Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

General Motor's EV1 Electric Cars Scrapped

Posted by timothy on from the bye-bye dept.

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."

47 of 829 comments (clear)

  1. What you don't see can't hurt you? by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yes, it's sad to see a symbolic engineering marvel like the EV1 go, but all this does is shift the pollution elsewhere. Not to mention not being very practical at all.

    See here for energy densities of various materials.

    Could there be a reason that gasoline is the energy storage mechanism of choice for vehicles?

    Why not concentrate on GM's current hybrid timeline, or on vehicles that are actually useful and that normal people might buy, like GM's 2007 GMT-900 platform (Tahoe/Suburban/Yukon/Yukon XL/Escalade) which will have a strong hybrid option, with a standard 5.7L Vortec V8, but with Displacement on Demand, disabling 2 or 4 cylinders as conditions permit, and featuring two 30kW electric motors housed in the standard Hydramatic transmission case that doesn't require major resigns and retooling entire truck production lines for use, but still yielding up to a 40% mileage improvement, instead of making ugly little cars on which it is apparently mandatory to have the rear wheelwells covered like hearses?

    1. Re:What you don't see can't hurt you? by lachlan76 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because at some point we WILL run out of oil.

    2. Re:What you don't see can't hurt you? by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Because at some point we WILL run out of oil.

      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.

    3. Re:What you don't see can't hurt you? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
    4. Re:What you don't see can't hurt you? by cmowire · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    5. Re:What you don't see can't hurt you? by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:What you don't see can't hurt you? by rainman_bc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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
    7. Re:What you don't see can't hurt you? by La0tsu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      '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).

    8. Re:What you don't see can't hurt you? by Retric · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Solar cells work they produce way more energy over their lifetime than it takes to make them. But there are other methods of generating energy from solar power that are much cheaper. One simple method is to use a solar collector to heat water then either use that water directly to say heat a house or use it to generate electricity. Another is to have a tracking solar collector to magnify the amount of light hitting your solar cell thus giving you 10x the energy from that solar cell over it's life time with the cost of some cheep plastic lenses.

      As to fusion it's really only 30-50 billion$ away from production use. We are just not putting that much money into research. In 2000 there was a plan to create a 1500MW fusion power plant by 2020 but it was scraped to cost's. We could easily make a fusion power plant the only real problem is lack of funding. It would take about 5 billion a year for 20 years, which is really a tiny fraction of our GDP, but hey 20 years is way to long for most people to think about.

      PS: There is still some hope on this one look into ITER which is one of those you want one in Japan and you want one if France... I say fine let's build two and stop #^$&ing around.

    9. Re:What you don't see can't hurt you? by truthsearch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
    10. Re:What you don't see can't hurt you? by jnaujok · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hydro; a clean, infinitely renewable resouce.

      Sorry, but hydro is not "infinitely renewable" as it is really just an expression of solar energy. Riverbeds move, climate changes, and reservoirs fill with sediment. Second, we have already dammed something like 50% of all the available waterways for power to produce something like 7% of all the needed energy on the planet. What are we going to do to get to 100%? Additionally, damming rivers is devastating to the downstream environment. 200 years ago the Colorado River drained into the sea of Baja, now it just dries up somewhere in Arizona...

      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. So your "clean" energy source is worse for the environment than a filth-belching coal plant. Congratulations.

      Me, I'd rather have a nuke plant...

      --
      Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
    11. Re:What you don't see can't hurt you? by flyingsquid · · Score: 3, Funny
      SO you are taking energy out of the wind.......and what happens to the winds?

      We use the power generated to drive HUMONGOUS fans to blow air and keep the wind going. Problem solved!

    12. Re:What you don't see can't hurt you? by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 4, Informative
      While it is true that the old, rapidly spinning windmills kill a lot of birds, the newer large and slow-moving wind turbines are easily avoided by our avian friends. Costs keep coming down with new technology and larger production runs of specific designs. Wind power is getting considerably cheaper. Nuclear could be, but we need to scrap the antiquated light-water designs were using in favor of simpler ones like the sodium-cooled fast breeders, or the gas-cooled ones the Chinese are building.

      I like the Integral Fast Breeder design, which could be the closest we get to safe, unlimited, and abundant energy for a long time. But it needs to be demonstrated in well-publicized tests and aggressively marketed to a public that is ignorant of physics. Then it needs to be mass-produced to make it cheap.

