Hey all,

Alrighty, so thanks to wired.com, I see that upwards of thirty-five thousand people want a Chevy Volt when it comes out. Cool beans. I'm all for the electric car.

However, I have a bit of a beef with GM and any company that is a subsidiary of GM; back in the 1994, GM bought the patent rights for the EV-95 NiMH battery, then in 2000 sold those rights to [Chevron-]Texaco.

In 1997, the Toyota RAV4-EV, using said EV-95 battery, had a range of approximately 120 miles. An SUV--a vehicle so large that, as one of my professors likes to put it, "it can be seen from space"--one of the most notoriously fuel-inefficient vehicle types ever made, could get 120 miles per charge. More than a decade ago. Immediately after obtaining the patent rights, Chevron-Texaco forbade the production of NiMH batteries large enough to power a vehicle and sued Toyota and Panasonic for patent infringement (don't ask me how Chevron-Texaco got $30 million in damages for a technology that they hadn't yet sealed and that had only been employed in fewer than 1600 vehicles, but they did...whatever). Since then, several companies have developed other electric cars, but due to the limitations in battery technology, these vehicles have all had ranges of around 30-50 miles per charge.

So, in ten years of technological advancement, we have still not surpassed the NiMH battery technology. So, in my view, Chevron-Texaco has stymied human technological advancement in the name of profit. I don't mind profit. Everyone has to feed their kids, Chevron-Texaco employs about 65 thousand people, and even I can't argue with the desire to have a really nice house. But to hold back humanity? That I take great issue with.

And GM helped them do it.

The way I see it, we could have had viable electric cars and the beginnings of the infrastructure necessary to support them years ago. Maybe not ten years ago, but when gas started to skyrocket in early 2003, I'm willing to bet that we could have had electric sedans in mass production by major manufactures by 2006, with the NiMH batteries advanced along the way. Or, with this technology as a viable alternative, gas demand would have dropped and gas prices would not have risen so sharply.

But we don't, and gas prices did skyrocket, and GM had a hand in it. GM betrayed us.

So I pose this query to you: why, knowing all of this, should I support GM and its subsidiaries by purchasing their vehicle in two years? Seriously, I'm not trying to be a troll. I believe I have good reason to boycott GM for the rest of my life and influence others to do the same. I believe that a company that thwarts progress should be smitten from the market, forever. I believe that we, as the consumers, have the power to influence manufacturers to produce what we want to buy, not what we have no choice other than to buy.

I am willing to accept, however, that there may be good reasons to set this aside, to let bygones be bygones. Perhaps the executives responsible for the EV-95 fiasco have been 'retired' and the new management is reforming to give us what we want. Perhaps GM has produced an electric vehicle that surpasses any other potential competitor by far. Perhaps the new Volt's battery is superior to the EV-95 already and I just don't know it. These and other arguments are possible, but I don't know.

I've said my part. I want to hear what others have to say, both in support of as well as in opposition to GM.

Luke

First off, the "SUV" you're talking about ('97 RAV4) weighed over 200 lb less in gasoline form than an '09 Corolla (the automatic 2WD 1997 RAV4 weighed less then 2500 lb.) It's not the "see-it-from-space" type of SUV people get all lathered up about these days.

You'll find PLENTY of people on this board who want Chevron corporate officers heads on poles in front of the city gates, but it's just not going to happen. I'm not so easily convinced that their only motivation was to protect Big Oil, because of course they'd stand to make big money if companies were buying their NiMH batteries or licensing the technology. Maybe they're too dumb to think outside the oil market, maybe there were politics involved, or MAYBE it wasn't economically viable in 1997 to manufacture the batteries and sell them for passenger cars. 11 years later, they're tossing around numbers like $10k for the cost of the battery back in the Volt, that has less capacity than the one in the RAV4EV and less all-electric range than the last-gen (NiMH-equipped) EV1. I've seen people bandy about an $80k-per-car figure for the cost to build the EV1 in the '90s... I have no idea if that's a realistic number but it's certainly not a good number for a short-range 2-seater. I'm guessing it costs at LEAST $80k per unit to build a Tesla, since they're selling it at $100k per. It has only a little more range than the RAV4EV and only 2 seats.

I think the Volt is an outstanding effort, and I want to see it succeed. I don't think things were quite as rosy in the days of the EV1 as some True Believers do, but I do think that over a decade they'd have made quite a good, economically-viable car if they'd kept at it.

A good insightful question! Why buy from GM indeed!! I think the short answer is because they are the only ones with the corporate size and muscle to pursue this initiative at this time. The Volt is a great idea and if they build it, I will buy it. But, will they build it? And, if they do, will it ever be worthwhile to buy one?
I offer the example of our own Zenn car (Google it!). I am a Canadian and here we have a very interesting electric car that is ready to go at the present time. Will any of our governments (local, provincial or federal) allow it to be operated on the public roadways? Not that I can see so far (although a couple of States are ok with it!) I could run all of my local errands and drive to work every day in this vehicle. Zero emissions and little cost. But there is no political will to see it happen. Why? You can guess the obvious lobby type reasons. But more profound to me is the fact that on every liter of gas we pump there is a significant gas tax component. I'm not sure whether or not that is the case in the States but it sure seems like we have a serious conflict of interest here in Canada.
I wish those behind the Volt the best of luck. As I said, if it's produced I'll be the first to buy one (and I currently own a Vette , Sierra and Jeep) and you should buy one too because GM will have had to overcome a lot of hurdles (the least of which I suspect is the technology)! But I cant get too worked up about it quite yet!!
DG

In 1997, the Toyota RAV4-EV, using said EV-95 battery, had a range of approximately 120 miles. An SUV--a vehicle so large that, as one of my professors likes to put it, "it can be seen from space"

Uhhhh no. Not even close.

