From: tj...@srd.bt.co.uk (Tim Jebb)
Subject: Californian Zero emission vehicles
Date: 1996/12/06
Message-ID: <588qdh$k0f@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 203120258
organization: BT
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: sci.energy
I hear on the news today (BBC radio 4) that the world's first
mass-produced electric car goes on sale today in California. $20,000 a
time, 100 ish miles between recharges.
Will anyone buy it?
If car makers in California fail to meet the 10% target by whenever
they're supposed to, what happens to them?
From: Doug Huffman <dhuf...@mail.awod.com>
Subject: Re: Californian Zero emission vehicles
Date: 1996/12/09
Message-ID: <NEWTNews.850164614.4998.dhuffman@sumter.awod.com.awod.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 203190983
references: <588qdh$k0f@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>
<58hn67$dtl@news-c1.gnn.com>
content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
organization: A World of Difference, Inc.
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: sci.energy
The number used in the CNN item was $30,000. Means to me $30,000 plus, not
including the charging unit and upgrading residential electrical service.
In Article< 58hn67$d...@news-c1.gnn.com>, < KTMAT...@gnn.com> writes:
> In article < 588qdh$k...@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk> Tim Jebb wrote:
> >I hear on the news today (BBC radio 4) that the world's first
> >mass-produced electric car goes on sale today in California. $20,000 a
> >time, 100 ish miles between recharges.
From: John Dunaj <ANTO...@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Californian Zero emission vehicles
Date: 1996/12/09
Message-ID: <32ACA758.637@worldnet.att.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 203225031
references: <588qdh$k0f@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>
<58hn67$dtl@news-c1.gnn.com>
<NEWTNews.850164614.4998.dhuffman@sumter.awod.com.awod.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: sci.energy
x-mailer: Mozilla 2.02E (Win16; I)
Doug Huffman wrote:
>
> The number used in the CNN item was $30,000. Means to me $30,000 plus, not
> including the charging unit and upgrading residential electrical service.
The charging unit is built-in and it can be recharged by standard house
power (120 AC) or (220 AC)
> In Article<58hn67$d...@news-c1.gnn.com>, <KTMAT...@gnn.com> writes:
> > In article <588qdh$k...@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk> Tim Jebb wrote:
> > >I hear on the news today (BBC radio 4) that the world's first
> > >mass-produced electric car goes on sale today in California. $20,000 a
> > >time, 100 ish miles between recharges.
From: B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Californian Zero emission vehicles
Date: 1996/12/12
Message-ID: <32b01cee.984959496@Newshost.grace.cri.nz>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 203722828
references: <588qdh$k0f@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>
<58hn67$dtl@news-c1.gnn.com>
<NEWTNews.850164614.4998.dhuffman@sumter.awod.com.awod.com>
<32ACA758.637@worldnet.att.net>
organization: Industrial Research Limited
newsgroups: sci.energy
John Dunaj <ANTO...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Doug Huffman wrote:
>> The number used in the CNN item was $30,000. Means to me $30,000 plus, not
>> including the charging unit and upgrading residential electrical service.
>
>The charging unit is built-in and it can be recharged by standard house
>power (120 AC) or (220 AC)
No. We have already discussed this here several times.
The car is not sold, it will only be leased. The actual amount
depends where it is used. In Los Angeles it will be
around $480/month, but it will be $640/month in
San Diego, Phoenix, or Tucson. The capitalised cost
is given as $33,995, and a 10% federal tax credit reduces
that to $30,595. In LA, a local tax credit of another $5,000
is available, reducing the cost to $25,595. There are also
one-payment leases $15,783 (LA) or $21,3288 ( elsewhere).
GM has been pushing hard for other regions to offer tax
credits like the LA one, however GM will refuse to sell an
EV1 to anyone indicating they will ship it outside the 4-6
nominated cities.
There is an additional $50/month charge for the wall-mounted
charger, and also the significant cost of changing the house
wiring.
