Slashdot Mirror
General Motor's EV1 Electric Cars Scrapped
jangobongo writes "Yesterday, the last of General Motors EV1 electric cars were transported to their final resting place, the GM Desert Proving Grounds in Arizona, for "final disposition," which for most of them means crushing and recycling. The experimental GM cars were originally leased (starting in 1996) to owners in California and Arizona for three years while GM developed electric battery technology, but the expected breakthrough in battery technology failed to materialize. GM spent more than $1 billion developing and marketing the EV1, but concluded that the electric cars would not be profitable. The EV1 program was ended in 2003. Some of the cars were donated to engineering departments of colleges and universities, while others went to museums, including the Smithsonian Institution. Despite protests and petitions, GM would not sell the last available cars to the public due to the lack of replacement parts for repairs, and because of potential liability claims. It's sad to see this chapter on electric cars close."
It's all part of the Big Oil conspiracy. ;)
Because at some point we WILL run out of oil.
The gas electric hybrid is ingenious. You get great range and great gas mileage.
Electric only cars are in some ways a waste, because of lossed in electricity transmition and pollution at the plant, they might end up causing more pollution per mile than a gas car. Just its pollution somewhere else.
It's very clear that the future of fuel efficient autos are hybrids, not electric only.
it really speaks well for how well Toyota has done with their hybrid engine. While there's lots of talk about hydrogen (here in California they say it will be possible to drive from end to end using hydrogen-powered autos in a couple years), their problem remains setting up a vast distribution network that rivals that of gasoline. That's not cheap. I think that they hybrid will be the predominant player for the immediate future.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
And most of our electricity, of course, doesn't come from fossil fuels.
...
Hey, I'd love to have electric vehicles powered from all-renewable sources. But frankly, nuclear would be the way to go, and no one, except, oh, I don't know, China, seems to want to talk about building new plants that would actually have a hope of satisfying our inevitable, insatiable, and increasing demands for energy.
I wonder if they just made them inoperable (to avoid liability concerns) and sold them as collectable on ebay if they wouldn't make the program profitable after all.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
They need to market Hybrid cars as an added HP bonus, like a turbo or blower, first and as an economy item second.
If car GM put out a ne Corvett with a big 300+HP engine and a 50+HP hybrid electric assist, I think it would show that hybrid tech isn't just some putty little economy item. It'll be later that people notice that the Corvett now gets 25-30MPG rather than 15-20.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
> ... but all this does is shift the pollution elsewhere.
That's not exactly true. Power plants are always producing power whether or not you use it, so as long as you charge in off-peak hours (which most people would), you are decreasing total pollution.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Hey, it'll happen.
Remember, every time you see "hydrogen", it's a code word for "nuclear".
Sure, we may end up switching to hydrogen fuel cells in lots of places. But that's mostly because it's far more efficent than any other storage mechanism for power, even after the losses in electrolysis efficency to convert water to hydrogen and the losses in fuel cell efficency to convert it back to water again.
The thing is, if they said, "We need to research how to create the nuclear economy, for when the oil runs out," they'd get no money. But if they say, "We need to research the hydrogen economy, for when the oil runs out," and then figure that we'll eventually come to terms with there being no good alternatives to nuclear.
Gentoo Sucks
Yes, that was just a little jab. My point is that it's time to start making cars that are attractive and appealing to mass markets - especially the highest consuming vehicles - in order to have a real impact, and get people to start changing thinking. Instead of the attitude that many have toward SUVs, why not make SUVs themselves efficient, instead self-righteously passing judgment against them, or making statements along the lines of "well, they don't NEED that vehicle, therefore they shouldn't have it"? Why not note that the new hybrid full size pickup trucks and SUVs are actually MORE powerful and have MORE torque than their gasoline-engine-only counterparts, while STILL saving fuel and polluting less? I mean, shouldn't we try to make things appealing to the largest consumers? People don't buy SUVs because they want to destroy the earth, you know...and I'm not targeting these comments at you, but rather at anyone who might be reading this.