Uhhhh no. Not even close.

Look it up yourself. He was exaggerating on the size of the RAV4 but the 120 mile range is easily achievable with careful driving. The battery pack that accomplished that took up at most 10% of the space under the hood. With mass production the cost of electric vehicles would have plummeted like you wouldn't believe. And before any of you start let me point out that the RAV4EV NiMH battery did NOT need any cooling apparatus and lasts at least 100,000 miles. Not bad at all for a first run low-volume experimental car.

It better last 100k miles. It'd be worthless if it didn't.

It better last 100k miles. It'd be worthless if it didn't.

GM likes to pretend that batteries can't be used for electric cars because they need replacing every few years. That simply isn't true when you look at the RAV4EV.

GearheadGeek (http://gm-volt.com/forum/member.php?u=1957) said:

I'm not so easily convinced that their only motivation was to protect Big Oil, because of course they'd stand to make big money if companies were buying their NiMH batteries or licensing the technology. Maybe they're too dumb to think outside the oil market, maybe there were politics involved, or MAYBE it wasn't economically viable in 1997 to manufacture the batteries and sell them for passenger cars.If the above quote is true then why sue Toyota to STOP usage.



Julian Tempest (http://gm-volt.com/forum/member.php?u=1988) said:

Chevron-Texaco forbade the production of NiMH batteries large enough to power a vehicle and sued Toyota and Panasonic for patent infringement (don't ask me how Chevron-Texaco got $30 million in damages for a technology that they hadn't yet sealed and that had only been employed in fewer than 1600 vehicles, but they did...whatever)Julian, GM was not the only automaker that participated in the suppression of electric cars. Sorry I don't have the links, GM, Toyota, Ford and others complied with the California C.A.R.B mandates and built electrics which after the automakers sued to remove C.A.R.B requirements destroyed their vehicles, only a few still survive. The survivors like the RAV4e prove the technology was viable. If you haven't seen "Who Killed the Electric Car", please do. There are a lot of detractors on the web that said the EV1 was junk. The first generation EV1 with lead-acid, I agree would be very limited. The second generation EV1 with NiMH batteries would totally satisfy my daily need for transportation. But, alas, GM destroyed most of the EV1s and immobilized the rest.

Here's a link reviewing how the EV1 performed with NiMH batteries.
http://www.ev1.pair.com/charge_across_america/charge_html/nimh_test2.html (http://www.ev1.pair.com/charge_across_america/charge_html/nimh_test2.html)

Here's a link to a government report on specifications/review of the EV1 with NiMH batteries.
http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/eva/ev1_eva.pdf (http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/eva/ev1_eva.pdf)

A government, Electric and Hybrid Vehicle testing report. EV1 (NiMH) comes out great on driving range.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/avta/pdfs/prog_info/2002_01_1916finalreport.pdf

One detractor said the EV1 couldn't be sold because it wasn't crash tested. False.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-50325069.html

GM knows how to build great electric cars. When watching "Who Killed the Electric Car" it appeared that part of GM truely was trying to build the best electric car they could. The other part of GM was trying their hardest to kill the C.A.R.B mandates then get rid of the cars and supress the advanced and proven NiMH battery technology. Totally wacked out company. They're still suffering from their bad choices today.

As you stated GM sold the NiMH technology to an oil company. It would seem the oil company is strangling the battery division so that poor quality batteries are leaving the plant.


GM discovered an internal leak in the nickel-metal hydride batteries that Cobasys made for GM's 2007 model hybrids. The leak caused the hybrid powertrain to shut down. The vehicles could still be driven, but not with the hybrid system.

The vehicles affected were the 2007 Saturn Vue Green Line and Saturn Aura Green Line hybrids. A GM spokesman says the company recalled about 9,000 vehicles to replace battery packs. That slowed the launch of the 2008 Saturn hybrids and the new Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid. http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080602/FREE/378723383/1530/FREE

An oil company should not own any company researching/developing/producing electrical energy storage devices. Conflict of interest, big time.

So to your question why buy from EV-95 sell outs? I feel GM can create a really good EV, they say the Volt will be sold in 2010. There may be a large number of people out there that feel as I do by saying "I will not buy a new car until that car is a highway capable electric." That's pressure on GM and any other automaker. They survive on new car sales. Build the car and I'll buy it. Isn't that better than killing the company? Our purchasing behavior will change their building behavior.

The electric car of the 90's was never a money maker for any auto company. Batteries were and still are way too expensive to rely on for extended range. Despite its limited availability during the late 90's and early 00's, the electric car was never anything more than a public relations gimmick and a means to comply with state laws. I wish people would realize this. Range costs money, it's very simple. EVs with 120 mile range cost $80,000 to make. Why did we see EVs back then with such long range, but only see 40 mile range today? Because the car is being built for serious volume sales, not for PR or legal reasons. If you are paying $35,000, you are going to get $35,000 worth of a car. This isn't the 90's where you get a $80,000 EV with lease payments constructed around a $30,000 price tag. So range costs money, and you are now going to get what you pay for.

There is no patent suppression of EV-95. Cobasys will accept large orders of the battery, yet there have been no such orders. Why? Because there has been no auto company interested in placing the orders. Why? Because there has been no demand for electric cars until now. But we'll see. 2015 is when the patent on EV-95 dies. By the OPs predictions, factories will start pumping out EV-95 format NiMH batteries once again, because it is now in public domain. But that won't happen. Why? Because...

NiMH as a battery is pretty much DEAD. Li-ion is superior in nearly every way. Why don't we see NiMH in cell phones, laptops, cameras, etc...? Because Li-ion is getting cheaper and it's far superior. The argument that they haven't been proven in EVs is BS. AC Propulsion has been using small format Li-ion for years, and now we have Tesla joining. GM will be the first to use large format Lithium batteries in a large volume application, but even they have admitted that their testing so far is proving the packs are better than they anticipated. When NiMH first came to the EV scene, it too was unproven. Give new technology a chance.

