Grab our RSS Feed

AND

EV-1 and the Volt: as per GM

November 28th, 2007 | Posted in: GM Q and A, Public Opinion

Well, our first Q & A session is over. 42 question asked with detailed answers. I hope everyone enjoyed it. There was one last question, though…

I asked Scott Fosgard, who is director of GM communications, whether GM is specifically reaching out to former EV-1 drivers. I actually asked this question at the behest of Doug Korthof. Many of you have heard of Doug, as he appeared in the Who Killed the Electric Car? movie, and he has since filled the web with anti-GM commentary. I happened to run into Doug in person at the LA Auto Show where I found him outside holding up a picket sign and a bullhorn telling passersby not to buy GM products. I recognized him, and went up to introduce myself. The picture above is of Doug where I found him.

I consider myself open-minded and diplomatic in spirit. Rather than debate Doug I thought it best to see what question he wanted me to ask the GM people, since he felt only people in support of GM could be invited to the type of press event I was there for.

Scott’s response:

Scott himself had driven an EV-1. He told me a story about a trip he once took over a weekend. He said he really enjoyed driving the car, it was fun, and he engaged in some spirited acceleration. By the time he reached his destination (about 40 miles), the car’s battery was half empty. He experienced what he called “range-anxiety”, since he didn’t have the specialized charger at the destination, he was afraid he might not make it back.

He noted that the EV-1 was not for everyone, and in the end only 850 were leased. Problems he explained were the small size, two seats, long charge time, and limited range.

Scott says that Bob Lutz considers the Volt’s range-extender to be an emergency generator. It often won’t be used, but exists primarily for “peace of mind”.

Scott says right now there is no special reason to reach out to former EV-1 drivers in particular as currently the Volt doesn’t yet exist, but imagines they will be contacted when the car arrives. GM has indeed had special meetings with EV-1 advocates Chris Paine (who made) and Chelsea Sexton (who starred in) Who Killed the Electric Car? In fact the two of them were also there in L.A. in a special closed door session (to which I wasn’t invited) with other “stake-holders’ getting a private viewing and private briefing on the Chevy Volt’s development.

Posted by: Lyle

153 Responses to “EV-1 and the Volt: as per GM”

kent beuchert Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 9:39 am

Doug Korthof is, as I remember, this kook who keeps posting his opinion that NiMH batteries are all that’s needed to build a
successful plug-in, and that those searching
for something better are involved in a conspiracy and using their failure as a reason not to build electric vehicles. I haven’t seen any postings recently, but the
folks at GM’s VOLT project had to block him from pestering them with his opinionated pro-NiMH messages. I think he has (or had) a
British website where he spouted his fantasies about the wonders of the EV-1 and NiMH batteries in general. I considered his
arguments mostly propaganda and wondered whether he owned stock in a NiMH company. I could see no other rational reason for him being so attached to NiMH technology, which wasn’t very impressive even when it first appeared in the second year EV-1. Doug is your prototypical conspiracy addict; in other words, a complete paranoid.

(Quote)
Tim Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 9:49 am

Thank you Lyle!

I watched Mr. Fosgard’s video of your responses to his questions on YouTube. You handled yourself like a gentleman and a scholar while Mr. Fosgard appeared quite hurt and bitter about the way in which GM “removed” the EV-1 from the market. Many of us feel that way.

He also appeared to be jealous that GM invited you and not him although I suspect that GM was hesitant about inviting a potential heckler when they are staking so much on the E-Flex project. I believe he was just in the passionate protest mode. His heart appears to be in the right place and his other videos are very interesting.

Regarding the EV-1, GM has publicly acknowledged time and time again that crushing them was one of their biggest P.R. mistakes. Even though Mr. Fosgard is be afraid that GM may repeat the past by also killing E-Flex, his focus on the negative is counterproductive. Range-anxiety is the primary reason that electric cars in general have not been widely accepted as the primary family car. The E-REV solves this problem and Mr. Lutz is right in that many range-extenders will never even be used. Mr. Fosgard should focus on the positive and help promote GM and their E-Flex E-REV as the next logical replacement that it is. Technology marches on.

In time, the primary family car will be pure BEVs (without a range-extender) and people will use E-REVs, mass transportation or rent “hybrids” for long trips and/or hauling “stuff”.

(Quote)
Tim Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 9:53 am

My apologies to Scott Fosgard, Lyle and the readers of this blog as I was referring to the protestor Doug Korthof in the above comment.

Sorry!

(Quote)
OhmExcited Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 10:26 am

For those of you who haven’t seen the movie, it’s apparently on Google Video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5977085690337730430

You can see Doug with his bullhorn before GM was going to haul the EV1’s away to be crushed in Arizona. Whatever you think of him, I’ve got to admit that he’s been dedicated to EV’s long before it was popular.

(Quote)
Brian M Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 10:43 am

At least he protests against GM AND Toyota, rather than accusing GM and only GM of “killing” the electric car, as many others do.

But why doesn’t he protest against all the car companies that never even made a serious attempt at creating an electric car for the masses?

(Quote)
Mark Bartosik Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 11:24 am

Lyle:
“…in a special closed door session (to which I wasn’t invited) with other “stake-holders’ getting a private viewing and private briefing on the Chevy Volt’s development.”

I had hoped that by now you would be invited to anything that is relevant and not confidential.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 11:34 am

I can well understand Mr. Korthoff’s frustration. The results of GM’s many dumb management decisions are clear for all to see including, but by no means limited to, the
EV1 fiasco. I have had plenty to say about this in the past, as have most of you.

Even so, I have to believe that now is the time to go positive, and push them as hard as we can in the right direction. I see that as the clear intention of this brilliant blog.

I believe that the preservtion of the
American automobile industry, and as many of the remaining related jobs as possible, is critical to the future of our nation. The Volt is a potential breakthrough toward making that happen. If GM has finally seen the value of “green” committment, we need to give them all possible positive reinforcement.

GM doesn’t have a lot of chances left. I want to do what ever tiny bit I can to help to push them in the right direction.

(Quote)
Tim Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 11:45 am

Well said, noel.

(Quote)
Guy Incognito Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 12:19 pm

I support Doug Korthof and his stance on GM and Toyotas myopic views on EV’s. And Doug, if you’re reading this, please keep up the good work that you’ve been doing.
They will label you a ‘conspiracy addict’ and a ‘complete paranoid’ because all they know how to do is attack the man rather than the issue.
It is they who are lacking in character Doug, while you have plenty to spare.

(Quote)
David Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 1:27 pm

Development goes where the market demands it to go. When all the chips are counted it was the market share (or lack there of) the EV-1 could satisfy that killed the EV-1.

The Volt and plug in hybrids have not been killed, they ARE coming. A lot slower than I would have liked to see but yes, they are coming and there is no stopping them now.

Now, with that being said, GM could have marketted the EV-1 differently, instead it was sort of marketted like “I know it sucks but it’s a good idea”.

The real blame… Big Oil (for so many reasons) and the Government for not encouraging development in the same language that businesses speak.

Oh yes, I also blame the Flying Spaghetti Monster but that is a totally different blog.

(Quote)
Ed Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Yes, all electric and plug in hybrids are coming soon, but when is soon. I will only believe it when I see it. The mules have not been built yet but everybody is so sure the Volt will be built. I hope I am wrong but I don’t believe a major auto company will release a plug-in until they are forced to do it (an independent car company releases one). Just my thoughts. I’m hoping I’m wrong.

(Quote)
Jim G Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 1:43 pm

Doug,

Obviously you are reading this blog. I see a problem with your stance. Are you going to buy a Volt when they come out?
If you do, then you will be a hypocrite for railing against buying GM.
If you don’t, then you will be hypocrite for not really being a supporter of electric cars.

The only way to really advance your cause would be to support GM and help make this the best electric car possible.

You could say that the question assumes that the Volt will be available at some point, and forever claim that GM won’t really do it, but then you would just look like a fool when they do. In the meantime, attacking GM does nothing to help change that.

And Guy, you may run to a defense that I am attacking the person and not the issue. What I have issue with is the people like you and Doug that are not helping by dwelling in the past instead of trying to change the future.

(Quote)
AES Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 1:57 pm

Doug would probably get more off-the-cuff respect if he weren’t so shrill, anger-driven, and caustic, and if he didn’t endlessly dwell on the past (then again, that is how he gets attention).

That said, frustration with GM over their past decisions is understandable. The Volt project seems about as close as we can get right now to atonement, however.

Nonetheless, some points Doug frequently makes, and some common sense counterarguments:

“The concept Volt model whined along on its golf cart motor – GM couldn’t even scrounge up an EV1 motor – pathetic!”

-> NO concept car from any car company is ever built as a perfect working prototype. They’re a study in design, image, and proportion that needs some basic mobility to get on and off the stage. With this criticism, I feel Doug is venting anger, rather than logic.

“GM isn’t serious about the Volt – otherwise they would be talking to people who have experience with EVs (such as ME!)”

-> Well as you can see above, the folks from who killed the electric car certainly got some special treatment.

On technology:

“NiMH is better, bla bla”:

->Even with bonus cooling equipment and electronics, lithium is far lighter than nickel. As has been noted in previous interviews on GM-Volt, the cooling is for life extension, not safety or overheating.

->Whevever you charge or discharge NiMH, you lose a lot of energy since the process is less efficient than lithium charging. Despite any extra cost of lithium, you can make that up by more efficient use of your electrons.

-> Lithium is much more flexible for fast-charging. That makes it better for quick charges on the go, as well as for absorbing more regenerative braking energy. Nickel fares best with 1C trickle charging.

-> Lithium doesn’t have the large self-discharge of nickel. I don’t like a leaking gas tank, and I don’t want a “leaky” battery either.

-> Provided you don’t use cobalt chemistries, lithium is much more environmentally friendly than nickel.

-> Nickel has been around for decades. Lithium is still young and rapidly improving. For a major company to jump on automotive lithium, this will help spur further research.

“Claims about newer lithium technologies (longer lifespan, thermal performance, etc) are unproven.”

Well, the basic chemistry behind A123’s was invented 10 years ago by John Goodeneough, who was actually responsible for the invention of the original lithium ion battery. Doug once compared Goodenough and LiFePO4 to EEStor in terms of credibility. Needless to say, not a very accurate comparison.

“A123 has a flat discharge curve, therefore they’re bad”

->Flat discharge curves (how much the battery voltage drops as it is discharged) can actually be very desirable! There is very little drop in power as the battery is drained. The downside is it’s harder to precisely monitor the state of charge. But it’s by no means impossible.

(Quote)
AES Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 2:03 pm

Also, re:Chris Paine and Chelsea Sexton –

Apparently they are working on a sequel to their first film, and this one will be about “who saved the electric car”.

So maybe they were doing some preliminary documentary film-making?

(Quote)
Tim Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 2:15 pm

AES – I hope the “Who Saved the Electric Car” sequel ends with me happily driving my silent Volt off into the sunset.

(Quote)
Don Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 2:25 pm

This seems like a good place to revisit the lease the battery issue, since the EV-1 lease issue always comes up when the subject is addressed.

I have had an initial knee-jerk distaste for the lease trial ballon, but I am reconsidering my position.

If the battery pack pack really does cost $8000 to 10000 and they are willing to sell the car for that much less with the lease option, and the total cost of the monthly lease plus electricity is substantially less than average gas bills would be on a similarly sized and powered car (which it well should, as I figure about $300/month top gas bill on the generous side and allowing for a 10 year battery life that’s $40 to 50/month to cover the battery and even with a generous interest plus profit that’s a lot of room)then the option may allow the car’s price point to be affordable to those for whom a $30K outlay is too much. Add in a sizable tax credit and the Volt could come in well under $20K of net cost to buy with a monthly cost of ownership less than other similarly sized and powered cars.

The battery is indeed worth something to them at the end of ownership, even after a full ten years. Batteries at 50% power may not be able to power a car but can be used for other applications and can be recycled for lithium, undercutting any fears of an eventual “peak lithium” scenerio.

Now of course if GM tries to sell the car for in the upper $20Ks AND lease the battery too, then they would be being greedy sons-of-B’s who would be shooting themselves in their feet.

What they need to learn from the EV-1 fiasco is the need to stay as transperent and above board as they so far have been with this project up to date.

(Quote)
David Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Don, #16:

I would have to agree with you.

GM needs to understand that if we will be asked to lease the batteries then we also expect the Volt playform without batteries should cost less than 20K. Even less in my dream world.

(Quote)
Anti-Oil Jihadi Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 2:51 pm

AES:

Job well done!

death to oil
http://www.oiljihad.org

(Quote)
Scott Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 2:52 pm

saying flat discharge is “bad” is crazy! Flat discharge is a goal of the perfect battery. The idea being that the voltage is constant throughout the discharge cycle. You know how annoying it is as your electric drill slowly loses power? Imagine that feeling when driving a car. NOT desirable.

(Quote)
law Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 3:05 pm

Make it an option to lease or buy batteries; therefore, we don’t have to worry about repeating the EV1

(Quote)
RB Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 3:09 pm

“in a special closed door session (to which I wasn’t invited) with other “stake-holders’”

Lyle– I am glad you were not invited. Had you been, soon you would have been drinking the cool-aid, and this blog would be losing its independence. I am glad you always are courteous, but it is better not to cross the line.

(Quote)
RB Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 3:14 pm

#2, “Regarding the EV-1, GM has publicly acknowledged time and time again that crushing them was one of their biggest P.R. mistakes.”

I’ve never heard GM acknowledge that crushing was a mistake, just acknowledge that crushing them brought them bad publicity. I hope they take that error seriously. My wife does, and from that springs her opposition even to considering any kind of electric car from GM. It’s not my view, but I understand where she is coming from. I hope she will come around, but perhaps not.

(Quote)
DG Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 3:31 pm

If you ask me Doug Korthof is an old man who wants attention if he keeps heckling GM about the Volt. Pessemism is not the way in this case or any for that matter. If they scrap the Volt than you can go get em’ Doug.

