Popular electric cars headed for junk pile (GM ......how ironic)

[cthrumatrix]

Popular electric cars headed for junk pile

Bob Golfen
The Arizona Republic
Mar. 16, 2005 12:00 AM

A revolutionary attempt to bring electric automobiles to American drivers sputters to a halt this week in the Arizona desert.

But not without cries of protest.

General Motors is shipping the last surviving EV1 cars, the automaker's unique experiment in battery-powered transportation, from a storage yard in Burbank, Calif., to the GM Desert Proving Grounds in Mesa for "final disposition," which for most of them means crushing and recycling. advertisement

Monday morning, a crowd of protesters tried to block the trucks carrying EV1s leaving the California facility, with police arresting two people.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0316electriccars16.html



Makes no sense...you have oil and gas challanges. If somebody came out with a quality electric car...there would be a market (IMHO).

[Ripley]

1. Isn't it a problem of recharging?

If the battery charging facilities are few and far between it would not be very practical.

[cthrumatrix]

3. could be.... i'm sure there would be "new markets" to support new

technology. I would guess that car "charging" in thier respective garages would be a market.

Maybe somebody else can speak to that

[me b zola]

11. My husband is working on getting around this

His plan is to develope electric cars that the batteries can easily & quickly be changed, sort of like fillig up with gas. We live in Portland,OR, so the routes that people commute are essentially four. He plans on having battery swapping stations located along each of the four major commuter routes.

He is kind of eccentric, but I am totally supportive of his dream & plans for the future. We must think outside of the box and not rely on big business to get us off of petro.



Feedback, please!

[fob]

24. Why can't you use the motion of the spinning wheels while driving

to charge the batteries?

How about the wind generated while driving, can't that be exploited to help in the process?

They have those spinning hubcaps on cars for show these days, when the car comes to a stop the outer hubcap continues to spin and it looks like the wheels are still going, can't that be used to generate a recharge?

[K to the YLE]

26. I've wondered the same thing.

Why can't the rear wheels spinning produce electricity to power a motor in the front driving the front wheels? You'd need some initial power to get the thing moving in the first place. I've never really had a good grasp on electricity but it seems like a good idea. peace, kyle

[One_Life_To_Give]

55. That would be a perpetual motion machine

The motor in the front provides the power to move the car and the power to run any charger connected to the rear wheels. At perfect efficiency for each watt gained by the charger 1 watt is spent by the motor to power the generator.

[PhuLoi]

67. Having worked on diesel-electric locomotives for ten years, I

am curious as to whether or not the use of dynamic braking systems are being used to capture the energy of the vehicles motion while braking. Locomotives use dynamic braking but burn off the energy by sending it to heating grids atop the locomotive. Although the sudden generation of energy would happen too quickly to be directly stored in the batterys, I have thought that it might be stored in either capacitors or flywheel constructs. Such interrim energy storage devices could be quickly energized,(electrical outlets at filling stations) allowing recharging circuits to operate at their designed rate by tapping the energy stored in the interrim devices.

[jmowreader]

70. Toyota and Honda hybrids have dynamic braking

I don't know whether the EV1 did (it's a moot point now), but the Hondas and Toyotas have it, and (according to the couple of people I know who have these cars--one has a Prius, the other a Civic hybrid) your foot learns just the right way to stroke the brakes to get the best effect from the dynamic braking system. Long slow stops seem to generate the most electricity.

As for the idea of using the back wheels to drive a generator to propel the front wheels...it wouldn't create all of the electricity you'd need to move the car, but it could help some. The drag from the back wheels might require more kW to overcome than the generators on the wheels are producing. A few more tests...

[PhuLoi]

71. Thanks for the info. I wonder how they handle the generated

energy? Capture or release?

[One_Life_To_Give]

73. The current crop of cars

Capture the dynamic brakeing energy by putting it directly back into the battery. In their case the batteries are capable of absorbing the kinetic energy of the vehical. In the Diesel Electric train you have much more energy and very little battery capacity in relation.

[fob]

83. What if instead of having the back wheels drive a generator they

WERE generators?

Oh and thank you jmowreader and to all who responded politely and/or with questions to further the discussion.

[jmowreader]

91. Uhh...explain that.

I'm thinking back to the days of my old Army PU-620 generator set--it had a power source, which was a gasoline engine, driving an alternator that produced the electricity that justified hauling that worn-out piece of shit to the field in the first place.

A generator's a fairly simple device. There's a shaft with magnets attached to it. There are some coils of wire positioned around the shaft. As the magnets pass the coils, the moving magnetic field causes electricity to flow in the coils.

Now! If you're slick, you can make two big discs. One of them has the magnets in it; the wheel studs are pressed into this disc and the wheel is bolted to the studs. The other has the coils, and it's bolted to the car. This is obviously the way to go, because instead of running a shaft from the rear wheels to a machine in the middle of the car, you're doing your generating right out at the wheel. It saves weight, if nothing else. (However, the wheels are still driving the generators--generators have to be driven by something, and in this case it's the black thing that's keeping that corner of the car off the ground.)

If you're really slick you remember that there is NO mechanical difference between a generator, or an alternator, and a motor. All cars have computers in them anymore, and hybrids are especially well-endowed with them. If the computer sees the driver stomp on the gas pedal really hard, it will decide one of three things:

1) the driver is attempting some sort of an evasive maneuver
2) the driver is attempting to pass
or
3) this dumb-ass is racing for pinks in a car with a one-litre engine

and turn the wheel generators into motors.

And if someone would send me ten million dollars, I would develop them a hybrid car that doesn't send engine power directly to the wheels. I'd put three-phase AC motors on the wheels and use the engine to charge the batteries.

[tinanator]

28. :) great ideas

I wanted to point these out, but figured it was too obvious.
Love the spinning hubcaps idea, something that would grab the public by the booboo!

[Jacobin]

33. I think its the law of conservation of energy or something like that

I'm sure some physics dude (or dudette) will show up to enlighten us. But the Prius uses regenerative braking to help recharge the batteries.

Problem is american car makers are doing this just for show. They aren't serious about it. Toyota is very serious about hybrid vehicles, (not pure electrics) and they are doing a great job with it.

[fob]

36. Well of course you won't get a 100% return because it's a closed

system(if that's the correct term). The batteries power the front wheels which moves the vehicle which causes the back wheels to turn also, but currently (get it!) there is NO return from the spinning whells back into the system. At the very least it should extend the total system by some measure if the spinning wheels contributed to the battery charging.

