What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Smart Guys Keep Their Faces Looking Young view!
howlifeworks.com - Why men have finally started to use certain anti-aging skin care products...
73 Comments
- iXneonXi, on 10/29/2009, -1/+40Isn't California out of money?
- rmxz, on 10/29/2009, -2/+20I wonder if it would have been better to not bail out the big-3 automakers. Then Tesla wouldn't have needed this subsidy. Tesla could have bought factories and hired people from the former-big-3 cheaply, reducing their costs; and without the subsidized competition from the bailed out companies, the Tesla cars might have had a decent chance in a free market.
- mario323, on 10/29/2009, -0/+13Now just give Tesla a bailout so they can start making these cars at an affordable price. Hell, you already bailed out tons of companies that are squandering the money. Why not bail out a company that will actually use the money for good?
- hellengineer, on 10/29/2009, -5/+18they sure as hell deserve it
- MrPatriotMan, on 10/29/2009, -7/+17Electric cars should have taken off 15 years ago but the problem is that the majority of the patents are held by big oil companies!
- arunforce, on 10/29/2009, -2/+10Do you have any sources for this accusation? I'm not saying they don't, but it's the first I've heard. There isn't much you can patent in an electrical car that hasn't already priorly existed.
- inactive, on 10/29/2009, -1/+8Printing presses at Fort Knox are still working overtime.
- FattyMagee, on 10/29/2009, -0/+6The S? The model S was slated for the 50 grand range I believe. Which will hopefully be less if they get more initiatives like this to keep their costs down.
- chronopublish, on 10/29/2009, -0/+6Tesla received no bailout money. They qualified for an ATVM loan which was a program that was put in place long before anyone was talking about auto bailouts. They are also only allowed to spend the money on Model S development, not the Roadster.
- acknotSW, on 10/29/2009, -0/+5What we need is a modern electric car version of the model T.
It needs to go about 100 miles on a charge, enough to get most of use back and forth from work with maybe a couple stops along the way. It needs to be able to do a solid 75MPH or better. Finally it needs a base price less than $15,000, $12k to $13k would be ideal.
A tall order? probably, but the first company to do it is going to sell a ***** of them very fast. - chronopublish, on 10/29/2009, -1/+6Chevron bought up the patents for NIMH battery technology, which set back the development of EVs by a good 10 years. Google it.
Now that Lithium Ion batteries have become viable for EVs, things are moving forward again. - LonesomeFighter, on 10/29/2009, -0/+5like they'd be that hard to pick off...
http://image.internetautoguide.com/f/industry-news ... - SweetDaddyD, on 10/29/2009, -0/+5In 1899 and 1900 electric cars outsold gas cars. It's not like they are new or that Tesla invented them. They have done a great job at marketing the car Lotus builds for them (yeah yeah they put someones else's motor in it on a hoist in CA in the back of the dealership) and creating hype though.
http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aacarsel ... - robertisaar, on 10/29/2009, -0/+4good luck, china outnumbers us by quite a bit...
- xdre, on 10/29/2009, -0/+4Watching Tesla trying to buy up GM assets would be like watching an ant trying to eat a beached whale.
- mandarin, on 10/29/2009, -0/+4Sweet, more jobs to Norcal
- LonesomeFighter, on 10/29/2009, -0/+4i got a serious question. people keep claiming how much money America will make if we legalize it and tax it, but what's to stop people from growing it themselves and buying it from the guy down the street like now? plus people like different blends, will these taxed merchandisers have that or will it just be the cheap *****?
i agree that legalization keeps them out of jail and saves money with that, but in theory jacking up the fines covers that expense as well. - NJank, on 10/29/2009, -0/+4for the lazy: here's a rant site about the Chevron/GM NiMH battery issue
http://www.ev1.org/chevron.htm - krrh, on 10/29/2009, -2/+5The reason for not bailing out Tesla is so they don't turn into the sort of company that requires bailouts and massive subsidies every 5-10 years. Dependency breeds dependence. It would have been better to let GM fail, and let Tesla buy up the useful assets with private funding.