Manufacturers would probably have better luck if they stop treating electric cars as replacements and sell them as "second" cars. Many people already have 2 cars so why not advertise it as a supplement to their existing car instead of a replacement? By owning two, people can use the advantages of both without the pros and cons of only one.... City/errend driving (majority of miles for most users) in the EL car and longer trips in the gas one?
Chika Chik-ah... do-e ow ow.
it would be far easier to convert 1 power plant to an alternative fuel or source of power than it would be to convert millions of cards.
just because "it only shifts the oil use from the car to the power plant" is not a good arguement against electric cars. because in the future that power plant could be replaced by wind, solar, geothermal power, etc and suddenly overnight millions of cars are running on 100% clean energy.
so you are right, technically electric cars doen't fix the problem, but they potentially make the problem easier to fix.
Our vast investment in petrofuel technology poses something of a chicken/egg problem for switching. Can't use electric (or other power) cars, because there's no fueling stations. Can build alternative fueling stations, because there's no cars to consume their fuels. By switching cars to electric, which can be fueled at home while fueling stations are gradually retooled, we jumpstart the process. The upstream infrastructure can be powered by any fuel, as long as it delivers electricity to the existing grid. Which is a much smaller hurdle than the alternatives. Even from a purely energy-efficiency analysis, reusing more of our existing infrastructure for the evolution of vehicle fuels will save energy in demolition and construction. Electric is the cross-platform way to make the transition smooth enough that it could actually happen without huge, possibly unsupportable, losses.
--
make install -not war
Seriously, this post has less than 20 comments in it and 3 are already blaming Bush or Big Oil.
The eviromentalists need to realize something: people like driving big gas guzzeling cars. Despite them being bad for the enviroment people will continue to drive gas powered cars. Realize that the public you're trying to convert is the public that stuffs itself with McDonalds. If the public won't take care of their own bodies what makes you think they give a hoot about the enviroment? The people (for the most part) won't buy them, hence the car manufactures won't make them.
Also, people keep hawking on hybrid/electric cars. What about trucks/suv? They hold the market share. Those puny hybrid/electrics won't haul a boat, or a trailer, or a load of 2x4s. Yes I know Ford has 1 hybrid SUV out. Big deal, what's its market share?
Further, the handeling/performance of electric vehicles suck. Yes, I know about the amazing electric sports car that can do 0-60 quicker than a porshe, but guess what, it also costs as much as a porshe. You want the American public to embrace electric cars? Make an electric Mustang that has the exact performance specs as it's gas powered brother, and at the same price. Until some R&D department can do this the majority of the public won't convert to electric.
I'm not saying it's right, but enviromentalists need to wake up and realize their fighting this battle all wrong. You'd think they'd take a queue from the food industry. A majority of the public is under the impression that "fat-free" foods taste like crap. Never mind they might be better for you. Never mind your HCL is through the roof, Americans want a fat-free meal that tastes EXACTLY like a full-fat meal, if it doesn't, fuck it we'll die fat and happy.
Oil in the ground is not like a gas tank where you pump it out and Boom! it's gone one day. It just gets more and more expensive to pump it.
What will happen is that fossil fules will get progressively more expensive until cheaper alternatives become less expensive than they are, and certain uses will gradually switch over.
There's not going to be some magic day where Boom! THE OIL IS GONE OMG WE'RE DOOMED WHAAAA. Everything will "just work out", as it always does in matters of economics.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I bought an Echo for half the price of a Prius, and I only get (officially) 3 less miles per gallon than I would if I was driving a Prius.
I have yet to see the numbers on how much comparative environmental damage is produced in making both cars, though.
Solar cells take almost as much energy to make as they put out over their lifetime. We've dammed nearly every river that's dammable, and there's considerable ecological cost that comes with that as well. Wind isn't consistent, and the windmills tend to be large, ugly, and kill birds. Hydrogen isn't a fuel source, it's just a fancy battery.
Nuclear fusion isn't viable yet, and as we know, you can't legislate technological advancement. And no environmentalist (who are the ones crying for alternative energy sources) wants to even consider nuclear fission.
So, pray tell, do you plan on generating this "alternate energy"?
-------------------------------------------------
Nothing is stopping hybrid DIESEL.