Right?

[me b zola]

43. Those are great ideas

To be honnest, though, I am not sure if he has considered this or not.I maybe totally supportive of him, but when he goes on about his technical ideas my eyes sometimes glaze over and my mind wonders to how we are going to impeach shrubya.

If I can talk him into logging on, would you be willing to discuss ideas with him?

Anyway, thank you for the input, I will pass in on.:hippie:

[fob]

50. Sure. Turn him loose on us. He can be as technical as he wants, if

I don't understand I'll ask more questions!

Oh and when you figure out how to impeach shrubya*, POST THAT IMMEDIATELY!!!

:toast:

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fob]

75. Perhaps you might want to add reading comprehension to your

ballot test. I didn't say to use the spinning wheels "as a method of power generation for the drive wheels" anywhere. I suggested looking into exploiting the spinning of the wheels to charge or recharge the batteries.

For example; the existing car has batteries that power the car's drive wheels and as you drive the batteries charge drains off. While you are using the batteries energy to move the car some of that energy is put into spinning the wheels and if that spinning motion could be converted back into an electric charge that could extend the batteries overall charge and give more "miles per amp" or whatever the rating is based on. For you I will 8th gradize it; You could drive farther.

Thanks for playing though!

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fob]

84. "No, you're still wrong, but it's a great idea already in use, only since

I interpret it wrong again it's a stupid idea"


Wow! You ran the gamut on that one, disagreement, agreement, praise and scorn. How many of you are there writing your responses? I'd prefer to discuss with whoever wrote sentence #3 (If your idea...).


Geez.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fob]

97. OK, back to the original point is good.

Perhaps this is where I confused you;
"Why can't you use the motion of the spinning wheels while driving to charge the batteries?

That was maybe to thin a description. By "use the motion of the spinning wheels while driving" I mean the kinetic energy that would be built up in the spinner-type HUBCAP due to the WHEELS rotating as you drive down the road.


You said;
These are bad ideas, as the generators can only generate energy they use- which makes them, at best, worthless. Conservation of energy.

Generators can only generate energy they use? Hydroelectric generators are a good source of electricity because the energy used to SPIN the wire in the magnetic field is just sitting (well, moving) there ANYWAY. The water flowing over the edge of a cliff has a certain amount of energy in it, a generator "powered" by the falling water will capture part of that mechanical energy and convert it to electrical energy.

Soooo, as you drive the car the axles/wheels are spinning ANYWAY, they are expending the chemical energy of the batteries by converting it into mechanical energy (rotating the driveshaft/wheels). So if you integrate the wheels as generators you can recover some of the mechanical energy and convert it back to electrical energy and send THAT back to the batteries. And since this is not an "add-on" generator no additional energy would be needed to speed the car back up.

Which as you've described elsewhere sounds like the regenerative breaking (I think that's what you called it) process. My question is how are they currently getting the kinetic energy from the breaking converted to electrical energy to (help) recharge the batteries? Is it a similar system or are they using a completely different operation?

Apart from the "these are bad ideas" I appreciate the return to constructive debate.

:toast:

[kysrsoze]

56. Some electrics and hybrids do something similar.

They don't charge the motors while they are moving, but they do charge up as the car brakes. You could also add solar cells, which are getting more flexible and much cheaper, to augment the cars' ranges.

[fob]

81. Aha! I should have read your reply first! Read #79 below for my version

of how to charge as the car brakes.

[VelvetMonkeyWrench]

68. 2nd law of thermodynamics

Entropy increases.

Otherwise you'd be trying to do the same thing as a perpetual motion machine. You can't rob peter to pay paul.

[fob]

80. See my post #79 below. I am definitely NOT talking about a PMM.

[sendero]

74. Sorry...

... that won't work. If you add "charging" based on the motion you will add friction and your vehicle will use more energy than the "charging" produces. Basic physics.

However, the Prius has the right idea, capturing the energy used in braking.

[fob]

79. No not add charging based on the motion, but based on the energy

that would be put INTO a hubcap that was able to spin as the wheel it is attached to spins down the road.

It's difficult to describe. The best way to visualize it is if you've ever seen the "spinner" style hubcaps that are out these days. If you've ever seen them the most dramatic effect is when someone is driving down the road and then they come to a stop, the spinner cap while the wheel is moving just kind of sits there, it DOESN'T spin, but as the car slows and then stops the spinner cap which sits on ball bearings(?) picks up the potential energy and spins like mad! Some of the energy expended in turning the wheels has been picked up by the spinner cap. Now make it into a generator of sorts and ???

To get some of that energy back you have to make the cap functional. Like there could be magnets at the end of the spinner cap and the wheel is steel, as it spins couldn't it generate a current? Is there a way to direct that current into charging the batteries?

[Xithras]

85. That won't work

What you're talking about is a flywheel design...the wheel spins up when the car is moving and keeps spinning after the applied energy ceases. The problem is that effective flywheels have to be HEAVY (spinner caps only work because they're light and have no resistance). Adding several hundred pounds of unsprung weight to each wheel would have two effects: 1) a 250LB flywheel on each tire (the minimum you would need to generate any reasonable amount of energy on a low-RPM tire) would increase the vehicle weight by over 1000 lbs (more when you count in the weight of the power distribution equipment). Any power gain that you might get would be more than cancelled out by reduced efficiency when accellerating. 2) Unsprung weight is an evil thing in the automotive world. This is why performance cars have aluminum wheels instead of steel wheels. The heavier the tire, the worse the car handles, the bumpier the ride is, and the harder it is to turn. Driving a car with flywheels and generators on each tire would be like driving a tank.

[fob]

95. No. I am not talking about a flywheel type thing that will "spin up"

when the car is moving, you've read something into my description that is not there.

I am also NOT talking about adding generators (heavy or otherwise) to the car in any way, why do posters keep doing that?

Recap: No flywheel, no heavy generators

Here's the raw data;
The batteries drive the motor that turns the driveshaft that turns the wheels. So in this situation the batteries last a certain time period before requiring a recharge resulting in a certain mileage capacity. Basically chemical energy (battery) is used to turn the driveshaft and in turn the wheels (mechanical energy). The chemical energy is "burned off" through the conversion to mechanical energy which is lost through friction, etc.

So as you drive the car down the road the wheels are spinning anyway right?