- tgc1, on 10/29/2009, -0/+3You remember GM's EV1? It took off. But GM killed the ***** thing. Those sunsabitches.
- LonesomeFighter, on 10/29/2009, -0/+3That makes sense. The store prices prob won't really seem different than todays prices until huge farms start growing it come into effect, which I'm sure they will. However, unlike oranges, marijuana seems to be able to grow everywhere. But maybe that just means there will be more localized businesses and people will treat them like the local beers fighting in the market against the cheap mass produced beer of arguably lower quality.
- sentinel106, on 10/29/2009, -0/+3@LonesomeFighter
I think I have an answer to your question, but I may be wrong. The way I see it, is just like a garden. Sure you could grow your own tomatoes or oranges, and you wouldn't have to pay at the grocery store, but it's more convenient to go to a store than take time out of your day caring for plants. I mean let's face it, someone working a full time job might not be able to take the time out of their day to tend to some cannabis plants. Also don't forget that if it's suddenly legalized, buying yourself a box of pre-rolled joints at 7/11 is going to make your toking experience a lot easier. - anillop, on 10/29/2009, -0/+3Seriously when is Digg going to do something about these damn spammers. It is realy beginning to be a problem here.
- Iamien, on 10/29/2009, -4/+6Yes Yes, this is what California needs to do, take in even LESS tax revenue from the wealthy who would of bought the car either way.
- chronopublish, on 11/02/2009, -0/+2I agree, NiMH is a practical EV battery technology - however Chevron's ownership of the NiMH patents have pretty much guaranteed that we will never see another NiMH-powered electric vehicle ever again.
- xdre, on 10/29/2009, -0/+2The problem is that the barriers to entry are so high in the automotive world that you're just not going to get many new players. Cerberus tried their hand with Chrysler and failed miserably (although Daimler did leave that particular cupboard pretty bare), and so far Tesla is relying on Lotus to do the bulk of their engineering work. Plus from a local perspective, if GM were to fail, it's a leadpipe cinch that the supplier chain would be devasted, and to varying degrees that's going to cause problems for every single other car company that has a North American factory.
- Ultomato, on 10/30/2009, -0/+2electric cars + solar panels = energy independence
- chronopublish, on 11/01/2009, -0/+2fooljoe,
Not sure where you're getting this idea that Tesla batteries "fail" at 50,000 miles. Lithium Ion battery cells degrade in a pretty predictable linear fashion after the first year or so. The Tesla batteries are expected to have 70% range after 100,000 miles or 7 years. (Whichever comes first) - arunforce, on 10/30/2009, -0/+2Whats your point? Alternative energy is growing at an exponential rate, if it is a net save in the long run... Who cares? At least we are mining the coal from our own backyard instead of some musty old desert instead of funding people who don't give two ***** about each other or us for that matter.
Hurting our economy and our future at the same time. - SweetDaddyD, on 10/29/2009, -0/+2Why don't they do like Fisker, and take over an existing auto plant. There are plenty out there. Would be much "green" of them too.
- OliveStreet, on 10/29/2009, -1/+3All electricity? All from only coal? That's exactly what you just said.
Tool. - Vaiper, on 10/29/2009, -3/+5Aren't we all? I think the only way for us to make it look like we aren't collectively in debt is to take the negative sign in front of the deficit and replace it with a positive sign. Or kill China. Whichever is easier.
- Ultomato, on 10/30/2009, -0/+2actually the tesla batteries are recyclable
- fooljoe, on 10/30/2009, -0/+2@jbmcb: It's no bullcrap. Yes, the Prius and every other hybrid on the road today uses NiMH battery technology, which begs the question of why no currently planned EV uses this proven technology.
Chevron/GM's patent encumbrance of NiMH batteries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of ... is targeted at "large format" batteries. There are significant differences between batteries designed for hybrids and those suitable for EVs. To date, Cobasys (Chevron Ovonics BAttery SYStems) has been perfectly willing to license small format batteries for hybrids but has refused to produce or license large format NiMH batteries suitable for EVs.