(Quote)
Jake Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 3:34 pm

Regarding longevity/durability (as they are inevitably related) of new Li-Ion technology:

I am somewhat familiar with A123 batteries due to one of my hobbies: radio controlled vehicles. A123 Systems actually has a division called A123 Racing that makes RC car battery packs and a charger. These cells are not identical to A123’s automotive cells, they are the same cells in A123’s power tool packs. But I think the basic technology is still very impressive. There are users of these cells that have more than 1000 cycles on their battery packs, and capacity is a bit reduced but performance is largely unchanged. RC users really beat the crud out of their batteries, and A123’s take it without complaint. Charging a pack in 15 minutes is the norm. Charging a pack in 5 to 7 minutes (!!!) yields no bad effects. Other times, these cells have been WAY overcharged with no noticeable effects on performance or life. And discharge rates can be very high too, often draining a pack in 10 minutes or less. I think that if A123 cells can take this abuse in miniature electric cars, it’s time to put them (or similar batteries) in a full-sized vehicle!

(Quote)
OhmExcited Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 3:42 pm

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9XcnTPUzxLI

(Quote)
noel park Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 3:50 pm

I think that the basic problem with the EV1 was that the price of gas at the time just wasn’t high enough to motivate people to deal with the range limitations.

The California Air Resources Board tried to force the technology as an air quality issue. People voted their wallets vs. smog and did not buy in.

I think that the whole equation is different today, and will continue to rapidly evolve as gas prices ratchet up.

I was not ready for it then, but I sure am now.

(Quote)
OhmExcited Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 3:59 pm

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qypng348rqk

He is pretty harsh. Let’s change the subject. This is depressing.

(Quote)
bruce g Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 4:13 pm

Could we revisit yesterdays description of the drive train for the volt, 2 motors etc.
Did the EV1 have such an arrangment and if not, why does the volt need it?

(Quote)
Estero Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 4:40 pm

Has anyone bothered keeping track of Firefly Energy lately?

They have received quite a few awards and very favorable reviews from the press and battery experts.

Their “Oasis” truck battery based upon their patented 3D technology will be available for review and testing during the first quarter of 2008. Initial availability of the battery will be in the summer of 2008, with full production scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2008.

Their next generation batteries based upon their patented 3D2 technology is even more impressive.

Who knows, Firefly Energy may still be a dark horse to supply batteries for the Volt or its competitors. GM has said their doors and minds are still open to alternatives.

(Quote)
Mike756 Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 4:49 pm

Lyle,

I thought you were very well spoken in that video and handled the situation very well. I just want to thank you again for what you are doing.

(Quote)
AES Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 4:55 pm

“Could we revisit yesterdays description of the drive train for the volt, 2 motors etc.
Did the EV1 have such an arrangment and if not, why does the volt need it?”

Simple. EV1 had one electric motor, which acted as both a traction motor, as well as a generator for regenerative braking.

The Volt has a similar drive motor that serves the exact same functions. Its second electric “motor” is just the generator attached to the internal combustion engine.

Calling it a “motor” outright, seems to have confused a lot of folks.

(Quote)
AES Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 5:00 pm

Off topic but:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/28/technology/bc.apfn.exxonmobil.lithi.ap/index.htm?postversion=2007112815

Exxon’s getting into the battery scene?

(Quote)
bruce g Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 5:07 pm

AES,

Thanks for that, I had wondered if the Volt was going down the “two small motors line” similar to the dual mode hybrid. Lutz had already said it was too expensive.

(Quote)
Neutron Flux Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 5:37 pm

I too must agree with Don #16. It seems originally GM VP indicated the car would be well apportioned around 27 G’s. When they started pushing the lease option they did not quantify it would reduce the orginally quoted price. There is no way in HEQQ I will buy a Volt for 27 G’s & then lease the battery on top of that. If they can’t bring it in under 20 G’s with a battery lease, that justifies everything Toyota has said about the Volt not being cost effective to produce & makes us look like fools for being strung along while they change the rules mid game. I for one would like the next question asked of GM to be if they sell with a battery lease, what is the price range “goal” they expect to sell the car for? If the value does not compute I will not wait 3 years for something priced beyond its value. I like the energy independance & green factor but that only goes so far & GM better research far & wide to find out just how much the majority of the population is willing to pay for these intrinsic values. I previously posted a cost study on gas vs electricity & savings over the life of the car, justifying a purchase with batteries around the 27G figure. Expecting the common person to pay extortion for the green value is insanity & will doom this car to the fate of the EV-1 in sales. I need a boost in my “I Believe” button and that can only come from GM VP re-iterating the price goal with & without batteries included, without this car being in my price reach I will quickly lose interest in & no longer be able to extol it as my next car!I can no longer be a 3 year cheer leader for a car/company that does not make economic sense to the buyer.

(Quote)
Drake Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 5:49 pm

Lyle- Thanks for all of the interview questions. They have been quite enjoyable to read.

Concering Doug Korthof, we need him for this cause. The old saying “the squeaky wheel gets the grease” is very true in this case. Without a lot of loud, crazy people saying a lot of loud, horrible things horrible things about GM and Toyota, it would be a lot easier for them to wait another 10 years to “study the issue further” and not make EVs and E-REVs.

If Who Killed the Electric Car? was never made, GM would probably not be as dedicated to E-REVs as they are now. The same goes for activism. We need to ask the tough questions, be loud, and demand that these vehicles happen. Otherwise, they will always be another 10 years away.

P.S. If you haven’t seen Who Killed the Electric Car? yet, I highly reccomend that you click on OhmExcited’s link in #4.

(Quote)
doggydogworld Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 5:50 pm

RB #22, In this interview with Motor Trend GM CEO Rick Wagoner called axing the EV-1 program and not putting the right resources into hybrids his worst decision:

http://www.motortrend.com/features/consumer/112_0606_rick_wagoner_general_motors/jobs_sales.html

Why did GM crush the EV1s? Because they’re a bungling bureaucracy. Anyone who has served time in a huge company understands EXACTLY how this crap happens. Other car companies have done the same. Toyota was headed down the same path until someone realized the cost of supporting a few hundred EVs was peanuts compared to the cost of fighting the PR disaster that would come from crushing them.

NIMH:
———————————-
GM’s specs for the Volt battery pack are (roughly):

200 kg or less (full pack)
16 kWh or more
120 kW or more
$6000 or less
4000 cycles or more
etc.

No NIMH pack meets these specs. 200 kg of RAV4-EV batteries only hold 10 kWh. Worse yet, such a pack would be woefully underpowered at a meager 25 kW. So let’s try Prius-style ‘high power’ NIMH. 200 kg of those would put out about 100 kW, pretty close to our goal. But a 200 kg Prius pack would only hold 5 kWh, one third our requirement. And note that Prius-style NIMH batteries cost around $1200/kWh. Upsize to 16 kWh and the pack would not only be way too heavy, it would cost $20k which exceeds GM’s parts and labor cost budget for the entire car.

One can argue GM has the specs wrong. Perhaps there’s huge pent-up demand for a PHEV-20 which accelerates slower than an old lady on a scooter. Or a bare-bones EV-90 which costs $40k. If so, GM is making a mistake and competing designs will clean their clock. I personally think GM nailed it, and I think it’s absurd in the extreme to criticize GM for actually trying when the other car companies are basically sitting on their hands. But only time will tell.

Battery Leasing
———————————-
I understand the thinking behind this, but it’s a dumb idea. Most people will lease the entire car, including the battery. What’s the point of splitting one lease into two separate ones? Makes no sense.

Jake #24, thanks for the A123 battery feedback. As much as I’d like to believe AltairNano and the others, a company which actually puts cells into customers hands and lets them bang away at them earns high marks in my book. Sure wish I could buy their stock.

(Quote)
Drake Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 5:58 pm

Toyota & GM are the world’ largest automakers so it is not illogical to go after them instead of the smaller companies. It is their duty to lead. If they don’t take the lead, they don’t deserve to be in the top spots (and probably will not stay there).

I applaud GM for pushing the Volt’s development at such a strong pace, and love that this push is going to cause the more conservative Toyota to follow suit.

If things go as planned, in 10 years we will have a large number of PHEVs to choose from.

(Quote)
AES Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 6:49 pm

doggydogworld #36-

If you want to see what happens when you literally bang on A123 cells, I did an experiment with one recently, and I posted the results on my site:

http://futuredrive.wordpress.com/2007/11/11/safety-of-a123-battery-cell/

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 6:54 pm

Doug Korthof can preach and protest all he wants. He is an American and lives here. We all have these rights. Maybe he did help GM change for the better and create the Volt.
I applaud you Mr. Korthof.

However,

I agree with Noel, #7. It is time to be positive. Mr. Korthof, instead of bashing GM, (I don’t mind you bashing Toyota), can you find it in your heart to start supporting the Volt? This will be an excellent car and will really start changing the masses. It is important that we all change for the betterment of our country and our climate. The more people we can convince to go green, the better. The more we convince, the more that will follow. Eventually we will all be green, which I think is you goal anyway. So how about it, Mr. Korthof? Can you help be part of changing America? Can you change your message for the common good of humankind?

(Quote)
Jake Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 6:56 pm

doggydogworld #36 – Good post. I also am glad that GM is pushing the Volt so hard, regardless of their past mistakes (which I am not terribly familiar with…Who Killed the Electric Car is on my “to watch” list). It is a little strange to me that the Volt’s all-electric range is only slated to be 40 miles, when some previous (or current) EV’s can go farther. But no other EV has had the potential to become a truly universal American family vehicle. I may never own a Volt, but it would be sweet to have one or a similar vehicle someday (as a college student that possibility is still somewhat remote).

(Quote)
Anti-Oil Jihadi Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 7:12 pm

Drake said:
“If Who Killed the Electric Car? was never made, GM would probably not be as dedicated to E-REVs as they are now. ”

I’d have to disagree. GM is ultimately motivated by profit. If they smell (eventual) profit from an E-REV vehicle like the volt, they’ll build it, patent it, and sell it. They’ve watched the Prius become a runaway success even though it’s not exactly a financially wise decision, and GM is envious. They could have developed the Prius, but instead had their heads up their bureaucratic a*ses.

I haven’t seen who killed the electric car, but it sounds like a conspiracy theory from what I’ve heard. People that buy into those theories are often leftists with little understanding of economics and business. Tree hugging hippies can put forth any theory they wish, doesn’t mean I’ll give them any credibility.

The EV-1 sucked. That’s the ONLY reason GM didn’t sell it. ‘Sucked’ is defined as lack of customer appeal, too expensive, too many potential legal issues (Ford Pinto), and a lack of profitability.

death to oil

(Quote)
Mark Bartosik Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 7:32 pm

lease vs buy
There has to be a buy option, even if indirect by buying out the lease, otherwise you get the following problem:

You purchase car in 2011 and lease the battery.
In 2015 you want to sell the car. However, although the available/willing second purchaser has the cash he/she does not pass a credit check and thus either:

1) The leaser refuses to transfer the lease because potential buyer fails a credit check. Thus you cannot sell the vehicle, because you have to find a “qualified buyer”. So a buy phones you, and you say “May I have your social security number, only to check if you are qualified with GM, honest!”

2) The leaser transfers the lease without a credit check, but the new leaser is unable to pay after a few months. Leaser may have trouble repossessing just the battery only, worse for them if a court rules that they cannot repossess by breaking into the vehicle and cannot repossess the whole vehicle either.

3) The leaser transfers the lease without credit check, and gets ripped by the new lease holder deliberately exporting the battery and car and not paying the lease (steeling it).

If you purchase the vehicle but lease the battery the lease becomes a liability to both parties.

For leasing to work there simply must be a fair buy out option. Which in reality means there is a purchase option.

(Quote)
RB Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 7:38 pm

doggydogworld, #36: Thank you for the link to RW’s comments.

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 7:46 pm

1st I think what this guy (Doug) must be protesting right now are the GM and Toyota’s lawsuit against implementing AB1493 (regulating greenhouse gas emissions as a pollutant, which the US supreme court this year agreed with)… which the irony is the biggest one pushing back seems to be Toyota. Toyota, on the verge of being the largest seller in the US market, smells the $$$ that comes from the higher profits on the big trucks and SUVs.

2nd, while GM’s EV-1 was the main focus of “Who Killed the Electric Car?”, in some ways Toyota had a superior EV with the Rav4-EV (traditional look vs. what some call the “ugly” EV-1, seats 4 or 5 passengers, unlike 2 for the EV-1, and almost as much range). The movie maker probably focused on GM because GM crushed all the EV-1’s, while Toyota finally gave in to the protests and did sell some of their Rav4-EV’s to lessee’s. Ford should also be blamed for killing Volvo’s plug-in program when it purchased Volvo in 1999.

3rd, the NiMH’s were actually very good for their time, and in some ways still are. Some of the Rav4-EV’s have made it at least 5+ years and some 100,000+ miles, and reports are no loss in range. A 2002 study by SoCal Edison concluded the Rav4-EV’s NiMH batteries will last 130,000 to 150,000 miles.

4th, I’m not sure GM could have used the NiMH in the Volt if Chevron, which now owns Cobasys, which now owns the patent, wouldn’t want to license it to GM? Cost could also be a big issue in NiMH as Nickel prices, like most metal prices these days, are way up due to global demand (China/India)?

5th, GM may have helped kill the electric car(s) (the ones that came out of the ZEV mandate), but the truth is other than a subset of consumers, and those either already concerned about reducing GHG emissions or concerned about national security risks caused by our dependence on foreign oil, everyone else didn’t want electric cars. And you can’t blame them for the reason why, corporations are in business for a reason, to make profits. And electric vehicles were (and still are) a threat to profits….

