Slashdot Mirror
GM Pulls Plug on Electric Car
davebo writes "General Motors' EV1, the all-electric dynamo of a car, has been pulled from the market. You can read the letter GM sent out to current EV1 drivers here. When the EV1 came out, the chairman of GM said it would
"define the GM of the future". Guess he'd like to take that back now . . ." With Ford also cancelling their electric vehicle program, looks like hybrids are it for the next few years.
When the EV1 came out, the chairman of GM said it would "define the GM of the future"
So what he's saying is the future of GM is to pull out of the market
Jason
ProfQuotes
Electric cars are silly in the first place. Seriously, doesn't anyone realise that the power plants that make the electricity probably spew more pollutants into the air than the cars that burn fossil fuels? As clean as cars are now, I'd be willing to bet that's true.
What were they expecting? This is like walking into a country as well-gridded as ours and saying, ok, let's try this new type of electricity! But it needs completely new power plants to do it, and it is less convenient. People will look at you like you're crazy.
Electronic cars - even ones you have to plug in every few hundred miles - may have their day, someday. But not yet. Not while oil is so cheap. Cost of gas + Convenience of being about to fuel up anywhere at any time = Lower cost, for most people, all things considered (remember, price is but one factor) than driving an electric car.
I want to know why only 1000 were made. They spent a billion on a program and only sent it out to a wishlist? Or did they withhold it from the market because the infrastructure didn't exist?
When the time is right, both the cars and the infrastructure will change as needed. The time is not right.
"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'" -Dostoevsky
It is called a PC. I drive to work everyday with it.
If you and your boss trust you enough to let you stay home x/5 days a week, then you cut your commuting polluting by x * 20%.
I also get to sleep with the woman in my home office - my wife.
If you got a $100 bill, put your hands up...
I think it makes sense, It would be nice for the world to switch over to electric cars in a year, but in reality, it's not going to work that way.
What will probably happen is that for the next several years, we will start to switch over to hybrid cars, and ease into the electric car idea, and as the prices of gasoline continue to rise, we'll start to switch to completely electric cars. I think it will be at least ten to fifteen years though, before such a thing happens. It's such a massive change to our economy, infrastructure, etc, that we can't really switch overnight like some manufacturers seem to think. This is probably a smart move on GM's part.
I would expect such blatant racism on Fark, but on Slashdot? Mods please ban this asshole.
Before everyone gets on my case about it, I spent 2 years on a team that built hybrid cars. Electric powerplants, by themselves, are ecological nightmares. The majority of our wall-socket power is via coal or other equally ecoterrorizing sources. Their battery packs are highly poisonous, and gigantic on normal electric vehicles. GM's even spending a good portion of its money on hydrogen powered cars, which don't create any CO2.
Even though there are some concerns about the source of hydrogen, you can 'cook' oil and extract it from there, without combustion.
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
And asssuming an electrical system which is twice as good as the theoretical best case.
My university engineering department were doing some work on a hybrid car.
It was their experience that a pure electric car is very inefficient; for example it's not good at low-speed acceleration. But a combination electric/chemical power system with an intelligent control system allows you to reach very high effiency levels.
The car does indeed use retarders to recharge its batteries when braking, but the majority of battery charging comes from other sources. Besides, retarders radically drop in efficiency as speed falls, so they still have conventional brakes as well.
Nuclear
As long as we're burning fossil fuels to generate power, all an electric car does is move the pollution somewhere else. Just think about it:
Gas car: Chemical energy -> kinetic energy
Electric car: Chemical energy -> kinetic -> electrical -> long distance transmission (power lines) -> chemical (batteries) -> electrical -> kinetic
In the end, you get sucky performance for a couple times the energy cost. The idea of an electric car is utterly absurd, and I can't understand why it happened at all.
Maybe after get serious about cheap, clean nuclear power, and we make some major breakthroughs in batteries, the electric car can happen.
From the article "GM said(in an ad) :Electric cars are finally here" (apprximately)
Electric cars have come and gone through the decades, common in early 20th century. Went out with the Model T and made a comeback in WW2 time, along with wood burning cars, coal burners and the like.