      But before any of this happens, it has to get funding. The IFBR got the last of it's funding pulled in 1996, even though there was an example operating in Idaho.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
    13. Re:What you don't see can't hurt you? by amliebsch · · Score: 4, Informative
      Well, let's see. 2002 fossil fuel energy consumption appears to be 56.915 quadrillion BTU's.

      http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0102.html

      That's about 6.00485039 × 10^19 Joules. Let's be generous and assume a very high 5 kw-Hr/m^2 solar intensity over our land mass, and a very generous collection/Hydrogen conversion efficiency of 20%, in effect yielding 1 kw-Hr/m^2 in hydrogen. 1 kilowatt hour = 3 600 000 Joules, and we need to produce 6.00485039 × 10^19 Joules, so that works out to be 1.668014 × 10^13 kilowatt hours that we need to produce in a year. A production rate of 1 kw-hr/day = 365.25 kw-hr/year, so we need 4.56990137 × 10^10 m^2 to generate the same number of kw-hrs in the same year, or 17,644.4878 square miles. Delaware is 2,489 square miles. Now, Arizona is the sixth largest state, so it looks like this facility could still rest entirely in its borders. But I think you can see why this is not an even remotely cost-effective solution.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    14. Re:What you don't see can't hurt you? by Master+Bait · · Score: 3, Informative

      To produce enough nuclear power to equal the power we currently get from fossil fuels, you would have to build 10,000 of the largest possible nuclear power plants.

      --
      "Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
      --Tom Schulman
  2. NPR by blackmonday · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Search NPR.org for an interesting article. According to GM, there where only 50 people committed to buying an EV1. That didn't stop environmentalists from chaining themselves to the last enclave of EV1s in Burbank, CA.

    My neighbor drives a very nice Honda Insight (Hybrid). Seems like a lot less hassle than an electric-only vehicle, until hydrogen (or the next big thing) comes along.

  3. Hybrids replaced electric cars by acomj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Hybrids replaced electric cars by n1ywb · · Score: 3, Interesting
      You get BETTER range and BETTER milage in CITY conditions. They electric system is only beneficial during acceleration, so it's great in stop and go traffic. Cruising on the highway it provides no benefit, in fact the extra weight reduces your mileage slightly. People don't understand that and that's why some people have been whining that their hybrids don't get the mileage they expected. If you do mostly highway cruising you really are better off with a normal, fuel efficient gasoline vehicle.

      Of course on the highways here in the NYC area, and in most metro areas, stop and go is the rule.

      --
      -73, de n1ywb
      www.n1ywb.com
    2. Re:Hybrids replaced electric cars by FencingGerbil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      OK. Cars convert gasoline to energy in the neighborhood of 17% efficiency after all things like wind, friction, heat loss, and whatnot are taken into effect.

      Power plants are 50-70% efficient in converting dinosaur bits into energy. Much is lost over the wire, being stored in batteries, and being transmitted back out. It's probably a wash for efficiency.

      Cars, however, have MANY fewer restrictions on what they can belch out per watt of work generated. Cars pollute everywhere they go. Changing pollution levels on cars involves hundreds of millions of source points for pollution. SUVs get around most of those restrictions by being classified as trucks or other categories (6000lb plus vehicles like the Escalade get around a lot of pollution laws).

      Centrally generated electricity is cleaner (not clean but cleaner) by orders of magnitude than burning it at the point where it's going to be used. Not only that but central power plants can be placed in poor neighborhoods where most of us never have to see the pollution and those that do don't vote.

      Hybrids are better than nothing but it's just plain lazy to sit and say that it's all we need to research/do.

    3. Re:Hybrids replaced electric cars by huge+colin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The gas-electric hybrid sounds good, until one realizes that they're heavier, more complex, and therefore substantially more expensive than an equivalent gasoline-engined car.

      If you want great gas mileage, diesels are unbeaten. Driving normally, [British motoring journalist] Jeremy Clarkson got 75mpg out of a Volkswagen Lupo diesel.

      The hybrid-engine cars of today are a silly fad.

  4. Muted Protests? by 14erCleaner · · Score: 5, Funny

    The protests would have been better-attended, but many of the protesters were hospitalized for heat exhaustion while trying to bicycle to the desert site.

    --
    Have you read my blog lately?
  5. I drove one. by MrLogic17 · · Score: 5, Informative
    The feel of it is really just a 2 seater Geo Metro running on batteries. Granted, there was a lot of cool ideas (no key, just a password to get in, and a "run" push button on the dash), but EV1's are *not* ready for prime time.


    I took one for a spin at a GM proving grounds, and floored it from every stop sign. After about 10 minutes, a fully changed car was almost dead. A kick to drive, but I'd never buy one.


