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."
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.
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.
So GM scrapped them. That was probably unfortunate for the company, as people no longer are buying GM's trucks and SUVs, which they made the highest profits off of... and people aren't buying them thanks to Big Oil's Big Prices.
It's okay... I look forward to the next innovations from Honda and Toyota... and I never considered buying American automobiles anyway. The world hasn't really changed.
-Rob
Marriage doesn't have to suck!
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.
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.
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.
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
'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).
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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!
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.