So why will I buy a Volt from an EV-95 sellout like GM? Because it's a cool car and I want one. People need to get over the EV1 era. If they really want to see the electrification of the automobile, they will stand behind companies like GM now that they are releasing a car ALL ON THEIR OWN, not because some state is forcing them to, but because they see a chance to make money on a car that has a lot of demand. Let's let capitalism have its try.

Kubel said:

There is no patent suppression of EV-95.There are a lot of people who believe otherwise. I really want to know the truth. Would you please contact Panasonic or Cobasys and post the information on what product number and cost the ev-95 packs can be acquired for. It would likely help existing RAV4e owners when they need battery pack replacement. It would be a great help for the people wanting to convert standard cars to electric. Choice is good. Please let us know.


But what about the people who build batteries and electric vehicles? Nobody at Cobasys, the company who officially owns the large-format NiMH battery patents, responded to my request for an interview. http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1198


GM and Chevron collaborated with Toyota-Panasonic in such a way that these batteries were killed, and no such NiMH batteries are available for EVs. Chevron, awash in oil profits, assets and cash reserves, claims that "it's a chicken and egg problem" of "no demand", but that does not explain why they sued Panasonic, extracting $30,000,000. Shortly thereafter, the EV-95 line of proven, NiMH batteries still running in the RAV4-EV was shut down and killed, and the batteries cannot be sold or imported into the USA, according to one Toyota spokesperson. Only a few used EV-95, salvaged from crushed vehicles, are available, and those only for warranty replacement on existing RAV4-EV. Toyota won't sell even these used batteries to EV converters, who need long-lasting, reliable batteries and can't get them.

"A senior Chevron executive was quoted off-the-record as saying that Chevron was determined not to go down the BEV path again and never to let that happen again in the automotive industry, at least not with NiMH batteries." Chevron, by virtue of its purchase, apparently wants cars to be powered by gasoline and not by NiMH batteries large enough to drive cars from electric plug-in power. Chevron's unit that controls the patents, cobasys, refuses to sell their version of the battery unless, they say, they get "a large OEM order". Apparently, they also refuse to let anyone else sell it, either http://ev1.org/chevron.htm#p4

Kubel said:

Because there has been no demand for electric cars until now. But we'll see. 2015 is when the patent on EV-95 dies.No demand? I want an electric, have for years. The auto companies resist it for their own business income reasons (hint: no service income, and long life = low car replacement). How convenient for the oil and resistant auto companies to have a viable technology restricted until 2015. 1997 to 2015 that's 18 years of no chance for the electrics, no choice for me and billions in U.S. dollars going to foreign lands to purchase oil.

Kubel said:

People need to get over the EV1 era.Why study and discuss history? Because:

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana

GM likes to pretend that batteries can't be used for electric cars because they need replacing every few years. That simply isn't true when you look at the RAV4EV.

Is that why they're offering a 10 year warranty on the volt's battery? :D

LyleL,

There are only a few hundred EV-95 equipped vehicles out there today. Why in the world would a manufacturer allocate resources and manpower and open a plant and begin producing for a week just to satisfy the demand of a few dozen buyers? There's no money in low volume unless you charge an incredible amount of money for the packs.

And the lawsuit (settled) had to do with Toyota-Panasonic-Matsu****a making changes to the EV-95 batteries (patent infringement) for use in hybrids (the Prius, specifically). I love how people twist the facts of the case to make it sound like a conspiracy against pure BEVs. Manufacturers were completely uninterested in making pure BEVs because they weren't money makers. Again, look at Toyota, who the DAY AFTER the mandate was killed also killed their RAV4-EV program. So you say learn from history. I agree, just make sure you get your history right.

There are large-format NiMH alternatives to EV-95 (Electro Energy and Nilar makes them). EV conversions use them, mostly. But guess what? The EV hasn't sprung up because of their availability. It won't. People are using EV-95 as an excuse as to why people can't find EVs today. The reason you can't find EVs is because there isn't enough demand. Typical car manufacturers aren't going to manufacture cars that have low demand. Like I said, only low-demand, high-cost EVs are available (like the Roadster and ZENN NEVs or other overpriced golf carts). Range costs money. People want an EV that can take them 100MPH for 400 miles on a single charge and only cost $25,000. That won't happen! People just don't understand that there is very little demand for electric cars.

Take the EV1 for instance. After all the years it was out driving on the roads, they got a waiting list of... 5,000 people (most of whom had no real determination to buy the car). And when it came down to signing on the dotted line (as WKTEC explains), look how many people were willing to put their money where their mouth was- about 50. Even if they got all 5,000, that's not volume.

There are two ways a car can sell. You either mass produce it and sell it cheap to the masses. Or you produce limited quantities and sell it at luxury-prices. Selling a car because a law forces you to (EV1, RAV4-EV, etc...) is not how you do it. Selling a great car that a lot of people want to own is. That's where we are at today. Not a lot of people want electric cars, and those that do are shocked by the cost of batteries.

You and I may want an electric. But you and I aren't most people. That's what's so great about the Volt. It fills the low demand of those of us that want an EV despite its limitations, and also fills the demand of those that want an EV but were turned off from the fact that they are limited range cars and would need $100,000 to get long range otherwise. It also fills the demand of those that never even considered an EV but are now because it can fill up easily and fast just like a normal car, but can save them thousands at the gas pump.

So if you want to fault GM for the consumers failure to desire a car like the EV1 when gas prices were dirt cheap, go ahead. I'll take your spot in line for the Volt.

The general theme of this thread that Julian Tempest created was, why buy from a company that supresses technology. It still looks like supression to me.