1) Better efficiency than pure diesel
2) Longer engine life than pure diesel
3) Diesel fule can be produced from non-fossil sources
4) Extra 10 to 40 percent efficiency due to regenerative braking + running the engine at peak efficiency
GPL Deconstructed
Remember, every time you see "hydrogen", it's a code word for "nuclear". ...being no good alternatives to nuclear.
Truth is, there's many energy sources in this world that are infinite. Solar, Wind, Hydro and Tidal are not going to run out any time soon. True, we can't dam ever river up, and yes, some places aren't conducive to wind or solar energy, and only coastal communities work okay with tidal energy, but truth is, there are alternative electricity sources other than Nuclear, and to suggest otherwise is a straw man.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Hybrid and Electric are completely different. Since they are not powered solely by batteries, hybrids use much smaller batteries which should last from 8 to 10 years and cost 1 to 2 thousand dollars to replace. I can't speak for electric, but it stands to reason they would have much more expensive batteries with a shorter life; obviously the figures you cite ONLY apply to electric vehicles.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
'Instead of the attitude that many have toward SUVs, why not make SUVs themselves efficient, instead self-righteously passing judgment against them, or making statements along the lines of "well, they don't NEED that vehicle, therefore they shouldn't have it"? '
While I agree with what you're saying as a whole, it should be noted that a lot of the dislike people (myself included) have towards SUVs is for reasons other than fuel economy. For example:
1) If you get hit by one, you are much more likely to get seriously hurt or killed than if you are hit by a sedan.
2) They take up a lot more parking space, which leads to frustration of those boxed in.
3) On the road, they are extremely hard to see through, over, or around. This diminishes the safety of those around SUVs.
4) Many drivers of SUVs feel empowered to a point that is not safe, eg speeding during snowy conditions, making unsafe passes, etc. They fail to realize than four-wheel drive doesn't do any good if none of the four wheels has traction.
But overall, I think you make a very good point about marketing environmentalism (something many environmentalists don't get).
I'm more worried about particulate polution. It seems the solutions to that is a filter.
Most people do not need a V8. Indeed, such engines should only be permitted to people that have just cause.
Most people do not need gighertz-class computers, indeed, such computers should only be permitted to people that have just cause.
Most people do not need to criticise the government, indeed, such privilege should only be permitted to people the government decides have just cause.
So, who do you want to make that decision then...?
I didn't put my ass on the line both in a war and on the streets just so some "holier-than-though" person could tell me which freedoms I can and cannot have. Yup, people do a lot of things I don't agree with, but that's a price I will willingly pay so I can do things that *they* don't agree with.
Yea, biodiesel has me intrigued as well. It is also my understanding that diesel engines themselves have been undergoing considerable improvement in recent years.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
What I don't understand is why not hybrid diesels? If you can get 50 mpg out of a hybrid now, imagine what it would be like if you could use a diesel engine that already gets 45 mpg to replace the gas engine. Diesels and hybrids are not mutually exclusive. Plus you can still use your alternate sources of diesel.
Then maybe what we need to do is stop giving up on everything and finally start innovating so they don't cost so much to produce and put out more electricity. We do it with gas (and just about everything else that doesn't have an "easy fix") don't we?
Not only that but they couldn't possibly get insurance on a vehicle who's brakes can not be replaced due to the part not being available.
They're right, they had to crush them, either that or give them salvage titles and unlicensable, which means uninsurable and not legal to be driven on the roads. They could still be used off-road and on private property, perhaps as a high-tech golf carts or for security guards of private property? Honestly I think if they ebay'd them they could have sold all the vehicles and not been held liable, but they took the safe road and I applaud them for that.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
This strikes me as wildly optimistic, given that after almost a century and a half, Gallup polls show only a little more than a third of the US has "come to terms" with the Theory of Evolution. A good business plan will assume they will continue this way. "No one in this world, so far as I know, has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people."
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
In the sense that there will always be residual oil somewhere on the earth, you are right. However your statement is misleading in terms of using oil as a fuel; someday, the cost of getting the oil will exceed the value (in terms of heating a house, fueling a car, oiling a machine, what have you).
>>Oil in the ground is not like a gas tank where you pump it out and Boom! it's gone one day. It just gets more and more expensive to pump it.