Then GM introduces this one and then take it back out again
.ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
What makes me look twice is that the government implemented a standard that goes right against the two major electric car makers in America. I think that there might have been some dirty (think oily) outside influence in the decision.
Brought to you by the Artificial Idea Factory.
I've heard a lot in this thread about how electric is a good, clean, cheap energy source etc.etc.etc. Then I read a post which said how the electricity is produced by coal, gas, etc.-burning stations. Perfectly correct. That's where the majority of all our energy on Earth comes from. Then someone flamed them for not thinking about renewable, e.g. solar, wind, wave.
The CHEMICAL and ENGINEERING power costs of making the plastics and metals, the chemicals in batteries, damn, even the wires means that we would use up most of what remains of our (i.e. the world's) oil supplies just building enough "renewable energy" equipment to keep us going for a few years.
We've got, maybe, far less than 75 years of oil left. That means we have about 50 years to become totally dependent on renewable sources, enough for us to use them to produce everything we know and use today.
I have a close friend, who's got more degrees, PhD's and Doctorates than I've had hot dinners and he was the first to show me the figures and open my eyes to this. How do you build and maintain a wind farm of giant metal and plastic structures without oil, coal and gas to power the factories and foundries? It's EXTREMELY difficult.
This is why the scientists are worrying. It's no longer just a matter of "Hey, let's just switch to solar." The manufacturing and maintenance power-cost of anything new is phenomenally expensive if we've got no fossil fuel left to make the damn things and keep them running.
... IMHO.
An electric engine for the city and one of the new, very efficient diesel engine otherwise. My Audi A2 TDI runs around 50 mpq (4,5 l/100 km), which is quite good.
Remember that electricity is not emission free unless it's solar power/wind or water. Emissions are just made somewhere else.
Bye egghat.
-- "As a human being I claim the right to be widely inconsistent", John Peel
With the US about to secure more Oil there's no need to replace the combustion engine.
First and foremost.. I'm not bashing michael.. but the foreshadowing "With Ford also cancelling their electric vehicle program, looks like hybrids are it for the next few years" is unnecessary.. here's why..
:-P
An official letter from GMATV explaining that the charger conversion efforts funded by GM have been terminated due to the CARB decision to standardize on conductive charging. Click on the pages at left to read the letter from GMATV - Torrance Operations.
Ok.. so it's being standardized.. nothing wrong with that.. parallel ports are standardized.. so are serial ports.. it doesn't get simpler than that..
Now, back tracking to the Ford TH!NK article..
General Information
Why is Ford discontinuing TH!NK products?
As part of its continuing efforts to develop advanced vehicle technologies, Ford Motor Company has decided to concentrate its resources on the development of hybrid and fuel-cell technology.
Right, no ELECTRICAL cars.. but they will still be concentrating on developing HYBRID and FUEL-CELL cars..
So.. in conclusion.. NO.. the plug is NOT being pulled on Hybrid cars.. from my own personal standpoint.. I believe.. once we full utilize production and strengthen the abilities and features that hybrid cars and fuel cell cars.. we will concentrate on electrical cars..
And by we.. I'm talking about the car manufacturers, of course
"The ones who dont do anything are always the ones who try to pull you down" -- Henry Rollins
Yes, that would include the cost of the pollution generated by using fosil fuels.
Yes, that would include the cost of a war over oil.
Prices of $1000,-/liter anyone?
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
Yes, the design styles you speak of are indeed for the purpose of reducing drag. I think many people find the look of these very efficient cars unappealing, so that's why the covered rear wheels etc. aren't being applied to gasoline-powered cars.
I saw a link posted here recently (can't seem to find it) that demonstrated just how much less drag one of these designs produced, and it was pretty impressive. It makes sense to use a design like this (even if it's ugly) when the target market is people extremely concerned about the efficiency of their cars. Makes less sense to attempt to push the efficiency on SUV owners, though I agree that making vehicles more efficient across-the-board would be great.
