGE PROPERTY AND CAUSE DEATH) I suggest you get a glass of water, a pair of steel plates, a battery and a match. Then take that experiment further. Keep in mind your electronics fundamentals as well as your physics fundamentals might be lacking in getting a properly tuned plasma steam fire. The only thing a common mechanic or machinist is going to be able to do is to manufacture parts that you tell them to. If you tell them wrong, you will get the wrong parts. The wrong parts won't work. The whole way that gasoline engines run needs to be re-thought when considering using water for a fuel source. A HOD vehicle will always be quite sophisticated to tune. It will be more of an ART at first, until the physics and electronics are fully understood. But once it is tuned, the weather will hardly make a difference any more than a gasoline vehicle does. The only reason it hasn't been pumped out like the Model T is that there isn't a Henry Ford out there with the balls to go all in and MAKE it happen. But if you search carefully, you will find people around the world that have it working.

COMMENT #24 [Permalink]

... Phil said on 12/6/2008 @ 4:50 am PT...





Further, the argument that it's too costly to make hydrogen and store it (A method that I don't think is the answer) the same argument could be made that that natural gas that powers a lot of cool stoves across America is unsustainable. Yet there are gas lines aren't there?

COMMENT #25 [Permalink]

... Phil said on 12/6/2008 @ 5:09 am PT...





PS: somewhere around here I got a photo of a Kit Car (Based on top of a VW) I helped build. So it's not like I don't know about mechanics, tooling, combustion, electronics (8 wires to run the motor), etc. It was a copy of a 1927 Bugatti, Kit came from some place out in Florida that went out of business in the 1970's (we were worried we were not going to receive the kit) I learned a lot. I learned about CAR FIRES also. Keep an ABC extinguisher handy!! My point being that anyone can learn this stuff. You don't need to be a frigging engineer or physicist to screw around experimenting. YOU DO need lots of money. Probably pumped 25 grand in "1970 money" into it. I remember one day heating lead on my stove to pour into the front end to give it more weight.

COMMENT #26 [Permalink]

... the zapkitty said on 12/6/2008 @ 6:22 am PT...





... Agent 99 said...

And, yes, I'm thinking we need to start carting carbon to the moon really quickly... Errrr... why waste money transporting to the moon? The excess CO2 needs to go back into solid forms akin to where most of it came from during the human industrial period, and once locked back up in stable solids it doesn't matter where it's stored. Big job, but doable. As for Hydrogen-On-Demand... where does the energy to crack the hydrogen out of the water come from? Solar or other renewable is fine if you can make the economics work. Still need coal? Then it's worse than useless as coal-fired plants will burn more power to crack your water than they will just sending you the power to charge your car directly. And if the idea is that cracking water will itself yield an energy profit (without something like a fusion reactor thrown into the mix)... that ain't gonna fly.

COMMENT #27 [Permalink]

... john said on 12/6/2008 @ 7:19 am PT...





wagner was on NPR and said the ev-1 was not viable whatever that means

COMMENT #28 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 12/6/2008 @ 7:37 am PT...





Zap, does any one read links anymore? every one I put up answers your questions and everyone else that posted identical links to mine...I guess I'm wasting my time here.

COMMENT #29 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 12/6/2008 @ 7:47 am PT...





Gotta have something to do with ADD The hydrogen-on-demand systems that use a chemical reaction usually start with sodium borohydride (or another boron / hydrogen derivative), which is a hydrogen-rich chemical compound and force a reaction that releases the hydrogen as needed. In the case of sodium borohydride (NaBH4), the result of the chemical reaction is to degrade into inert salt, which can then be recycled back into sodium borohydride again. Link

COMMENT #30 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 12/6/2008 @ 7:58 am PT...





This is a video of the principle Link There are 100's of ways to extract hydrogen from water, one of them will take off providing bi goil doesn't get a hold of the patent on it

COMMENT #31 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 12/6/2008 @ 9:56 am PT...





Oh look, one of those expensive fuel cell stacks/snark Platinum free, about $400 per 1.5 KW. Who said we couldn't, must be the same skeptics that said we couldn't (or didn't) go to the moon

COMMENT #32 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 12/6/2008 @ 11:29 am PT...





Well, zap, I was expressing the need to do whatever is feasible instanter, not necessarily shipping it to the moon, but we are probably better equipped to ship it to the moon right now, and the "right now" part is crucial, than most of the other ideas out there. We should all give up the internet in favor of planting trees with this time, and maybe start running a hose from here to the moon to blow it up there. There is a lot of work being done on shooting it back underground, aka "carbon sequestration", but they don't know if that will hold or what kind of damage it might do yet.... And, actually, everyone should be advised that they ignore Floridiot's links at their own peril....

COMMENT #33 [Permalink]

... the zapkitty said on 12/6/2008 @ 12:14 pm PT...