…. for oil and related companies it’s obvious, the cars won’t be using their product (and only 2% of electric power in the USA now comes from oil).
…. for the rest it comes down to an EV having between 70-90% fewer moving parts. That means significantly less servicing and replacement parts needed to maintain them.
…. for dealerships, service and parts sales made up 12% of dealer revenues in 2004, and those accounted for 57% of profits (new vehicle sales generated nearly 30% of profits, and used vehicle sales provided 13%).
…. for brake pad makers, EV’s with regen braking pads can last orders of magnitude longer.
…. for spark plug, exhaust system, air/oil/fuel filter, coolant, etc etc etc, never mind not needing replacements, they aren’t even needed to begin with.

I’m glad GM has changed course with the Chevy Volt. Assuming the Volt is as reliable and low maintenance as other EV’s, I do wonder how they will overcome the above mentioned problems. How will dealerships be able to rewrite their business plans or will we see fewer dealerships?

As a consumer, while the Volt may look more expensive up front compared to a Prius, longer term, the lower maintenance costs, along with the lower fuel costs, should be a winner.

(Quote)
Computer-codger Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 8:33 pm

Lyle:

I have enjoyed reading all your questions and GM answers and appreciate your effort and GM’s openness. You said that was the end of the first round of questions. Did I miss your answer to the following question #57?

There was quite a bit of discussion earlier about controlling Volt’s speed while going down a steep hill. The idea of 4-5 cruise speed control settings would be helpful and I think would be easy to implement.

#57 Computer-codger Says:
November 11th, 2007 at 7:09 pm Quote

Will GM design in this idea of 4-5 levels of speed/cruise control for down hill travel without applying brakes, i.e. use regenerative braking or acceleration as required? The driver should just select from the control panel which setting you want to be traveling. I also suggest that you let the driver set the 4-5 speed/cruise controls and have the computer remember those speeds after the car is turned off or until reset by the driver.

This feature would also be good for transitioning from highway speeds to in-town driving and vise-versa.

Will there be a coasting mode that does not go into the regenerative braking as the driver lets his foot off the accelerator? I understand some think this lack of coasting is an annoying feature of the Prius.

If there is a coasting mode then that actually means to the computer to set speed/cruise control and keep same speed unless (1) brake is applied or (2) accelerator is depressed more or (3) unless one of the 4-5 levels of speed/cruise control is selected for a different speed. Otherwise letting off accelerator means reduce speed. I believe the above multi-level speed/cruise control would ease driver fatigue if a positive constant accelerator action is required for normal non-speed/cruise control driving. The driver has several speeds from which to select.

How will the feel of driving an electric car differ from driving an ICE car?

(Quote)
Brian M Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 9:04 pm

#44 Jeff M:

I believe Toyota is closing in on GM for WORLD auto sales, but GM is still well ahead in America.

(Quote)
Marty McFly Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 9:06 pm

[quote comment="16891"]Off topic but:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/28/technology/bc.apfn.exxonmobil.lithi.ap/index.htm?postversion=2007112815

Exxon’s getting into the battery scene?[/quote]

I wouldn’t be surprised if Big Oil becomes Big Energy (by snatching up power companies) as Li batteries proliferate the globe.

(Quote)
Computer-codger Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 10:19 pm

Lyle,

Thanks for all your effort in asking these questions and for GM’s openness in answering the questions. You said that this was the end of the first round of questions. Did I miss the answer to my question #56 below, about how to control the speed of the Volt going down a steep hill? We earlier had discussions about controlling the speed going down hill without over heating the brakes and out of that discussion came this question. If GM has cruise control in the design, it should be rather simple to have 4-5 speed/cruise controls selectable by the driver. Did this come up in your questions?

#56 Computer-codger Says:
November 11th, 2007 at 7:09 pm Quote

Will GM design in this idea of 4-5 levels of speed/cruise control for down hill travel without applying brakes, i.e. use regenerative braking or acceleration as required? The driver should just select from the control panel which setting you want to be traveling. I also suggest that you let the driver set the 4-5 speed/cruise controls and have the computer remember those speeds after the car is turned off or until reset by the driver.

This feature would also be good for transitioning from highway speeds to in-town driving and vise-versa.

Will there be a coasting mode that does not go into the regenerative braking as the driver lets his foot off the accelerator? I understand some think this lack of coasting is an annoying feature of the Prius.

If there is a coasting mode then that actually means to the computer to set speed/cruise control and keep same speed unless (1) brake is applied or (2) accelerator is depressed more or (3) unless one of the 4-5 levels of speed/cruise control is selected for a different speed. Otherwise letting off accelerator means reduce speed. I believe the above multi-level speed/cruise control would ease driver fatigue if a positive constant accelerator action is required for normal non-speed/cruise control driving. The driver has several speeds from which to select.

How will the feel of driving an electric car differ from driving an ICE car?

(Quote)
mykallb Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 10:22 pm

It boils down to this. Chris Paine in his documentary “who killed the ..” was IMHO pretty fair in who he blamed and who he didn’t for the death of the electric car. Anyone could argue on the margins, but FWIW and the scope of the film, I thought it was by and large “fair”. For one, he could have totally blamed GM, but he didn’t. He mentions the range and other factors and is for the most part “logical” and supports his conclusions, even though the target of the film is the EV-1 and every EV manufacturer “crushed” their cars. If he is considered a “radical” then we as a society will just have to tolerate this if progress is to be made. I don’t consider him anything of the sort.

D.K. is another issue, and there comes a time when you’ve just got to take a step back for the greater good and realize that although you may “believe” in what you’re doing, the “greater good” is not that which you serve.

Neither GM nor Toyota, Ford, Nissan, or Honda exist for altruistic purposes. They exist for only one. To MAKE MONEY. That said, I don’t want to overload this server’s hard drive with more than is necessary to make my point.

1. All automakers listed above crushed their cars.

2. ONLY Toyota, begrudgingly sold a few of their EV’s, and no one else.

3. These cars, unlike the VOLT, were the result of a mandate, not market demand.

4. At the time these vehicles were produced (and only in CA and AZ at that) gasoline sold for round a bout $1.10/gal for reg.

M.

(Quote)
Jimmy Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 11:46 pm

There are a lot of good posts under this topic.

I am a business owner with about 30 employees and have to make decisions on a regular basis regarding the direction of my company. If I make a wrong decision, it can significantly affect profits and the livelihood of my employees. I do not have an infinite amount of resources so I have to pick and choose wisely. I have made a number of wrong decisions along the way that I wish I would not have made. Thank god I don’t have a heckler standing outside my building blasting my company to my customers for years. I respect GM for saying one of the worst decisions they have made is not pursuing hybrids sooner and crushing the EV1 was a big PR blunder. They are trying to rectify the situation with the Volt and the 15 other hybrids they are introducing over the next four years. They want to win us back as customers. I certainly am going to support them in their efforts and am cautiously optimistic.

Lyle …I would like to thank you for all of your hard work on this site. I find myself gravitating back to this site on a daily basis.

(Quote)
Doug Korthof Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 1:04 am

Kent 1, since you don’t engage in rational argument, you can only expect responses that sling mud.

(Quote)
Doug Korthof Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 1:09 am

Jimmy 49, crushing the EV1 wasn’t just a “PR blunder”, it doomed us to another generation of gas-guzzling monster cars.

The auto and oil companies fought desperately to kill the ZEV mandate, and they succeeded.

GM is now embarked on a PR campaign to rescue itself from a PR disaster. Note, that makes the VOLT a PR exercise.

The vapid nature of their “two mode” pickup shows they are not serious about oil-free cars.

If you believe in the VOLT: who can argue with an article of faith. The FACT is that GM is not doing the things you do if you are really going to sell a car.

(Quote)
Doug Korthof Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 1:19 am

As usual, GM, in the person of Scott Fosgard, fails to tell the truth. Scott drove perhaps the original EV1 with faulty DELCO batteries, and reported that HE had “range anxiety”.

But that’s not what the EV1 lessees complained of! What they complained of was GM’s intransigence, hostility, and untruths. At the end, many felt so disgusted with GM’s treating us like flakes, that we were just happy to go to Toyota, where we were treated as paying customers and where they were not afraid to sell the EV to us.

GM drove the EV1 customers away, drove them to Toyota, which was pleased to take our money and treated us well.

Scott was NOT paying $500/month lease, like we were!

Scott is WRONG he states that:

“…in the end only 850 were leased. Problems he explained were the small size, two seats, long charge time, and limited range.”

In reality, there were 650 of the original EV1 leased with bad Delco batteries (later upgraded to 110-mile Panasonic lead-acid batteries), but 465 of the 1999 NiMH version with EPA 140 mile range.

Notice, Scott did not answer the question of why GM was not selling to former EV1 lessees except to state that “…currently the Volt doesn’t yet exist…”.

I suppose he’ll be saying the same thing in 2012, but it may be GM that doesn’t exist by that time.

(Quote)
Doug Korthof Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 1:22 am

Tim 2, what evidence do you have for:

“…Range-anxiety is the primary reason that electric cars in general have not been widely accepted as the primary family car…”

I’d say you should reconsider that answer. The real reason Electric car were not considered for purchase is that only Toyota ever sold them.

MANY more than you suppose would have “considered” buying an EV1 if it were available for sale.

And why not?

(Quote)
ysf Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 1:23 am

To Doug K:

I dialed your phone 10 min ago and I was the guy who email you through youtube. I am one person who does not trust big companies that much. Despite it is financial sound to terminate the EV1 projects, GM should invest more money in renewable energy, instead of relying on companies like A123 or LG Chem. They do not, I once talked to a manager from GM (A native of India) in 2003 and he clearly told me that they had no interest in EV1 anymore.
One thing I think most folks here can agree on is: A company should do things that’s commercially viable, but also should never be limited by short-sighted goals, such as stock price. GM just launched they version of hybrid, but this version is used only for their gas guzzler SUVs, it is sth like makes GM less trustworthy to many folks here. If GM does not change their mercurial attitude and short-sight, even they make Volt in 2010, they may discontinue it should oil price drop to $70 per barrel.
another thing about GM: they are so proud of their Buick in China, but as far as I know, Honda and Toyotas receive much better perception in terms of quality and features, which will ensure their success in China. Bob Lotz: Please be aware of Honda and Toyota

(Quote)
ysf Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 1:25 am

To DK again:

If EV1 is for sale today, I will NOT buy it, if Volt is on sale, I will use my battery expertise and make an evaluation. If good, I will throw away my Toyota Corolla and get one.

(Quote)
Doug Korthof Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 1:45 am

Don 16, the chimera of “leasing the battery” has come up from time to time. It’s a HOAX.

Leasing is always more expensive than purchase.

Some facts you need to become aware of:

1. Lithium “recycles” only under cryogenic conditions, it has no scrap value. Whereas Nickel does recycle, and nickel scrap is worth money, Lithium scrap is not worth anything. There’s only one company which accepts Lithium battery discards for “reprocessing”, most just get discarded into the landfill. The word “Lithium” comes from “Lithos”, ROCK, and that’s what a used Li battery is.

2. An EV battery has special characteristics that take it out of the realm of Starting/Light/Ignition (”SLI”) batteries. Whereas the latter are commodity batteries which can be made for little more than the cost of lead, the former must have the following:

-Enough power to take off without help from an IC
-Deep cycle, at least 25 kWh, enough to go 100 miles
-Long cycle life, at least 1000, enough to last more than 100,000 miles.

To this date, only NiMH satisfies all three of these conditions. Lead fails the longevity test, but it has the virtue of being much cheaper and can take more abuse, so it’s viable from a life-cycle costing perspective.

Once an EV battery can’t be used in an EV, it is basically without much value. Worn-out EV batteries are worth about $25, I have about 200 I can sell you, they can be used for solar system battery backup or to replace a SLI battery.

3. The current cost of A123 (as quoted to me, and others, including some currently using them) is about $2000 per kWh. Now if GM needs to use 18 kWh, because it just found out about the flat discharge curve (meaning, you can’t tell the State of Charge ["SOC"] by the voltage), and needs to only run them on a small discharge regime, well, that makes a retail cost of $36000.

And you can see why some use the phantasm of leasing, as if leasing them somehow makes that price go down. Someone must put up the $36000, and then there’s the time value of money, so the lease cost must amortize that $36000 over, say, the 10 year active life, or about $500 per month, plus insurance against them burning out. Many Li batteries only have a 3-year life, meaning the amortized cost would be more like $1200 per month.

4. Conversely, if GM goes with CPI 18-650, some claim to know the anatomy of those batteries intimately; they’ve not only been bench-tested to death, they were road-tested for tens of thousands of miles. While their discharge curve is easier to deal with, and the price is lower, they have been found to degrade after 3 years or 30,000 miles. Now a pack of, say, 12 kWh only costs $5000, but there’s an installation cost that brings it to $10,000. And then there’s the cost of the Battery Management System (”BMS”) without which they burn up in one or two cycles. With their short lifespan, they seem not practical, either. Would you buy a car for $30,000 which you knew needed a new $10,000 battery after 3 years?

Fuel cells suffer from the same problem of short life, due to impurities in the Oxygen it takes in from the air, although a fuel cell is much more expensive.

The only real choice for an EV is cheap Lead or long-lasting NiMH. You have to do a life-cycle cost comparison, which shows Lithium is more expensive.

NiMH lasts perhaps 200,000 miles, and costs less than half the A123; also, you only need 10 kWh, and mass production would bring the price down.

The high mileage RAV4-EV has over 130,000 miles and counting.

(Quote)
Doug Korthof Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 2:03 am

Jeff 44,
Toyota WILLINGLY SOLD the last 328 Toyota RAV4-EV, it had NOTHING TO DO with the protests!

The protests were only concerning fleet-lease returns, which Toyota was crushing; as a result of those protests, which used OWNED RAV4-EV to lead the picketing, Toyota agreed to stop crushing the lease returns, and agreed finally to let all fleet lessees purchase them at the residual value, or continue leasing them, at their option.

In 1994, GM purchased control of NiMH, claiming that it would use the battery on the EV1.

In 1996, GM came out with the EV1, but not with the NiMh batteries promised by Roger Smith when he drove the prototype into the L.A. Auto Show. GM instead used faulty DELCO batteries, and claimed it could not get NiMH to work.