Kubel said: There are only a few hundred EV-95 equipped vehicles out there today.
Exactly, and why is that? You said earlier it wasn't a money maker. Agreed. Please continue reading.


Kubel said: Why in the world would a manufacturer allocate resources and manpower and open a plant and begin producing for a week just to satisfy the demand of a few dozen buyers? There's no money in low volume unless you charge an incredible amount of money for the packs.

Could we not say, why in the world would any manufacturer allocate resources and manpower and open a plant and begin producing a few hundred cars with low demand?

* March 1997 - Toyota Hybrid System unveiled.
* December 1997 - first generation Prius launched for domestic Japanese market only (300 sales).
* November 2000 - cumulative sales for Prius top 50 000.

http://www.cbn.co.za/pressoffice/mccarthy_toyota/fullstory/682.htm

Note: They started with 300 sales, in November 2000 it was a cumulative sales total of 50,000. Not 50,000 per year it was a total production of 4 years from 1997 to 2000. oyota was eating a pretty large amount of development/production costs for such few sales. Doesn't sound profitable to me. To date, they sold 1 million, but it took 10 years to do it.

GM, Ford and Chrysler could have turned their electric programs in to hybrid/electrics. Why are the three domestics locked hip-to-hip in all of this. Aren't they suppose to be independent companies?

Here's one of GM's entries under President Clintons program Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV).


April 2000 General Motors Precept
Bearing a strong family resemblance to GM's EV1 electric, the five-passenger Precept is a diesel-electric prototype hybrid that parlays aerodynamic efficiency (0.16 drag coefficient) and low weight to achieve fuel economy in the 80-mpg range. The parallel hybrid system uses a direct-injection diesel to drive the rear wheels and a 35-kilowatt electric motor that turns the front wheels. GM also announced a fuel-cell version of the Precept. The Prodigy and the Precept are products of the federally promoted Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), aimed at producing a so-called supercar.
http://www.caranddriver.com/news/car_news/upfront_detroit_show_goes_over_the_top_car_news

The precept could have been a reworked EV1 with a diesel engine similar to the Volt concept. It could have happened almost 10 years ago. Here's a little history about the Partnership for New Generation of Vehicle.


Jan 2000, The PNGV (Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicle) program was started in 1993 with the idea of developing a production-ready, mid-size sedan by 2004 that can achieve 80mpg, while still meeting all of the other constraints provided by federal regulations, consumer preferences, performance and cost.
General Motors, Ford and DaimlerChrysler are all approaching this challenge in their own ways and elements of their work have been emerging slowly. However GM has just opened a sizeable window on its own PNGV concept. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FWH/is_1_112/ai_59282149

The program was started in 1993, why didn't GM and the other domestics, instead of wasting (shutting down) the resources already developed for the EV1 and other electric programs, not run with the hybrid idea. Toyota certainly was. Was that just a bad decision from, not one company but all three domestic companies?


Kubel said: So if you want to fault GM for the consumers failure to desire a car like the EV1 when gas prices were dirt cheap, go ahead. I'll take your spot in line for the Volt.
I fault GM in not progressing technology and what appears to be sand bagging it. Toyota moved forward, GM did not. Sorry, I'm not giving up my position in line just yet.

We may just have to agree to disagree. Too many events, extremely strange business decisions, myopic business vision etc. have occured to effectively squelch electrics to assume it was just market forces. GM will begin to clean its reputation if they deliver the Volt and progress with technology in a way that frees the consumer, not binding them to vehicle maintenance service costs or fuel distribution companies with the adoption of hydrogen cells. This is after all, just my opinion.

A good insightful question! Why buy from GM indeed!! I think the short answer is because they are the only ones with the corporate size and muscle to pursue this initiative at this time. The Volt is a great idea and if they build it, I will buy it. But, will they build it? And, if they do, will it ever be worthwhile to buy one?
I offer the example of our own Zenn car (Google it!). I am a Canadian and here we have a very interesting electric car that is ready to go at the present time. Will any of our governments (local, provincial or federal) allow it to be operated on the public roadways? Not that I can see so far (although a couple of States are ok with it!) I could run all of my local errands and drive to work every day in this vehicle. Zero emissions and little cost. But there is no political will to see it happen. Why? You can guess the obvious lobby type reasons. But more profound to me is the fact that on every liter of gas we pump there is a significant gas tax component. I'm not sure whether or not that is the case in the States but it sure seems like we have a serious conflict of interest here in Canada.
I wish those behind the Volt the best of luck. As I said, if it's produced I'll be the first to buy one (and I currently own a Vette , Sierra and Jeep) and you should buy one too because GM will have had to overcome a lot of hurdles (the least of which I suspect is the technology)! But I cant get too worked up about it quite yet!!
DG




I often wonder why people don't talk about this more. If you look at the facts it's got all the ingredients for a perfect conspiracy theory. Not only that, it's happening today! Canada simply refuses to allow these NEV on their roads.

We all like to think that the Canadians are so nice and people around the world all love Canadians but guess what... They have their priorities as well! They have a vested interest in fossil fuels and keeping the world on an oil addiction.

Work to reduce CO2 or help to keep the earth clean? Ha! The environmental disaster-in-the-making happening in Alberta is of epic proportions. Contrast that to their refusal to let one of their own companies survive by selling EVs. They choose to close their eyes and pretend they are doing the right thing. It might be the right thing for their budgets and their pocket books but it's not the right thing in terms of their environment. It’s definitely not the right thing in terms of the long-term sustainability of the world.

We are just as bad if not worse. The EV thing has a lot of these same elements. Many of the issues were indeed economical but some were political. People will be talking about this time in history till the end of time.

What we do know are the facts. These are undisputed:


1) In the early 2000s the price of oil got very cheap.

2) Many manufactures had electric cars that people owned and used.

