Skip to main content

View Diary: The edible battery that's too good for electric cars (222 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  As a current electric car owner (6+ / 0-)

    I would say that the scene that you refer to regarding "Who killed the electric car?" is a bit misleading (from the movies POV, not yours).  There were many "villains" regarding the demise of the EV-1 but the basic problem was that GM lost tons of money for each one sold.  The economics surrounding the existing technology was just not there.  I cringed when they ended up destroying all the EV-1's but if you wanted to ensure that other automakers did not reverse engineer the EV-1 to learn the secrets that is a logical (not conspiratorial) action taken by GM.

    But yes, maintenance costs for EVs are a lot lower.  For my Volt, I only need an oil change once every two years.  For the Leafs, there is essentially no maintenance that I'm aware of except for tire rotations.  The Volt would seem to have a better battery management system since they have a thermal management system (TMS) that is liquid based and not air based like the Leaf but the bottomline is that the movie accurately portrayed the maintenance costs of the EV-1 but that was far from the reason why it ultimately failed.

    We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

    by theotherside on Sat Nov 12, 2011 at 03:21:27 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  That's simply not true (6+ / 0-)
      There were many "villains" regarding the demise of the EV-1 but the basic problem was that GM lost tons of money for each one sold.

      No EV1s were "sold". They were leased. And even GM doesn't claim they were a loss per lease.

      This is from the GM press statement titledWho Ignored the Facts About the Electric Car? put out in response to the film:

      GM spent more than $1 billion developing the EV1 including significant sums on marketing and incentives to develop a mass market for it.

      Only 800 vehicles were leased during a four-year period. No other major automotive manufacturer is producing a pure electric vehicle for use on public roads and highways.

      A waiting list of 5,000 only generated 50 people willing to follow through to a lease.

      Because of low demand for the EV1, parts suppliers quit making replacement parts making future repair and safety of the vehicles difficult to nearly impossible.

      Got that? And this was also in the film. GM claimed that they killed it because there wasn't enough demand. Which was a blatant and transparent lie.

      Additionally, as to your absurd suggestion that they destroyed them because they needed to protect their secrets, Wikipedia notes that some of the EV1s "were given to universities and engineering schools [and] were reactivated, and driven on public roads".

      So completely made up are your claims involving the EV1 that I am wondering about your motives here.

      •  I would assume that you would not question (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        divineorder, chipoliwog, healthy, Trendar

        Greencar motives, would you?  Here is a quote from their site.

        "An artificially low price of $33,995 was initially assigned to the car even though its undisclosed production cost was much, much higher."

        Yes, I said sold when they were leased.  Obviously there is a significant difference between the two but that slip up was definitely not intentionally misleading.  Secondly, in common usage people say all the time I just bought a new car when in fact they leased it.    Finally, the point (as Greencar points out) is that GM lost money on each lease according to the accounts I have read.  (That's one reason why Lutz had a hard time selling the Volt because GM didn't want to lose another billion dollars on another EV technology).

        As far as what they did with the EV1s here is another quote from the same article.

        "GM ultimately crushed all EV1s except for a small number that were permanently disabled and donated to museums, and a few that were retained by GM. The technologies developed by the EV1 program have been applied to GM's hybrids, fuel cell vehicles, and its future-looking E-Flex development program."

        It appears that we have some sources that are at odds with each other.  Can you have the courtesy to retract your comment that I "so completely made up....(my) claims" and retract the questioning of my motives?

        No agenda here.  Just a truth seeker.  Be well.

        We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

        by theotherside on Sun Nov 13, 2011 at 06:06:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I apologize for questioning your motives (0+ / 0-)

          and accept that you mean well.


          P.S. Some people from GM have tried to claim that the costs of each EV1 was $100k and therefore the business model was doomed.

          This is a lie. The EV1 cost $100k only if you include development costs. But so would the Impala if you only made 1,000 of them.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (131)
  • Community (62)
  • Elections (39)
  • 2016 (37)
  • Environment (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (35)
  • Culture (30)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Media (29)
  • Republicans (29)
  • Climate Change (27)
  • Spam (23)
  • Education (23)
  • Congress (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Labor (21)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Texas (20)
  • Law (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site