EV-1 and the Volt: as per GM
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.
Popularity: 3%
(No Ratings Yet) 
Loading ...
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.
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”.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Well said, noel.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
AES:
Job well done!
death to oil
http://www.oiljihad.org
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
November 28th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9XcnTPUzxLI
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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?
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).
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
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.
November 28th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
doggydogworld, #36: Thank you for the link to RW’s comments.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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…
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 wil