In 1997, Toyota and Honda blindsided GM by releasing the HondaEV and Toyota RAV4-EV, for less money, and using the same EV-95 NiMH battery. This showed GM was lying about not being able to use Nickel batteries. Both EVs got over 120 miles range on a charge, and the batteries lasted longer than 100,000 miles.

The Toyota RAV4-EV was only available for lease, and only to fleets; but there were 300 HondaEV which were leased to individuals. The lease was $499, $100 less than GM was charging for the defective Delco EV1!

When the original 1996 EV1 was upgraded to non-defective batteries, it had 110 miles range and never failed.

In 1999, the American Automobile Manufacturers’ Assn. was disbanded; the Automobile Manufacturers’ Alliance was formed, for the first time, Toyota was allowed to join. We think this was a payoff, an acknowledgement that Toyota was a formidable force to be reckoned with. But there was a price…

In Dec., 1999, CARB forced GM to release at least 200 of the NiMH EV1 from the 465 it had been sitting on.

On Oct. 10, 2000, GM sold control of the NiMH patents to Texaco. On Oct. 16, 2000, Texaco merged into Chevron. The year after the merger, Chevron funded a lawsuit against Toyota, which used that as an excuse to kill the RAV4-EV program and stop making the EV-95 battery.

In Mar., 2002, Toyota offered the last of the Toyota RAV4-EV to the general public. Despite the sale being largely hidden from view, by Nov., 2002, Toyota had to cancel the sale, because it had sold more than it had available! The RAV4-EV used the basic 1996-1999 RAV4 body, with 500 EV-specific parts; by then, the RAV4 had undergone two design changes (2000 and 2001-2), so they had to scrabble for old RAV bodies and spare parts to fill all the orders.

That was a voluntary sale; Toyota only crushed lease returns, not the cars it sold to the public.

We think that the lawsuit was just an excuse, to give Toyota cover to kill the program (CARB had been neutralized by Bush); we think that killing the RAV4-EV program was Toyota’s price for being let into the Auto Alliance “club”.

The last Toyota RAV4-EV was delivered in Sept., 2003, almost 11 months it took to find parts to build it.

(Quote)
james Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 2:04 am

i guess saudi has already opened the spigots, some anyway, and it’s fairly certain that opec will do the same at the december 5th meeting.
opec sees the green (tech not money, lol, but then again the money too) and will open the spigots.

some expect 50 to 60 buck oil next year. there are other factors beside opec. looks like deeper sea wells are making sense at the high prices.

the good news, stuff like the volt and nanosolar will still be competitive (at least it looks that way at the moment), even at 50 bucks. and i doubt if opec will open the taps enough to bring oil down below that.

it will be nice though, electric cars, solar and wind power, and wave power looks promising too. soon we will be green and we will be energy independent, good stuff!

death to oil! god bless the E-Rev Electric Chevy Volt,
god bless nano solar, and God Bless the USA!

7. noel, good points.

13. aes, pretty good arguments.

18. anti oil jihadi, good to see you back, thanks for that great Death to Oil sound bite!

22. i’ve read in green tech websites that gm Did apologize and call it the worst mistake they have made.

29. estero, excellent, competition will make better, smaller, more powerful batteries, it’s exponential!

so that’s doug k.? doesn’t look so big, lol…

(Quote)
Doug Korthof Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 2:18 am

Noel 7,
The mistakes with the EV1 and hybrids, as Wagoner points out, were PR mistakes. There is no money in hybrids for GM!

Toyota makes money on the Prius, but no one can figure out how they do so. Toyota even made money on the RAV4-EV, primarily because they didn’t crush them, but sold them to willing buyers.

Of course, the big money is in selling big iron. The economics of the auto industry are high margins and high volume.

The cash cost of building a big SUV and a small car are surprisingly similar; selling scads of the former yields profit for everyone, but the latter never brought money to GM. Saturn was never profitable; it’s a good idea to use Saturn to sell rebranded Opel. I doubt they make a cent on the AVEO, a good little rebranded Korean car, or even the COBALT.

But GM made many more substantial MONEY mistakes! Like the Fiat Fiasco, and the Nissan Nitwittery.

How else did it go from being an American icon, the heart of America, to having about the same market value as a motorcycle manufacturer (Harley-Davidson)?

If you had said that in 1959, people woulda thought you crazy.

(Quote)
james Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 2:25 am

law, thanks for the heads up on dealing with trolls, makes life much easier, lol.
and you were right, take the fact that some still try to argue that nimh is better than lithium, and then others on here make the list of what really works!

again law, my thanks! btw, nice website ya got there, but i must agree with a couple of others that the background makes it a little hard to read…

(Quote)
Robert Ackerlind Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 2:44 am

Lithium has a short shelf life. Begining from date of manyfacture not sale.

Chevron Oil hates all things EV, and killed the battery needed for EVs.

The following is to the credit of C.W., but seems the exact truth and the reason plug-in EV batteries are not available.

BEV=Battery Electric Vehicle, one that can charge the large battery and run on it.

HEV=Hybrid Electric Vehicle, wwith a battery too small to plug in and restricted to getting all of its energy ultimately entirely from gasoline.

10 A/H = at most 5 kWh, too small to plug in. Batteries larger than 10 A/H are called “large format”, and those were the target Chevron seems to have hated and prohibited, with its $180M investment to buy up distribution patent rights on the batteries.

“…Vectrix gets [large-format NiMH batteries] from Gold Peak in China. They are 30Ah NiMH batteries…there is one — and I believe only one — NiMH battery manufacturer which is actually permitted to produce large-format NiMH batteries for BEVs
sold in the US market under license from Cobasys, and that is Gold Peak.

“Chevron’s subsidiary Cobasys controls the exclusive worldwide patent
licensing rights on NiMH batteries. Cobasys is sometimes referred to
as a ‘joint venture’ between Chevron and ECD Ovonics, which indeed it *is*. But Chevron put up 100% of the $180 million investment
capital to create Cobasys; none came from ECD Ovonics. Cobasys is not carried on ECD Ovonics’ books. It is carried entirely on Chevron’s books as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Chevron.

“As the originator of the key NiMH patent portfolio, ECD Ovonics *does*
however receive profit share from the production of Cobasys’ own NiMH batteries as well as a share of the royalties from the production of NiMH batteries by Cobasys’ licensees. The top executives of Cobasys come from Chevron and are clearly in the driver’s seat. There is no doubt that Chevron is the one that is
calling the shots at Cobasys. A senior Chevron executive was quoted
off-the-record 6 months ago as saying that Chevron was determined not to go down the BEV path again and never to let that happen again
in the automotive industry, at least not with NiMH batteries…”

“Every NiMH battery manufacturer in the world must be licensed by Cobasys and can only produce NiMH batteries under Cobasys license, a de-facto
monopolistic (albeit legal) syndicate that has been repeatedly adjudicated,
upheld, and enforced by courts and arbitration bodies around the world.
Cobasys has around 30 NiMH licensees at present. Its entangling web of licenses with its various licensees could only be described as
Byzantine in its dizzying complexity, with numerous categories of restrictions
including geographic market segment (Asia vs. North America vs. Europe),
application category (consumer electronics vs. automotive propulsion), sub-
application classes within application categories (HEV vs. BEV), and even battery
capacity (10Ah). Some of these licenses pre-date Chevron’s involvement and were negotiated back in the early and mid 90s by
Cobasys’ predecessor, Ovonics, which controlled the patent licensing rights
before Chevron bailed Ovonics out of its deep, steep recurrent losses and
supplied all the capital to create Cobasys. Chevron of course had to honor
those older licenses, which are grandfathered. What this means in practical terms
is that the oldest licensees have the most liberal and unrestricted conditions.

“Newer licensees, many of them in Asia, are restricted to making NiMH batteries only for consumer electronics applications and are specifically
prohibited from making any batteries for automotive propulsion (whether HEV
or BEV). Slightly older licensees are permitted to make propulsion batteries but only for HEV applications and not for BEV
applications, often
distinguished by the batteries’ capacity: 10Ah. Others
may be permitted to make BEV batteries but only for other geographical markets and
not for BEVs that will be sold in North America.

“European battery
makers Saft and Varta (the latter now a subsidiary of Wisconsin-based Johnson
Controls) are two of the older European licensees which seem to have somewhat less restrictive licenses, which however do not permit them to sell BEV batteries into the US market. Gold Peak is one of the oldest
Cobasys licensees (inherited and grandfathered from Ovonics), if not *the*
oldest, and I believe is the only one that is actually permitted to make large-format NiMH batteries (>10Ah) for BEVs that will be sold in the US, such as the high-performance, highway-capable Vectrix electric motorcycle.

“Sanyo and Panasonic, two of Cobasys’ Japanese licensees, are permitted to make HEV batteries (10Ah) for BEVs sold in the US. There is only one small exception
to that, specifically in the case of Panasonic, which came out of the patent
infringement lawsuit that Panasonic lost to Cobasys in an international court of arbitration in June 2004. In that June 2004 judgment, and as subsequently amended in July 2005, Panasonic is permitted to manufacture new
EV-95 95Ah NiMH batteries solely for existing Toyota RAV-EVs that experience
battery failures, under warranty, and only under warranty, until the
last of those warranties expire, on September 14, 2008, at which time Panasonic is no longer permitted to produce *any* EV-95 batteries or any NiMH
battery with a capacity greater than 10Ah until January 1, 2015.”

(Quote)
ysf Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 2:57 am

To Doug:

When it comes to $profit$, there is no difference between them. However, Toyota is not pushed by Wall Street to produce shining results every quarter. also the CEO tends to come from within toyota, who know the business very well and willing to sacrifice short-term loss for long-term gain. Prius is profitable now, but NOT as much as Tundra, but it is critical for Toyota because it gives them the leg ahead in new technology. I personally think GM will go downhill, as their philosophy is still the same old j**k. I will NOT buy their things unless they show good faith. What an irony when a SUV hybrid is becoming the “Green Vehicle of 2007″.

check the youtube, I have serious doubts about your 100K claim on your EV. If today there is no lithium battery at all, if toyota put a NiMH in PHEV, they either make it quite big in order to limit its available DOD% (to make it last long) or make a medium size battery with less desirable life (50K?). Remember this: The battery working profile is different in EV and PHEV. PHEV requires both Charge Sustaining Mode and Charge Depletion mode, which is even more demanding that EV (charge depleting), because charge sustaining and charge depletion modes are inherently contradictory requirements within any battery. For GM Volt, there is virtually no way to make it work (as stipulated in the prototype) and reasonably affordable.

(Quote)
ysf Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 3:00 am

For GM Volt, there is virtually no way to make it work using NiMH (meets all the specifications stipulated in the prototype) and still reasonably affordable.

(Quote)
OhmExcited Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 9:28 am

Doug, what is the purpose of your efforts? To turn GM around or are you merely in the recrimination business?

(Quote)
Jimmy Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 10:47 am

Following is from an interview with A123Systems CEO Dave Vieau:

“We looked at the price of the Prius battery system over the last few years, compared it to the system we’re developing, and found we’d be favorable. We also believe that by investing in research in the core ingredients over the next five to ten years, we’ll be driving cost out of these systems. Volume drives cost, and continuously increasing the volume will bring its cost down.”

Source:
http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Commentary/Is_the_Volt_Really_Coming_That_Soon.S192.A13690.html?pg=3

Who should we believe …Doug Korthof or A123 Systems???

The above “carsconnection” link also includes other information that contradicts Doug’s above statements.

(Quote)
don Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 10:48 am

Doug,

I appreciate the fact that you have addressed my issues but am disappointed that your facts are very wrong.

Lithium is currently recycled today and by more than one company. It is not recycled cryogenically but by pyrolysis. (For those unfamiliar with those terms: not by cold processing but with high heat). The major limitations for lithium battery recycling have been that: recovery of large volumes in cumbersome out of disposable electronics; lithium batteries do not have the toxic environmental effects to motivate getting them out of the landfill (like mercury in older battery types); and lithium out of the ground is an easy cheap source. Massive use of EVs will change two of those factors substantially. See http://www.waste-management-world.com/display_article/273053/123/ONART/none/RECYG/1/Putting-the-batteries-back/

The current cost of Li-ion batteries at full retail prices is an immaterial fact. Using that figure to calculate volume production is silliness. The material information is the cost at wholesale using state of the art volume production techniques. Most experts expect these costs to fairly quickly get to @$200/kwh even if they now run closer to $700/kwh. Some volume producers, like Lishen in China, must be able to produce cost-effectively, given that the Miles car is to have enough Li-ion energy density to go 120 miles plus on a charge and is to be priced under $30K. Moreover GBT (formerly ABAT) has sold PLI packs capable of a 240 mile range for about $3300 (see their previous 10KSB/A). Those are the packs powering the buses and garbage trucks to be featured during the Olympics.

You diminish your credibility when you are wrong on basic checkable facts.

(Quote)
AES Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 3:06 pm

-Enough power to take off without help from an IC
-Deep cycle, at least 25 kWh, enough to go 100 miles
-Long cycle life, at least 1000, enough to last more than 100,000 miles.

To this date, only NiMH satisfies all three of these conditions.

There’s plenty of evidence – whether commercial, first-hand experience, or published in peer-reviewed scientific literature – to suggest otherwise.

“Now if GM needs to use 18 kWh”

They don’t. They plan on using 16kWh.

“The current cost of A123 (as quoted to me, and others, including some currently using them) is about $2000 per kWh.

A scientifically better comparison would be to look at the cost of mass-produced lithium ion ($400-$600), and consider that the basic material behind A123’s batteries is cheaper. Similar economies of scale should play heavily in LiFePO’s favor.

Also, there’s more ways of monitoring SOC than simply looking at voltage.

(Quote)
Doug Korthof Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 4:06 pm

Jimmy 66:

The Prius battery (1.3 kWh) retails for $3000, or about $2000 per kWh.

The problem is, that includes a 30 lb. case, computer and fan in addition to the 38 lb. NiMH battery. So the cost is not comparable.