The last such batteries produced were the Panasonic EV-95 batteries used in the Toyota Rav4-EV, but following Cobasys's lawsuit Toyota/Panasonic ceased all production. Amazingly, hundreds of these Rav4-EV remain on the roads today, many with over 100,000 miles driven and their batteries still providing 100 miles range. These batteries have a proven track record, can power an SUV like the Rav4 over 100 miles, and are substantially more cost-effective than lithium. - nurbsenvi, on 10/29/2009, -1/+3Says the troll
- djm19, on 10/29/2009, -0/+2Last I heard, it is pretty much down to Downey or Long Beach. Both of which are offering existing factories.
- nurbsenvi, on 10/29/2009, -1/+3Don't fail us this time America.
- xdre, on 10/31/2009, -0/+1@fooljoe:
If it is "unforgivable" that GM used public funds (and frankly, given the EV-1 program cost of $1 billion, at best it's a quarter of the costs), it's entirely appropriate to characterize Tesla's relationship with Lotus as a "subsidy". Designing car platforms doesn't come cheaply.
Now when I say the EV-1 was "from scratch", I'm talking about things like the car's platform, the drive-by-wire steering and brakes, the aluminum space frame and on and on. All of that tech was highly unusual in a car at the time. (AC Propulsion only designed the "drivetrain", so to speak.) It's disingenuous to compare a car that was meant to be a rolling technology showcase to the more conventionally-built Model S built 13 years later.
The EV-1 started out with lead-acid batteries, incidentally. Large-scale NiMH batteries weren't ready in time, and when they were added, it was considered groundbreaking. There's your economy of scale; today we use NiMH batteries on a far wider basis than back then--including in the Prius hybrid.
"If they really believed that (sure they've said it but talk is cheap) they could restart the production line anytime and give Tesla a run for their money."
GM can't just start making EV-1s like that. As I mentioned earlier, the EV-1 was a technological moonshot, and most of the parts were bespoke or even hand-made. It's also why GM couldn't leave the cars in consumers' hands; they and their suppliers could not guarantee parts availability for ten years as required by the government. Call it short-sighted if you will, but it's yet another reason why the EV-1 wasn't close to being profitable.
"Lastly, the fact that all the major automakers discontinued their EV programs at the same time has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not those EVs could or should have been profitable."
Yes, I'm sure the limited market, insanely cheap gas, inherently tiny vehicle range, and lack of infrastructure didn't have any impact on the profitability of EV programs or its attractiveness to the general public.
The very fact that it took a government mandate and a subsidy to even get EVs into the hands of consumers should tell you something. Yet Honda, GM, Toyota, Ford--all have hybrid cars and buses on the road today, and Honda and GM have spent nearly a decade on developing hydrogen fuel cells, so it's clearly not just about dismissing alternative propulsion.
"As to whether those cars could or should have been profitable, take the time to learn about the Rav4-EV."
Then you should be blasting Toyota much more than GM, since an EV Rav4 was far more viable as a profit maker than the EV-1 ever could have been--for the exact same reasons as the Model S, I might add.
Again, I'm not saying that I agree with GM scrapping its EV program. I'm just saying that Tesla's situation is apples and oranges by comparison, and to say that GM should have turned a profit because Tesla is 13 years later is to be dismissive of far too many variables and circumstances to be anywhere close to accurate. - fooljoe, on 10/31/2009, -0/+1Also, I wanted to point out that charge time is not the "biggie" issue you make it out to be. Pretty much any battery can be charged quickly - provided you have the power to do it. And with just about every battery technology I've seen, you could quick charge it, but it would be not so good for its health.
EVs work best as commuter vehicles parked at home overnight, charging up on off-peak residential 220V or 110V power, which simply isn't enough current to charge any faster than currently available batteries like to be charged anyway. If a "quick-charge station" would ever be needed, it'd be in an emergency or for a rare long-distance drive. More likely, however, a sensible EV driver would just take another car, or a plane or train or whatever, if additional range were needed. Or perhaps plug-in hybrids would fill that niche.