A generator is a device that changes mechanical energy into electrical energy. If you spin a wire in a magnetic field a current is produced, ie you've generated electricity.

So, if the wheel of the car had magnets added to it (NOT HEAVY ONES that make the whole process impractical) and the hubcap was designed to be the "wire" then as the car drives the wheels spin and that motion STORES kinetic energy in the hubcap (which has the ability to spin and will actually stay still, well it will actually bounce around abit) WHILE the wheel and axle spins. When the car slows ro slows to a stop, the kinetic energy stored in the hubcap will cause it to spin. As it spins in the magnetic field created by the magnets in the wheel, a current will be generated.

So you're NOT adding massive generators to the car, you are NOT having to add an outside source to turn the wheel/cap generator which defeats the purpose. You are simply recovering some of the energy expended to move the wheels anyway. How much can be recovered? Is it worthwhile? Would you get shocked if you got to close to one of these wheels with your metal cane? I don't know.

Review:

Add magnets to wheel (could be added on the inside of wheel so they couldn't be tampered with) add maybe 1 pound to weight of car

Replace standard cap with spinner type - with some R&D should be no net weight gain

method of hooking up wheel/generator to batteries - a few pounds tops

So there may be some minimal added friction based on added weight, should be negligible performance issues, and ??% recovery of chemical energy (battery) that is converted to mechanical energy (spin driveshaft/wheels) which is partially reconverted back to electrical energy and sent back to batteries.

That's all. Nothing fancy, nothing more than described, no heavy add-ons, no perpetual motion scenarios.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fob]

100. Yes it will. And yes it is "just a generator", and no it won't generate

electrical energy equivalent to the mechanical energy put into it (friction etc will eat up some of the mech energy), but it will produce some electrical energy.

The expenditure of mechanical energy is already present, the spinning hubcap and the integrated generator/wheel are the method of capturing what is otherwise just lost to the environment. The rotating of the the wheel will impart energy into the spinner hubcap that is realized when the car slows/stops and the hubcap starts spinning. The potential energy of spinning the hubcap is there whether you have the hubcap to realize it or not is the difference in capturing it.

[Xithras]

99. Sorry, still won't work (and you ARE describing a flywheel)

Damn, I typed up a huge post and then accidentally lost it. Here's the short version:

First, you ARE describing a flywheel. A flywheel is simply a rotating object that stores kinetic energy though motion. Whether it's internal or external, one ounce or one pound, if you store energy in it using motion, it's a flywheel.

Second, here's the problem with your idea in a nutshell: Kinetic energy is a function of mass and velocity. To get 30 watts of power out of a generator (and your design simply turns the rim into the generator) you have to impart 30 watts of mechanical energy into it....requiring that your spinner/flywheel have 30 watts of available kinetic energy/power inside of it. Unfortunately the velocity of a tire is actually pretty low, roughly 800RPM's at highway speeds. To build up any reasonable amount of kinetic energy (calculated 1/2 x mass x velocity squared) at that low speed, you'd need a LOT of mass. By comparison, industrial flywheels often spin at 10,000+ RPM.

A simple example of this: if you have a ceiling fan in your house, turn it on, spin it up, and stick your hand into it palm first. It might give you a good whack, but it won't actually hurt you. Why not? Low mass equals low kinetic energy. Low KE meant that your hand easily drained the power from the blades making it easy to stop. Next, attach 5lb weights to each of the blades and spin it up again. When it eventually gets back up to speed, stick something in it and see what happens (not your hand this time, unless you want broken fingers). What's the difference? Increased mass means increased kinetic energy, so it's much harder to stop.

Why is this important? If you've ever turned a generator by hand, under load, you probably noticed that they do NOT spin freely. Again, the law of the conservation of energy. To get X power out of something, you have to put X power in. The moment you put those magnets on your rim and try taking power out of the system, you're introducing resistance. If your flywheel has low KE, it will come to a stop VERY quickly and generate almost no power. If your flywheel has high KE if will spin for a little while before stopping, allowing you to recover more power. Since you can only get KE by adding mass or speed, you're limited in ways to increase that power.

I don't mean to be such a downer, but I have a degree in Physics and know the subject. Unfortunately, in the end, the idea simply won't work at gaining ANY power. Why not? Why doesn't even the small amount captured by this system make it worthwhile? Because KE in a spinning body is imparted externally by the motor that got the tire spinning in the first place. You can NEVER get more energy out of a flywheel than you put into it (prove me wrong on that one and you'll have a Nobel Prize AND have children learning about you beside Newton and Einstein for centuries to come). You're "spinner/flywheel" DOES have mass and requires a certain amount of energy to spin up. Since you can never recover more energy from the spinner than you placed into it, you're looking at a zero-sum game at best. Since wind resistance, heat, and friction are going to drain some of that energy away, you're actually looking at a net energy loss. You'll actually make it FURTHER down the road by not having this device at all.

[fob]

101. You call it a flywheel if you want.

It's a simple effing generator! Put magnets in the wheel to generate the magnetic field and hell wind 5 lbs of copper wire around the spinnner cap and go for a drive. We've added 20 lobs of copper wire and let's say another 5 lbs in magnets and spinner caps. As you come to a stop the freewheeling spinner caps will start spinning, generating a current, now compare the power produced and introduced back into the system and see if it's worthwhile or not.

To get X power out of something, you have to put X power in

Actually if you want X power OUT you have to put X+ power IN, but I guess your degree in Physics must say different.

I'll give you a Nobull Prize if you can show where I made any claim that you could get more energy out of a system than you put in (Unlike your energy in = energy out equation above).

[Xithras]

102. I was trying to keep it simple.

I didn't want to get into the details of friction loss, generator efficiency, etc, so my examples were of a 100% efficient environment.

As for your repeated description of the system, I have to point at my last thread and remind you that I DID say that power would be generated by your system. The amount, however, would be negligible and would actually be less than the amount of energy required to spin them up in the first place.

I think the problem with my explanation here boils down to this: 746 watts of energy is equal to one horsepower. Lets say it takes 30 horsepower, or 22,380 watts (6.2 watt/hours), to make your unmodified electric vehicle cruise down the highway at 55MPH. Now, your 5 lb (2.3KG), 15 inch wide flywheel (standard rim size), made of standard steel, if engineered by genuises who managed to overcome friction and heat loss, might be able to squeeze out a total KE of about 290 joules (watts per second), giving us a maximum total power output of 1160 watts for all four tires (.08 watt/hours). After 1160 joules of energy is expended, your spinners will no longer be rotating.