General Motors is investing $1 billion a year in R&D for hydrogen cars. Quite frankly, they're beating everybody else that I'm aware of so freaking badly in the post-gasoline initiatives sector right now the last thing I'm going to do is sit there and criticize them. If canceling the EV1 helps get that hydrogen-powered skateboard out there to the public that much sooner, then I wish they'd pulled it earlier. Of course, I don't own one so this is easy for me to say.
The first one is pollution. This is very serious to us as people.
The second is that oil isn't distributed fairly around the world. Some countries have it, others don't. This leads to a number of problems, everything from religious, economical, to practical.
Why not look into making alternative fuels that you can produce locally? We can, for instance, grow a hell of a lot more crop in Europe than we need for food. There are a number of plants that can produce oils that can be refined and used in disel engines, and they pollute less than fossile oil already.
What is needed is that companies like GM invests $1 billion in alternative fuels and make the production much much more effective and the engines more clean/effective with the new types of fuels. This is far more realistic than electrical cars is today.
Fusion could of course change this in a heartbeat. But although we (humans) should persuade this scientifically we shouldn't base our economy on it quite yet, thank you very much.
But imagine cars that you wouldn't have to fuel, were totally clean, and I am sure a lot of people would be happy;) We can simply start chaning models much more often instead.
The EV cars don't offer a lot of promise for replacing gas guzzling SUV's. The American consumer has spoken. The car companies need to chase down a way to make SUV's guzzle less gas.
The most immediate way to do that is borrowing concepts from the successful examples of hybrid cars that are out there today.
The next most immediate way to do that would logically be to use a hybrid turbo diesel / electric setup. But in the United States there is a strong stigma against diesel, even though they really are the stinky noisy black smoke belching garbage truck engines they were 25 years ago.
I used to own a 1959 Mercedes Benz 190D. That car sounded like a garbage truck, and woke all the neighbors up when it started. It was slow, and it smelled bad despite being in perfectly restored condition. That, my friends, is what most Americans think of when you say "diesel".
A friend of mine recently bought a brand new Volkwagen Jetta TDI and I must say diesel has come a long way, with a lot of props going to VW engineers. The TDI is quiet and smooth, odorless and relatively powerful. If I could get that in something made for taller men and larger families like a Crown Victoria I would be so happy.
The EV1 was a curiosity and a dead end. Range was short, charging options were very limited and there wasn't much promise for great improvements in the technology in the future. The car was relatively high maintenance (replace all the batteries every few years... wow that is expensive), and had to be parked somewhere with a specialized charging station because you can't fill up at the local Citgo. Also the range was impractical for most Americans who have a long commute to work and must make many side trips on the way home. It doesn't make sense for GM to continue dumping money into a dead end project. Let's see them move on aggressively to something more practical, please.
However, I must point out that the economic adjustment of which you speak may not be so painless as you imply. Ask the former residents of Easter Island what happens when you run out of an important resource (in their case, lumber) :)
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Hey everyone who is debating about "demand for cars" and cost of this or that, did you read GMs explanation to EV1 drivers? They said that CARB has decided that any car that doesn't use a conductive charging (rather than inductive) won't qualify as zero emissions. Since Toyota and GM both use inductive charging, they'll be dropping the cars. They are basically really upset that California decided to screw them like this so that they'd have to complete redesign the chargers on the cars and refueling stations, (very very expensive) so GM is saying "screw you too."
I don't personally understand it. Does anyone know why inductive charging shouldn't qualify for zero emmissions?
This is SO educational! -- Kintaro Oe
Wow, these guys must be pretty dumb then. If an electric motor is good at anything, it is acceleration. An electric motor has its highest torque at zero rpm. Do a Google search for electric dragsters and you'll find some neat stuff, e.g. like this.
Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
and all I will say is that I am glad that the electric vehicle has been revoked.
Not only are batteries a danger to our environment they are made with toxic materials that harm our environment. Yes you can go on about as much as 90% of a battery is recyclible but its not a solid fix to the problem.
My opinion is that in 5 years time is should be law that all the car companies in the world must provide a demo of a car running on hydrogen. You think its not possible? Well the technology is already here, its just that all the oil companies run the show (similar the ciggarette companies).
Too bad noone gives a damn about anything except their buttom line and short term balance sheet until its too late.