The cost of NiMH was estimated by the CARB 2000 BTA workshop at $350/kWh in low production, and $200/kWh in mass production:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/2000review/BTAPsum.pdf

“…battery module specific costs of at least $350/kWh, $300/kWh and $225-250/kWh can be estimated for production volumes of about 10k, 20k and 100,000 battery packs per year, respectively. To the module costs, at least $1,200 per battery pack (perhaps half of that amount in true mass production) has to be added for the other major components of a complete EV
battery, including the required electrical and thermal management systems…”.

Since that time, Ni metal has gone from $6/lb. to $15/lb., but that’s largely neutral since Ni recycles and the depleted batteries have a large scrap value, as all Ni alloys do (Monel, Stainless, etc.).

A123’s Dave Vieau is a bit disingenuous when he says the $3000/1.3 kWh cost of the Prius battery is comparable to the A123 cost; but he implicitly admits the price is somewhere around $2000/kWh.

For those who say that mass production will lower the cost, well, Lithium is already in mass production via laptop batteries, and it hasn’t lowered cost below $400/kWh.

Also, the same “mass production” argument holds for lithium.

It’s possible that A123 will lower the price of their batteries if and when mass production starts; but it’s unlikely that it will be cheaper than twice NiMH, and then, it requires a much more sophisticates (and expensive) BMS and TMS.

So the answer to your question, “…Who should we believe …Doug Korthof or A123 Systems???…”

is that you should believe BOTH. A123 and I both agree, which you seem to have missed, that their current cost is about $2000/kWh, about two to 5 times that of NiMH.

Don’t believe all you read on Carconnection.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 4:14 pm

Doug Korthof, #60:

Thank you for responding to my poor effort. I basically agree with everything you have said in #60.

I am just saying that the days of making big money selling big iron are rapidly ending. Whoever cannot figure out how to make money selling hybrids, BEVs, small diesel cars, or some other product with dramatically improved fuel economy will soon cease to exist. Or, at best, retreat to being a tiny niche player selling big iron to people who absolutely cannot do without it. The people who bought pickup trucks and Suburbans in 1959!

The loss of GM, Ford and Chrysler, and the related US jobs would, once again, be a tragedy, in my view. What would it say about the future of our nation?

(Quote)
Doug Korthof Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 4:16 pm

AES 68:

“-Enough power to take off without help from an IC -Deep cycle, at least 25 kWh, enough to go 100 miles -Long cycle life, at least 1000, enough to last more than 100,000 miles.
To this date, only NiMH satisfies all three of these conditions.”

Lead satisfies two, but not the longevity criterion; the same with Lithium.

You site “plenty of evidence” otherwise, but there’s a lot of fairy dust in the battery claims dept.

“Now if GM needs to use 18 kWh”
They don’t. They plan on using 16kWh.

You don’t contradict my conditional statement; however, I stand by the number as reported to me. 16 or 18, it’s still a waste of battery capacity which doesn’t occur for lead or Nickel.
You pay for the 16 kWh or 18 kWh the $32K or $36K, but only get effective use of 10 kWh, making the effective cost $3200 to $3600 per kWh.

“The current cost of A123 (as quoted to me, and others, including some currently using them) is about $2000 per kWh.

You say, “A scientifically better comparison would be to look at the cost of mass-produced lithium ion ($400-$600), and consider that the basic material behind A123’s batteries is cheaper. Similar economies of scale should play heavily in LiFePO’s favor.”

Perhaps, but the same could be said for NiMH: in quantity production, the cost would be expected to go down, and NiMH is unequalled in longevity and reliability. It’s the most tested EV battery ever, with millions of miles at the Pomona test track.

“…Also, there’s more ways of monitoring SOC than simply looking at voltage…”

Which are?? The problem is, Lithium falls off the ends of the discharge curve. If you over- or under-charge, you lose a $40,000 battery pack, as one A123 user stated to me.

The proposal to date is to put a kWh counter on the battery pack to tell when you’re close to the bottom of the curve; there are problems with this, too. Some A123 EV users manually charge each cell to full, and then never discharge more than 50%, to be sure of not falling off the curve.

This problem is a real engineering challenge, and it’s not one that GM apparently even knows about, let alone is capable of addressing.

(Quote)
Doug Korthof Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 4:18 pm

Noel 70,
While the failed car companies are cutting jobs, the newer ones are building factories and hiring.

It’s just a change of management: GM management didn’t keep up with customer requirements (and the times), as well as making many large mistakes.

(Quote)
Doug Korthof Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 4:55 pm

Don 67,

The 2003 reference you give is concerning European recycling, and only mentions pyrolysis once. On the other hand, they decry the lack of Li reuse policies:

“…Directive 91/157 provides for the
collection and recycling of used hazardous batteries only. Translated into a consumer point of view, it is only concerned with batteries containing lead, cadmium and mercury. Therefore, a huge proportion of all spent batteries discarded by the consumer in Europe do not fall under this directive. Except for collecting nickel cadmium batteries,1 there is no Europe-wide collection system for consumer
batteries. Table 2 gives a brief overview of the legislative framework within the EEC…”

Thus, the LACK of European Lithium collection and recycling facilities for Lithium matches our failure to recycle Lithium, at least to that point (2003).

I hope new technologies are developed; however, pyrolysis to that time seems to have been used for recovery of the OTHER metals besides Lithium.

Perhaps pyrolysis has been adapted to recover the Li also, but:

“…In October 2003, AEA Technology (AEAT) launched a £2 million research and development facility in Sutherland, north Scotland, for Li-Ion battery recycling. This new process employs a series of separation technologies to disassemble the battery systematically and focuses on maximising the recovery of cobalt and other metals such as copper from the battery for resale. All types of lithium-ion and lithium -ion polymer batteries will be treated…”
http://www.wasteonline.org.uk/resources/InformationSheets/Batteries.htm

The one company I’ve heard of in USA which will actually recover and reuse Lithium is TOXCO:

http://www.toxco.com/processes.html

There are others, such as BatterySolutions, which package and ship the Lithium; whether there are new methods in the last year to recover the Lithium is unknown. There may be more in the future, that’s true. Others, which claim to recycle Lithium, render them harmless and ship to a third party for some sort of processing — traditionally, disposal.

Here’s one reference from 1997, showing that they recovered the Co and discarded the Li:

“…The leader in commercializing the lithium-ion battery technology was Sony and they are
also the only Li-ion battery manufacturer to develop a recycling processll. Production of
Li-ion batteries by Sony began in 1991 and a battery-recycling project began the next year
in conjunction with Sumitomo Metals and Mining Co., Ltd. The Sony Li-ion cell contains
a LiCoOz cathode and cobalt comprises 15-20°/0of the battery weight. Since cobalt is a
relatively expensive material compared to the other battery constituents, its recovery is the
primary objective in the recycling process…

But they mention TOXCO:

“…Toxco has developed processes to recover lithium as lithium carbonate from lithium
batteries and other types of lithium-containing wastes12. As much as 98% of the available
lithium can be recovered, along with a similar Ii-action of the available cobalt and much of
the Al, Fe, and Ni. The lithium carbonate can be returned to lithium production and
Pacific Lithium, Ltd has done this…”

And the TOXCO process is the cryogenic process.

(Quote)
Doug Korthof Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 5:04 pm

Scott 19,
The reason they don’t like a flat discharge curve is because of two problems:

1. The “charging problem”: cells in series (they must be in series to get to 360v) differ in strength; the weaker ones fill up sooner, yet the voltage applied still looks like it’s below “full” (e.g., 4.0 4.0 4.4 4.0 in a string of 4 cells, and your charger reads only 16.4v, so over charges the third cell — resulting in an expensive Lithium brick. How do you tell that the pack is full? That’s the BMS problem of charging in series.

2. Lithium subject to high discharges at low voltages in unprotected LiCo can suffer “firecracker events”. So how do you tell that the battery pack is low, if the discharge curve is flat? It drops off suddenly at a dangerous State of Charge (SOC), and you find out too late that it’s depleted.

One solution to (2) is to add a battery kWh meter to tell how much you used; one solution to (1) is to charge each cell to 4.2v individually, and then hook them into series for the run. That’s what some racers do: “charge in parallel, run in series”.

(Quote)
Doug Korthof Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 5:14 pm

Jim 12,

I don’t think GM is serious about the VOLT.

I would never again buy a GM car. GM violated FCRA when they illegally damaged our credit by vindictively reporting us for “scratches” on the EV1 cars they crushed.

And why crush them in the first place???

If GM produces the VOLT the way they did the 1996 EV1, it would be a failure, because of bad batteries.

What bothers me is companies like Toyota doing “research” on plug-in cars, when they HAD plug-in cars 10 years ago — STILL RUNNING.

So what’s the research for??

We don’t need RESEARCH, we need PRODUCTION.

And GM is not looking like it’s intersted in producing the VOLT, it’s just a PR exercise to take the heat off, IMO.

Prove me wrong–explain why they don’t use Nickel Metal Hydride, still running, or lead acid, both of which powered plug-ins over 100 miles on a charge.

And one GM honcho seems to have stated recently that they didn’t think the batteries would ever advance enough to get above 50 miles all-electric range!

This when they could LOOK AT all the RAV4-EV that Toyota willingly sold to loving owners.

(Quote)
Jimmy Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 6:11 pm

Doug,

The following article contradicts a lot of your points.

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Commentary/Is_the_Volt_Really_Coming_That_Soon.S192.A13690.html?pg=1

Are you saying A123 Systems and LG Chem are in on the “big conspiracy” as well?

The battery companies indicate they can produce a safe and cost effective battery that will last over 10 years. GM is trying to “one up” Toyota with better technology …not worse technology. I have a hard time believing this is a publicity stunt. It is illogical.

My take is you are still upset with GM from their past actions and you are trying to spin the Volt in a negative way because you are being vindictive. Only time will tell. If GM does not produce the Volt, you can tell everyone in late 2010 …”I told you so”. If GM does produce the Volt and lithium batteries are superior, I believe you will have a lot of explaining to do and will have lost all credibility. If I were a betting man, I would put my money on GM.

(Quote)
AES Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 6:37 pm

Doug-

“Prove me wrong–explain why they don’t use Nickel Metal Hydride, still running, or lead acid, both of which powered plug-ins over 100 miles on a charge”

1) Because it simply doesn’t fit the engineering requirements of the Volt.

2) Because they want to push the technology envelope.

3) Scientific and economic evidence compels them that lithium is finally ready.

(Quote)
ysf Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 6:40 pm

[quote comment="17070"]Scott 19,
The reason they don’t like a flat discharge curve is because of two problems:

1. The “charging problem”: cells in series (they must be in series to get to 360v) differ in strength; the weaker ones fill up sooner, yet the voltage applied still looks like it’s below “full” (e.g., 4.0 4.0 4.4 4.0 in a string of 4 cells, and your charger reads only 16.4v, so over charges the third cell — resulting in an expensive Lithium brick. How do you tell that the pack is full? That’s the BMS problem of charging in series.

>> Voltage is the main criteria, but not the only one to determine SOC, YES, LiFePO4 is flat and more difficult than oxide to determine its SOC, but it is doable, and most important, BMS will monitor every cell, NOT just the pack. Also the quality standard on those cells is very very high and the battery packing must be designed for good heat dissipation and to ensure the cells have as close thermal environment as can be done, THIS KIND of work is NOT EASY.

2. Lithium subject to high discharges at low voltages in unprotected LiCo can suffer “firecracker events”. So how do you tell that the battery pack is low, if the discharge curve is flat? It drops off suddenly at a dangerous State of Charge (SOC), and you find out too late that it’s depleted.

>> Over discharged cell can fail easily. But BMS will be designed to prevent that.

One solution to (2) is to add a battery kWh meter to tell how much you used; one solution to (1) is to charge each cell to 4.2v individually, and then hook them into series for the run. That’s what some racers do: “charge in parallel, run in series”.[/quote]

>> (2) is a little too complicated and likely to be expensive. I will call you tonight!

(Quote)
AES Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 6:59 pm

Increasing the size of the individual cells, thus reducing the overall number of cells in the pack, will also make the BMS simpler. A123 seems to have done this with the large, flat cells they are codeveloping with GM (hence the delivery delay vs. CPI), where as CPI seems to still be using lots of smaller cells.

(Quote)
AES Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 8:22 pm

Doug-

This problem is a real engineering challenge, and it’s not one that GM apparently even knows about, let alone is capable of addressing.

There was actually a rather in-depth interview with Denise Gray published recently about this very subject:

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/11/16/autobloggreen-qanda-denise-gray-talks-batteries-state-of-charge/

You pay for the 16 kWh or 18 kWh the $32K or $36K, but only get effective use of 10 kWh, making the effective cost $3200 to $3600 per kWh.

The batteries can probably handle deep cycling to a point where such an “effective cost” estimate would be irrelevant. If the cells can truly handle 3000 deep cycles, and if 16kWh yields 80 miles (provided the gas tank is empty or there’s a genset override), that’s 80*3000=240,000 miles.

My guess is that shallow charging is a manifestation of the engineer’s natural cautious instincts for overbuilding. Either that or they underestimated how far lithium batteries had advanced.

(Quote)
Doug Korthof Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 8:42 pm

AES 77,
Your “answer” is precisely the sort of thing that convinces me that the VOLT is hogwash, greenwash and eyewash.

Here we are, in a crisis where global war for control of oil looms, where a recent USC study confirms that kids raised .33 mile from a freeway have significantly more permanent lung damage from NOx and SOx — anhydrous nitrous and sulfurous acids — than kids raised a mile away.

And here we are, when big companies like GM and Toyota are proposing bogus things like the “hybrid pickup truck”!! While gasoline consumption is still rising, and most of our oil is imported.

And GM — and its supporters — are saying things such as “Nickel is just not suitable”. But NiMH is the ONLY proven EV battery! There is no Lithium-powered EV that has gone more than 50,000 miles without significant battery degradation. Perhaps some day Li will be proven: but you have to admit, we don’t have 10 years to test it in the field.