I see the idea of "electric filling stations" as pretty much DOA. Maybe someday in the distant future when the number of EVs on the roads approaches a majority, but in the near term there's just no market for it. Bring us the cars first, the current infrastructure is just fine. Worry about augmenting it if and when there's a problem. - fooljoe, on 11/01/2009, -0/+1I think I said it before, but by fail I mean start to experience significant range degradation. I'm not sure where I got the 50k number, but I'd say "significant" degradation is dropping below about 90% capacity, so clearly it's expected to be somewhere well below 100k miles. Thankfully, the Tesla has so much extra capacity packed in that 70% is probably still fine for most people, but unfortunately you have to pay for all those extra batteries.
Anyway, I don't mean to denigrate Tesla in any way, I'm just saying that since the car and its battery are new we don't know yet for sure how it will perform. At this point I would rather have an economical NiMH battery-powered EV, even if it offers only 1/2 the range of a Tesla, simply because I know what kind of performance I can expect, while lithium remains an unknown.
As more and more Teslas hit the road, that uncertainty will start to disappear, and I sincerely hope that the batteries live up to or exceed their expected performance metrics, while their cost falls. I just think that it's ridiculous that the fate of EVs should be seen as intertwined with the fate of Lithium batteries, when there are actual EVs on the road right now doing just fine with NiMH. - fooljoe, on 11/01/2009, -0/+1xdre: Thanks for sticking around for the discussion. I really don't think our views are that far off overall, but perhaps a few things need clarification.
subsidy (noun): a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
It's in that sense that I say it's inappropriate to characterize the Lotus/Tesla relation as involving subsidies. Subsidies refer to government assistance, and Lotus and Tesla are both private companies. Tesla has certainly benefited from its partnership with Lotus, but there's nothing charitable about it and it has nothing to do with the use of public funds to benefit private industry.
Regarding economies of scale: I don't doubt that the NiMH research conducted during the heyday of the ZEV Mandate has resulted in viable NiMH cells for the consumer market and in hybrid cars, but that does not imply that there has been any effect on the EV battery market. In fact, since the only major producer of EV-capable NiMH was forced to cease production, the effect is the opposite of what economies of scale predicts. In any case, it's irrelevant to a comparison of the Roadster and the EV1, as they use entirely different battery chemistries.
Oh, and I'm well aware that the EV1 started out with lead-acid batteries (two versions actually) before NiMH was considered ready, and I've pointed this out myself a number of times. (As an aside, some would say NiMH was ready all along, but GM didn't make use of it until they were forced to because of the release of Honda and Toyota EVs using NiMH.) That's what you do when you want to produce a car with urgency: you use whatever technology is available at the time and upgrade later as improvements become available. Which leads us to question the urgency of car companies to produce an EV today, since what we hear over and over is "lithium batteries aren't quite ready yet, we need just a couple more years" - as if lithium is the only battery chemistry that could possibly power an EV.
As far as the cost of the EV1, it's said that AC propulsion delivered the Impact prototype for $100,000. How GM got from that investment in engineering to $1 billion, if you can believe that number, is beyond me; but Tesla's experience shows it takes far less than that to develop and sell an EV (and without subsidies, as opposed to the EV1, now that we understand each other about subsidies.) How much of that number is attributed to paying the lawyers and lobbyists who fought the ZEV mandate tooth and nail in the meantime? All those other fancy technologies you mentioned on the EV1 (let's call them what they are: gimmicks) cost a lot, I'm sure, but that's just indicative of wasteful spending on GM's part, not anything required to sell an EV. Do you really think the protesters who stood in the rain trying in vain to purchase the last 80 EV1 from GM with a no-strings-attached cash offer (some of which were arrested for their efforts) were there because they really wanted drive-by-wire steering?
Anyway, we can go on for hours trying to compare the Tesla and the EV1 and not achieve anything. Of course you can't compare them on equal footing; but the one thing that matters is that Tesla is successfully SELLING cars, while GM never sold a single EV1. The obvious implication of this fact is that GM could have been selling EVs profitably at some point in the past before Tesla came around, since they'd already done the heavy lifting. Whether they could have been profitable at the time of the EV1 we'll never know, but the fact that Tesla beat them to the punch proves that something else is in play beyond technological readiness or market forces.