One of the reasons we don't see more electric cars or hydrogen cars is the distinct lack of dollar signs, isn't it? I think deep down inside, even the most self centered people would like to see the environment cleaned up... just so long as there is no effort required on their part.
It's very easy to look at the situation and either dismiss it as not your problem or not worth the potential effort. The only way to get around this is to make it profitable.
Think of it this way, what do you think is more effective for recycling: 1) Totally Volentary Recycling, 2) Depoit Based Recycling (ie getting money back), or 3) Fines if you don't Recycling.
I'm willing to bet number one is the least effective. So how do you go about making it worth the car companies while to invest and properly support such things?
Fuzzy Knights: New RPG Strips Tuesday and Friday!:
http://www.fuzzyknights.com
Recently, I did a research report on the threat of global warming to the Earth. After digging very deep into the issue, and studying all the data, I've come a conclusion that many scientists share. Global Warming is normal. It is a standard part of the Earth's temperature fluctuation. Granted, we have increased levels of greenhouse gases, and helped to prolong this period of warming. This is not necessarily bad. The small amount by which we have increased the global average temperature, is not the end of the world that the ignorant media portrays. The end of the world will be when the next ice age, or glacial period hits. This could happen within the next 100 years. What may save us from this fate, are our "atmosphere damaging" gases. (Of course, I'm not saying pollution is a good thing, I'm purely talking about the warming effect of these gases.)
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
Yep. In fact, as a former contractor for General Motors, I knew about all of this almost 2 years ago. I was quite bewildered by the appearance of this article.
My journal has hot
I drive a VW Jetta TDi car, that is, a Diesel car. I can get 50mpg on highway driving at normal speed.
:)
When speeding (I've done 115mph and there was some more left) and doing mostly city traffic I go down to only 44 mpg.
In Germany they have the VW Lupo, a car that gets ~80mpg. And also the bigger sedan VW Passat TDi, with ~45 mpg IIRC.
Now, those cars need zero modifications to use BioDiesel fuel. BioDiesel is vegetal oil. Nothing else could be more ecology-friendly. And, if needed, you can mixe it with regular petro-diesel, for older engines.
Now, Diesel fuel used here in the US are waaaay too dirty (this is what kills Diesel cars in the US when you look at EPA statistics). There are some laws in place to reduce pollutants in US Diesel to European/Japan levels (1/100th of current sulphur contents).
Also, my car drives like a sports car: very nice handling (corners, break...), it has side aribags and all kind of safety features... and I have to really try to drive it under 85 mph, 'cause it wants to go fast.
Then, the Wagon version has about the same cargo room as a Jeep Grand Cherokee. Good for soccer moms...or for carrying those plasma TVs and huge monitors for our computers
I say that current technology (Diesel/BioDiesel) is good to reduce pollutants and fuel consumption. In Europe, Diesel represent more than 50% of total new car sells.
The US has lots of land. The tobacco industry s looking for a replacement... Maybe all can go to soy for BioDiesel (or similar crops). This way we decrease our dependency of foreing oil, decrease pollutants in the air, provide a good income to our farmers (the new "bio-oil industry") and Detroit has a new field to innovate and generate new jobs. And Diesel engines last 200,000 - 400,000 miles. Not bad.
What do you all think?
--there's such a thing as going overboard to extremes. over-concentrating electrical generational facilities produce less points of failure that mean when they DO fail they affect a lot more people, cause a lot more damage. It's a security issue. It's also a cost issue. Business scandals, political manipulation, insider trading, etc have NOT gone away. What is happening is with each new scandal uncovered, the crooks see where they failed, and refine their techniques so as to not get caught next time. I don't think you can ignore this issue. Big whopper piles of money, as represented by centralised energy, seem to always attract very big crooks. Same as any other "big" business especially when it's one of those quasi public/private hybrid industries that the utilities represent, ie "legal monopolies".
I'm not giving up my home PV unit. The grid has gone out a lot where I live since I've been living here, I keep my power. Kinda nifty. It's like the olden days with only a few mainframes, you willing to give up your own computer? How about mass transit, you willing to accept only mass transit for everywhere you go, or can you see the practicality of individual cars? Food, a few whopper farms, or millions of farms and gardens? It's like do you REALLY want to put all your eggs in one basket with energy?