" Before the customer signs on the dotted line, a
representative from the local utility will visit his house and
estimate the expense of installing new circuitry to make the
house able to handle the vehicles 220-volt charging system.
The low-ball cost typically will be $1,000. Upgrading the panel
would add another $500 to tthe cost. If the house wiring is not
up to code, the cost will be much higher "
Quoting Joseph Kennedy, Vice-President of Sales , Saturn Corp
[ Automotive News 21 October 1996 p.60 ]
Bruce Hamilton
From: Will Stewart <wste...@patriot.net>
Subject: EV-1 recharging
Date: 1996/12/13
Message-ID: <32B151C5.63C9@patriot.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 204058197
references: <588qdh$k0f@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>
<58hn67$dtl@news-c1.gnn.com>
<NEWTNews.850164614.4998.dhuffman@sumter.awod.com.awod.com>
<32ACA758.637@worldnet.att.net> <32b01cee.984959496@Newshost.grace.cri.nz>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: PatriotNet, (703) 277-7737
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: sci.energy
x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
Bruce Hamilton wrote:
>
> John Dunaj <ANTO...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Doug Huffman wrote:
> >> The number used in the CNN item was $30,000. Means to me $30,000 plus, not
> >> including the charging unit and upgrading residential electrical service.
> >
> >The charging unit is built-in and it can be recharged by standard house
> >power (120 AC) or (220 AC)
>
> No. We have already discussed this here several times.
> The car is not sold, it will only be leased.
>[...]
> There is an additional $50/month charge for the wall-mounted
> charger, and also the significant cost of changing the house
> wiring.
There are two chargers for the EV-1;
- The 220V charger, which is installed at the owner's location.
This will completely recharge the battery supply in about 3 hours
and requires additional investment (whether bought or leased).
- The 110V charger, that comes with the car at no extra charge. It
takes about 10 hours for a full recharge and is tucked away in
the trunk with a long extension cord.
Note that as the closer the battery comes to being fully charged, the
recharging rate decreases. Hence, partial recharges (75%, for example)
take far less than the corresponding fraction of the recharge time for
complete charges.
Cheers,
--
William R. Stewart
http://www.patriot.net/users/wstewart/first.htm
Member American Solar Energy Society
Member Electrical Vehicle Association of America
"The truth will set you free: - J.C.
From: hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
Subject: Re: EV-1 recharging
Date: 1996/12/14
Message-ID: <hatunenE2Es50.L70@netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 204099919
sender: hat...@netcom13.netcom.com
references: <588qdh$k0f@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>
<32ACA758.637@worldnet.att.net> <32b01cee.984959496@Newshost.grace.cri.nz>
<32B151C5.63C9@patriot.net>
organization: Next week we've just got to get organized
newsgroups: sci.energy
In article <32B151...@patriot.net>,
Will Stewart <wste...@patriot.net> wrote:
[...]
>Note that as the closer the battery comes to being fully charged, the
>recharging rate decreases. Hence, partial recharges (75%, for example)
>take far less than the corresponding fraction of the recharge time for
>complete charges.
I've been trying to find some of the recharging details on the EV-1.
Can you point me to a source for that info?
Intuition suggests it would be the other way around, since a battery
draws the largest recharge currents while the most deeply
depleted, something easily seen on the gauge of my own little charger
when used on my car battery.
Is the charge gauge in the EV-1 actually linear with respect to amount
of remaining available energy? (It's certainly not true of car gas
gauges.)
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California *
* Between San Francisco and South San Francisco *
*******************************************************
From: sam...@dkdavis.com (Sam Hall)
Subject: Re: EV-1 recharging
Date: 1996/12/15
Message-ID: <32b34307.38731347@news.airmail.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 204176920
references: <588qdh$k0f@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>
<32ACA758.637@worldnet.att.net> <32b01cee.984959496@Newshost.grace.cri.nz>
<32B151C5.63C9@patriot.net> <hatunenE2Es50.L70@netcom.com>
organization: Davis & Associates
newsgroups: sci.energy
On Sat, 14 Dec 1996 14:55:48 GMT, hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
wrote:
>In article <32B151...@patriot.net>,
>Will Stewart <wste...@patriot.net> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>Note that as the closer the battery comes to being fully charged, the
>>recharging rate decreases. Hence, partial recharges (75%, for example)
>>take far less than the corresponding fraction of the recharge time for
>>complete charges.