The problem here, I think, is that you're not getting where that power is coming from. If the stock vehicle requires 22,380 watts of power to maintain 55MPH, you cannot simply add on the flywheels and capture some of that power. Adding the 5LBS of copper and magnets to your rims and spinners will increase the power required to maintain that speed to at least 23540 watts. Even if you recapture every extra watt expended, your total power output to move the vehicle from point A to point B is unchanged. A five minute trip has an unmodified energy consumption, at 55MPH, of 6,714,000 watts (which, BTW, works out to about .05 gallons of gasoline). By placing your spinners on the tires, we increase the overall energy consumption of the trip to 7,062,000 watts. Your spinners will give us the ability to recapture 348,000 watts of that energy, giving us a total power output of 6,714,000 watts. At the end of the trip, the total power consumption is unchanged. In reality, your spinners would encounter friction and heat loss which would prevent us from regaining the entire 340,000 watts, meaning that the spinner-equipped vehicle would actually use MORE energy (assuming that only 300,000 watts were regained, total power consumption for the spinner equipped trip would be 7,014,000 watts).

At the best, the spinners don't contribute anything. At their worst, they actually cause the vehicle to LOSE efficiency.

[lumberjack_jeff]

110. I once worked with an "engineer"...

...who tried to convince me that his ingenious idea for a fuel-efficient vehicle would revolutionize the world.

His idea was to hook up a 5hp gasoline generator to large-ish electric motor (say 50hp). It would give the power of a large gas engine with the economy of a lawnmower. Simplicity, no?

We were working construction at a nuclear power plant at the time. I pointed out to him his idea was wonderful and that we could take it to the next level. We could hook that 50 hp electric motor to a generator head and run a 200 hp motor from it, which in turn would be hooked up to the not yet installed 50-gazillion hp generator at the nuke plant! Bonneville Power would give us medals!

I bet him we could save at least the differential between his construction "engineer" salary and my measly draftsman's wages. :)

He returned quietly to his office.

I was interested to see that Chevy now has a hybrid half-ton pickup. It costs like $3500 more than the normal truck and promises to save about $2000 in fuel over its expected lifespan.

[fob]

113. OK, if you were trying to keep it simple why include the insults?

So basically you're saying the idea will work (it will genereate electricity) but you feel that the net result will be negative.

Which is essentially what I was saying in the first place. Try these ideas and see if they yield anything. So taking your analysis, if the generator/wheel can be made that weighs less than the stock wheel that is used a greater benefit will be realized. Now I'm NOT saying that will solve all problems and I'm the new Edison, all I'm saying is look at the idea and give it a go, if it truly is a negligible gain or net loss than try soemthing else. I do appreciate you took the time to try and do a critical analysis on the numbers, but I don't get why the insults.

:toast:

[Xithras]

115. What insults? I don't see any insults in my posts.

I think you're confusing me with another poster, because I just reread all of my posts and don't see any insults anywhere. I was simply trying to explain the physics of your proposal to you.

If you took anything I wrote as an insult, then I sincerely apologize because that wasn't my intent.

:toast:

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Xithras]

88. Because of resistance.

The problem is that generators are hard to turn, they require a lot of energy in to put energy out. Let say, as an example, that your car requires a thousand watts of power to maintain a cruising speed of 50MPH. If you put a generator on the front tires to generate 500 watts, you're going to increase the rolling resistance of the vehicle (because now you're fighting the wind AND the generator) to a minimum of fifteen hundred watts (I'm assuming 100% efficiency here to keep the math simple). Because we don't create energy but instead "transform" it, a 500 watt generator would require a minimum of 500 watts of input power to create 500 watts of electricity. Since we're talking about a closed system here, that 500 watts can only come from your motor and batteries...so you're spending 500 watts to get 500 watts, giving you a net gain of zero watts.

[vs the introvore]

37. Can't petrol staions sell or trade or charge batteries???

Is there some sort of spark ignition hazard that precludes these two energy sources from being sold together? They sell caffeine and carbohydrates at most 'filling' stations, why not some electricity???

I have brilliant (IMHO but) eccentric ideas for uses of post-carbon abandoned gas stations, I must brainstorn with your hubby in PDX! Where?

[me b zola]

42. We are in North Portland

He would love for someone to brainstorm with!! He's at work right now, can I have him PM you with my user name? Where are you at??

[MARALE]

86. there are many things that can be done to help generate

electricity and energy that are not being taken advantage of right now. I am a Electrical Engineer, although I mostly do programming and board design, I have been investigating alternative energy and vehicle choices. They idea your husband has is great, kind of like canisters for grill propane tanks. It would reduce garbage as well, which I think is important.
I also read about using electro magnetics in the pistons to help the efficiency of the engine:
"If the piston going up and down was a magnet and the cylinder was a coil...poof electricity. But you say wow thats gonna slow it down via heat...oops lets slap in some thermocouples....woops...wow we loose alot of that heat generated...yikes let the cooling system run a turbine.........Why not use every part of the thermodynamics of the burning fuel."

There are a lot of great ideas out there, we just need to use them. I just read about an airplane in Brazil that uses only ethanol! Brazil has rules about their cars having to use a certain amount of ethanol-30% I think. There are many ways to get things going.

I think why we are not in an industrial boom anymore is because more people work and work longer hours, and do not have time to experiment or invent.

I think your husband's idea is a great one, tell him to keep it up!

[me b zola]

111. Hey, thanks for the support

He's back at work again (he works evenings), and I have had a difficult time getting him a user name. He would love any and all imput, and it sounds as though you are pretty knowledgable.

I believe that the entire idea is to not only get over our dependence on oil, but to free ourselves from corperate slavery as well.

May the American Spirit break free of its shackles. May we live up to what is good & right within us all.:grouphug:

[Xithras]

94. People have been discussing that idea for 20+ years.

Problem #1: Automotive battery packs are heavy, typically in the 500lb range, so the idea of pulling out a suitcase sized battery pack with one hand and plugging in a new one isn't realistic. You're talking about using some kind of major equipment to install and remove the packs, so the replacement process will be slow and inconvenient.

Problem #2: Since batteries are heavy, they need to be kept low and centered in the cars, which is why electrics typically build them in under the floorboard. This presents a big problem when trying to figure out a way to quickly and easily access the battery packs.