“1) Because it simply doesn’t fit the engineering requirements of the Volt.”

HOW SO?? It worked FINE on the 1997 HondaEV, 1997 Toyota RAV4-EV, 1998 Ford RangerEV, 1999 GM EV1, even though those vehicles had NO help from an IC for long trips. There is no evidence for this startling claim by GM.

“2) Because they want to push the technology envelope.”

NOTHING WRONG with that, just put out the VOLT with NiMH and later upgrade, when and if other batteries materialize. Don’t forget, we are DRIVING oil-free Toyota RAV4-EV every day, which still have more than 100 miles range, and some over 100,000 miles so far. Improve, yes, improve NiMH too!

“3) Scientific and economic evidence compels them that lithium is finally ready.”

LOL! Maybe so, but that doesn’t mean it’s been proven in a car. It takes road tests over many years, such as those SCE conducted for Toyota, which are needed to claim “scientific” evidence. As for Lithium, maybe it works, but maybe NOT, too.

We can’t afford to wait.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 8:52 pm

AES Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 6:37 pm Quote

1) Because it simply doesn’t fit the engineering requirements of the Volt

****

Correct. You’ve got room for 4 or 5 in the Volt, not a back seat full of batteries. You’ve also got a batt pack that weighs less than half what the EV-1’s did and currently has an overcautious cycle depth. Add those up, and you’ve got 40 miles, conservatively speaking.

(Quote)
Doug Korthof Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 8:54 pm

Jimmy 76,

Use of LG Chem 18-650 cylindrical cells and CPI were pioneered by ACPropulsion.com. Their LiCo cells are great, but don’t last as long as seems needed, according to some reports.

A123 Systems has a promising technology; but it’s just that, PROMISING, and not DELIVERED. We hope it will succeed; but there’s more to an EV battery than bench-testing, which is all GM is doing. What if it doesn’t work?? What if it’s like Fuel Cells, which were “promising” but not actual??

“…battery companies indicate they can produce a safe and cost effective battery that will last over 10 years…”

For a company like GM to rely upon a company the size of A123 or even LG for its future is ludicrous. So what if they are wrong?? And about 2012 we find out that these promises can’t be kept? By then, the remaining NiMH Electric cars will be about dead, and GM will be able to just drop the program and go back to making gas-guzzlers — which it never stopped doing.

“…GM is trying to “one up” Toyota with better technology …not worse technology. I have a hard time believing this is a publicity stunt. It is illogical…”

I doubt that GM is trying to do anything of the sort. GM had, famously, a serial-hybrid 1969 Oldsmobile, featured in a concept-car ad back then…but it never materialized, and people forgot about it.

The idea of a serial hybrid, just an EV with a “range-extender”, is simple and obvious. But despite promises, there’s not ONE plug-in car in the 16,000,000 or so sold each year in the USA. Not one. And there won’t be for many years.

Meanwhile, the allegedly 21 mpg “hybrid Tahoe” shows the real direction GM wants to go in: sell more big iron.

(Quote)
james Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 9:06 pm

doug k 82, the tesla, although only for top incomes of the u.s., will be available in the u.s., next year (not many years) and you can put a deposit on one now, i believe. i think they are using li ion?

you may be right, gm may drop the volt, but if oil stays above 40-50bucks, the volt is still a good economic choice for the average joe, and i don’t see opec dropping below 40, so i think gm will build it.

as far as the nihms, the tech for that is here now, and if needed, can be tapped into later, if, and i don’t think you are right on this, li ion batteries fail.

(Quote)
Brad Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 11:13 pm

Hey Doug 83,

“Use of LG Chem 18-650 cylindrical cells and CPI were pioneered by ACPropulsion.com. Their LiCo cells are great, but don’t last as long as seems needed, according to some reports.”

Please provide links to these reports. This information is contrary to the information I have been reading.

“A123 Systems has a promising technology; but it’s just that, PROMISING, and not DELIVERED. We hope it will succeed; but there’s more to an EV battery than bench-testing, which is all GM is doing. What if it doesn’t work?? What if it’s like Fuel Cells, which were “promising” but not actual??”

If they don’t work …GM could always revert back to NiMH. If they do work …they may help GM leapfrog Totota as the green car company. Seems like this could be a good be a good business decision. I like that they are taking risks.

“For a company like GM to rely upon a company the size of A123 or even LG for its future is ludicrous. So what if they are wrong?? And about 2012 we find out that these promises can’t be kept? By then, the remaining NiMH Electric cars will be about dead, and GM will be able to just drop the program and go back to making gas-guzzlers — which it never stopped doing.”

LG is a huge company. See this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Group

A123 may be a fairly new company but it is owned by some big players such as General Electric. See this link

http://a123systems.com/#/company/investors/

I believe they have the where with all to get it done.

“I doubt that GM is trying to do anything of the sort. GM had, famously, a serial-hybrid 1969 Oldsmobile, featured in a concept-car ad back then…but it never materialized, and people forgot about it.”

The 1969 Olds did not have a lithium ion battery. If the lithium batteries work …GM would certianly “one up” Toyota.

“Meanwhile, the allegedly 21 mpg “hybrid Tahoe” shows the real direction GM wants to go in: sell more big iron.”

This is a good thing. I know a lot of people that have large families and need a large car. I would rather have them drive this car (same mpg as a Camry) than have them buy a regular big SUV. Every bit helps.

(Quote)
ysf Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:53 am

This guy called Doug is somehow ludicrous, though we appreciate his study of battery, superficially. Let me ask Doug, have you ever opened any cell? Have you ever tested? How do you convince people to buy sth that needs recharge for at least one hour (assume there is electric station on I-5)? I know GM has credibility issues? So do you!!! LOL

(Quote)
james Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 2:38 am

brad 85. nicely done!

(Quote)
Doug Korthof Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 9:47 am

ysf 86:

Until you drive an EV, you think that fast recharge is a big thing. Until you think: how many times do I drive more than 340 miles per day??

If you do, perhaps you need to look into getting a new job.

If going to San Fran or New York, most people take a plane; if you want to “tour the USA”, do it in an RV, not a Chevrolet!

I’d say you’re the one who’s “ludicrous”.

(Quote)
Doug Korthof Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 10:11 am

Brad 85,

I lose patience with these deep dark meditation type responses. Do some research!!

I gave you the company name, ACPropulsion.com, you have to look at them, perhaps type it in, if that’s not too much?

They are the folks who originally worked on the EV1, and who make the T-zero, pioneering “reductive” charging (using some of the motor coils for the charger, thus reducing weight). Their technology is in the Tesla, both for their pioneering work on the 18-650 cylindrical batteries (yes, CPI and LG), the needed Battery Management System, and also for the drive train on the Tesla.

ACPropulsion.com did not start out doing Lithium; they originally were the gurus of Lead Acid, creating a spectacular BMS that allowed use of 28 Optima YT in an EV. This BMS (I have a copy) shunts power from the weak to the strong batteries, thus solving the “charging problem” (which also deserves study, if you choose to talk about it). And, it shunts power the other way when on discharge.

ACPropulsion.com was forced to investigate Lithium because NiMH is not available, and because their power draw requirements (up to 400 Amps at 360 Volts, or about 150 kW) are more than NiMH can put out. NiMH is mainly for applications like the Toyota RAV4-EV — or the Serial hybrid Volt, where high power drains are not required. NiMH has the advantage of reliability, absolutely constant cell voltage across packs, and longevity. This is not my idea; check the SCE reliability figures, which show a decade of testing, with failure in the single digits per million cells.

ACPropulsion.com’s Li BMS is the top of the line, the only one that works (to my knowledge) with the unprotected LiCo.

LG, as I stated, is large compared to A123, but it’s still tiny compared to TM or even GM. As for being “backed” by GE, so what?? Valence was once “backed” by Motorolla, as BATT was once “backed” by Lockheed. If they succeed, it’s good, but only a nit on GE’s balance sheet; if they fail, GE won’t even notice.

And if they fail, GM COULD, as you conjure, “go back to” NiMH, but they also COULD NOT. And, almost certainly, WOULD NOT. First of all, they once owned the NiMH patents, but sold them to Chevron, which still owns them and guards them closely.

The 1969 serial hybrid used, is the point, LEAD ACID BATTERIES, and cf. the items about ACPropulsion.com above. Lead acid is plenty good for a serial hybrid like the VOLT: this is basic info.

Lead also can stand a lot more abuse than Li or Ni. So why argue this irrelevant point?? Do some study.

As for the “hybrid Tahoe”, or the “hybrid” Tahoe, you should read Dan Neil’s piece in the L.A. times…or just look around you. There are two sorts of people who buy pickups:

1. Legitimate contractors;
2. Phony users, who drive to work or to the market in 3 tons of steel.

And, of course, “legitimate” off-roaders, who don’t give a poop about gas, and who should backpack instead.

Mostly, Tahoe buyers are the phony drivers. People bought pickups because cars had such a lousy reliability record; almost all pickup trips don’t need a ton of carrying capacity!

It’s all part of the “my wife will survive an accident” mentality, which armors all people against all others. But the point is, to get them out of those armored cadaver-carriers and into reasonable cars. Putting “hybrid” on the Tahoe is a ludicrous joke, and if GM flakes don’t understand it, meager sales figures may be more convincing.

Like the “hybrid” buses, they are a stupid idea: the point is not to make buses even more efficient, although that’s nice; the hard part is getting people out of their pickups and into buses in the first place! Think before writing.

(Quote)
Doug Korthof Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 10:25 am

James 84,

Tesla roadster may seem high priced, but it’s a bargain. Most people were unwilling to put up the money for a car that would not be delivered for 2 years; still, about 600 people did, they are sold out until 2009 or 2010. And once they start delivering, and people see them flitting around, there will be more orders than Tesla can possibly fill.

There were issues with the production of the Tesla; rumors have filtered out, which I’m not going to repeat here. But the good news is the Tesla seems on-track again.

They will be released in small batches, perhaps 5 per month starting 1st Q. 2008, and mainly to insiders at first. One of our friends will get theirs perhaps in 3rd Quarter, and they are low on the list.

Even IF the Tesla batteries show degradation, the tens of thousands of mile of blistering accleration and oil-free driving will be more than worth it! The hardware alone is worth the selling price: a Lotus Elise body, ACP 150 kW GEN-II drivetrain, and what I assume to be the proprietary 56 kWh battery pack proven successful by ACPropulsion.com.

But there’s hope for ordinary folks: Tesla has the “White Star” project, which will be a downscale version of an EV (same drivetrain) with a range extender, just like the VOLT.

Tesla will presumably be getting its PHEV technology from ACPropulsion.com, which has built many serial hybrids still on the road today: at least one using natural gas (CNG) to power the range extender.

So there’s every reason to believe that the White Star will be real long before the VOLT is ready, if ever. And White Star will retail, supposedly, for somewhere in the $40K+ range.

(Quote)
Doug Korthof Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 10:35 am

Grizzly 82,

You say, “…You’ve got room for 4 or 5 in the Volt, not a back seat full of batteries…”

But the VOLT will be operating at a much higher voltage than normal cars; the Tesla, for example, runs at 360v, the RAV4-EV at 288v, even the Prius at 200v to 288v. So it isn’t “5 batteries”, if Lithium, it’s up to 100 cells in series. But they are typically mounted in parallel-series configuration, like the Tesla.

“…You’ve also got a batt pack that weighs less than half what the EV-1’s did…”

The 1997 and 1999 EV1 with Panasonic 1260 batteries: 1300 lbs. and 18 kWh, yielding a range up to 110 miles.

So a pack that would go 40 miles (like any EV that has 40 miles range) would weigh about 600 lbs.

The 1999 EV1 with Ovonics NiMH: 26 kWh for 900 lbs.

The EPA range was 140 miles; using EV-95 batteries, the range would be 180 miles.

So a pack that would give 40 miles would weigh about 200-300 lbs.

Note, the T-zero LiCo pack weighed 680 lbs. (plus case) for 56 kWh. and 250 miles, so that type of Li would need less than 200 lbs. (including case) for 40 miles range.

Not much of a difference, considering our “oil emergency”.

(Quote)
Don Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 10:40 am

Mr. Korthof,

Before reading your posts I had a predisposition to be sympathetic to you and your POV. Your posts here have convinced me otherwise. Your position seems to be that only NiMH is appropriate or will ever be appropriate for EVs and you support that stance with a series of easily checkable falsehoods or irrevelencies. You’ll use facts when they exist but if they don’t you will make stuff up with equal ease. And you are unapologetic when those falsehoods are pointed out to you.

The fact of the matter is simple. GM is placing a big bet on backing up their talk with action. You don’t “greenwash” with a three year timeline. A three year timeline is something that you either meet or you don’t … and if you don’t you have painted yourself into a very bad corner. (Okay, they can miss by six months and the public/market might forgive, but they cannot not deliver and not be punished badly.) Now I don’t know if GM will pull this off or not, or if the coming electrification of the auto industry will belong to Chinese imports. But I do believe that they have every intent of making it a success, not for nobility, not for the environment, but for a successful bottom-line in a rapidly changing world.

(Quote)
Mike756 Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 10:52 am

Doug

“Serial hybrid Volt, where high power drains are not required”

How do you arrive at this conclusion? What power value is a high power drain? What is the maximum power you expect the Volt to draw?

(Quote)
Jimmy Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 11:47 am

Doug,

We will just have to agree to disagree.

I have weighed and measured your arguments and find them wanting.

I have saved your posts and put them on my 2010 calendar to reconsider. If you are correct, I will personally send you an email indicating your were correct and I was not. If the Volt winds up being successfully produced, I will derive much pleasure knowing you were full of baloney.

(Quote)
ysf Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 2:38 pm

[quote comment="17167"]ysf 86:

Until you drive an EV, you think that fast recharge is a big thing. Until you think: how many times do I drive more than 340 miles per day??

If you do, perhaps you need to look into getting a new job.