Yes, but not only will it get more expensive per unit, it will simultaneously become *rarer*. So not only will prices rise, but production will fall. It's not like everone just has to get used to higher prices - most of us will eventually HAVE to do without, because even if we CAN afford to buy a $20 gallon of gasoline, it's not available, Period, unless you're a member of an ever smaller group of "haves". Oh, and while oil gets more expensive, and more rare, demand will rise. We're not just talking about peak production; there IS a limited amount of oil, and even if we never do extract the last drop, it's going to "run out" in the sense that *you* and *I* can't get it. And, our approach to that point is faster as time passes.
>>What will happen is that fossil fules will get progressively more expensive until cheaper alternatives become less expensive than they are, and certain uses will gradually switch over.
Not to split hairs (okay, to split hairs) actually what will happen is that fossil fuels will get progressively more expensive until they are impractical, and then asymtotically approaching impossible to use due to availability/cost/yourmetrichere. Now, if we collectively had some smarts, we would realize that the cost of (not so) blue sky research on alternative energy *now* will save us buttloads of money on fuel because we will have to do it anyway, and if we do it before oil is a $500 / barrel, we'll save all the extra money of switching before we have to instead of only when we're forced to. (grumble grumble big oil grumble)
>>There's not going to be some magic day where Boom! THE OIL IS GONE OMG WE'RE DOOMED WHAAAA.
If I were to infer that you lean right politically, would I be barking up the wrong tree?
>>Everything will "just work out", as it always does in matters of economics.
Well, if by "work out" you mean that a new level will be sought in terms of price, production, availability and alternatives, you're stating a tautology in terms of economics. If you mean that there's no chance of serious economic hardship for the whole world, including real fiscal pain in the first world and possible life-death issues in the third world, I'm sorry but I have to contradict you there (if that's what you meant). The richest of the rich will continue to live in comfort, as they always have and always will. It's the other 99.999999% of us (or our grandkids) who will face real difficulty.
The Post-Oil period won't be the end of the world, but there are serious - as in, failure is possible - challenges to overcome if we expect to continue to live anywhere near as conveniently as we do. Cheap oil moves goods from cheap producers to the markets, cheap oil keeps us mobile, etc. We're racing toward a huge question mark. To say that it isn't an issue is foolhardy at best. There's no need to play it off like the concern is only felt by CrAzY lOoNiE fReAkIeS!!1! It is an issue. The sky is not falling; it's just rain. Lots and lots of rain... no need to insult the ark-planners. You'll be glad they were working on it someday.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Solar, wind, hydro, and tidal are not viable options for complete replacement of oil. Do the math like they have here. Do you want to see windmills taking up entire states' full of land and killing millions of birds a year? Or how about solar panels on the roof of every building but still nowhere near enough for the whole electric grid. Let's throw in hydro and tidal and devastate more ecology. Why not try everything without knowing the full consequences of our actions?
Extreme environmentalists cry for all this stuff without thinking enough about it. Every "environmental" source such as these actually hurt the environment while not even solving the problem. The only reasons nuclear is frowned upon are political. Nuclear plants can be made extremely safe and far from most civilization. Fix political problems like what to do with spent cells. Don't waste effort on things that won't completely eliminate the need for oil.
Developers: We can use your help.
Living in California, I have a first hand view of why renewable energy is not happening, at least out here. On the one hand, you have groups of environmentalists who want to have things like Wind power, hydro electric power, and solar power,.
On the other hand, you have groups of environmentalists who don't want these things because Birds get caught in the turbines/propellers, or because hydroelectric plants require damming rivers, thus altering habitats. Tidal will mess with sea habitats, and while solar might be acceptable, but it's too inneficient for large scale generation.
And the dominant politicians in California are beholdant to the environmentalist groups, and since the disparate factions can't seem to make up their minds, the politicians just blame everything on the greedy oil industry, or on fear of the "China syndrome".
This is not a troll. This is fact, and it's the case out on the eastern seaboard as well from what I understand. It's a damn shame that in the name of environmentally sound energy generation, we are sticking primarily with coal and oil.
"Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
Since our current legal system is so far gone from any sense of sanity or morality, I guess all we can hope for is that it gets more byzantine until it collapses and is no longer viable.
Hopefully that day will come sooner rather than later.
Civil courts create as much injustice as they stop, or perhaps even more.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
IIRC the largest oil deposit known on earth is in Canada. Problem is it's basically blended in with sand and it's much more expensive to extract.
And the best part is it's a much easier place for the US to invade. *ducking*
Sarcasm kids, just sarcasm.
Developers: We can use your help.
Good? Here in BC we get 90% of our power from Hydro; a clean, infinitely renewable resouce.
Maybe America just needs to catch up
First, one needs geographic and weather patterns to support hydro - my guess that that per capita, BC has more suitable hydro locations than the U.S. does.
Second, one needs to be able to convince people to destroy ecosystems and endangered species to build dams. I don't know much about BC politics but it sounds like there must be less sensitivity to ecosystem and endangered species in BC than in the U.S. Indeed, in the U.S., there are calls to remove dams to restore ecocsystems.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
The analogy here is that if Paramount decided not only it would cancel the sci-fi TV show "Enterprise", but also destroy all the films!
You do know that in the past (and possibly even now), a lot of source material has been destroyed because the company that owned the rights didn't think that the property they owned justified the cost of warehousing and preserving that material. They either let it rot, or they actively shredded it, to keep someone else from profiting from it.
Of course, this mindset is EXACTLY why compulsory copying SHOULD be allowed, and why enforcement of depositing of works with the LOC (Library of Congress), and the cost of maintaining/restoring works once deposited, should be included as part of the cost of getting copyright.
In GM's case, I think part of compacting the cars was to keep people from realizing how close they were to actually being able to release a viable production electric car. The drivetrains and controllers alone were very advanced AC propulsion units that could have fetched thousands of dollars on the open market RIGHT NOW, and as another poster pointed out, the bodies alone could have been sold for a variety of purposes, aside from being just scrap.
GM wanted to make sure that you wouldn't be able to put a zero emission EV-1 side-by-side against one of their 14 MPG fake hybrid SUVs (wow, a whole 2 extra miles of efficiency from an oversized 48vdc starter motor!) Besides, the EV-1 has served its propaganda use. The new vaporware of the day, to ward off complaints about GM's fight against higher fuel standards, is the Hydrogen Car, which like the electric car 10 years ago, is just "5 to 6 years away from being introduced to the general public."
Sustainability and energy independence essay
First of all, we don't all live near enough motive water to do so--some people live in deserts.
says
further
http://www.bchydro.bc.ca/environment/
More than 90 per cent of BC Hydro's electricity is generated by water powering turbines at 30 hydroelectric facilities on 27 watersheds around British Columbia?
but- that's mitigated by the fact
http://www.bctc.com/about/faqs.shtml that the bctc states
(clipped to get to what I consider relevant) What is the relationship between BC Hydro and BCTC?
BC Hydro will be a major customer of BCTC, as will other electricity producers and wholesale customers. BCTC will contract with BC Hydro for certain services, such as engineering and field services.
The fact is, more than 90% of BC hydro's power comes from water- (which isn't practical for the world at large) but bc hydro's product is not 100% of the electricy going thru your lines.
Just a a thought...
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Judging from your reply, I don't think you fully understand. Today, a known amount of energy from the Sun will arrive at earth. This energy current powers wind, tides, and the weather. You start using that energy on a large scale, there WILL be changes in weather. That simple. Solar is a great idea, , but it's not going to meet the needs of an advanced industrial society without accepting that there will be changes to weather patterns.
Burn Hollywood Burn
My wife drove an EV1 for five years and it always amazed me how much attention was focused on the environmental/efficiency aspect and how little was paid to the general product advantages. In the end, it felt like IBM was taking our laptops away and giving us back typewriters. Three years later, my wife still hasn't bought a gas car. - In the last three years, the car had zero maintenance. No tune ups, oil changes, trips to the gas station, nothing. - It was remarkably clean - no drips, no exhaust, so smells - we could have parked it in the house. - It was really cheap to charge. - My gas car sat idle most of the time because the EV1 was always our car of choice when we went out. - It got a tremendous amount of positive attention on the road. - And lastly, she never lost a race from the stoplight in five years. When you consider all the reasons, practical or not, people buy cars, I'd say the EV1 was the best consumer product we've ever owned (leased). It was proof that U.S. ingenuity and industry can lead the world. Despite all GM's excuses, the car was an excellent choice for many US drivers and those of us who got to drive one know it.
pushing through legislation mandating that manufacturers sell electric cars.