Problem #3: Manufacturer support. There have been proposals in the past to develop interchangeable battery packs for cars, but the manufacturers could never agree on a design. With so many different types of electric motors on the market with different power requirements, coming up with a single battery design will be nearly impossible. You'll run into problems where Ford wants to use a 400v motor for efficiency, but GM wants to use an 800v motor to allow the car to climb hills. Are you going to start stocking both Ford and GM versions of the battery? What happens when Toyota announces their ultra-efficient 100V model? And Hummer their KiloVolt?

[me b zola]

112. Your input is valued

I will have my hubbie read this when he returns from work.

[xxqqqzme]

27. had an owner of 2 of these cars

speak to our AD a few months ago - battery charging 'facilities' was a myth - spread by GM - he recharged his and his wife's in their garage overnight. They tried all sorts of ways 2 get 2 keep the cars but were forced 2 turn them in. I drove it around the parking lot...it was wonderful - quiet, solid....GM f*cks up yet again. they do not deserve 2 B in business.

One of the bigger problems, the owner speculated, is that the elec cars R virtually maintenance free - no more auto mechanics - very little wear & tear on brakes..tires lasted longer. It affects more than just the auto industry.

[Toots]

52. Honda's new Hybrid needs no charging ever ..no plug ins at all.

:shrug: GM is so far behind in this field it is pitiful.

[420inTN]

61. Because it's a hybrid.

It doesn't need to be recharged, but it does need to be refilled with gasoline. gas motor + electric motors + batteries = hybrid.

GM brought out their all electric EV1 years before the first hybrids hit the market here, so they were actually years ahead of anyone else. GM is also looking at the fuel cell, and will probably be the first out with a production hydrogen fuel cell automobile.

However, Toyota is probably the industry leader with hybrids. Ford is working with Toyota and already has the Escape Hybrid. However, I haven't seen any plans to release a hybrid sedan or coupe.

[bluedonkey]

62. What ever happened

to the Volvos that ran on salad oil?They were developed during the 70's oil crisis.

[charlie]

63. Probably still around

Diesels can run on vegetable oil with little modification.

[VelvetMonkeyWrench]

69. When you can't find diesel fuel...

...mix 3 quarts ordinary unleaded gas with 1 quart SAE30 motor oil.

It'll run like crap, but it will run and get you somewhere. I've done it, it worked.

[fallout]

114. people could use this car to run errands and charge them at home *PIC*

"Socket Rocket" lol

[FloridaPat]

2. They were meant for local driving. I think it was about 30 miles to

a charge. That would be great for cities.

[proud_dem]

4. Scrapping the electric car concept ...

was a good idea.

Nuclear energy requires uranium, which is also needs to be discovered, extracted and transported using oil-powered machinery. Nuclear power plants also consume a tremendous amount of oil during their initial construction and continued maintenance.


Not to mention that would also threaten the world's uranium deposits eventually that will drive the price of it upward and in return cause electric rates to skyrocket.

[cthrumatrix]

5. you can make electricty with other resoruces than nuclear

in our country...we may need to have about 7-8 ways to make electricity..I'm not sure there is a single bullet yet.

Uranium would last for 10-20 yrs...even with increased mining

[tinanator]

8. bullshit, but impressive quantities! fantastic first post congrats!

thats probably the biggest line of crap Ive ever seen. For those interested in the truth let's all say one word together-
P H O T O V O L T A I C

you know, the solar technology that at least one Electric Ranger driver used to charge his vehicle and power his home. His TOTAL out of pocket expenses for THREE YEARS of vehicle operation was SEVENTEEN DOLLARS! To fix a leaking tire. Those vehicles had a range of 150 miles, plenty of speed and performance and not ONE unhappy user.
Lets all pay attention to the facts rather than any anonymous opinions referring to Nuclear Energy as the "only way" for anything, because Solar Power is here, its good, and all the rest is bullshit now.

[evolvenow]

78. Yessiree!! SOLAR is the winner!First Solar Plant-300 acres crescent mirror

Las Vegas SUN: Council to vote on lease for solar power project
... would be the first large solar power plant built in the past decade. ...
will consist of a sea of crescent-shaped mirrors covering 300 acres plus 50 ...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-gov/2003/aug/13/515471556.html

"I think it's a go. It's something we'll be very receptive of and the community supports it," Ferraro said. "They like the idea of green power."

Last month Solargenix Western Area Manager Gary Bailey said that once in operation the plant will consist of a sea of crescent-shaped mirrors covering 300 acres plus 50 acres for buildings and power generation facilities.

The facility, which Bailey said could cost more than $120 million, would use parabolic mirrors to focus heat on a glass tube filled with a special liquid that can stand temperatures above 700 degrees. The fluid is used to create steam, which turns a turbine to create electricity, Bailey said.

A similar facility has been in operation since the mid-1980s in Kramer Junction, Calif., in the Mojave Desert, he said.

The Boulder City plant would create 50 megawatts of electricity, or enough for 50,000 homes. As of last month Solargenix already had 20-year contracts with Nevada Power and Sierra Pacific Power for the electricity, Bailey said.
snip

[Fovea]

17. Most of our electricity comes from Coal, Oil,

and Hydro, as I understand it.
Further, pure electric cars would charge just as well off a solar cell array, though it would be prolly the size of your backyard.

[evworldeditor]

103. Little Oil Used to Generate Electric Power Anymore

Did a quick check and found that oil only contributes 3.3% of US power generation. Here's what the Energy Information Agency reports.


Year-to-date through December 2004, 50.0 percent of the Nation’s electric power was generated at coal-fired plants (Figure 1). Nuclear plants contributed 19.9 percent, 17.7 percent was generated by natural gas-fired plants, and 3.0 percent was generated at petroleum-fired plants. Hydroelectric power provided 6.6 percent of the total, while other renewables (primarily biomass, but also geothermal, solar, and wind) and other miscellaneous energy sources generated the remaining electric power.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html

[kysrsoze]

57. I'd rather get my electric from graphite pellet nuke reactors than

coal and oil. Like it or not, the immediate future is solar, wind and nuclear.

[evworldeditor]

104. Pebbles of Power

features interview with MIT's Andrew Kadak, a leading proponent of PBMRs.

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=814

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=817

[athenap]

6. You'd think they'd be smarter about it

And sell the damn things off as curiosities, at the very least. Or donate them somewhere as a tax write-off. Even if they're slated for squashing because they're not sustainably functional. They've donated some, but this is just downright wasteful.