    There's a reason GM didn't sell them, and chose to only lease them. GM knew they were just a big experiment, and had no intention of supporting pre-first generation EV parts for the Federally mandiated period of time (5 years?).


    -MrLogic

  6. I wish by WormholeFiend · · Score: 3, Funny

    I wish people would focus on real problems, like installing an artificial engine noise maker on a silent fuel-cell motorcycle.

  7. Eradication Fascination by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I have always pondered human's fascination with things either going extinct or being completely destroyed. Has anyone here really given a thought about the EV-1 in the last few years? Would you have even noticed their dissappearance without a /. story? Yet, because now we know that they are on the verge of compelte destruction, they somehow have a higher value than they did when they were sitting around- but not about to be destroyed.

    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?
  8. Re:No surprise, this. by lpangelrob2 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    No it's not. They made the electric cars. No one was interested in something that plugs in... which apparently has such a negative connotation that Toyota specifically advertised on their Super Bowl commercial for the Prius that you don't have to "plug in" their car into the wall. (In spite of the fact that other Prius owners are modifying their batteries so that they can plug it in, which to me seems pointless and a waste of resources.)

    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!
  9. What you choose to ignore can hurt you... by podperson · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hydrides currently achieve volumetric energy densities 50% better than liquid hydrogen (and safer than gasoline). There's no mention of this on the page you've linked -- but then the writer clearly has a pro-gasoline axe to grind.

    There's no question that gasoline is the most convenient vehicle fuel available right now, but it's stupid not to look for alternatives -- including more fuel-efficient gasoline-powered vehicles, hybrids, and electric cars (of various kinds).

  10. To heck with hybrid/electric ... by La0tsu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let's get on with diesel. Why?

    1) Better efficiency than gasoline

    2) Longer engine life

    3) Diesel fuel can be produced from non-fossil sources such as soy and corn (even hogfat!)

    But aren't diesel engines dirty, you might ask? Not inherently. The problem is the quality of the fuel, specifically the level of sulfur. Here in the States, in less than a year the standard will reduce that nasty impurity by huge amount.

    A whole lot of goodness, no? Plus, it is a way for our struggling farmers to increase demand for their products.

    For more info:
    http://www.biodiesel.org/

    1. Re:To heck with hybrid/electric ... by djbentle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:To heck with hybrid/electric ... by QuantumRiff · · Score: 5, Interesting
      They have these, they are called Locomotives. Check out Howstuffworks.com's article on locomotives. The big (okay HUGE) diesel engine goes between 300-900 rpm, all it does is power a generator, that runs an electric motor on each axle. Instant tourqe, lots of power, regenerative braking, and no big, heavy, nasty to work on transmission.. (the article talks about a transmission strong enough for a locomotive to get up to over a 100Mph would require a 32 speed transmission that would weigh twice as much as the locomotive)

      Why can the train companies develop these huge, fuel efficient engines decades ago, but we can't seem to learn any lessons from these and apply them to cars.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    3. Re:To heck with hybrid/electric ... by fred+fleenblat · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are right, they are not mutually exclusive at all. However, there are some minor technical issues that meant that gas-electric hybrids got developed first.

      The main reason is that the torque curves for gas and electric motors are complementary. Electric motors produce maximum torque at (or near) 0 RPM. Gas motors produce maximum torque far higher. It depends on the engine, but a typical four banger that gets used in a hybrid may have max torque up around 4000RPM. Diesels produce their highest torque lower, around 1500RPM. So what happens in a hybrid is that you step on the gas and get a rush from the electric motor, then the diesel gives its max torque soon after, then...nothing, they both peter out and you have to shift early and often to compensate.

      Another issue is that in a couple of cases, hybrid vehicles were developed with a CVT (continuously variable transmission). Again, the torque presents a problem. CVT's of a given size can only handle so much torque at once. If the electric motor and the diesel are both producing a lot of torque at the same time, you'd have to provide a larger, heavier CVT to accomodate.

      Finally, hybrids gained a lot of popularity for environmental reasons. This made them popular in "green" places like California. Unfortunately, CA has strict emissions standards and currently very few diesel passenger car engines meet these standards. A hybrid vehicle that cannot be sold in CA would limit its success drastically. As low-sulfur fuel is phased in, this might change.

      None of these are reasons that diesel-electric hybrids could not be brought to market, but together they added up to a "not yet" decision pm the part of automakers.

  11. Photos of the carnage (pun intended) by JonTurner · · Score: 4, Informative

    >>Won't somebody think of the CARS!!!
    I can understand some of GMs thinking, especially the part about litigation, but it seems a waste to crush so many perfectly usable automobiles.