Actually, it was that 3% of the fleet be Zero Emissions, which effectively required automakers to turn to electric cars, as that was the only technology available at the time that could meet the zero-emissions requirement.
The only manufacturer who actually sold cars to the general public, that I know of, was Toyota. Their RAV4EV cost upwards of 40k, list price, and very few were available, as they were all conversions done under contract by a 3rd party. All the other manufacturers leased their vehicles to commercial and governmental fleets. As part of the negotiations to get the carmakers to put EVs on the roads, the State of California financed a network of EV recharge stations throughout the state. Unfortunately, the car manufacturers couldn't agree on what kind of charging standard there should be - GM advocated using the inductive paddle system (Magnacharge), Honda and Toyota and Ford produced cars using a conductive charging system (someone correct me if I'm getting my facts wrong.)
This is why when you see an electric charging spot in California, there are usually two chargers - one Magnacharge paddle, one conductive charge jack. As a consequence, mucho dinero was spent by taxpayers to establish a charging infrastructure for vehicles which have largely disappeared from the landscape.
From the very beginning auto manufacturers argued that the battery technology just wasn't there yet to make a decent all-electric vehicle.
"It can't be done", or "it's going to cost us a lot of money." I think this has been their running argument for a lot of things - against seatbelts, airbags, lower emissions, etc. Sure, batteries are not going to deliver the same energy density as gasoline. You're not going to be driving a Suburban very far on batteries. However, as a second car, especially an in-town commuter car, electricity is IDEAL. The market for NEVs is fairly decent, and these are nothing more than glorified golf carts. Hobbyists have built very capable electric commuter cars for decades. And Chrysler, Honda, and Toyota, came up with very effective electric cars, which have served for years as part of commercial and governmental fleets. Then of course, you have the EV-1.
Keep in mind, the automakers didn't HAVE to comply with the CARB mandate. Hell, they spent millions of dollars over a number of years lobbying and suing to ease the compliance schedule, and in the case of ZEVs, discard that requirement completely. But California is a big market for them, big enough such that being forced to stop selling other autos was reason enough to subsidize the ultra-low volumes needed to meet the minimum requirements of the ZEV legislation. Even with the subsidies, due to the limited production runs, the EVs ended up costing a bundle, as opposed to their gasoline cousins, whose engines and drivetrains are built in volume and shared across platforms.
Of course, that was the same problem with the electric/gas hybrid, which looked even more impractical to build and sell, because the engineering costs were higher, at least initially. Toyota had the guts to actually build one and sell it to the public (again, because of the same mandated low-emissions schedule that the ZEV legislation was part of), and now they can't keep the damn things in stock.
Oh well. Their grandchildren won't have a choice in the matter.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
You start using that energy on a large scale, there WILL be changes in weather
As opposed to the change in the weather that isn't caused by fossil fuels?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Yes. Let's do a bit of back of the envelope calculations.
According to the CIA World Factbook the United States generated 3.6 trillion kilowatt hours of electricity in 2001 (I will ignore the power in the gasoline that was burned in cars, the oil used to heat homes and businesses, etc. Those items will increase the power requirement. These calculations are just what's required to replace the electric generation capability with solar).