[Renew Deal]

7. In defense of GM

Maybe the cars suck.

[tinanator]

9. they dont

and why would anyone defend GM?

[Renew Deal]

10. Because they might be right.

I have no idea what happened with the cars. I'd like to know because I am interested in possibly purchasing a Prius type next time I buy. I'm not just going to bash them without more info. Maybe the cars suck. The Prius and the Honda hybrid are doing well. What's the difference?

[tinanator]

12. the difference is you dont know but defend whats indefensible

which is indefensible itself. What with several major protests around Ford and GM's treacherous promise breaking actions, you should already know what is going on here. Look it up, Im not going to do your homework. Factor in a history of malfeasance against public transportation, fuel efficiency and public safety on the part of Ford and GM and it just looks silly to presume something like you want to do here. Those vehicles were driven by VERY satisfied drivers, and it would appear that many posters here are completely unfamiliar with the situation or the basic facts. Look into it before you start arguing, Im sure thats the best idea.

[Renew Deal]

22. I should hate GM because they are GM.

God forbid I try to be objective and informed. GM has a right to make a profit. Toyota and Honda are able to do that. GM has not been able to and that's the difference. Now I think I asked a good question and you claim to have done your homework. The Prius and the Honda hybrid are doing well. What's the difference?

Here is an example of what your post should have been. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1316533&mesg_id=1316533&page=

But I guess it was easier to make assertions.

[tinanator]

23. read the links I provided

you arent being objective or informed, simply a free market capitalist, which is quite honestly a disingenuous non-sequitor.
Those links were available to anyone on the internets, so I fail to see your excuse.

[Renew Deal]

35. Saying that I am not being objective or informed because....

I am "simply a free market capitalist" is a disingenuous non-sequitur to the point where I wonder if you even know what non-sequitur means. Also, the fact that you are not willing to answer my question is quite disingenuous.

[tinanator]

39. if free market capitalism means anything but gobbledygook to you

I rest my case.

what question? whats the diff between hybrid and zero emissions?
Uh, zero emissions vehicles wont be beholden to $4 a gallon petroleum pushers...
was there a question about GM's integrity? May I refer you to MM's "Roger and Me"?
what question, I dont pretend to have all or any of the answers, but I know better than to give the petrochemical industrial complex the benefit of the doubt, dont you?

[Renew Deal]

44. You refuse to answer my question.

The Prius and the Honda hybrid are doing well compared to the EV1. What's the difference? You can't answer that honestly because it blows your argument.

It's not about giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. I'm just not as biased as some people here.

[tinanator]

45. comprehension issues?

"what question? whats the diff between hybrid and zero emissions?
Uh, zero emissions vehicles wont be beholden to $4 a gallon petroleum pushers..."

now maybe you will change your tone from "you refuse to answer my question"
to
"thanks, i didnt catch that"

[Renew Deal]

48. Not comprehension, but intellectual dishonesty.

You can not answer the question asked honestly so you just ignore it. Here is the question I am asking: "The Prius and the Honda hybrid are doing well compared to the EV1. What's the difference?"

The original context was in regards to sales. I will be waiting patiently.

[tinanator]

49. intellectual dishonesty is right

thanks for clarifying that for me. Beings as the EV's have NEVER BEEN FOR SALE, you are simply in the business of wasting my time.

[Renew Deal]

51. lol, I knew they were never for sale.

But again, you ignore my question. Let me further clarify it for you. Sales is a term used in business interchangeably for revenue. Here is a dictionary.com definition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sales
4 entries found for sales.
The exchange of goods or services for an amount of money or its equivalent; the act of selling.

Either answer my question honestly or admit that your argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny once you get past the emotion.

[jmowreader]

77. I will tell you exactly why the Prius and Honda are doing well

There are actually several subreasons that add up to one big reason: Honda and Toyota are doing this for real, and GM was just showing off.

This is why the Prius and two of the three Hondas have room to carry cargo, and the EV1 has enough storage space to carry a ladies' purse, if it's not very big and it doesn't have very much stuff in it.

This is why the Prius and the Hondas are all hybrids, and the EV1 was completely electric. The battery isn't going to run down on a Prius and leave you stuck 40 miles from home. You don't have to worry about finding a "charging station" in a Prius--as long as it has gas in it you can get where you need to go. Also, an EV1 is strictly a town car, while you can drive a Prius from New York to Los Angeles if the mood strikes.

This is why GM leased the EV1, and the Japanese manufacturers are selling their cars.

GM wanted to get people to pay to participate in one of their demonstration projects--"look at the car of the future, all of these people are driving around in cars that produce No Emissions and burn No Gas and this is how you will drive in the far, far future"; while Honda and Toyota went into this with a profit mindset--"how much do we have to sell this car for if we want to make money on it?"

GM has always been big on teasing us with dreams of The Future. Google the Futurama exhibit at the 1939 World's Fair and Futurama II at the 1964 World's Fair. Both visions of the future were produced by GM--but when it comes to real futuristic stuff like electric cars, they blow it out their asses.

[One_Life_To_Give]

59. I suspect GM is afraid of a lawsuit.

My personal suspicion is that GM has identified a major Liability issue surrounding these cars. And quite simply wants the problem to go away as quickly as possible.

[evworldeditor]

108. Bullsh*t

We're talking about 77 cars. Ford accepted the liability on the Ranger EV's they sold to owners for a $1 after the Raboy/Kortoff sit-in in Sacramento in January.

GM has settled much bigger product liability lawsuits than would ever be generated by a handful of EV1s. And all the potential 88 people who pledged to pay GM $25K apiece for the cars also agreed to absolve GM of all liability, just as the Ford protesters did.

Ford listened and did the right thing. GM just ignored 28 days of round-the-clock vigils and an offer of $1.9 million.

[evworldeditor]

109. $13,000 in Taypayer Subsidies to GM Per Car

Here's the real kicker, folks. The State of California gave GM $9,000 in incentives, while the federal government gave them another $4,000 to "off-set" the cost of the car for people who leased the vehicle.

This doesn't include all the public moneys used to build out and maintain a charging infrastructure across California and in Arizona.

From the point of view of EV advocates, GM has no right to crush these vehicles because they were paid for - in part -- by public funds.

I expect GM will be sued by California for their actions this week, assuming a couple state legislator buy into the action.

[One_Life_To_Give]

117. You may be right

But 1.9 Mil is chump change in a wrongful death suit for GM. If hypothetically speaking GM missed a safety feature Toyota incorporated.

[gratuitous]

18. According to the story

GM didn't want the cars hanging around for a couple of reasons: First, liability issues. The EV1s, built nearly 10 years ago, sound like real mechanical patch-jobs. A lot of intricate design and cumbersome parts, that according to GM can be serviced only by GM mechanics.

Let's assume that's nonsense, and that it's not that difficult to maintain the cars, with a little training. There's still the question of getting replacement parts for the cars, and GM isn't interested in keeping that up. That's a business decision, and I can sort of understand that.

Second, there's the technology aspect: These cars are 10 years old. No matter how good they were back in 1995 when they were designed or 1996 when they were made, they're years out of date.

Third, there's the whole alternative engine aspect as a whole. It sounds like GM just isn't interested in looking for alternatives to the gas-powered internal combustion engine. Honda and Toyota seem to be working pretty hard on those aspects, and they're probably way ahead of GM and the other domestic auto manufacturers. GM's corporate formula has worked well for 100 years, but if it doesn't work well for the next 100 years, they'll go out of business.

While I can understand some of GM's part of this story, it looks like a monumental public relations blunder and a bad business decision. Just about everyone who reads this story can come up with a better resolution of this situation, but GM has for decades been one of the most arrogant, least innovative corporate citizens on the planet, probably exceeded only by Ford.

[tinanator]

19. heres some links

http://www.technologyreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forumid=392

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=communique&newsid=3176

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2003/08/12/166753.html

http://www.newton.mec.edu/brown/te/ALTERNATIVE_FUEL/TIMELINE/timeline.html

http://www.veva.bc.ca/

and most current and relevant-

http://www.evadc.org/

hope this helps

[johnaries]

25. Actually, GM ALREADY MAKES alternate fuel vehicles.

http://www.gm.com/automotive/innovations/altfuel/

And they are one of the few actually working on Fuel Cell vehicles:
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/400_fcv/index.html

Personally, I still prefer Honda, Toyota or Mazda. But don't knock GM unfairly.

[tinanator]

29. Its not about GM

its about the federal government and the oilagarchy. Both Ford and GM submit to the same people, and have played roles in destroying public transit in the past. Giving them the benefit of the doubt is just ridiculous in light of history.

[hatrack]

46. For a really detailed backstory, check out "Taken For A Ride"

It's by (Something) Doyle, and it's a great history of Detroit and its general unwillingness to deal with the pollution problems its products have produced, and how this has been going on for decades.

It's much more than that, though. You also get the history of GM's systematic purchase and destruction of interurban rail and streetcar lines, the continuing lag behind the Japanese, both in terms of overall quality and engineering innovation and the whole story on the development of the EV1.

[kysrsoze]

58. True - those cars are way out of date already

I'm hoping they'll push out new potential models soon, but if not, China will do it. Using Lithium Ion cells (often configured in groupings of hundreds of small batteries), they've already doubled the prior range max for electric vehicles.

[DS1]

13. I think its more admission of their getting killed in the market by the

Japanese.

[w4rma]

14. And stupid wasteful stunts like this prove why.

They could at least donate them to charities to resell.

[tinanator]

16. not if they are trying to keep the technology from you

which is all this is about.

[rinsd]

40. Trying to keep the technology?

"The EV1s will not all disappear, Barthmuss added. GM has donated a number of them to colleges and universities for engineering students and to several museums, including a recent donation to the Smithsonian Institution"

I'm not crazy about this decision. But I am encouraged by the sale of hybrids.

[tinanator]

41. you expect those venues to rent them out?

unless that is the case you derive zero benefit.

[tinanator]

15. what market? THEY HAVENT BEEN ON THE MARKET!

pissing in the wind aint I?
There certainly are reasons they havent been on the market, and it aint a feasability problem. Are we entranced by the magic of the free marketplace or something? They have been dragging feet and shutting down zero emissions vehicles for years now, and its NOT because of market or performance issues.
GODDAMN THAT CORPORATE MEDIA.

[he lied us into war]

20. Sheeesh - Let's just go to smaller cars

Why spend billions on new technology? Just raise the CAFE standards drastically and detroit would have to make small cars and that solves the problem.

[tinanator]

21. hah?

check the links i posted above, particularly the EV timeline. Aint no billions required, we already have the technology, yadda yadda yadda. If you think these evil bastards are gonna return to CAFE standards...

[nolabels]

31. Their market shares dwindle by the second

The corporate shit-for-brains automobile manufacturers originally based in Michigan haven't found anything they couldn't screw up yet.

Sorry about your career in the NFL Barry, but it was fun watching you none the less
(snip)

His premature retirement simply adds to his mystique. Sure, he could've broken the rushing record. Sure, he could've earned tens of millions of more in cash. But, when his team wasn't showing him a commitment to winning, he decided that he'd had enough.
(snip)
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/readers/belovedfootball.html

[Merlin]

30. Key point in story is at the end.

The electric-car experiment was not a failure, he said, although they were doomed when the expected breakthrough in battery technology never materialized to give the cars greater range between chargings.

"We believe the EV1 has been a tremendous success in developing technology," he said, noting that systems created for the EV1 are now used in hybrid vehicles and fuel-cell advancements. "There will be a little bit of EV1 in every hybrid and fuel-cell car."

[hatrack]

47. And those hybrid and fuel-cell cars from GM are . . . .

where?

Gosh, I must not have been paying attention. I'm sure GM has at least a couple of hybrids on the market ready for purchase by people like you and me! :eyes:

[librechik]

60. not GM but Ford Escape Hybrid available this year

that is all

[ConcernedCanuk]

32. tinanator hits the nail on the head - it's all about hiding the technology

.
.
.

As young apprentice (mechanic) back in the seventies, I found some information on a SIX-barrel carburetor -

An in-line carb for an in-line 6 cylinder engine that was VERY efficient.

It disappeared

GM and other auto manufacturers have been buying up patents and shelving them for decades - this is nothing new . .

Big auto manufactures, the oil companies and governments are one big happy family

Feck with their bottom line ($$$$) and your product/idea, if not yourself, will fade away into the horizon

OH

One poster asked why they can't charge with the wheel motion -

Actually, some of them do, in deceleration. So when going downhill, or "coasting" a sensor activates a "charger" on the wheels or transmission to replenish the battery a bit.

However, one would still need to charge the batteries independently as the vehicle would consume more than it created.

Solar panels on the hoods, trunks and roofs would help as well

and then again

we could always drive less?

Eventually, but not in our lifetimes - all those gas stations may just end up being "solar" stations - where one drives in and exchanges their battery for a solar charged one!

(maybe that's why we are seeing all them canopies get built on our self-serve stations - and I thot it was just to keep me dry!) :silly:

[Mithras61]

34. Another fallacy you missed...

is that battery technology hasn't advanced. Tell that to your cell phone, your laptop and your PDA! These cars (including most hybrids) are currently using lead-acid batteries, which has been "state of the art" as far as automakers are concerned for some 70+ years. If battery technology hasn't advanced, what do you call the NiCad and Lithium-ion batteries that are more current technology?

I have to agree with several posters here that the REAL issue is keeping the alternative fuel vehicles out of our hands. Of course, we could all go with diesel engines and use BioWillie fuel instead (it's vegetable oil with the glycerin removed). After all, didn't the original dfesign of the diesel engine use vegetable oil and not petroleum distilates?

edited to correct my terrible typing...

[tinanator]

38. excellent point about battery technology

can you hear me now? Its pretty exasperating when an article includes big lies with no rebuttal, and some posters show no ability to detect such plain as day bullshit.

[evolvenow]

87. And even bigger truth--Batteries can be made that run for years--Won't see

these showing up in any corporations.

[evworldeditor]

105. Southern California Edison's 110,000 Mile RAV4 EVs

SCE's fleet of Toyota RAV4 EVs use Panasonic NiMHs and some of the other models had over 110,000 miles on them and SCE estimated they could go at least 130,000 miles. Those vehicles reached the end of their lease and were returned to Toyota.

Talked to former Honda EV Plus owner at the EV1 Vigil on Feb. 26th who turned in his electric car with 90,000 miles on it. Once again, NiMH batteries.

http://www.evworld.com

[evworldeditor]

106. Interviewed Alexandra Paul and Colette Divine

In the last twenty-four hours, I interviewed the two actresses who were arrested on Monday for trying to prevent GM moving the 77 EV1 electric cars from the Burbank facility.

Interviews will be available starting next week on EVWorld.Com.

Also read Paul Scott's -- one of the organizers -- perspective on the vigil, as well as Mike Kane, who followed the transporters all the way to Phoenix.

[gbwarming]

53. All hybrids use Nickel Metal Hydride batteries

The first EV1s used lead acid batteries and had a range of 40 to 60 miles of real world driving. 1999 models had either improved Lead acid batteries or NiMH batteries. The NiMH batteries nearly doubled the range (and netted GM more credits in the California ZEV program).

People LOVED their EV1s with either battery!

There were about 1000 EV1s produced, they were only leased on CA and AZ at a cost $480 to $640/month (plus the costs of installing a battery charger in you garage including builing permit and electric service upgrade if required). There was a wating list.

btw, All Toyota, Honda and Ford hybrids use NiMH batteries.

http://www.eanet.com/kodama/ev1/99test/99test.htm

[Mithras61]

92. Fabulous, so what you're saying is that they lied?

After all, they (GM) are claiming that the reason that these cars are unworkable is because battery technoilogy didn't improve, and I'm calling bullsh!t on that. What you're offering are supporting arguments to my position here.

Now, where are the Lithium Ion battery-based vehicles? Aren't they even better than NiMH batteries? But that's right... no advances have been made in battery technology...

As for hybrids, while it is a better solution than no change at all, I;d still rather have a vehicle that didn't depend on fossil fuels to run. Hybrids are only a step removed from diesels using bio-fuels, in my book. They're better than a gasoline only IC engine, but I still want something better.

[charlie]

54. They rode that SUV fad hard

and got caught with their britches down. 1970s redux. They never fucking learn:

GM profits warning drives shares into a brick wall

GM fears junk rating after alert on profits

Good old American quarterly profits thinking has once again driven a megacorp off into the weeds... and created a ripe opportunity for foreign-owned competitors. GM market share is down to 25% from around 33% a decade ago. Their response to this crisis? More of the same:

Chief financial officer John Devine said: "The competitive environment we face means we must continue to find ways to reduce our costs and grow revenue. The projected loss in North America reinforces our need to do much more, particularly in the area of health care." The company also faces mounting pension costs. He added that the company would pump more money into marketing.

No mention of R&D, no hint of superior technology in the waiting, no talk about product at all, just squeeze harder on labor costs and boost marketing. That's our titans of business for you. Look for another bailout of a "too big to fail" industry and "buy American" iniatives from the federal govt in the future.

[Demeter]

64. So I Hear GM IS Losing A Billion A Year

Think this step will help?

[sarcasmo]

66. This is why GM will go bankrupt. Oil going dry and they cut the EV1

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the first company to come up with a top notch electrical car will be like Ford coming up with the assembly line.

[evworldeditor]

107. Standard and Poors....

is ready to downgrade GM's debt to "junk" status. Their stock as lost nearly half of its value in the last 12 months.

See my blog today entitled "GM Betting on An Illusion".


http://www.evworld.com/general.cfm?section=directory&page=blog

[daleo]

72. It is simple chimpenomics.

Working on fuel efficient cars of any sort reduces the demand for oil products and oil wars. The neo-cons are beholden to oil and military interests so those come first. To get along, you have to go along, so GM won't rock the boat. Nor will any U.S. car company, although there might be token efforts for P.R. purposes.

[Blue to the bone]

76. I wonder if every one of those protesters owns either an electric...

...or a hybrid, or no car at all?

[Megahurtz]

93. Gee, I wonder how that happened...

(sarcasm)

[BiggJawn]

98. They MARKETED the EV-1?

That's news to me. I read stories about how they were in "field trial", but I was unaware that GM was marketing them.

Must have been buried under all the noise from the "Silverado" ads...

So what's GM gonna bring out in a few years when Gas is $3 a gallon?

An updated "Vega"? another Chevy "Sprint"?

The Murkan auto industry almost deserves to die.

[classics]

116. GM made a big mistake getting rid of the Geo Metro

It got better mileage than any hybrid electric car, cost almost nothing and lasted for 10+ years with just oil changes.

A hybrid is an expensive technical monstrosity by comparison.