3) GM recalled all of their vehicles and destroyed or crippled every last one.

4) Ford, Toyota, and others all shut down their EV programs.

5) Soon afterwards global oil production started to stagnate ( around 2004).

6) The price of oil started to rise.

7) Many manufactures started talking about EVs again.

8) Some EVs have made it to markets but only in tiny volumes.

9) The price of oil made it up to $147 in 2008. People got worried.

10) Many people are waiting for an affordable and practical EV.

11) As of today 09/2008 there are very few options. Mostly only toys.



Thus, For all those out there that are worried about companies and conspiracies, at worst we only have to wait for more of the oil to be burned up. At some point there is nothing any one company or government can do. It's either transition or recession. Transitions of this magnitude never go smoothly. People will fight this tooth and nail all the way. There are many rich and powerful men and government officials out there that are going to make many more billions on oil. The oil game is not over yet, in their eyes. I think that in the coming years we can expect to see many policies and actions that seem to defy reasonable logic. However, it’s only going to delay the inevitable.

LyleL,

You keep ignoring the fact that long AER via batteries is outrageously expensive. There's no conspiracy theory when you realize people don't want to pay $80,000 for a car that runs out of juice after a hundred miles and needs all night to recharge. Hell, when the EV1 came out, it was under-priced (lease payments constructed around 50% of the cars value), and people STILL didn't want them in any significant volume.

Only when we are faced with European-like gas prices do we even consider hybrids or EREVs with their small batteries as being more economical. During the dates in question, there was little demand to buy something so expensive. The only benefit for consumers back then was environmental, and I hate to break it to you, but they don't make up a majority of the car-buying or car-leasing public.

Long AER costs more money than people are willing to spend. THAT is why the electric car of the 90's failed. The electric car didn't need a conspiracy theory to kill it. It was already dead because people didn't want to buy it. And the only thing that kept it alive was a mandate by the government. Once that mandate was removed, the car manufacturers killed their EV projects.

Now it's opposite. We have no mandates, and we have demand. Gas prices are high and people are sick of blowing their paycheck at the pump and financing the other side of a war that we want to be done with already. We are starting to consider batteries as a means of providing at least some range. It's still not more economical than gas (unless the Volt can come in at around $27K), but it's pretty close. It's certainly much more convenient and appealing to the average American than the EV1 was during the late 90's and early 00's.

Wow, I'm sorry that I waited the weekend to check back on this thread. Lot of good responses!

Kubel, I somehow don't believe that the RAV4-EV had a production cost of $80,000 with the NiMH battery. That doesn't make any sense. Could you post some sources that support that allegation? I agree with you that the profit margins on low volume sales wouldn't have compensated for the research and development costs, but to say that each vehicle's production cost exceeded--especially by such a tremendous margin--the sales cost...I simply don't believe it.

I think the two largest problems faced by the electric vehicle--both back in 1997 and still today--are lack of supporting infrastructure and long charge times. It makes sense that there would be a severely minimized demand for an electric car when no stations exist to fuel the thing except in California. Furthermore, using electrochemical batteries to store the power makes charge times too long to be useful at such stations anyway. Purely electric vehicles, even with the NiMH battery, would only be useful for commuter traffic. Still, such traffic makes up the vast majority of all travel, and continued research, development, and marketing could have reduced these problems and built interest by now.

On that note, seriously, kubel, since when has commercial enterprise shied away from a product because people don't want it? I think you underestimate the power of marketing. Sales is all about convincing an uninterested or uninformed consumer that they need a new product NOW. Most of the time, the only thing necessary to interest someone in a product is to let them know it exists. Why do you think so many billions go into advertising every year? People know most ads are stupid, but the fact that the audience has now heard of the product vastly improves its sale potential. For the more discerning members of the audience, all that is needed is a sufficiently well-informed salesperson. Selling a product is easy.

No, "low consumer interest" is an excuse, not a reason.

But, that gets away from my original assertion anyway: that the technology existed and that it was suppressed, and for that I partly blame GM.

Battery production cost can be reduced by economies of scale. It may take five to ten years to reach such sales volumes, but this time period would already have been "gotten through" had the EV-95 not been buried. No, I don't think the EV-95 (or even NiMH in general) is the end-all and be-all of EV energy storage solutions. What I do believe is that it would have been a strong starting point from which to build consumer interest, with plenty of room to improve for the iterative "next models."

As I said, I think infrastructure and charge time are the two largest problems faced by EVs. The NiMH would not have stood up to either of these problems, but it would have gotten people used to electric vehicles and gotten other industries into providing support (mechanics training, recharging solutions, aftermarket products, etc.). It would have been improved upon for longer range, but would eventually have been abandoned in favor of better solutions (though probably not by now).

Personally, I think the most viable solution on the horizon is the EEStor. Most of you already know what this is, but to sum it up, it's an ultracapacitor with a 52 kWh capacity. As a capacitor (and not a battery) it has no moving parts and no chemical reactions; it simply stores electrical energy by separating positive and negative charges on parallel plates. It can be charged in as short or long a period of time as one wishes (10 minutes by specification), but faster charging requires higher current, which causes more rapid heating. It does not degrade over time so long as one doesn't push the thing to the breakdown voltage (a Physics concept which, in short, is what causes sparks like static electricity and lightning).

Where was I going with that? I dunno. Maybe to say that I compare any EV solution's power source to the EEStor, including the Volt, until I see something better? Not really sure; I kinda got off on a tangent there.

I guess my overall point is to contest kubel's $80k and consumer interest assertions, which led me into the support tangent. Ah well.

Oh, and no, I haven't yet seen Who Killed The Electric Car. I know I need to, but I've done most of my research on my own. I'm half-afraid that the documentary will be like Michael Moore's recent works; incendiary and one-sided.

Does this work? It seems to have lost the reply I sent a few hours ago...