>
>I've been trying to find some of the recharging details on the EV-1.
>Can you point me to a source for that info?
>
>Intuition suggests it would be the other way around, since a battery
>draws the largest recharge currents while the most deeply
>depleted, something easily seen on the gauge of my own little charger
>when used on my car battery.
>
>Is the charge gauge in the EV-1 actually linear with respect to amount
>of remaining available energy? (It's certainly not true of car gas
>gauges.)
>
>--
>
>
> ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) **********
> * Daly City California *
> * Between San Francisco and South San Francisco *
> *******************************************************
>
I also would like more details about this car.
Based on what I have read here, I figured:
Will recharge in 3 hours with a 220 volt charger on a 50 amp breaker.
This suggest 220v x 45 amps = 9,900 watts x 3 hours = about 30 kwh
Will recharge in 10 hours from a 120 volt charger on a normal outlet.
This suggest 120v x 15 amps = 1,800 watts x 10 hours = 18 kwh.
Call it a 25 kwh hour charge.
Figure 60 miles at 30 miles/hour = 2 hours drive time
25 kwh / 2hours = 12.5 kw = about 15 horsepower.(@90% eff)
Note that this is the upper limit. The chargers will not charge at
full power for the entire time. Lets call it a 15 kwh charge. That
gives us:
15 kwh / 2hours = 7.5 kw = about 9 horsepower.(@90% eff)
Note that 15 kwh is only 3 times as much storage as a golf cart has
Can anyone confirm these numbers?.
--
Samuel L. Hall
Systems Engineer
(communications systems)
From: to...@sover.net (Ron Jeremy)
Subject: Re: EV-1 recharging
Date: 1996/12/15
Message-ID: <591703$ltn@thrush.sover.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 204267553
references: <588qdh$k0f@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>
<32ACA758.637@worldnet.att.net> <32b01cee.984959496@Newshost.grace.cri.nz>
<32B151C5.63C9@patriot.net> <hatunenE2Es50.L70@netcom.com>
<32b34307.38731347@news.airmail.net>
organization: SoVerNet, Inc.
newsgroups: sci.energy
Sam Hall (sam...@dkdavis.com) wrote:
:
: I also would like more details about this car.
: Based on what I have read here, I figured:
:
: Will recharge in 3 hours with a 220 volt charger on a 50 amp breaker.
: This suggest 220v x 45 amps = 9,900 watts x 3 hours = about 30 kwh
1. It's a 6.6 kW charger
2. The Impact has a 137 hp drive motor
3. see http://www.gmev.com for more info
tooie
From: sam...@dkdavis.com (Sam Hall)
Subject: Re: EV-1 recharging
Date: 1996/12/15
Message-ID: <32b4452c.19419090@news.airmail.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 204282345
references: <588qdh$k0f@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>
<32ACA758.637@worldnet.att.net> <32b01cee.984959496@Newshost.grace.cri.nz>
<32B151C5.63C9@patriot.net> <hatunenE2Es50.L70@netcom.com>
<32b34307.38731347@news.airmail.net> <591703$ltn@thrush.sover.net>
organization: Davis & Associates
newsgroups: sci.energy
On 15 Dec 1996 15:54:43 GMT, to...@sover.net (Ron Jeremy) wrote:
>Sam Hall (sam...@dkdavis.com) wrote:
>:
>: I also would like more details about this car.
>: Based on what I have read here, I figured:
>:
>: Will recharge in 3 hours with a 220 volt charger on a 50 amp breaker.