Back to PV, I am always wondering how much better it would be if virtually every sunny side rooftop in the US was covered in panels now. Maybe actually put a lot of the manufacturing guys back to work, re-open some more plants, build them by the millions instead of thousands. The space exists on these roofs and now is composed of shingles that get hot, and that's it. How much electric do you get from that? And what might happen to the cost if millions more were in market demand? Would the R&D and the manufacturing advances result in better and cheaper? I am guessing it would, seems to work for everything else.
....I never got a chance to drive an EV1, but they were small like the Insight. Whether youre trying to save some money or put your effort into the environment, the Hybrids are a good deal. If you buy a new untitled Hybrid, you're elligible for tax incentives as well. I bought my Insight (70MPG) used and love it for around town and what traveling I do on highway. It beats the 15MPG my SUV gets which I'll have to hold onto for towing and snow.
http://www.insightcentral.net
Relive the BBS Past - One Byte at a Time! www.ssabbs.com
Maybe this is because GM is going to focus on Hydrogen fuel instead of electric cars. Other car companies doing the same thing (like BMW... can't wait for that).
This may also have something to do with President Bush pushing for research funding for hydrogen fueled cars.
Electric just doesn't have the power or range of gasoline powered cars. I think everyone is begining to realize that and hydrogen seems to be the best of both worlds, powerful yet environmentally friendly. Oh, and not dependent on dead dinosaurs.
--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
I wonder if they're ramping up the AUTOnomy project ahead of schedule. If they're planning to get their hydrogen vehicle off the blocks and on the road in the next few years, they might not want to confuse the issue by having it compared to the EVI. I can't think of another reason for having the cars destroyed rather than just sold.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
All the car companies wanted their technologies to be the one every other company used in the new machines. That way they could collect on patents or at least control the direction of the market.
BUT theese 2 lost the battle for comformity. All the others car companies joined forces to make fuel cells. Which means if theese 2 also went with fuel cells then they could get cheeper mass produced parts all the fuel cell cars had in common.
conspiracy theory start
I wouldn't be suprised if the president, chemical companies, and oil companies didn't have something to do with this choice. It keeps us going to a station to buy 'fuel'. Since electric cars eliminated MUCH of the need for theese company's products and the services gas stations provide lots of jobs would be 'lost'. And lots of companies would have to change the way they do business. And we all know how hard financial groups can fight.
conspiracy theory end
There are no electric energy storage devices with a high enough energy density to make EVs practical. You get something like 100 miles per charge. Not only is that not far enough (in America anyway) but then you can't charge them nearly as fast as dumping in gas. Detroit has known this for a long time, but they kept trying anyway to satisfy regulations.
In reality, if you want more energy, you stick a hole is Saudi Arabia, who spends $2/barrel to extract it, put it on a boat to the US, and stick it in a plant.
While some of our energy comes from other sources (coal, nuclear, hydropower, etc.), the variable sources of energy are oil based. The reason we can't get alternative energy is because oil is SO cheap and plentiful. Sure, the current "cheap oil" will run out in 20 years (it will ALWAYS run out in 20 years, that's how you extract oil), the newer technology expands the amount of oil that we can get cheaply.
Now, oil power plants can/should be more efficient ways to get energy from oil than cars are... however the amount of increase is the problem. Are power plants 20% more efficient? 50% more efficient? 100% more efficient? What about getting the power from point A to point B?
Your point about upgrading missing something. Power plants are operated for a LONG time. Taking one down for an upgrade is expensive and reduces power output... you can't do it unless there is a lot of spare electricity. And given the desire to not build extra plants, there isn't a lot of spare. As a result, plants are upgraded less frequently that you'd desire.
Cars on the other hand, are in service for between 10 and 20 years (sure exceptions on each side, but I'd say that the average car is probably in use for 10-12 years). This is a guess, maybe I'm over/underestimating how long cars are used. However, that process of replacing cars frequently means that they ARE upgraded regularly. Once you have a new way of converting gasoline to energy (say, reducing gas use by 20%), within 3 years, a LOT of cars have that in place, and within 5 years, at least half of the cars on the road have it.
Compare that to power plants, where you need a massive change to take them down, and new ones aren't that common.
Will a power plant shut down for 6 months for a 5% increase in efficiency? Will all new GM owners get the new generation capacity if it happens to be in the hood of their car when they buy it?
Alex
It's a political story. Death of the EV-1 is pure politics and economics. Patent politics. Market share politics. Regulor old government politics. As others have mentioned, GM was trying to forc their proprietary charger on people. GM was never really wanted the EV-1. The lease-only business model has been a bone of contention in the EV community for years. Leases suck. Most people want to own. It's no secret that GM set the EV-1 up to fall from day 1. End of story.
As for what the "best technology" for engines is, there isn't one. What's needed is for somebody to design a modular engine--think RAID for cars. Instead of one engine under the hoold that costs $5000, you need several easily removeable components under the hood that cost several hundred dollars. I'd like to see these components cost $200, but even $500 would be beneficial. Notice, I'm not talking about the actual tech of these components--I'm leaving that as a total abstraction for a very specific reason. Stop and think before you read the next paragraph.
Now think about your computer. A hot system can cost $3000, but none of the components in that system is more than $500, except maybe the monitor.
Computer tech is driven in part by the ability of geeks to swap inexpensive components out of their chassis and have them all interface together. Now imagine the same thing with cars:
Standard pressurized fuel system. Standard battery rack. Standard fuel to electricity converters. Standard exhaust bus. Standard computer monitoring and control interfaces.
Do that, and in no time at all you'll have dozens of companies striving to offer gasoline to hydrogen reformers that are just a little cheaper, or a little quiter, or a little more efficient. Geeks will be reprogramming their control units every other day, and RMS will be saying "GNU/Car", but that's about the only downside I can think of.
Something like this won't come from the incumbent manufacturers; certainly not in the US. Even the Asians are probably more interested in protecting the current business model--nobody wants their cars "cloned".
A revolution like this will have to come from someplace like North Carolina, where there are machine-shop workers, mechanics, and NASCAR techs who know how to build cars without "the man" getting in the way. A lot of NASCAR vehicles are losing sponsorship. There's nothing like unemployment to breed new ideas sometimes.
Regardless of who does this, it needs to be done. Only through interoperation of standard components can the automobile shake itself out of the ossified corporate tool inspired funk in which it is mired. Modular components could be the engine (no pun intended) of the next economic boom--but only if we can sneek them under the RADAR.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
What Big Three has to realize is that their competitors, mainly Japanese car makers, are destroying them. Honda, Nissan and Mazda are cranking out cars with goobles of horsepower, leaving Detroit in the dust, literarly. The Japanese are feeding our love for big things, such as horsepower, which translates into quicker cars. I recently went car searching and did not look at one american car. Nothing in terms of performance and styling caught my eye from the American car market. I quick glance at any car ratings guide, and you'll rarely find an American made car in the top of its class...
SUV's however, I would not buy anything either than an American made model (Have owned 3 Jeeps, great SUV's). American's are leaders in this market (except for the british Land Rovers).
Ironic that a country who should be moving away from its dependency on foreigh oil has two of its leading automakers scrap electric cars and builds better gas guzzling SUV's than anyone else.
100% Insightful
I like the bit about spending a billion dollars. What they aren't telling you is most of the money came for the US Gov't. So we payed for GM to take a half assed approach to energy efficiant cars.
What's ironic is it's so short sighted. Every year the Toyota and Honda get that much further ahead. When I go car shopping I look for cars made in Japan. They are made better, and more fuel effient, and usually cheaper.
As several people have noted, the hybrid seems to be the way that auto manufacturers are going for "reduced emissions" vehicles.
At a recent "Engineers' Week" party, the local Toyota dealer had a couple of Prius available for inspection and demonstration. I was unimpressed. The drive system is overly complicated and 50 MPG is pathetic for a "reduced emissions" vehicle that has economy as its main selling point. Granted, it's better than 20-30 MPG I get in my eight-year-old Firebird, but it's not impressive. A ten-year-old Honda Civic or Geo Metro can do that, and they're pure gasoline!
This car has it right. The most efficient way to run an internal combustion engine is to have it operate at high manifold pressures and low RPMs: Wide Open Throttle. By using a 17 horsepower (12.7 kW) diesel tractor engine and a tall final drive ratio allows this car to get around town at 35 miles per hour while achieving 128 miles per gallon. Of course, it has a top speed of only 65 miles per hour.
The point that you make could be straight from Big Oil's mouthpiece. There are many ways in which an electric car is more efficient than a gas car. A power plant is more efficient by far at turning chemical energy into kinetic energy than a car. An electric car is almost guaranteed to be smaller and more kinetic energy efficient than your Ford Executioner. When using electric cars, all the pollution comes from the power plant instead of from millions of little cars. You tell me, geeks of the world, which is easier to maintain and clean up? One big point, or millions of little points?
More important than any of those points, however, is that as long as people in power (like the board of GM) squash new technology, when the big oil runs out, replacement technology will be too immature. Only the rich will be able to afford oil OR solar/wind/your alternative of choice.
Look at it this way. The US is spending up to $200 billion to ensure that oil stays cheap for the next 10 years, maybe. We're only putting $17 billion, over the next 20 years, into researching practical fusion, and MUCH MUCH less into solar technology. You tell me, how far away is "cheap, clean nuclear power", and who's going to be sitting on that board?
Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
There is/was a legitimate technical reason for the inductive charger. Charging the car *quickly*, as in an hour or two instead of overnight, requires tremendous current. I don't remember the amount, but it's many times more than the 15A or so that a normal consumer power cord can deliver. Such large amounts of current require special equipment, which is expensive, and still dangerous for a non-electrician to be dealing with. Since it would cost just as much as an inductive system anyway, without even considering the safety/liability issues, it makes sense to just use the inductive system.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending GM. They were definately trying to make sure they got a piece of every bit of electric car action via their inductive charging patents and such. And there's nothing wrong with a normal household power cord if you have all night to charge the car. But for those quick charge stations in public parking lots, inductive charging was really the only way to go.
Perhaps.
But to be fair. Shouldn't one consider that an engine with a more or less constant load is more efficient than one that is continually changing, dur to traffic conditions?
Additionally, you quote that 70% figure as if conventional cars made effective use of 100% of their engine's energy. According to this site
Ten years and OVER A BILLION DOLLARS??? If that's what it takes GM to develop a simple DC drive system, the stockholders of GM need to rethink their investment! That figure is more likely to be what they want to try and write off their corprate tax returns!
Anyone who has ever turned a wrench on an electric golf cart could design an electric car. As far as charging the vehicle, who gives a damn how it's done?! Plug it in or park next to the charger. Pick the LEAST expensive technology and go with it.
The problem with the electric cars is that you can't turn a big ass SUV into an electric car. Ford and GM are interested in PROFITS, not ecology. If they have to devote parts of their assembly lines to a niche vehicle, that takes up resources from their SUV lines.
And for the record, I drive a big-ass Ford Bronco with big tires and a lift kit.... I have nothing at all against SUV's and their drivers. But I'm getting damn tired of this country relying on foreign oil. Electric cars may not totally be the answer, but they are at least a step toward the solution. I'd drive one to/from work if I could buy one. Then keep my Bronco for trips, pulling my boat or camper, or hauling stuff from Home Depot. You know, like use the right tool for the job??! Cheaper and smaller for short trips, big and bulky when the job calls for it.
I always thought GM sucked, now they have confirmed it....
The number 1 problem of working in a cubicle - 23 power cords, 1 outlet...
I want everyone to do something, everyone thinking the Honda Hybrid is the way to go. Go take a look at the fuel mileage. Now, take a look at the VW TDI-based cars. Look at that fuel mileage. Verrrryyy interesting. It would seem... like diesel.... gets better mileage! On top of that, if BioDiesel is used, you have a renewable resource that is better for the environment, and gets great mileage, all in a car that lasts longer! (typically, most diesels get 300k mi before anyone bothers to worry... just look at European taxis). For all the guys into biodiesel, we know better than to think a hybrid is the only way to go in alternative fuel sources. You can't forget about diesels. BioDiesel can be made from fresh oils (such as rapeseed oil), or from waste vegetable oil (WVO), which, btw Diners & Restuarants pay to have removed from their property. Plus, your exhaust smells like french fries! How can you go wrong? Read more here.
My husband and I leased an EV1 for three years. It was the best car we've ever driven: quiet, amazing acceleration, and zero emissions. (There isn't even a tailpipe.) We (and other drivers) sent money to GM asking them to extend the lease without a warranty, rather than crush the cars, and they said no. GM's claims that electric cars failed in the marketplace are false. EV1 drivers wanted to keep them, and there were many waitlisted would-be drivers who never got a car, despite GM's lack of advertising, etc. For much more information, see http://cleanup-gm.org.
Our primary car now is a Toyota Prius, which we've been happy with (except by comparison to the EV1). Driving around San Francisco and commuting over the Bay Bridge, often in bad traffic, I average 46 MPG, and it has lower emissions than other cars with internal combustion engines. It cost a little more ($22K) than an ordinary car, but I expect to recoup some of that with the tax deduction and lower fuel costs.
We recently assumed the lease on a Ford Th!nk City. As its maximum speed is about 55 MPH and range about 40 miles, neither my husband nor I can drive it to work. Instead, my husband drives it to the Caltrain station. We also drive it around town, where it can fit in tiny parking spots.
My points are:
- The EV1 was a great car. It was not pulled because of any deficiency or lack of demand.
- The only electric car available for lease for a little longer (Th!nk) is vastly inferior to the EV1 but still meets some people's needs.
- I was fortunate enough to get to lease electric cars because I was in the right place at the time. Many other people tried without success.
- While hybrids are better than ordinary cars, purely-electric cars have been designed and produced in ridiculously small quantities, not meeting consumer demand.
- If the government hadn't loosened its regulations, more people would be driving electric cars now or in the near future, and we'd be using less oil and polluting less. (Lest you dismiss all regulation as bad, consider the government's role in seatbelts, catalytic converters, and airbags.)
(And, yes, I know electricity needs to be produced somewhere. Internal-combustion engines are one of the dirtiest and least efficient methods, and spew most where populations are dense.)>>Perhaps you'd care to go into more detail as to how an electric motor produces ANY torque when it's NOT moving.
Your thinking power
P=power
T=torque
r=moment arm
F= Force
w=angular velocity
T=Fr
P=Tw
If I grab hold of a lever and pull on it and it doesn't move I'm appling a force to it, and the lever has a lenght, this would be it's radius from it's pivot point, or mount. I'm not moving it but I am causing a torque about it. Now when I start moving it, and it revolves around it's pivot i'm still applying the torque as before, but now I have an angular velocity. Now there is an amount of power I am applying.
In theroy Electric motors can put out full torque at zero rpm. If I put a arm off the end of the motor and had it hitting a block, if the block required 500N of force to move it, but the motor only could produce 499Nm of torque and the arm was 1 meter long it would not move the block, but it would still be at full torque.
Now in reality do to efficencies and stuff motors don't always have so much torque at zero rpm, but the do still have massive amounts of low end torqu at very low speeds. This is why EV's can accel. so fast. Also one of the reasons electric motors are nice in machine apllications.
Let's face it, no American really wants a light-weight, low horse-powered electric car. We all want to have the baddest car possible.
Of course, when we pay $1.70 at a gas pump we start to see the value in an electric car. But what we need is more effecient gasoline powered engines. I've heard rumors that they could develop engines that get 100 miles per gallon, but oil companies just won't let them do it. Can anyone confirm?
There's no place like ~/
This should come as no suprise to anybody familiar with alternative fuel vechicles. GM lost huge amounts of money on every EV1 sold. The batteries for electric cars are outrageously expensive. In fact, I have a friend who's an engineer for Honda. When they were trying to design an electric car the joke was that the cheapest way to build it would be to go out and buy an EV1 and take its batteries.