Wow, I'm sorry that I waited the weekend to check back on this thread. Lot of good responses!

Kubel, I somehow don't believe that the RAV4-EV had a production cost of $80,000 with the NiMH battery. That doesn't make any sense. Could you post some sources that support that allegation? I agree with you that the profit margins on low volume sales wouldn't have compensated for the research and development costs, but to say that each vehicle's production cost exceeded--especially by such a tremendous margin--the sales cost...I simply don't believe it.

I think the two largest problems faced by the electric vehicle--both back in 1997 and still today--are lack of supporting infrastructure and long charge times. It makes sense that there would be a severely minimized demand for an electric car when no stations exist to fuel the thing except in California. Furthermore, using electrochemical batteries to store the power makes charge times too long to be useful at such stations anyway. Purely electric vehicles, even with the NiMH battery, would only be useful for commuter traffic. Still, such traffic makes up the vast majority of all travel, and continued research, development, and marketing could have reduced these problems and built interest by now.

On that note, seriously, kubel, since when has commercial enterprise shied away from a product because people don't want it? I think you underestimate the power of marketing. Sales is all about convincing an uninterested or uninformed consumer that they need a new product NOW. Most of the time, the only thing necessary to interest someone in a product is to let them know it exists. Why do you think so many billions go into advertising every year? People know most ads are stupid, but the fact that the audience has now heard of the product vastly improves its sale potential. For the more discerning members of the audience, all that is needed is a sufficiently well-informed salesperson. Selling a product is easy.

No, "low consumer interest" is an excuse, not a reason.

But, that gets away from my original assertion anyway: that the technology existed and that it was suppressed, and for that I partly blame GM.

Battery production cost can be reduced by economies of scale. It may take five to ten years to reach such sales volumes, but this time period would already have been "gotten through" had the EV-95 not been buried. No, I don't think the EV-95 (or even NiMH in general) is the end-all and be-all of EV energy storage solutions. What I do believe is that it would have been a strong starting point from which to build consumer interest, with plenty of room to improve for the iterative "next models."

As I said, I think infrastructure and charge time are the two largest problems faced by EVs. The NiMH would not have stood up to either of these problems, but it would have gotten people used to electric vehicles and gotten other industries into providing support (mechanics training, recharging solutions, aftermarket products, etc.). It would have been improved upon for longer range, but would eventually have been abandoned in favor of better solutions (though probably not by now).

Personally, I think the most viable solution on the horizon is the EEStor. Most of you already know what this is, but to sum it up, it's an ultracapacitor with a 52 kWh capacity. As a capacitor (and not a battery) it has no moving parts and no chemical reactions; it simply stores electrical energy by separating positive and negative charges on parallel plates. It can be charged in as short or long a period of time as one wishes (10 minutes by specification), but faster charging requires higher current, which causes more rapid heating. It does not degrade over time so long as one doesn't push the thing to the breakdown voltage (a Physics concept which, in short, is what causes sparks like static electricity and lightning).

Where was I going with that? I dunno. Maybe to say that I compare any EV solution's power source to the EEStor, including the Volt, until I see something better? Not really sure; I kinda got off on a tangent there.

I guess my overall point is to contest kubel's $80k and consumer interest assertions, which led me into the support tangent. Ah well.

Oh, and no, I haven't yet seen Who Killed The Electric Car. I know I need to, but I've done most of my research on my own. I'm half-afraid that the documentary will be like Michael Moore's recent works; incendiary and one-sided.

Kubel, the EV1 was so expensive because only ~1100 were made and they were assembled by hand, plus they had huge R&D costs to recoup. We have yet to see how economies of scale can lower the price of EVs. Remember that cars were much more expensive before Mr. Ford changed the game with efficient and large scale manufacturing processes.

Kubel said:

You keep ignoring the fact that long AER via batteries is outrageously expensive. There's no conspiracy theory when you realize people don't want to pay $80,000 for a car that runs out of juice after a hundred miles and needs all night to recharge. Hell, when the EV1 came out, it was under-priced (lease payments constructed around 50% of the cars value), and people STILL didn't want them in any significant volume.[whistle] time out.... I agreed with you on that, the EV1 was expensive. The battery being the most expensive part. Please reread post #13 (http://gm-volt.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10097&postcount=13) and note the theme. If there was no conspiracy why not use the EV1 electric technology (shrink the battery) add an internal combustion engine and have a hybrid car like Toyota.

Also please note post #13 (http://gm-volt.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10097&postcount=13)again. Examples are given about Toyota building only 300 cars. Those 300 cars would be extremely expensive if Toyota applied all research, development and production costs. My point is.... Those early 300 Prius cars could have each been worth/cost $1.6million a car (just guessing). Really if it cost them 500 million to research, develop and tool a factory, that number is not unreasonable.


Again, back to post 13's (http://gm-volt.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10097&postcount=13) theme, I'm saying, GM didn't use any of the technology (existing research and development from either program). Who has the established hybrid today that has a 9 month waiting list (Toyota). Who has the hybrid that was developed during the same era as the EV1 and Precept cars (Toyota)? It's not GM, Ford or Chrysler. If no conspiracy then it would seem we have some extremely stupid domestic automakers. I don't think they're stupid, they were comitted to keeping the auto industry the same. Today is potentially different, and I have hope. If GM wants to clean/green their name, then the Volt must work and be affordable,. GM will have to distribute costs over years, like any normal business does. Toyota had to do it that way, so can GM.


Again, this is all based on observed auto industry behaviors and my opinion. Your mileage may vary.









dfdf

Remember that Toyota is limited to only using the smallest and probably lowest quality of the EV1/RAV4EV era battery packs in the Prius. Even with those artificial limitations imposed on them they managed to manufacture and market a profitable car that's in high demand. When the will is there on the part of the car makers these things can happen. Lets all hope that everyone follows GM's lead in Li-Ion EVs/hybrids in the next few years. Nowadays it seems like Toyota is the one who's hesitant to go the EV route. We'll see what happens.