Besides, how can you even begin to discuss potential profitability of the EV1 when GM didn't even try (actively refused is a better way of putting it) to sell their product? Obviously a product is not profitable if you destroy it instead of selling it! GM made plenty of excuses for not selling the EV1, some of which may be sort of based on truth, others which are blatant lies.
You repeat one such excuse about GM being required by the government to guarantee parts availability for 10 years. If such a law exists that's news to me and I'd love to see it. If it were true, how then did Toyota sell the last 328 Rav4-EV? They stopped producing one part of minor interest (THE BATTERY) at the same time they sold the cars and never resumed production. I know plenty of Rav4-EV owners who'd love it if Toyota were required by law to provide new EV-95 batteries for their cars, so please let me know.
GM most certainly can start making EVs "just like that". The technology to produce a reliable, desirable EV all exists and has existed for a long time. It doesn't need to be a "technological moonshot." If the Tesla experience has shown anything it's that the market is ripe for an EV - any EV that works.
Don't get me wrong when I criticize GM about the EV1. My criticism is targeted toward all car makers who aren't currently producing EVs; it's just that the EV1 is iconic of what might have been. I am thankful that Toyota went against the grain and spared a few hundred Rav4-EV, because whenever people repeat lies about the EVs of that era we can simply point to the existing Rav4-EV and expose them. That said, I'm not lucky enough to own one of these cars, so Toyota's not doing me any favors as long as it's not resuming production.
Actually, I can't really be that critical of any automaker. These are corporations who are only responsible to their stockholders, not ordinary citizens, although they've certainly failed both groups in a big way recently. Yes, some of them took public funds to develop EVs which they later crushed, an act of seemingly bad faith; but it's really the politicians and their appointed officials who deserve all the blame. Perhaps they expected good faith from automakers; but they were stupid enough not to require it. They had good intentions with the creation of the ZEV mandate but were too spineless and corrupt to stick with it. People like Alan Lloyd, former Chairman of CARB, who was instrumental in dismantling the ZEV mandate to allow for fuel cell research in lieu of EV production, and who then went on to be appointed director of a new fuel cell institute.
Oh, and the fact that it took a government mandate and a subsidy (actually it took more than that; it required 1000s of man hours of protest to get Toyota to spare the last few Rav4-EV) to get EVs in the hands of consumers does tell me quite a bit. It tells me that we need more of the same today! - fooljoe, on 10/31/2009, -0/+1@xdre: There's a lot to address in your comment, so bear with me.
I don't understand your point about Tesla's involvement with Lotus. Yes, Lotus makes the chassis. In that respect they act as a subcontractor. I don't know whether or not they also have an investment in Tesla, but in either case the term "subsidize" is completely inappropriate. GM, on the other hand, did make use of public funds in its development of the EV1, which makes its actions with respect to the program that much more unforgivable. GM's development of the EV1 was not from scratch either, as they subcontracted the heavy lifting to AC Propulsion (who is also behind the Roadster, as you sort of mention).
That being said, the EV-1 heritage, however much Tesla made use of it, couldn't really be that much of a help. The design of any EV is relatively simple. Tesla's (and any company out to make EVs) difficulties are twofold: the battery and the business. Due to a patent encumbrance discussed elsewhere in these comments, Tesla was unable to use the NiMH battery that powered the last-generation EV1, and so had to design its own battery completely from scratch. Therefore EV-1 heritage was completely useless on the most significant component in the car. On the business end, Tesla has faced an enormous uphill battle with its attempt to enter the automotive market as a newcomer. Perhaps more than any other industry, this market hugely favors the established large automakers. Think of everything from procuring parts and talent to marketing, government lobbying, and dealing with crash testing and all the red tape that must be navigated to release a vehicle for the U.S. market. It's no wonder that you almost never hear of a new brand of automobile and when you do they don't often last long.
Your comment about economies of scale doesn't make any sense. Since the EV-1 and the other EVs brought about by California's ZEV Mandate, no major automaker has produced or sold EVs. That's 0 EVs made in those 8+ years. How then have the economies of scale changed? My whole point in criticizing GM is that the economies of scale should have changed and we should be able to buy affordable EVs now, a decade later; but instead we've gone backwards. The reliable and economical batteries in last decade's EVs are no longer available thanks to patent-squatting by Chevron, and the only option to buy an EV today is a $100,000 Roadster made by upstart Tesla. Please enlighten me about these economies of scale you mention.