If going to San Fran or New York, most people take a plane; if you want to “tour the USA”, do it in an RV, not a Chevrolet!

I’d say you’re the one who’s “ludicrous”.[/quote]

Let’s assume there is electric station on I-5 every 10 miles, now I want you to drive to SFO, can you do so conveniently? No.

I think slow charging is OK for niche market, such as bus, vehicle in golf club, but no commercial one. 98% of trip is less than 30 miles, but it is the 2% that will push people off. Of course, if today there is not a single drop of oil left. Your argument will make sense because people have no choice!!!
I will make a battery that can be charged in 5 min and still last 2000 cycles!

(Quote)
Don Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 3:35 pm

ysf, how many days a year does the average American drive drive over 100 miles?

Practically speaking a reliable, affordable, performing BEV that could seat five with ease and that a had 100 -120 mile range (like the coming Miles Auto group car) would be just fine for almost all our needs. The vast majority of us have another vehicle in the family that we could use for the occasional (if ever) road trip, or could rent a vehicle for those occasions if push came to shove.

But we don’t want to give up on the fantasy of being able to take off down Highway 66 any time we want, on a whim. So they will not initially appeal to more than the niche market … unless they get priced so low as to make the sale on a dollars and cents basis … and that is not too likely in the short term.

(Quote)
AES Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 6:51 pm

[quote comment="17175"]
The fact of the matter is simple. GM is placing a big bet on backing up their talk with action. You don’t “greenwash” with a three year timeline. A three year timeline is something that you either meet or you don’t … and if you don’t you have painted yourself into a very bad corner.[/quote]

1) As Don correctly points out, if this were really a PR scam, then they would setting themselves up for a horrible fate when 2010 comes around. With lots of third parties pushing the tech envelope, people would know they were b*******ing this time around if they claimed the technology wasn’t ready or affordable.

2) GM has put a lot into defending itself against Toyota – which has itself claimed the technology wasn’t ready.

3) Whether or not GM (or anyone) is genuinely concerned about the environment, Lutz has keenly noticed that people flock to Toyota because of their environmentally-friendly reputation – even if they are buying a gas guzzler. If GM wants to emulate this at all: a phantom product cannot be a Halo product!

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 7:41 pm

Doug,

I’ve got a question for you. Why on earth do you even worry about what kind of batts the volt is going to use when you’ve publicly stated that you would never ever buy another GM “car” or “product”?

Why are you so concerned?

(Quote)
ysf Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 12:19 am

Don:

[quote comment="17219"]ysf, how many days a year does the average American drive drive over 100 miles?

>>> Maybe 5-10 times, maybe

Practically speaking a reliable, affordable, performing BEV that could seat five with ease and that a had 100 -120 mile range (like the coming Miles Auto group car) would be just fine for almost all our needs. The vast majority of us have another vehicle in the family that we could use for the occasional (if ever) road trip, or could rent a vehicle for those occasions if push came to shove.
>>> This sounds somehow reasonable, but think further: If you have a battery of 40 Kwh, it will be quite expensive, that is also OK, but do you think people can always plan carefully which car to drive and never get stuck? Now technically. A123 battery can be discharged at 10C for 1000 times, say 120 mile per cycle, 120K that is very good. BUT, this is achieved under 20 celsius and the cell is constantly cycled, but if you have an EV, you cell is almost always close to fully charged because people will NOT want a low battery. A battery constantly under high DOD has a much shorter life. And do not forget the possible harsh acceleration, freezing temp, so on. I make this clear: If oil reserve is close to none, people will tolerate these defects, but unlikely when you can still get fuel from BP,Chevron. A niche market is certainly a good idea, but likely to small to affect the price of battery.

But we don’t want to give up on the fantasy of being able to take off down Highway 66 any time we want, on a whim. So they will not initially appeal to more than the niche market … unless they get priced so low as to make the sale on a dollars and cents basis … and that is not too likely in the short term.[/quote]

>>> As I am aware, only Mitsubish has an EV prototype, not even Toyota, which has a battery R&D group.

(Quote)
james Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 3:28 am

doug, my reason for bringing up the tesla, was due to your post that stated that no electric vehicles will be coming out for years. i pointed out that the tesla is coming out soon (2008), so you are wrong about No electrics coming out. you then go into some sort of rant about tesla.

the point wasn’t about tesla, it was about your statement that there are no electrics coming out.

(Quote)
james Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 3:34 am

can anyone tell me about this doug k. guy?

has anyone researched him? i would like to know the following:

is doug k. just a person protesting gm?

or does he run a fund raising group?

if he runs a fund raising group, is it incorporated? is it tax exempt?

also, if he is in any of the above, who has checked his books to see what doug k gets paid? what funds are going where? are there any inconsistencies in the way the books are handled? any funds that may be getting diverted to “unauthorized” places?

just some thoughts…

(Quote)
james Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 3:55 am

sorry, needed to subscribe, lol…

(Quote)
David Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 7:34 am

james, #101:

Seems to me like DougK is just someone who likes to talk without much of a reason. It’s very easy to harp on the negative and he certainly does that a lot. Perhaps he just has hates GM for some reason.

Regardless, his facts don’t seem to pan out. All I read from him is rhetoric against and no truely good ideas worth listening to.

At the very least, perhaps his postings shows GM’s marketing people what type of idiots they will need to prepare to counter when the Volt marketing push begins.

(Quote)
Doug Korthof Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 9:00 am

James 100,
There is no EV available for sale on the free market. That means, you go in, put up your money, get an EV, drive it out.

We did this when BUYING the 5-passenger all-electric 120 mile range Toyota RAV4-EV (last sold in Nov., 2002), and it’s still running as well now as it was when new.

With the Tesla, you put up your DEPOSIT, $100,000 or $50,000 or less, and you wait. Perhaps there will be an EV; perhaps not.

And there are going to be some issues with the battery life, we suspect.

I’ve always said the Tesla could be built, because I have a conversion using the same technology, and you can by the EBOX from http://ACPropulsion.com which also uses the same technology. You bring them a car, and money, and they convert it to an EV, there’s a 3 month or more time lag, they are over-booked. But it’s a specialty conversion, not “for sale” in the same way that the RAV4-EV was for sale. There have always been aftermarket conversions, where you take a gas car, gut the IC stuff, and install a motor and batteries.

Out of the 16,000,000 cars sold in the USA, not one is a plug-in car.

Perhaps the failure to recognize the difference between “putting down a deposit” and “buying a car” is the same problem that leads people to think the VOLT is already real.

We HOPE that it will be made, and not sabotaged like the EV1 was sabotaged by GM; but it’s NOT real yet.

Here’s an interesting timeline:

Roger B. Smith, a well-meaning, solid person who tried to do well by the situation handed to him, just passed away at 82.

It was Roger B. Smith who rode the Impact prototype into the Jan. 1990 L.A. Auto Show.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/factsheets/tutorial/2history1thru10.pdf

• January 1990 GM Chairman Roger Smith announces the Impact (EV1) electric vehicle at the Los Angeles Auto Show

• The Impact (EV1) becomes one of the most publicized concept cars that GM ever (had) built

• Earth Day 1990- Roger Smith announces that GM will put the Impact (EV1) into production

Smith had famously funded the Sunraycer, then also came up with $3M to create the prototype Impact, which used then-new and very buggy NiMH
batteries. Original versions of this idea were little more than demonstration projects, not ready for production. It would take Toyota to bring the NiMH to perfection — and they had to pay for it, ironically and shamefully, via the Chevron-funded lawsuit. No fair improving the batteries!!

Without Smith’s somewhat clandestine funding, the Impact, and the EV1, would never have existed — an outrage to oilies that later GM CEOs seem to have taken care of, exterminating each and every one of them.

It may never be known if Smith just retired, or was forced out of power shortly after that world-shaking ride merely BECAUSE of it.

Note the timetable:
1981 Jan: Roger B. Smith ascends to CEO of GM
1980’s: GM and Smith under pressure from imports, Moore
1989: GM demos Sunraycer
1989: Smith funded EV1 prototype “Impact”
1990 Jan: Smith demos IMPACT at L.A. Auto Show
1990 Apr: Smith Announces production of EV1
1990 Jul 31: Smith terminated as CEO of GM.
…
1994: GM buys control of NiMH, suppresses it
1996: EV1 with failure-prone Delco batteries
1997: HondaEV and RAV4-EV use the superior Panasonic NiMH
1999: GM, under pressure from CARB, issues NiMH EV1
2000: GM sells control of NIMH patents to Chevron
2000: Election of Bush assures death of EVs
2001: Chevron funds lawsuit against Toyota’s use of NiMH
2002: Toyota sells last 328 RAV4-EV, saving from crusher
2003: CARB kills ZEV mandate, allows crushing of EVs
2005: GM crushes the last of the NiMH EV1
2007: GM announces Tahoe “hybrid”, VOLT EV…lies once again

Toyota vastly improved reliability, performance and longevity of their version of the NiMH batteries.

As with Lithium batteries, this involved painstaking trial and error additives and alloys such as Lanthanum, Neodymium, Titanium, etc., and then months and years of testing the batteries, first in the lab, and then on the Pomona SCE test track. This data was published, showing Toyota-Panasonic improved reliability below single-digit failure rates per million cells.

(Quote)
Don Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 10:23 am

ysf,

First off the easy bit.

>>>As I am aware, only Mitsubish has an EV prototype, not even Toyota, which has a battery R&D group.

(Quote)
Don Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 11:04 am

Mr. Korthof agains play loose with the facts.
>>>There is no EV available for sale on the free market.

(Quote)
Don Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 11:06 am

Hmm not posting Try again.

Mr. Korthof agains play loose with the facts.
>>>There is no EV available for sale on the free market.

(Quote)
Don Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 11:07 am

Acch. I saved it this. I’ll try to resend later.

(Quote)
Don Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Another try of what I saved earlier:

Mr. Korthof agains play loose with the facts.
>>>There is no EV available for sale on the free market.

(Quote)
Don Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Maybe its those signs?
Mr. Korthof agains play loose with the facts.
“There is no EV available for sale on the free market.”
Except for the ones that are. Tango. Th!nk.

Including a few sold in the US. To be sure not a huge volume yet. That may change now that battery technology actually IS up to snuff, and gas prices are high enough that they pay for themselvs in a reasonable timeframe.

ysf, I had written a fairly long post with links to various EVs by the majors at production or concept phase, and which could be released fairly quickly if there was a definite market for them. It somehow disappeared into the internet ether. I don’t have time to recreate but in brief: Subaru has a G4e ev coming out, allegedly, in 2010. Nissan, an ev they call the Mixim also to be released in 2019, they say, and had one in past years for California’s ZEV mandate which they pulled off after that mandate changed. VW also had one ready to go which they also pulled after the mandate changed. Mercedes is to release an ev Smart car. Chrysler has introduced concepts. Renault is in talks about building an ev factory in Israel and made evs and EREVs in small numbers in the past.

As to the answer of how many of us drive more than 100 miles in a day and how often … I’d love some real data on that (and know not to expect it from some quarters posting here lately) but my impression is that it is much less frequently than that. I drive more than that maybe once every three or four years and we’d take my wife’s larger vehicle for that trip. I don’t personally know anyone whose needs for range are that much greater than mine but “your mileage may vary.” For me and those like me, an ev priced right with adequate performance and size that could go 120 on a charge would be more than adequate. If we could get past the psychological barrier. I just doubt that that barrier is easily gotten past.

(Quote)
Demetrius Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 3:15 pm

After reading about Elon Musk – Entrepreneur of the Year: http://www.inc.com/magazine/20071201/entrepreneur-of-the-year-elon-musk.html

I have no doubt that he will show the car companies how to make an EV…

If he can create PayPal and then build rocket ships – then getting the Tesla going is a piece of cake.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 6:27 pm

Doug,

No surprise you seem to think that Smith is some great CEO, despite the fact that it was under his leadership that GM sunk itself into a hole. The reason is that he was a pure bean counter and ran the firm as though they were selling widgets rather than cars.

The reason GM produced the EV-1, was a mandate, not some great vision or Roger Smith. Again, the fact that you see things only your way and miss the big picture is no surprise. No more than your almost constant flip-flopping on every issue. Flip-flop-flip-flop…..

I’m wondering if a look under that beard would reveal a Hillary .

(Quote)
Doug Korthof Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 11:44 pm

Don 107, 108 and 109:

Yes???
Please explain how many TANGO were sold in 2007???

And how many TH!NK are running on the streets of America, and how many were sold in 2007???

One teacher in OC just argued convincingly against one of her own students that “electric cars are impossible” even though the student had RIDDEN in one!!

So the average person thinks the EVs were all crushed, and is surprised to see our hundreds of RAV4-EV, and YOU say that there are EVs for sale???

WHAT A BOZO!! YOU ARE TOO FUNNY!!!

(Quote)
Doug Korthof Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 11:48 pm

Grizzly 112,
As usual, your ignorance overshines your verbiage.

DON’T ANY OF YOU PEOPLE STUDY THE FACTS???

It was BECAUSE of the Jan. 1990 ride into the LA Convention Center that CARB, later in 1990, used to introduce the ZEV mandate.

But instead of investigating, you expose your ignorance. Hopeless. Study a little!!

(Quote)
Don Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:05 am

Mr. Korthof,

You stated that “There is no EV available for sale on the free market.” It is just one of a series of statements that you have made that is stated as fact but which is not.

Are there any Tangos available for sale on the free market. Yes. Many, no. I have made no claim that there are. Th!nks available for sale in the free market. Yes. Many running on the streets of America. I think not. And unlike you, I have not made any false claims.

You have established a pattern of just saying things that you have made up. Again and again in this thread. I am just pointing out some of the most obvious ones as they come up. If you play loose with the minor facts that we can easily check, what are we to think about your bigger “facts” that we cannot check on so easily?

