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
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
that the power plants that make the electricity probably spew more pollutants into the air
/.) and you see that electricity is a good step between the way you turn a natural source of energy and the movement you want in your vehicle.
That is if your electricity power plant is using fossils fuels. Look a little bit further (or back, a couple of days ago on
bash$
Wrong wrong and, uh wrong. You forget that a sizable portion of the electricity that ends up at your outlet comes from clean renewable resources, such as hydro electric and wind and solar power. Also, producing power centrally is more efficent than widely distributed power production, as pollution controls can be supervised much easier. The electric car is fantastic because it allow this flexibility in power sources -- you can charge your electric car with whatever you want. Install a fuel cell at home, bam, your car is charged. Install a generator, bam, it's charged. You get the idea.
After looking at the article a bit, it's very interesting to note that the main reason the car was being discontinued was not sales nor popularity issues, but rather CHARGING issues! Apparently CARB (California's nazi regime of pollution control) mandated a new charger system that basically requires a redesign of the EV1 in order to be compatible. Hopefully with these new standards now set, we'll see electric cars back on the market soo.
To explain the charger problem, CARB mandated a conductive charger, or one that uses a direct electrical connection to the charging system. Many vehicles, including the EV1, currently use the Inductive charging system, which utilizes no electrical contact (for safety reasons) between the charger and the vehicle, but rather a inductive magnetic coupling. There is no cheap way to convert between the two systems, hence the discontinuing of the EV1.
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...
A sizeable portion from renewable energy?
If you're in the US, that's about 6%.
The UK sits at an embarrassing 2.3%.
If you're in Canada, then it's a much more respectable 60% - gotta love that Hydropower.
Unless you're in Canada, I don't think it's fair to say that a healthy chunk of your electrical power is from clean sources. Not yet, anyway.
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.
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
Depends on what part of the each respective country you live in. In the US there are areas where large portions of your pwoer are from clean (or relatively clean such as nuclear) sources rather than coal plants.
Canada gets away with a higher ratio of "clean" to dirty power because their power requirements are so much lower. New York City uses as much power as the entire country of Canada. A lot of programs that work in Canada do so because of the small population size and pattern of distrubution.
Once more unto the breach dear friends...
After looking at the article a bit, it's very interesting to note that the main reason the car was being discontinued was not sales nor popularity issues, but rather CHARGING issues! Apparently CARB (California's nazi regime of pollution control) mandated a new charger system that basically requires a redesign of the EV1 in order to be compatible. Hopefully with these new standards now set, we'll see electric cars back on the market soo.
Some points:
#1. The EV-1 program has been dead for several years. To my knowledge, no new units have been leased (they lease, never sell) to consumers, and they've been steadily retiring their entire EV-1 fleet as they come off lease (scrapping them, as it were.) At the present time, the only major auto manufacturer to EVER sell EVs to the general public is Toyota (the RAV4EV, at over $40k, only in California.)
#2. The inductive MagnaCharger design was very expensive, proprietary, inefficient, and was forced upon the EV industry by GM at the time (about 5-6 years ago) as a defacto method of charging. Unfortunately, GM was really the only one who used it - there were several variants, including a mini-magnacharger used by Honda (or was it Ford?), but all this did was require that the free public charging spaces had to accomodate two different charging standards, so two spaces that could have two cars with two chargers could only support one of each type.
Even worse, inductive charging as a standard was viewed as an attempt at using regulations to destroy the hobbyist EV market, which used standard 3-pronged conductive chargers (plug into your wall type). By cornering and enforcing their standard, GM attempted to make their EV model the only legal one. Yes, it was possible for hobbyists to purchase magnacharger equipment (in fact, there were converters you could buy that would convert a magnacharger paddle into a 3-prong conductive for your conventional charger), all it did was add cost.
Although GM had practical saftey reasons for advocating inductive charging, the fact that they had patents on everything relating to the magnacharger design probably factored into the decision.
So, in conclusion, GM will probably NOT bring back the EV-1, except as a demonstration unit. They're scrapping every EV-1 they can get their hands on, probably to claim the depreciation for their taxes. Note, that there's nothing to prevent an EV-1 driver from carrying around an adapter unit to convert from a CARB-conductive to a Magnacharger (as leasees of the EV-1 had in their garages, in a bigger form), but I doubt that GM will ever produce one now...
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)
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?
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?
What the poster is getting at is that Canada with it's population of ~32 million needs far less energy than a nation of ~300 million like the US. NYC proper has a population of ~10 million alone. NY State and the state of California are larger in population than the entire country of Canada. So to say that it is easier for Canada to meet it's energy needs through renewable sources is correct. This is not an Anti-Canada statement. The fact is, the US could be getting more energy for renewable sources and you still would have low percentages for the US. You are failing to grasp the scale of the energy needs of the US. Now if you really want to stretch your scale, think of providing power to China.
Hehe, you may get tired of gross inaccuracies being spouted wildly by idiot americans about Canada, but I get just as tired of people using CanAda of an example of how the US should be run when it has a population that is slightly more than 1 tenth the population of the US. Each country is unique. Each country has issues it must work on. You can't assume that what works in one will work in the other.
:P
The latest data I could find on Canda's population is from the 1996 Canadian Census listing which states that there are 28,846,761 people living in the country. I belive current estimates put Canada at 31 million and the US at 270 million. My remark about population size and distribution and implementing "programs" (whether it be power distribution or internet) still holds. Most of the population is clustered around major cities (as with most countries, the US included) and the smaller sized population allows large public works to be slightly more effective at reaching the majority of the population. That's an oversimplification of course as there are political and social factors as well, but the population size and distribution does play a major role.
NYC consumes a lot more power than you might think, but yeah, I was making a gross exaggeration and being abnoxiously sarcastic. My apologies both for not making that clear and for any percieved insult.
In the interest of clearing the air here are the actual stats for the relevant areas. I can't find the numbers for the city itself, but New York State consumes approximately 4.28 trillion BTUs (1.26 billion kWh unless I totally screwed the conversion up) of power a year (according to 1999 DOE data) and Canda consumes 551 billion kWh per year (according to 1998 data). The US as a whole consumes 3.36 trillion kWh. So yeah, slight exaggeration.
Then again so was your estimation of the size of Toronto.
According to the City of Toronto's facts guide, the city has a population of 2.48 million people. What it is has that is big is government. The same site boasts that Tornoto has, "5th largest municipal government in North America."
Here is the top 10 (including Mexico) in North America:
Pouplation (in millions)
1.) New York USA 20.2
2.) Mexico City Mexico 19.8
3.) Los Angeles USA 16.2
4.) Chicago USA 8.9
5.) Washington D.C. USA 7.5
6.) San Francisco USA 6.9
7.) Philidelphia USA 6.1
8.) Boston USA 5.7
9.) Detroit USA 5.4
10.)Dallas USA 5.1
And for the sake of completeness the world:
1.) Tokyo, Japan 28
2.) New York City, United States 20.1
3.) Mexico City, Mexico 19.8
4.) Bombay, India 18
5.) Sao Paulo, Brazil 17.7
6.) Los Angeles, United States 16.2
7.) Shanghai, China 14.2
8.) Lagos, Nigeria 13.5
9.) Calcutta, India 12.9
10.) Buenos Aires, Argentina 12.5
Once more unto the breach dear friends...
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
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
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.
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...
With a high loss during transmission. I believe I've read up to 50% of power is lost during transition from the plant to your outlet. That doesn't appear efficient to me.
c onomy.htm. The hook discusses how hydrogen can be used to make a more distrbuted power source, which will be cheaper, more robust and better for all. At least, it has that potential.
I recommend you also take a look at the book _The Hydrogen Economy_. Rewiew at http://www.thekewfiles.net/BookReviews/Hydrogen_E
- Serge Wroclawski
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.)