Now at the equator, the solar intensity is about 1 kilowatt per square meter. If I assume that the 3.6 trillion kilowatt hours is evenly consumed over the year, this means that every day. 10 billion kilowatt hours is consumed. Assuming that the collectors work for an average of 12 hours per day (I'm being generious) That means that each square meter of collection area captures 12 kilowatt hours of power per day. This requires 833 million square meters of collection area. Oh did I mention that this 833 million square meters is with an assumed efficiency of 100%? What? You don't have a 100% efficient method of collecting solar power? No problem, just use more area. The most efficient solar cell that I can find runs at about 17% Most likely, you'll find something in the 6% to 10% range. But I'll use the 17% cells. That means that I need 5 billion square meters of collection area. Mind you, this is assuming an average of 12 hours per day every day. (Clouds not permitted). And assuming that the collection area is near the equator. There is NO excess capacity to deal with peak loads and NO storage capacity to deal with cloudy days. Now how big is 5 billion square meters? That would be 5000 square kilometers. How big is 5000 square kilometers? For reference, Delaware is about 5160 square kilometers in size. Just about right for the minimum required area.
But wait, there's more!
You need to add in a factor to deal with peak loads and cloudy/rainy days. A factor of 4 is typical industry standard, so you just have to pave over an area slightly greater than New Jersey (try filling out the environmental impact statement for that!).
Also, remember that the above calculations are just for replacing the electric generation capacity for the power used in the United States for the year 2001. If you intend on also replacing the power used in the form of gasoline and heating oil as well as the power used in the rest of the world, please multiply the required area by the appropiate factors.
Have a good day.
And finally, hydro power is not clean! Several studies have shown that the average hydro plant produces more environmental destruction and greenhouse gasses than a similar (in power production) coal plant.
Except that when burning fossil fuels it is releasing carbon that has been buried in the ground for millenia whereas rotting plants are releasing carbon that was already up here.
So your "clean" energy source is worse for the environment than a filth-belching coal plant. Congratulations.
Except without the radiation and other fun stuff in coal smoke
Of course, hydro needs to be planned to minimize impact like everything else.
One thing most people seem to forget about the EV1 is that by now it's over 10 years old. It was developed in the early 90s when cars in general were much cruder than they are now. More importantly, the NiMH battery technology was still in its infancy. In fact the first EV1 had crude lead-acids. Since then, battery capacity and longevity have tripled, and cost is a fraction of what it was then. Furthemore, the EV1 was the first electric car even talked about for decades, so it was completely alien to the public. So at that time the market was a lot smaller than it would be now, simply because the public has been exposed and the idea has had time to sink in.
So before you write off battery powered cars, quit thinking like it's 1995 instead of 2005.
So, because these technologies (solar and wind), implemented on a extrememely large scale, might have impacts on weather patterns, we should ignore them completely, or not implement them on a smaller scale?
And you can't tell me that the fact that my roof is covered in solar panels (it is) will have a bigger impact on the weather / environment than the asphalt shingle roof the panels cover?
Wow, you guys will go to whatever level is necessary to try and "prove" that solar isn't feasible. Work for Exxon or something? Well, since the effective lifetime of my panels is about 50 years, in 2052 I will worry about disposing of them. In the mean time, they have eliminated who knows how many pounds or tons of other, known harmful, pollutants from being sent into the atmosphere.
I've never had a car that was as much fun to drive as the EV1. They were outstanding vehicles, with excellent handling and performance. Everyone who ever rode in my car got out with a broad smile. The EV1 handily demolished the myth of the electric car as slow and impractical. Its 100-125 mile range was more than enough for my needs. I never had to go to a gas station except occasionally to top off the tires.
I even believed, for a time, that GM wanted the EV1 to succeed. But it became increasingly obvious that, despite the slick brochures and the marketing propaganda, their hearts were never in it. They'd been under pressure for years to put EVs on the road, so the EV1 became their cynical "Final Solution" to that annoying California EV mandate.
GM was taken aback by the strong response to this vehicle. They had expected and planned for a flop. They only made a few hundred in each model year, claiming that they could always make more if demand warranted. But even after the existing EV1s quickly sold out and long waiting lists formed, no more EV1s were forthcoming. Instead, they repeatedly told the California Air Resources Board (CARB), with straight faces, that there was simply no public demand for electric vehicles. Each time they said this, they were greeted with laughter and guffaws by the hundreds of EV1 enthusiasts who drove to Sacramento just for the hearings.
But GM still won. Dangling the far-off promise of fuel cells as bait, they quickly closed down the EV1 program and took cars away from hundreds of satisfied customers who would have gladly bought them. Have you noticed that we haven't heard much about fuel cells lately? That's because, as far as GM and the other automakers were concerned, fuel cells have already served their purpose -- getting rid of the ZEV mandate.