And hey, I loved Bozo’s Circus! I was on the show once as a kid and actually got to try my hand at the buckets (I was so disappointed that I couldn’t see the magic arrows). Missed on bucket number two. Very embarrassing. But not as embarrassing as a grown man calling another grown man names on the internet.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:16 am

Doug,

I’ll bet in FACT that your bitterness comes not from grunts that are too tight, but from GM shunning you.

That’s right, it eats you alive that GM is going to produce this vehicle without one iota of input from you. That’s right YOU who in your own mind are the world’s authority on EV’s and of course…NimH. I saw those wisps of white smoke coming from your ears in that video where you express your frustration at GM/Lutz for ignoring you. You reminded me of a modern day Rasputin.

Words of advice, when you go into a shopping mall, don’t freak out to the point where security has to restrain you. Those people are shopping, and those are not bombs they’re shopping bags, and they’re not holding guns, those are cell phones.;)

(Quote)
Brad Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:27 am

Doug,

Sounds like you are reverting to personal attacks to posters here. I thought you liked to debate the facts.

(Quote)
james Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:11 am

doug k. again, you change what you stated.

you stated that there will be no electric car for many or several or five (i don’t remember the number, but you made it sound like a long time).

i pointed out that the tesla will be out next year. now you say that you’re point was that there is no tesla to buy NOW, but that isn’t what your point was.

your point was that there will be No electric cars in the near future, i pointed out that tesla will be out soon.

doug, i was far better off just iggying you.
as has been stated by many others, you seem to be an empty paranoid little man, who constantly changes your statements.

i will do my best to iggy you, but, when you take up most of a page with your rhetoric, well…

(Quote)
Don Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:42 pm

Any way, in case any one is still plugged into this train wreck of a thread. NiMH has fine energy density but according to multiple sources ( http://www.lithiumtech.com/Technology.html http://www.batteryuniversity.com/partone-5A.htm ) lithium has at least as much energy density or more. And Lithium, more importantly, has what GM needs most, the high POWER density, to get the kind of acceleration that the mainstream wants in a vehicle for the masses. It also is better in very cold weather, a longer expected lifespan, and has multiple manufacturers willing to compete on price and product specs. (True NiMH isn’t only because of past GM idiocy, but what’s done is done.)

NiMH is not the best product for this particular job at this point in time. No matter how much some people claim it is.

(Quote)
Don Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:01 pm

And oh Mr Korthof,

You didn’t call me ignorant but I will gladly admit to that state. I know very little. I know I know very little. That knowledge is one of the things I am gladdest that I do know. And the more I learn the more I know how little I know. My ignorance is why the trustworthiness of my sources are so important. If I fact-check and a source is wrong on several counts then I cannot believe anything that source says.

What amazes me sir, is that someone as ignorant as me, who knows as little as I do, can find out more actual facts about battery technology than you are willing to speak of in such a short time. I’m no genius, sir, and again am admittedly quite ignorant. But then what does that say of you?

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:10 pm

Good points. And let’s not forget that Nimh was used in the Ev-1, Rav4 etc. only in Ca and Arizona where the temperatures are moderate. Saying that Nimh is “perfect” for the volt which will be sold nationally including places like Buffalo and Green Bay is nonsense and ignorant. The Nimhs I have barely function at 25 degrees where my Li-ions function flawlessly and the latter are spec’d to about 40 below w/ some performance loss.

So Doug, GM won’t listen to you huh? What a surprise.

(Quote)
Robert Ackerlind Says:
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:37 am

Thank you Doug for your efforts. I think your singing to the wrong chorus. I think any real people have long since stopped reading the Volt blogs because it is obviously full of oil hacks. Oil adiction is very insidious. Who are some of these angry blogers who go on and on with all the old myths we have heard so many times before. They don’t really want the truth. They might have to go out and hug a tree or drive a smaller car if they really thought about it.

(Quote)
james Says:
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:51 am

i’ll ask again…can anyone tell me about this doug k. guy?

has anyone researched him? i would like to know the following:

is doug k. just a person protesting gm?

or does he run a fund raising group?

if he runs a fund raising group, is it incorporated? is it tax exempt?

also, if he is in any of the above, who has checked his books to see what doug k gets paid? what funds are going where? are there any inconsistencies in the way the books are handled? any funds that may be getting diverted to “unauthorized” places?

just some thoughts…

david 103 love that last line, lol!

grizzly, 121, as always, excellent points!

death to oil! god bless the e-rev electric chevy volt, god bless nanosolar, and God Bless the United States of America!

(Quote)
mykallb Says:
December 4th, 2007 at 12:12 am

James,

I will NOT provide a link, because that would support this “loser” but you can find his blog on youtube.

As has been pointed out, he is not “all there” and seems to “believe” that he’s justified in all that he does, but as you already know, he’s basically an idiot with a bull-horn.

I’ve got to believe that “true” EV enthusiasts feel the same.

Regards,

M.

(Quote)
james Says:
December 4th, 2007 at 1:36 am

tnx m. !

(Quote)
Guy Incognito Says:
December 4th, 2007 at 9:59 pm

[quote comment="17552"]i’ll ask again…can anyone tell me about this doug k. guy?
has anyone researched him?
is doug k. just a person protesting gm?
or does he run a fund raising group?
if he runs a fund raising group, is it incorporated?
is it tax exempt?
also, if he is in any of the above, who has checked his books to see what doug k gets paid?what funds are going where?
are there any inconsistencies in the way the books are handled?
any funds that may be getting diverted to “unauthorized” places?[/quote]
Did Doug hit a nerve?

(Quote)
james Says:
December 4th, 2007 at 11:18 pm

#126. not at all…lol.

(Quote)
Guy Incognito Says:
December 5th, 2007 at 7:28 pm

Doug was an EV1 driver, and is also an EV activist.

(Quote)
james Says:
December 5th, 2007 at 10:36 pm

what i want to know is; does doug take funding or donations, and does he run it through a charitable or tax exempt fund or corporation, and if so, who has checked his books???

(Quote)
mykallb Says:
December 5th, 2007 at 11:49 pm

James,

Not necessarily the info you’re looking for, but among other things DK blames GM for his credit problems associated with reporting by GM WRT his lease of the EV-1. I’m guessing these were the same charges anyone assumes when they surrender a LEASED vehicle ie. tires w/ 1/8″ too much wear, scratches, worn upholstery etc..etc…etc. Another reason never to LEASE a car, ANY car, and in the realm of leases not at all unique to GM.

He fought the lease, and the lease won, and now all(his)the world’s problems are because of GM. Simple externalization of fault. Text book psych. 101 at any accredited community college.

M.

(Quote)
Guy Incognito Says:
December 6th, 2007 at 9:02 pm

[quote comment="17938"]does doug take funding or donations,
and does he run it through a charitable or tax exempt fund or corporation,
and if so who has checked his books?[/quote]
Why is that relevant?
Have you questioned the finances of others who have posted comments on this thread, or just Doug?

(Quote)
james Says:
December 6th, 2007 at 11:42 pm

m 130. thanks for the info. i’m wondering if doug has set himself up as a “non-profit” corporation. and as such, is he accepting donations.

although it seems that doug has a beef with gm. his constant harassment would seem that it might have more to do with maybe collecting donations.

if he is set up as a “non-profit”, i would like some authorities to check his books.

guy 131. you check on who you want, and i will check on who i want.

(Quote)
Guy Incognito Says:
December 7th, 2007 at 11:30 am

[quote comment="18131"Guy 131, you check on who you want, and I will check on who I want.[/quote]
Why check on anyone at all?
Because they posted comments you don’t agree with?

(Quote)
David Says:
December 7th, 2007 at 12:00 pm

Guy (#133):
I couldn’t agree with you more.

(Quote)
james Says:
December 7th, 2007 at 3:03 pm

hey, if the guy’s an alleged crook, what is your problem? and if he’s allegedly not guilty of any wrong doing, then so be it. i just want the authorities to check him out, so that we know the whole story.
lmao @ guy aka doug k.? and david, lol…

(Quote)
Guy Incognito Says:
December 7th, 2007 at 5:10 pm

[quote comment="18260"]lmao @ Guy aka doug k.? and david, lol…[/quote]
No, Guy Incognito NOT Doug K.
Aloha

(Quote)
LyleL Says:
December 8th, 2007 at 6:26 pm

Jay Leno makes comments about the Volt. Jay “gets it”.

“I don’t think the Tahoe Hybrid is necessarily a milestone. It’s a stopgap. What I think is a milestone is that GM has got a terrific concept in its car called the Volt that can go almost 600 miles on a very small amount of fuel. It is primarily an electric – it’s a plug-in – and you can use it if you commute 40-50 miles a day.”

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/article3015985.ece

(Quote)
james Says:
December 8th, 2007 at 11:27 pm

lyle, great article, you might want to post that on the latest volt board…

(Quote)
mykallb Says:
December 10th, 2007 at 12:19 am

james Says:
December 7th, 2007 at 3:03 pm Quote

hey, if the guy’s an alleged crook, what is your problem?

=========

James…don’t think the guy is necessarily a “crook”, but I wouldn’t count out “bending of the brain”. Quite frankly I think he’s basically harmless, but his medulla might need an “some adjustment” .

M.

(Quote)
Guy Incognito Says:
December 12th, 2007 at 12:44 am

[quote comment="18659"]…I think he’s basically harmless…[/quote]
If he was’nt harmless, would he then be a perceived threat?
What would be his weapon of choice? Words?

(Quote)
james Says:
December 12th, 2007 at 6:58 am

harmless is not the question.
the question is, is doug k. set up as a non profit oraganization. and is he accepting donations.
if the answer is yes, then i would think that the authorities would like to check his books, to see where the money is going.

(Quote)
Robert Ackerlind Says:
December 12th, 2007 at 1:59 pm

who is james? should negative comments on what doug looks and his personal finances be part of this blog?

(Quote)
james Says:
December 12th, 2007 at 5:10 pm

robert 142. no doubt you would come to doug’s help. the following is just one of many negative comments posted by you about gm in a google search, lol…

“project driveway is not going to get an affordable car soon. a real world selling gm would be an elfex cross over. eflex should use the safer nmhd. oh and the oil company owns the nmhd batteries so they will still be getting their revenues. keep it affordable and you’l have the next bug. oh and you’ll save the air and our troops.”

Posted by: Robert Ackerlind | Mar 7, 2007 11:14:36 PM

i am not questioning doug’s Personal finances, that’s his own business. however, if he is taking donations, it is no longer his personal finances, but comes under the jurisdiction of several government agencies.

so the question is, is doug k. taking donations?
if so, how, as a corporation, as a charitable organization, as a tax exempt entity?
if he is taking donations, why is he allegedly reluctant to open his books as the laws require?

(Quote)
Robert Ackerlind Says:
December 12th, 2007 at 8:01 pm

james, google yourself

(Quote)
Guy Incognito Says:
December 12th, 2007 at 8:23 pm

I just Googled Guy Incognito and found out I’m from The Simpsons.

(Quote)
james Says:
December 12th, 2007 at 8:46 pm

robert, come to think of it, are you taking donations yourself? lmao @ robert the idiot, lol…

guy, no doubt that you Are from the simpsons, lmao….

so when does douggy boy open his donations books?

(Quote)
auto car cheap insurance quote Says:
December 13th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Guy Incognito Says:
December 13th, 2007 at 4:17 pm

[quote comment="19269"]james Says:
so when does douggy boy open his donations books?[/quote]
So when does Jimmy open his books?

(Quote)
james Says:
December 13th, 2007 at 6:45 pm

guy 148. i do not take donations, so i do not have any books to be opened.

i am not questioning doug’s Personal finances, that’s his own business. however, if he is taking donations, it is no longer his personal finances, but comes under the jurisdiction of several government agencies.

so the question is, is doug k. taking donations?
if so, how, as a corporation, as a charitable organization, as a tax exempt entity?
if he is taking donations, why is he allegedly reluctant to open his books as the laws require?

lmao @ the stupidity of guy, not only on this board but wherever he posts, lol…

(Quote)
Guy Incognito Says:
December 13th, 2007 at 11:34 pm

[quote comment="19446"]so the question is, is doug k. taking donations?[/quote]
Again I ask you James, whether Doug takes donations or not, how is it relevant?

(Quote)
james Says:
December 14th, 2007 at 1:15 am

Is Doug Korthof allegedly under investigation for alleged illegal practices in allegedly taking donations?
Time will tell…

(Quote)
John Swansey Says:
July 30th, 2008 at 3:17 pm

All this talk ab out electric cars and the cost to reppce the battries . is bull
Why are they holding back the information abot vapor carbretors . I made my own and was very cheap to make and it works wonderfull although I can.t sell it for they will kill me lilke they did to some of the others . But it works and is great . it saves so much gas and does not polute . so don.t tell me it san n ot be done

(Quote)
David Says:
July 31st, 2008 at 9:18 pm

Re: #152…. after you wake up from your fairytale please post a comment that makes sense.

(Quote)

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud? November 20, 2009
This is how open minded liberals operate. "And, perhaps most reprehensibly," Delingpole writes, "a long series of communications discussing how best... […]
BigCityCat
Is the Volt Engine Direct Injected? November 20, 2009
I recently read that the Cruze's engine will be DI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Cruze#Chevrolet_Cruze Obviously the Cruze's engine will... […]
omnimoeish
First Reports of the Chevy Volt's Charge-Sustaining (Generator) Mode Operation November 20, 2009
The first two journalists' reports of what it's like to drive the Chevy Volt while in generator mode operation have been published. 1) New York... […]
admin
Florida giving $5000 rebate to convert Prius to plug-in November 20, 2009
- Probably Hymotion - $10,400 standard price - $5000 state rebate - $1000 additional federal incentives - $4,400 final cost. Hurry because their... […]
Texas
New York Times CSM story November 20, 2009
Link to the New York Times story of November 19, 2009 about a test ride of the Volt in charge sustaining... […]
srschrier
New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009
November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]
srschrier
New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009
From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]
srschrier

EV-1 and the Volt: as per GM

153 Responses to “EV-1 and the Volt: as per GM”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts