Doug Korthof

Cashing In on the Electric Transport Boom

You are so WRONG. The EV1 was originally released on lead-acid batteries, not NiMH; and there were 650 in the original "1997" format. There were problems with failure-prone GM-Delco lead batteries, once they were upgraded to lead-acid PSB EV-EC 1260 batteries, they had a range of over 100 miles and never failed. In 1997, Toyota and Honda released NiMH EVs that were superior to the original GM EV1 and cost less.

It was 2000 (starting in Dec., 1999) before GM was forced, by CARB, to start releasing some of the 465 NiMH EV1.

Even though these had inferior GM-Ovonics NiMH batteries, they had an EPA certified range of 140 miles on a charge. With superior Toyota NiMH, such as are still running in the Toyota RAV4-EV (last sold in Nov., 2002), the EV1 would have had over 200 miles range.

Add them up: Lead-acid, not NiMH, over 100 miles range, the batteries were NOT the problem!!

And 650+465=1115, not "800". At least you don't repeat the GM lie that "nobody wanted them, they didn't sell".

Perhaps you should study more, then I'll read the rest of this puerile article.

Chrysler's Rebadging Plan: Strategic Blunder for Nissan?

Well, Nissan has nothing to lose with this deal (it can sell less-than-perfect seconds to Chrysler); and Chrysler has nothing to lose either (doesn't cost them a thing to stock a rebranded Nissan; at worst, they don't sell).

On the other hand, most likely, they won't gain, either. But for Chrysler, it's worth the gamble: no loss vs. some possible gain, however unlikely.

Chrysler's problems are legion, but NONE of them involve the UAW or line workers. ALL of them involve betting the company on big, gas-guzzling monster hemi-mobiles; they just don't have the expertise, let alone the money, to develop a small excellent car.

Chrysler's best bet is to sell some brands to a company like Nissan that wants to be considered 'American'. And that's what they seem to be starting to do. If I were them, I'd rebrand the Nissans as "Plymouth" or even "Desoto", and eventually drop the Chysler connection, just sell them at rebranded Nissan dealers as "Plymouth Dealer". After all, Nissan was once Datsun...

The Electric Car Battery Battle

Hanglider dude, there is NO PLACE for Hydrogen as a motive power for cars; if it made sense to use a compressed gas, CNG is much more energy-dense at lower psi, is proven, doesn't need a fuel cell stack, and there's already a delivery system of charging stations. Also, it's a clean fuel, you get the same sticker as an EV.

Hydrogen is a HOAX.

You can run H2 cars, at a cost of $10/mile, just for show; but if anyone tries to SELL a fuel cell car for $50,000, buy it, you can dismantle it and sell the parts to easily double your money! Sure, it works, in space, where cost doesn't matter and they carry technical-grade O2 as well as technical-grade H2; but YOU CAIN'T DO THAT on the roads here!! NONE of the FCX carry their own technical-grade Oxygen, which is why they only last 3 years.

As for EEStor, we all hope for the best, but there's no reason to believe anything they say, to this point. The term "vaporware" springs to mind. Similar to GM's lies about resuming EV production, or last night's beer-bust conversation, EEStore's promises seem to evaporate in the light of day.

The Electric Car Battery Battle

J.S., you are ignoring diesel-electric locomotives, the standard; they are essentially serial-hybrid Electric vehicles.

The supposed VOLT uses the same basic configuration; it works and has been proven successful, with or without batteries. Large earthmoving machinery, also, is serial-hybrid.

The problem is, GM has no intention of honestly making the VOLT, they are planning to sabotage it, just as they sabotaged the EV1.

(PS, diesel-electric locomotives use electric braking, but since diesel has been so cheap, they don't yet store the recaptured energy of motion in a battery; they dissipate it via heat exchangers. Electrified rail is great, but diesel-electrics with batteries work too. The thing is, it's always more efficient to generate the electric in a central plant, not on the fly! You're right about that)

The Electric Car Battery Battle

EEStor is questionable: they have no reality to this point. An EV needs three things:

1. Superior power (at least 50,000W, or 50 kW, 68 hp to take off from a stop). Many batteries, for example ZnO, can't supply this; and for Lithium, it seems to degrade them.

2. Deep cycle, at least 25 kWh for 100 miles range. Non-volatile Lithium has a problem with this: for example the VOLT has to BUY 16 kWh to use 8 of them.

3. Long cycle-life, at least 1,000, preferrably 2,000, for a life of 100K to 200K miles for the pack.

ONLY NIMH HAS BEEN PROVEN TO DO ALL THREE.

So obviously, Toyota (and Honda) are sticking with what works. If Lithium ever works in an EV (for example, if the Tesla battery pack goes over 100K miles), then they will use it; but to rely on it before it's proven is not prudent.