I can think of someone who doesn't think GM should have continued the EV-1 program: GM. If they really believed that (sure they've said it but talk is cheap) they could restart the production line anytime and give Tesla a run for their money.
Lastly, the fact that all the major automakers discontinued their EV programs at the same time has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not those EVs could or should have been profitable. It has everything to do with the fact that California's Air Resources Board substantially weakened (i.e. killed) the ZEV Mandate after intense oil/automaker lobbying and lawsuits, allowing automakers to meet their obligations with hybrids that can't plug in and bogus hydrogen fuel cell research instead of producing actual zero-emission electric cars. Since the Mandate was the only reason these companies made their forays into EVs in the first place, and since it's obvious that EVs could ultimately disrupt their existing ICE-based income stream, as soon as the Mandate was killed so were the cars.
As to whether those cars could or should have been profitable, take the time to learn about the Rav4-EV. Find someone who has one of the few hundred left and ask for a ride. See how much they go for when they pop up on ebay. Then ask yourself how such a car could have been made a decade ago yet we're still where we are today. - fooljoe, on 10/31/2009, -0/+1And how many of these miracle Lithium Polymer batteries you speak of have been used in cars? For how many miles? Lots of battery research has happened recently but still no cars other than the Tesla have been put on the road with Lithium batteries. And Tesla had to make do with ordinary commodity cells because that's the only battery that's actually REAL, so far. The Roadsters haven't been driven long enough to evaluate their performance, but even Tesla admits they expect the range to drop off significantly around the 50,000 mile mark. And the cost to replace the pack is a large fraction of the value of the whole car.
Speaking of cost, you fail to mention it in your "consumer-facing" areas. That and the aforementioned existence. As a consumer who wants to buy an EV, the first thing I ask is what EVs exist and the second is how much. Here's the result: There are two real options, I can buy a new Tesla for $100k+ and be left with a battery that's pretty much an unknown but I can probably expect to fail in 50k miles; or I can pounce on the rare Rav4-EV on ebay that's probably 7-8 years old and has about 50k miles on it already. It'll probably cost about $35k, but I know that I can probably expect at least another 100k miles out of its batteries, based on what's been seen with the hundreds still on the road in consumer's hands.
If the battery you described existed in a car I could buy at a reasonable price, I'd pounce on it. But it doesn't. So the way I see it, the Rav4-EV, with its decade-old battery tech, is still the best choice. So, no, there haven't been any significant advances in battery technology (that's available and suitable to use in an EV.) Toyota/Panasonic did make significant advancements to the technology since the filing of Cobasys' patents, but development grinded to a halt with Cobabys' lawsuit. Sure there have been advances in small lithium batteries and various research projects since then, but that doesn't really translate to batteries that can power an EV. It might someday, and I hope it does, but so far no car.
As long as EVs aren't being produced en masse there isn't really an incentive to innovate. When EVs were last produced thanks to CA's ZEV Mandate, we went from the lead powered EV1 to the NiMH Rav4-EV in just a few years' time. If we really wanted to jumpstart EVs now, which we need to for a multitude of reasons, we'd start producing them immediately with whatever batteries we have and switch to better technology whenever it's available.
As far as your interpretation of the patent issue, I'm afraid you're mistaken. Your statement that "the original hybrids used the large-format batteries" is contradicted in the link you posted: "PEVE's lower capacity batteries powered the hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) Toyota Prius, which was introduced in Japan in 1997." Lower capacity = small format.
Yes Cobasys licensed their patents for the production of batteries for *hybrids*, but read on and you'll see this: "The terms prevented *****, Toyota, and PEVE from selling certain NiMH batteries for transportation applications in North America". The key word here is CERTAIN, i.e. large-format batteries suitable for plug-in electric vehicles. Next time you post a link trying to prove your point perhaps you should read it first. - fooljoe, on 10/30/2009, -0/+1Of course the idea of electric cars is nothing new; but producing and selling them to the general public is another matter. Prior to Tesla, no highway-capable production electric car had been sold since Toyota last sold the Rav4-EV in 2002. And the EVs of that generation, including the infamous EV1, were only produced because the state of California MANDATED it.