>: This suggest 220v x 45 amps = 9,900 watts x 3 hours = about 30 kwh
>
>1. It's a 6.6 kW charger
>2. The Impact has a 137 hp drive motor
>3. see http://www.gmev.com for more info
>
>tooie
Thank you. That site has the data.
Looks like I was right. It is a 16.3 kwh battery bank. (26 each 12volt
53AH batteries- sealed lead acid type)
That's about 3 times what a golf cart has. Is this car a joke? Do they
really think people will spend money for for this, or is this a plot
to show that electric cars are not yet possible?
--
Samuel L. Hall
Systems Engineer
(communications systems)
From: mur...@worldnet.att.net (mur...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: EV-1 recharging
Date: 1996/12/18
Message-ID: <32b7b705.38360268@netnews.worldnet.att.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 204698439
references: <588qdh$k0f@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>
<32ACA758.637@worldnet.att.net> <32b01cee.984959496@Newshost.grace.cri.nz>
<32B151C5.63C9@patriot.net> <hatunenE2Es50.L70@netcom.com>
<32b34307.38731347@news.airmail.net> <591703$ltn@thrush.sover.net>
<32b4452c.19419090@news.airmail.net>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: sci.energy
>>
>>1. It's a 6.6 kW charger
>>2. The Impact has a 137 hp drive motor
>>3. see http://www.gmev.com for more info
>>
>>tooie
>Thank you. That site has the data.
>Looks like I was right. It is a 16.3 kwh battery bank. (26 each 12volt
>53AH batteries- sealed lead acid type)
>That's about 3 times what a golf cart has. Is this car a joke? Do they
>really think people will spend money for for this, or is this a plot
>to show that electric cars are not yet possible?
>
>--
>Samuel L. Hall
>Systems Engineer
>(communications systems)
I think it got dumped in Saturn's lap, and they're taking their damn time about
researching NiMH, etc. I called Saturn, just because I was curious about
similar issues to yourself, and they said they're looking into other systems.
My personal line of thinking, at this point, is that I'm hopeful that other
companies, such as Honda, Nissan, Toyota or Mercedes, tend to "toggle" GM's
half-baked battery efforts. I don't think GM's done this on purpose, but it
sure isn't overly impressive, as you indicate. Honda has taken a stake in
Ovonic, Nissan is working with Sony (Lithium Ion), Toyota is working with
Matsushita (NiMH, probably in violation of Ovonic's patents) and Mercedes has,
oh I don't know. Maybe Ballard Fuel Cells or Electric Fuel Zinc-Air or
something.
Just to round out my comment, here in SoCal, the sales and newspaper articles
tend, if I recollect, to summarize thusly:
The energy equivalent is roughly about 1.5 gallons, but it's like carrying about
3-4 gallons of gas (because of the superior 90% or so energy conversion aspect).
A GM spokesperson said, roughly, if you are comfortable driving to and from work
on only 3-4 gallons or so, then this could be a second or third car for you.
These numbers and comments should be taken as very extreme approximations from
my memory.
MM
From: B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Subject: Re: EV-1 recharging
Date: 1996/12/20
Message-ID: <32babff4.1682158807@Newshost.grace.cri.nz>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 205144026
references: <588qdh$k0f@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>
<32ACA758.637@worldnet.att.net> <32b01cee.984959496@Newshost.grace.cri.nz>
<32B151C5.63C9@patriot.net> <hatunenE2Es50.L70@netcom.com>
<32b34307.38731347@news.airmail.net> <591703$ltn@thrush.sover.net>
<32b4452c.19419090@news.airmail.net>
<32b7b705.38360268@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
organization: Industrial Research Limited
newsgroups: sci.energy
mur...@worldnet.att.net (mur...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
ee http://www.gmev.com for more info
...
>>Thank you. That site has the data.