GM's action in pulling the EV1 off the market is utterly inexcusable. I will never again buy or lease a GM vehicle. This isn't much of a sacrifice on my part, as no other GM car has ever excited me very much.
The Toyota Prius HSD uses 4.4 litres per 100 kilometres travelled, which translates to 53.46 miles per gallon, and expels 106 grams of CO2 per kilometre travelled.
Toyota Echo models with manual transmission consume about 5.8L/100km, or 40.55MPG, and expel CO2 at a rate of 138g/km. Automatic models consume about 6.5L/100km, or 36.17MPG, and expel CO2 at a rate of 156g/km. (I listed both, since you didn't specify whether your car was a manual or an auto; in general, autos use more fuel than manuals.)
By those figures, your Echo is using up between 31% and 48% more fuel than a Prius, and spitting out 30%-48% more CO2.
However, most Prius owners don't attain the fuel consumption level on the sticker. Courtesy of http://www.greenhybrid.com/, it's more realistic to say that the Prius gets about 4.9L/100km, or 48MPG. Furthermore, the CO2 emissions scale steadily with the amount of fuel used up, so it's probably emitting closer to 120g/km of CO2. This makes the comparison a bit better for the Echo, but it still uses 18%-33% more fuel and emits 15%-30% more CO2 - and it's a much smaller car than the Prius.
Though people don't achieve the standard measurement of fuel consumption on average, a conservative driver can beat the fuel consumption measurement on the sticker in just about any car. I have a Nissan Pulsar that was listed at 7.4L/100km (just under 32MPG), but I consistently get around 6.7L/100km (just over 35MPG) - about 10% better than the sticker.
Petrol-electric hybrids aren't a bust, as such, and the technology is improving. Daihatsu have a hybrid in the works that goes 60-70km on a litre of petrol - up to 1.4L/100km, or 170MPG. For the moment, hybrid cars are still superficial: they make a statement about the environment and about the future, but they're hideously expensive and they don't pay for themselves. You'd be better off buying a small car with decent fuel economy, and joining a tree-planting campaign.
Consider this, though: it is estimated that the construction of a typical car consumes 25-50 barrels of oil and pollutes 120,000 gallons (450,000 litres) of water. If you were really concerned about the environment, you probably wouldn't have a car at all.
Attack its weak point for massive damage!
...legal system is so far gone from any sense of sanity or morality...
A small change would fix a lot of it: Prevent the pay of a lawyer being in any way related to the outcome of the case or the amount of money at stake. Pay lawyers ONLY for their time actually worked, using a time clock, like millions of ordinary workers. It would cut down on frivolous litigation, but if someone with little or no money had a good case, their lawyer and the defendants lawyers would get their wages from the loser like any ordinary worker does for the documented time spent. No lawyer would pocket a huge percentage of the amount settled for or decreed by the courts.
Also, lawyers should be allowed to or even compelled to advertise their rates and compete with each other like other businesses. Of course since many, if not most legislators are in some way connected to the legal profession, legal reform will never take place as long as these polititians have anything to say about it. What the people may want is totally unimportant to those incumbents. A revolution at the ballot box may change the legal system. As long as we the people vote for these same, often bought and paid for elected politicians again and again, there will definitely be no reform.
All theory is gray
Not only that but they couldn't possibly get insurance on a vehicle who's brakes can not be replaced due to the part not being available.
Ford doesn't make replacement brakes for model T's, either. Yet people still collect, own, and yes even in some circumstances drive them.
Because there are collectors, there is a market, and *someone* makes replacement parts, even if it's a machinist down the block making them custom.
The EV1 would have made a fantastic collectible, even if it wasn't licensable as a primary driving vehicle. No court in this country would have listened to a collector trying to sue GM after his unlicensed EV1's brakes failed. GM could easily have sold them off to collectors at the very least.
Someone would have been willing to make custom replacement parts (even computerized ones) for collector's EV1's, because their existence would have made a market for it.
GM's argument is a red herring - they explicitly wanted the cars to disappear, and they aren't saying why.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.