... Floridiot said... Zap, does any one read links anymore? Sorry, I overlooked it and was responding on autopilot to what seemed to be a "free energy from water" thread. An exothermic reaction such as the one described in your link is, of course, another matter entirely. And I think any viable low-emissions setup would have been quashed in the past couple of decades regardless of oil needs... because its mere existence would have invoked discussion of teh dreaded "global warming".

COMMENT #34 [Permalink]

... the zapkitty said on 12/6/2008 @ 12:33 pm PT...





... Agent 99 said... "Well, zap, I was expressing the need to do whatever is feasible instanter, not necessarily shipping it to the moon, but we are probably better equipped to ship it to the moon right now" I understand, but my space geek gene forces me to respond that, unfortunately, the answer is "No". We are not equipped to send even a kiloton of anything to the moon in one go... much less the multi-megaton transhipments of carbon that would be needed. Currently, forcing it back into solids on an industrial scale seems to be the only feasible answer. And not "just enough" to counter current production... it's almost certainly too late for just that... but enough extra each year for active cooling. Then we chill for awhile and assess the damage.

COMMENT #35 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 12/6/2008 @ 12:43 pm PT...





I'm really liking my idea for a space hose --- as an emergency measure, of course.

COMMENT #36 [Permalink]

... karen from illinois said on 12/6/2008 @ 12:51 pm PT...





floridot,

it is amazing how u put that case together in a few links with card,sometimes i learn as much in the comments as i do in the article here

great job!!

i dont understand all the tech stuff but i do read the links

COMMENT #37 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 12/6/2008 @ 1:29 pm PT...





John @ #26 said: wagner was on NPR and said the ev-1 was not viable whatever that means If it's the same NPR interview with him that I heard, I believe he said it was not "profitable". Whatever that means! (And if you can believe him, given that they didn't give it much of a chance after they couldn't make them fast enough to meet customer demand!) Good comments, all! Thanks!

COMMENT #38 [Permalink]

... FreedomOfInformationAct said on 12/6/2008 @ 4:29 pm PT...





I watched this film about a month ago, and it is prophetic how the big 3 got their latest $15 billion dollar bailout from congress merely for the dog and pony show the ceo's gave up on capitol hill...they deserve to go bankrupt and be replaced with companies that will manufacture cars people want and can afford to buy! Still more telling is another 1.2 million more jobs lost in the last 90 days. When will it end? The bushies are destroying our nation, impeach them before it is too late!

COMMENT #39 [Permalink]

... EMPY said on 12/6/2008 @ 5:01 pm PT...





Brad @ 36: If it's the same NPR interview with him that I heard, I believe he said it was not "profitable". He based that on the fact that most small car "profit" in generated after the sale from service and fuel sales. Build a car that doesn't either and it becomes "unprofitable. Why they couldn't structure the electric car lines more like their other lines is beyond me. Base, Mid, Sport and Luxury versions of the same model with more advanced materials and electronics the more upscale you get. They could also offer charge more for longer range versions for those who need it. Why couldn't the battery system be modular with the base car offering a range of 80-100 miles. Upgrades for extended range or performance could be purchased from the dealer in the form of additional battery packs or higher performance motors. The consumer could then add the addition battery packs when a long trip required them and leave them and the extra weight behind when not. The BS about cold weather performance is just that. These technical issues can be addressed just as they were for petro vehicles. Does your car start in sub zero temps? What starts it? A battery and a motor, that what. It's almost like they don't want electric vehicles to succeed.

COMMENT #40 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 12/6/2008 @ 5:10 pm PT...





Whaddya mean, almost?

COMMENT #41 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 12/7/2008 @ 1:50 am PT...





This will blow yer mind. Another lede posting should say, 'What happened to the EV1 and the Chrysler Natrium The Chrysler Town & Country Natrium, a fuel-cell concept vehicle running on clean, nonflammable, and recyclable sodium borohydride fuel, participated in a ride-and-drive display program at the Pentagon at the request of acting Secretary of the Navy. This program took place as part of Earth Day celebrations and was an opportunity for top military officials to experience the advantages of the Chrysler Natrium fuel-cell vehicle. OK, so what happened to it? Link

COMMENT #42 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 12/7/2008 @ 1:59 am PT...





Seems pretty strange that Chrysler would rather go broke than to put this into production, doesn't it? If this doesn't show ya that bi goil is running this country, what will?

COMMENT #43 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 12/7/2008 @ 3:32 am PT...





Is anyone's mind blown yet? Poor Rick "oilman" Cain...argument blown all to shit, but still winning the battle. Do you realize how far the Natrium could go with an onboard rehydrogennator? This will not ever be in production

COMMENT #44 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 12/7/2008 @ 3:45 am PT...





