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."

26 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 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. 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!"
    7. 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.
  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.

  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. 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?
  7. 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).

  8. 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?
  9. 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/

  10. 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.
  11. 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.

  12. 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

  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. 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.