Does anyone know why I can't reply to my own thread? I tried posting a long response yesterday and I got some sort of "waiting for moderator approval" message. Thank God I'm in the habit of saving large posts/emails to a TXT file before clicking "send". Should I wait for said approval or should I just repost it in smaller chunks?

Does anyone know why I can't reply to my own thread? I tried posting a long response yesterday and I got some sort of "waiting for moderator approval" message. Thank God I'm in the habit of saving large posts/emails to a TXT file before clicking "send". Should I wait for said approval or should I just repost it in smaller chunks?
Curious. Although I haven't ever replied to one of my OWN messages, my replies to others appear instantly. The moderators must know I'm a nice guy ;)

Well, it's been two days since I tried to post that reply and I've not seen it "approved", so I'm just going to post it in smaller chunks.

(originally attempted to post 18 August 2008)

Wow, I'm sorry that I waited the weekend to check back on this thread. Lot of good responses!

Kubel, I somehow don't believe that the RAV4-EV had a production cost of $80,000 with the NiMH battery. That doesn't make any sense. Could you post some sources that support that allegation? I agree with you that the profit margins on low volume sales wouldn't have compensated for the research and development costs, but to say that each vehicle's production cost exceeded--especially by such a tremendous margin--the sales cost...I simply don't believe it.

I think the two largest problems faced by the electric vehicle--both back in 1997 and still today--are lack of supporting infrastructure and long charge times. It makes sense that there would be a severely minimized demand for an electric car when no stations exist to fuel the thing except in California. Furthermore, using electrochemical batteries to store the power makes charge times too long to be useful at such stations anyway. Purely electric vehicles, even with the NiMH battery, would only be useful for commuter traffic. Still, such traffic makes up the vast majority of all travel, and continued research, development, and marketing could have reduced these problems and built interest by now.

On that note, seriously, kubel, since when has commercial enterprise shied away from a product because people don't want it? I think you underestimate the power of marketing. Sales is all about convincing an uninterested or uninformed consumer that they need a new product NOW. Most of the time, the only thing necessary to interest someone in a product is to let them know it exists. Why do you think so many billions go into advertising every year? People know most ads are stupid, but the fact that the audience has now heard of the product vastly improves its sale potential. For the more discerning members of the audience, all that is needed is a sufficiently well-informed salesperson. Selling a product is easy.

No, "low consumer interest" is an excuse, not a reason.

(continued from previous post)

But, that gets away from my original assertion anyway: that the technology existed and that it was suppressed, and for that I partly blame GM.

Battery production cost can be reduced by economies of scale. It may take five to ten years to reach such sales volumes, but this time period would already have been "gotten through" had the EV-95 not been buried. No, I don't think the EV-95 (or even NiMH in general) is the end-all and be-all of EV energy storage solutions. What I do believe is that it would have been a strong starting point from which to build consumer interest, with plenty of room to improve for the iterative "next models."

As I said, I think infrastructure and charge time are the two largest problems faced by EVs. The NiMH would not have stood up to either of these problems, but it would have gotten people used to electric vehicles and gotten other industries into providing support (mechanics training, recharging solutions, aftermarket products, etc.). It would have been improved upon for longer range, but would eventually have been abandoned in favor of better solutions (though probably not by now).

Personally, I think the most viable solution on the horizon is the EEStor. Most of you already know what this is, but to sum it up, it's an ultracapacitor with a 52 kWh capacity. As a capacitor (and not a battery) it has no moving parts and no chemical reactions; it simply stores electrical energy by separating positive and negative charges on parallel plates. It can be charged in as short or long a period of time as one wishes (10 minutes by specification), but faster charging requires higher current, which causes more rapid heating. It does not degrade over time so long as one doesn't push the thing to the breakdown voltage (a Physics concept which, in short, is what causes sparks like static electricity and lightning).

Where was I going with that? I dunno. Maybe to say that I compare any EV solution's power source to the EEStor, including the Volt, until I see something better? Not really sure; I kinda got off on a tangent there.

I guess my overall point is to contest kubel's $80k and consumer interest assertions, which led me into the support tangent. Ah well.

Oh, and no, I haven't yet seen Who Killed The Electric Car. I know I need to, but I've done most of my research on my own. I'm half-afraid that the documentary will be like Michael Moore's recent works; incendiary and one-sided.

(continued from previous post)

But, that gets away from my original assertion anyway: that the technology existed and that it was suppressed, and for that I partly blame GM.

Battery production cost can be reduced by economies of scale. It may take five to ten years to reach such sales volumes, but this time period would already have been "gotten through" had the EV-95 not been buried. No, I don't think the EV-95 (or even NiMH in general) is the end-all and be-all of EV energy storage solutions. What I do believe is that it would have been a strong starting point from which to build consumer interest, with plenty of room to improve for the iterative "next models."

As I said, I think infrastructure and charge time are the two largest problems faced by EVs. The NiMH would not have stood up to either of these problems, but it would have gotten people used to electric vehicles and gotten other industries into providing support (mechanics training, recharging solutions, aftermarket products, etc.). It would have been improved upon for longer range, but would eventually have been abandoned in favor of better solutions (though probably not by now).

Personally, I think the most viable solution on the horizon is the EEStor. Most of you already know what this is, but to sum it up, it's an ultracapacitor with a 52 kWh capacity. As a capacitor (and not a battery) it has no moving parts and no chemical reactions; it simply stores electrical energy by separating positive and negative charges on parallel plates. It can be charged in as short or long a period of time as one wishes (10 minutes by specification), but faster charging requires higher current, which causes more rapid heating. It does not degrade over time so long as one doesn't push the thing to the breakdown voltage (a Physics concept which, in short, is what causes sparks like static electricity and lightning).

Where was I going with that? I dunno. Maybe to say that I compare any EV solution's power source to the EEStor, including the Volt, until I see something better? Not really sure; I kinda got off on a tangent there.

I guess my overall point is to contest kubel's $80k and consumer interest assertions, which led me into the support tangent. Ah well.

Oh, and no, I haven't yet seen Who Killed The Electric Car. I know I need to, but I've done most of my research on my own. I'm half-afraid that the documentary will be like Michael Moore's recent works; incendiary and one-sided.





You do realize that EEstor’s product doesn’t even exist. Right? Not even one of the 33,000 caps that make up a pack has been seen or tested. You might want to keep your comparisons to real products. Kind of keeps things real.

You spend all of that time writing about this conspiracy theory and you don’t have the time to check out some of the facts that the movie brings up? It only takes about an hour to watch. Don't be afraid, it won't change your theories too much. Just go to YouTube and type it in the box. It's free. Come on, chicken. ;)

Also, you sure like to beat a dead horse. I'm just curious if you could please list the actions and successes GM must achieve for you to "forgive" them. How about 30,000 cars sold by 2012. Would that get them back in your good graces?

You do realize that EEstor’s product doesn’t even exist. Right? Not even one of the 33,000 caps that make up a pack has been seen or tested. You might want to keep your comparisons to real products. Kind of keeps things real.

I knew it was still in the design phase, and I was under the impression that they had a prototype. I know it's a few years from being viable, but the technology is feasible.

It also strikes a sweet spot since I'm a computer engineer. In theory, capacitors are the perfect static energy storage unit. The only problems are leak and discharge control. I've always wondered why we haven't built capacitance batteries and what it would take to perfect one. The EEStor, assuming it works, looks like it'll be that perfect battery.


You spend all of that time writing about this conspiracy theory and you don’t have the time to check out some of the facts that the movie brings up? It only takes about an hour to watch. Don't be afraid, it won't change your theories too much. Just go to YouTube and type it in the box. It's free. Come on, chicken. ;)

Heh. ^_^

Alright, point made. I'll watch it this afternoon when I get off work. I'm planning to leave early, anyhow.


Also, you sure like to beat a dead horse. I'm just curious if you could please list the actions and successes GM must achieve for you to "forgive" them. How about 30,000 cars sold by 2012. Would that get them back in your good graces?

Well, not that my personal forgiveness counts for anything, but in my opinion, GM has to produce the best affordable electric sedan on the market, capable of 150 miles per charge (minimum) at a cost of under $30K. GM can't just develop an electric car. They have to develop the definitive electric car. When the Volt rolls out, it has to be the car that other car manufacturers look at and say "Damn, we better get our **** together or we're toast." That will get them back in my good graces.

If the Volt proves itself to be a genuine drive (no pun intended) to produce the best electric car in history, one that surpasses the RAV4-EV, then it'll have my support. If it's just another option to consider among several competitors, then I'll favor the competitors.

I like the head on pikes idea, but can we have a public flogging first? We can charge $10 a flog and the money can go towards development costs and should cover it in no time flat!

Some one mentioned that the board of GM may not be the same one as it is now and thus should not be tarnished with it's past atrocity towards the public.

Percy N. Barnevik
Retired Chairman,
AstraZeneca PLC
Director since 1996

Erskine B. Bowles
President,
The University of North Carolina
Director since 2005

John H. Bryan
Retired Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer,
Sara Lee Corporation
Director since 1993

Armando M. Codina
President
and Chief Executive Officer,
Flagler Development Group
Director since 2002

Erroll B. Davis, Jr.
Chancellor,
University System of Georgia
Director since 2007

George M.C. Fisher
Retired Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer,
Eastman Kodak Company
Director since 1996

E. Neville Isdell
Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer,
The Coca-Cola Company
Director since 2008

Karen Katen
Chairman,
Pfizer Foundation,
Retired Vice Chairman,
Pfizer Inc and Retired President,
Pfizer Human Health,
Director since 1997

Kent Kresa
Chairman Emeritus,
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Director since 2003

Ellen J. Kullman
Executive Vice President,
DuPont,
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Director since 2004

Philip A. Laskawy
Retired Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer,
Ernst & Young
Director since 2003

Kathryn V. Marinello
Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer,
Ceridian Corporation
Director since 2007

Eckhard Pfeiffer
Retired President
and Chief Executive Officer,
Compaq Computer Corporation
Director since 1996

G. Richard Wagoner, Jr.
Chairman
& Chief Executive Officer,
General Motors Corporation
Director since 1998

04/25/08 GM Proxy Statement

So all that were there before October 10th of 2000 can be flogged and piked and the rest can stay? I would not doubt that GM is taking some deserved flack for this, but who knows who was really pulling the strings behind the scenes. Maybe it was big oil the whole time, maybe it was the US Government, both were slated to lose out on millions of lost tax dollars and billions from lost fuel sales....we may never know.

At least we know that GM had to go broke before they would give us what we wanted.

Who Killed The Electric Car[/i]. I know I need to, but I've done most of my research on my own. I'm half-afraid that the documentary will be like Michael Moore's recent works; incendiary and one-sided.

Well, I kind of enjoy Michael Moore's movies. I will admit he tries too hard, he didn't really have to try too hard to make his point but unfortunately he did. I think he was describing some things that many of us already knew about and knew to be true. I think people who think he's a complete joke, and completely wrong are burying their heads in the sand. That could be because they voted for George W. and can't stand the fact.

I generally agree with the premise of Michael Moore movies but his documentary style can be pretty dishonest. It's really too bad, it gives people an excuse to reject the basic points he tries to make when he stretches the truth.