What Tesla has done should not be underestimated. Yes their cars are so far just toys for the rich; but they've shown that selling EVs can be successful, and they've caused the major automakers to take notice. I doubt that the Volt project would even exist today if not for Tesla, as even GM's Bob Lutz has intimated. Tesla has provided the only real cause for hope within the EV community in a long time. - fooljoe, on 10/30/2009, -0/+1@aurorous: the EV1 was never for sale for $100,000 or any price. ALL were leased and at lease end reclaimed and crushed.
history has proven that enough people are willing to pay $100k for the Tesla Roadster (which has substantially the same guts as the EV1) to make it a success. That GM couldn't do the same with the EV1, despite all the advantages of being the world's largest automaker, speaks only to the failings of GM's management and none to the technical capabilities of the car. - Ultomato, on 10/30/2009, -0/+1they didnt have to crush perfectly good state of the art EVs though.
- fooljoe, on 10/30/2009, -0/+1that's interesting, and all battery technologies should be explored (including simple lead-acid), but the key aspect of NiMH is that it has a proven track record in real, consumer-owned EVs. The EV1 got 160 miles range with NiMH and the Rav4-EV STILL gets over 100 miles range, even in cars that have been driven over 100,000 miles. Not to mention that EVERY hybrid ever produced uses another variant of NiMH.
it's absolutely ridiculous that every planned EV discussed today is slated to use lithium batteries, and that the MSM would have you believe that the as-yet-unproven lithium battery is a requirement for the success of EVs. the Chevy Volt concept, for one, could easily achieve its 40 mile range with even a lead battery. sure you might have to replace it every 50,000 miles, but who cares if it costs 1/10th as much? - fooljoe, on 10/30/2009, -0/+11. the batteries in the Tesla and those in hybrids are completely different, and your claim is unsubstantiated in either case.
2. diesel is not an alternative. the idea is to get off OIL.
3. (facepalm) - fooljoe, on 11/01/2009, -0/+1Oh, and lest I forget (as if I haven't gone on long enough already):
"Yet Honda, GM, Toyota, Ford--all have hybrid cars and buses on the road today, and Honda and GM have spent nearly a decade on developing hydrogen fuel cells, so it's clearly not just about dismissing alternative propulsion."
This is getting pretty far off topic now, but hybrid cars that can't plug in are decidedly NOT a form of alternative propulsion. I drive a hybrid (I bought it just so I can drive solo in the carpool lane, not because I'm deluded into thinking I'm solving the world's problems) and I line up at the gas station just like everybody else; that's not an alternative. And hydrogen fuel cell research is just a stupid science project that won't get off the ground for decades, if ever.
I despise both of these ideas because they provided the distraction needed to allow CARB to quietly kill the ZEV mandate without public uproar. Neither has done anything to improve our air quality, prevent global warming, or wean ourselves from oil. All of which real EVs could do RIGHT NOW if they were simply mass-produced and sold to willing buyers.
Again, I appreciate the discussion, but at this point I'm quite sure nobody else is looking at this thread. I'll try to come back to follow up, but I'd recommend moving the discussion to another forum, such as http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/electric_vehic ... where there's a decently active discussion about these issues and we don't have the short attention span of digg. - krrh, on 11/02/2009, -0/+1Good points from both of you. I don't buy the argument that a more dramatic and earlier bankruptcy for GM would have automatically caused major ripple effects for every other manufacturer that relies on the parts supply chain. Ford took lots of pre-emptive steps to isolate itself from the suppliers that were most exposed to GM and Chrysler when this whole thing started really rolling and had contingencies in place to handle such an outcome, I would assume the same for Toyota, Honda, et al.
Let's also not forget that the UAW owns 65% of Chrysler and 18% of GM, while at the same time representing labour at Ford. It's a huge recipe for disaster if you ask me. -
Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 