My mind is blown... [but you knew that already ]

COMMENT #45 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 12/7/2008 @ 3:55 am PT...





Mine too , I had heard of the Natrium before but I had no idea that it ran on the same concept that I was postulating for (seems like) days above.

COMMENT #46 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 12/7/2008 @ 6:23 am PT...





On Wiki, it says that the Natrium has been in production since 2001, but I say it will not be mainstream until they wring every last drop of oil from the Earth and penny from our pocket, or until the atmosphere looks like Southern Ca. circa 1970's

COMMENT #47 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 12/7/2008 @ 7:12 am PT...





The neatest thing about the Natrium is that you could plug your EV1 into it and charge it up while they're both sitting in the garage

COMMENT #48 [Permalink]

... Peter in St. Paul said on 12/7/2008 @ 10:21 am PT...





And then there is power density issue. The EV1 batteries the size of a trunk and weighing a lot had as much power as 1 gallon of gas. Imagine having to carry around a trunk locker filled with books or a gallon of orange juice and you get some of the problem. Even the new smaller batteries have the issue of being large and heavy compared to the amount of power they can deliver. And then there is the issue of batteries catching on fire. You remember the issues of laptop computers going up in flames and their batteries are tiny compared to what is needed to drive a car and they are as I understand it, much the same. Nobody has bother to comment on the cost of replacing the batteries and the issue of they won't last 100,000 miles The point is, that the problems of batteries are more complex than most of us realize...and our belief in technology to "overcome the laws of physics" in a very short time may be a little foolish. Not that we shouldn't try.

COMMENT #49 [Permalink]

... DES said on 12/7/2008 @ 11:50 am PT...





Peter, the 'exploding battery' you're referring to is a Lithium Ion battery, not the nickel metal hydride battery technology that was used in the EV1 and now controlled by Chevron, and that problem has been addressed by improving the membrane between the positively charged and negatively charged cathode plates. The other issues you mention, regarding the battery weight, the replacement cost, the range, the life of the battery, are all old and no longer operative. Off the top of my head I can recall two separate recent stories regarding Toronto and San Francisco hybrid electric taxi fleets (using Li-ion if I remember correctly), with well over 100k miles in use and no need of replacement. Unfortunately I don't have time at this moment to dig up those links, so will have to find them later.

COMMENT #50 [Permalink]

... EMPY said on 12/7/2008 @ 6:12 pm PT...





Peter in St. Paul...... EV-1 curb weight: 2970 lbs.

2009 Chevy Cobalt curb weight: 3216 lbs. I can't find any news reports of EV1's or RAV-EV's catching fire, butI have seen gasoline powered vehicles on the side of the road burning. Are you trying to imply riding on top of 15-20 gallons of gasoline is safer than a battery pack? I would much feel much safer with a battery than a gas tank or a hydrogen fuel cell. Your comparison to the energy content of the EV-1 battery and a gallon of gasoline is also a bit odd. "The EV1 batteries the size of a trunk and weighing a lot had as much power as 1 gallon of gas." The Gen II EV-1 with the NiMH pack had a max range of 160 miles, but typical range was 120 miles. The best gasoline cars yield less than half that range per gallon. Your final point: "The point is, that the problems of batteries are more complex than most of us realize...and our belief in technology to "overcome the laws of physics" in a very short time may be a little foolish. Not that we shouldn't try." There are no laws of physics to overcome with battery power and the complex technical issues were solved almost two decades ago. Continual refinement will yield increased range and performance, much like every other electrical device of the last hundred years. The bottom line is we have a very powerful oil industry that is willing to spend BILLIONS to make sure this happens when they want it to, not when it's needed.

COMMENT #51 [Permalink]

... john said on 12/11/2008 @ 5:01 am PT...





peter in st paul... all of those problems are surmountable instead 10 years go by without development thats the real crime here.

COMMENT #52 [Permalink]

... apeweek said on 12/16/2008 @ 8:36 am PT...





Peter in St Paul: I always amazes me how EV doubters always assume battery technology has stood still for the last several decades. Even the NIMH battery packs in the EV1 (and still driving around in some Toyota RAV4 EVs from the same time period) are good for about 150,000 miles. None of the battery technologies used in EVs are prone to explosion or fire. New battery technologies are indeed expensive, but also very long lived. Lithium Titanate batteries - like the Altairnanos used in this car: http://phoenixmotorcars.com have a lifetime that will probably exceed the lifetime of the auto. Battery prices fall with time, just like any advancing technology. Old battery technology is very affordable. If you bought one of these, for example: http://www.alanizcorporation.com/ you would find that lead-acid batteries, while needing frequent replacement, nonetheless only cost you about a nickel per mile.

COMMENT #53 [Permalink]

... make a difference said on 2/24/2009 @ 2:13 pm PT...