    Before and after photos of at least 60 EV1s being crushed: http://ev1-club.power.net/

    1. Re:Photos of the carnage (pun intended) by iamhassi · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "I can understand some of GMs thinking, especially the part about litigation, but it seems a waste to crush so many perfectly usable automobiles."

      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
  12. Re:No surprise, this. by einTier · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Car and Driver had an excellent article about these cars a few years back.

    Basically, people were paying $525 a month to lease a car that cost nearly 1.5 million each to build. Small wonder they liked them, and small wonder that GM scrapped them.

    --
    -------------------------------------------------- $665.95 -- retail price of the beast.
  13. Let the anti-bush and anti-oil love fest begin.... by Ghostx13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  14. Re:AAAaaah by WormholeFiend · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  15. What's wrong with hybrid/electric? by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  16. Re:Another idea for disposal by R2.0 · · Score: 3, Informative

    2 words: Attractive Nuisance.

    It is the same legal principle that allows one to be sued for a drowning of a stranger in their swimming pool, when the stranger was trespassing to begin with.

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  17. That old wive's tale AGAIN? by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 4, Informative
    Solar cells take almost as much energy to make as they put out over their lifetime.
    Try some payback figures from last year
    • Multicrystalline: 3.7 years
    • Thin film: 3.0 years
    • Multicrystalline, anticipated: 2.1 years
    • Thin film, anticipated: 1.1 years
    Warranty on today's PV panels is typically 25 years, and panels can be expected to go on producing well beyond the warranty period.
    --

    Sustainability and energy independence essay
  18. Stupidity can be painful, too. by abb3w · · Score: 3, Insightful
    and then figure that we'll eventually come to terms with there being no good alternatives to nuclear.

    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.
  19. yes and no by phyruxus · · Score: 3, Insightful
    >>we will NEVER run out of oil.

    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
  20. Parts liabilitt by husker_man · · Score: 5, Informative
    These cards didn't need to be destroyed.


    Actually, yes they did. The problem that GM has is that, if a car is on the road, they are required to provide spare parts (either by manufacturing them or providing diagrams for third-party manufacturers) for those cars for 10 years past the date of building that particular vehicle. In other words, GM would have to come up with suppliers (or themselves) for parts for these cars until at least 2009, and with the problem of the suppliers not being willing to make those parts, it puts GM into a bad situation.

    GM was fortunate in that, with these cars only being leased to customers, they could pull them off the roads and thus limit their liability. I would love to own one of these vehicles myself, but I can understand GM's position.

    Disclosure: I used to work for GM, and work for one of their automotive suppliers now, so I do know a little about what goes into these types of decisions.
  21. The wheel of politics by Syncdata · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  22. Best product we ever owned by EV1+Driver · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  23. I'll never buy another GM car by Phil+Karn · · Score: 3, Insightful
    From 1998 until 2003 I was the very satisfied driver of two GM EV1s: a 1997 lead-acid model and then a 1999 NiMH model. I lost my first car in the 2000 recall, and the second when my lease ended in August 2003. When I turned my car back in, I felt as though I had just euthanized a young and perfectly healthy family pet at the vet.

    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.

  24. some CO2 numbers by roesti · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Here are some figures from the Australian government's Green Vehicle Guide. These are the results of a standard test and are shown on a sticker on the windscreen on new cars in Australia.

    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!
  25. That's a BS argument by IdahoEv · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  26. Re:Toyota Prius Fuel Economy by NuShrike · · Score: 4, Informative

    Goto some Prius enthusiast sites, or this specific page and you'll find there something called warp stealth.

    If the battery is topped off, you're coasting, and you're not going uphill, the gas engine will just spin without being fed gasoline.

    Plus, technology like regenerative braking, regenerative motion (charges battery when coasting), the fact that the gas engine's output is ALWAYS split 70% (drive wheels) / 30% feed electric motor/generator, this higher efficiency setup gives you the better mileage.

    You're not using extra energy to charge the batteries. You're just using the excess gas engine energy to charge when driving at a constant speed. How much HP do you need to beat down wind-resistance?

    I drive ~75mph and I routinely get 47mph on the highway - and I'm just breaking it in! In high traffic situations (stop & go) which resemble city driving, I've gotten 51mpg so far; so traffic is a GOOD thing. :)

    EPA's posted numbers are not realworld numbers, but EPA is inaccurate for EVERY car out there. Consider that.

    AND, don't forget emissions - even if Echo gets comparable mpg, it's not a AT-PZEV vehicle where the air coming out is basically cleaner than the dirty city air going in. This is vastly more important than mpg if you care about your health longterm.