The Electric Car Battery Battle

Compressed-air cars are a hoax: you can go 25 miles per hour for 25 miles, but you have to compress the air! It's easier, faster and cheaper to run a Neighborhood EV, which does the same thing, costs less, and lasts longer, using cheap lead-acid golf-cart batteries. LOL to the air car!!

The Electric Car Battery Battle

Ghosn is an idiot about batteries; Nissan's failed Lithium Altera was crushed and not mourned.

GM's slimy claim that Lithium is needed for the VOLT ignores the only proven EV batteries, NiMH and lead-acid. NiMH is the longest-lasting and the most reliable at a low life-cycle cost, and lead-acid is the very lowest life-cycle cost but doesn't last quite as long.

So why go to Lithium? So far, no Lithium EV has gone more than 50K miles without significant battery degradation.

And stupid GM, their 16 kWh of Lithium from A123, costing perhaps $32,000, only yields 8 kWh of energy for 400 lbs. of battery.

400 lbs. of NiMH contains 12 kWh of accessible energy at a cost of perhaps $5,000 (even in small quantities). So NiMH is superior in lighter weight, longer life, lower cost and higher reliability.

But stupid GM talks about Lithium, like it talks about fuel cells -- all hogwash.

The reality is, we are still driving Toyota RAV4-EV, over 100 miles range on a charge, last sold in Nov., 2002, on the same battery pack -- Chevron won't sell us replacement batteries, they bought control of GM-Ovonics, which controls the patents, and sued Toyota, which now is afraid to supply replacement batteries.

The Electric Car Battery Battle

The Bike is a known liar. We are driving 100-mile-range Toyota RAV4-EV, last sold in Nov., 2002.

They drive GREAT.

But there's never been a Lithium car that drove over 100,000 miles on the same battery.

The Electric Car Battery Battle

Nissan is a hoax, so far as Electric cars go. Nissan knows SQUAT about the batteries; its failed Altera and Hype-rmini all had to be destroyed presumably because Nissan, like GM, was ashamed of their own failure.

Toyota, on the other hand, willingly sold the last 300 RAV4-EV, using NiMH, and they are almost all on the road still, added to hundreds of fleet-run RAV4-EV.

Ghosn is a jokester and a hypester.

Impact of GM Destroying the EV1

If GM were so concerned about the cost of building the EV1 -- and many posters here are swallowing GM lies about it -- then why did they crush or gut every one, instead of selling these "valuable" cars to willing buyers???

Slow Start for Lithium-ion Hybrids

You don't understand. Lithium is, like Fuel Cells, just a mythology to delay introduction of the EV.

The only proven batteries are NiMH, still running in Toyota RAV4-EV, last sold in 2002, and lead-acid.

So the fact that NO company is using NiMH for plug-in EVs, but are "researching" Lithium, indicates that they don't want to do plug-in EVs.

Those who believe in Lithium EVs, Hydrogen cars, or the Easter Bunny ... well, they can just continue to believe. Faith is free, if frivolous.

Meanwhile, we continue to drive our oil-free Toyota RAV4-EV, on excellent NiMH batteries.

Impact of GM Destroying the EV1

PS, Toyota did NOT crush their RAV4-EV, they sold the last 328 off to the public between May and Nov., 2002; those are almost all running still in the hands of private citizens, being used to pay for rooftop solar electric systems.
WWW.SealBeach.org

Impact of GM Destroying the EV1

Good to see that at least ONE writer gets it right! Great article, showing to me what a criminal cabal runs GM.

Criminal in the sense of doing stupid stuff that benefits no one, not even their own stupid selves.

For the cost of the Afgan and iraqi wars, plus 3 years "defense" budget, we could have produced and GIVEN AWAY not just 100M hybrids, but 100,000,000 EV1 PLUS the solar rooftop system needed to power them.

But it doesn't take that; just the ability to BUY an EV1 allows you to use the money you save NOT buying gasoline to pay for a rooftop solar system. Thus, solarizing America becomes self-funding, taking money away from being wasted by Big Oil. No wonder GM, Toyota and Chevron colluded to kill the NiMH battery used in the EV1, RAV4-EV, HondaEV and RangerEV.

SUV Makers Feel the Heat of Higher Oil Prices

Very funny, GM putting SUV engineers to work on fuel-efficient cars! As if it just takes skin designers to make a new bumper or better door!

GM will find out that it has no skillsets needed for plug-in and other efficient cars; importing small cars (built using expensive Euros) into American is a money-loser.

The one plug-in car that GM had, the EV1, is NOT under consideration for a resumption of production. That entails, the rest is nonsense.