>>Looks like I was right. It is a 16.3 kwh battery bank. (26 each 12volt
>>53AH batteries- sealed lead acid type)
>>That's about 3 times what a golf cart has. Is this car a joke? Do they
>>really think people will spend money for for this, or is this a plot
>>to show that electric cars are not yet possible?
Why do you think the mandated introduction of ZEV was deferred
in California?. There were no economic advanced batteries
available that would solve the energy storage problem. What
was offered was they would defer the mandate, but they expected
automakers to show good faith by offering EVs before then.
For example Honda has to "sell" either 540 Pb/H+ or 300NimH.
The more advanced the battery, the fewer the cars that have to
be "sold". But remember that Ford expect to offer NiMH as an
option in 1999, with an estimated price between $15,000 and $30,000.
( Automotive News 21/Oct/96 p60 ).
Thus Honda is offering a return key lease programme like GM for
their EV, which uses 24x12V NiMH ( it was initially going to use Pb/H+,
but they found the batteries only lasted 11.2 months on average ).
It takes 8 hours to recharge the Honda EV from 20% with the high
amperage 220V system, and it also has 110V pigtail for the emergency
limp-home situations. It is 4 seater, weighs 3595lbs, 18.7 sec to 60mph,
with 80+mph top speed.
>I think it got dumped in Saturn's lap, and they're taking their damn time about
>researching NiMH, etc. I called Saturn, just because I was curious about
>similar issues to yourself, and they said they're looking into other systems.
>My personal line of thinking, at this point, is that I'm hopeful that other
>companies, such as Honda, Nissan, Toyota or Mercedes, tend to "toggle" GM's
>half-baked battery efforts. I don't think GM's done this on purpose, but it
>sure isn't overly impressive, as you indicate. Honda has taken a stake in
>Ovonic, Nissan is working with Sony (Lithium Ion), Toyota is working with
>Matsushita (NiMH, probably in violation of Ovonic's patents) and Mercedes has,
>oh I don't know. Maybe Ballard Fuel Cells or Electric Fuel Zinc-Air or
>something.
Given that it was GM who fronted up with the research funds and major
contracts that started Ovonics, I think your allegations are unfair.
Given that production scale (10,000-40,000/yr) facilies were not
expected before 2000, and the historical slippage of the pilot scale
facilities, GM really had no choice but use Pb/H+ if they wanted
to keep the cost down, and CARB had no choice but defer the mandate.
Gasoline refuelling rate is 500kWh/min, whereas the 110v domestic
outlet is around 50Wh/min, ie 10,000x slower. 1 litre of a modern Pb/H+ battery
weighs 2.4 kg and contains 0.07kWh, whereas a litre of gasoline weighs
0.85 kg and contains 11kWh. There has to be a lot of research to bring
those closer, and even NiMH is seen as an interim solution. NiMH can have
a self discharge rate of 6% per 48hrs versus 0.6% for lead acid, so owners
may not want too large a battery ;-). The lithium ion battery has only 0.03%
self discharge rate, and Nissan plan to use them in their leased EV in
1998-9, as a 66lb one replaces 176 lbs of Pb/H+.
The Japanese have an industry/government consortium attempting to
develop a lithium-ion battery with a 220mile range on a single charge.
There are fire/explosion hazards with lithium-ion. An internal short
circuit can cause large amounts of heat, enough to incinerate a car..
Currently, to have range of 90 miles, 0-60 in 14 secs, an 4 seat EV
typically has to have 1600lbs of Pb/H+, 700 lbs of NiMH, or
400 lbs of Li-ion.
>The energy equivalent is roughly about 1.5 gallons, but it's like carrying about
>3-4 gallons of gas (because of the superior 90% or so energy conversion aspect).
Only if the gasoline is burnt in an inefficient engine, if the ICV was made to
the same body weight and cost, it would offer much improved performance
like the GM Ultralite demonstrated.
Bruce Hamilton
From: mur...@worldnet.att.net (mur...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: EV-1 recharging
Date: 1996/12/20
Message-ID: <32bbed05.248824302@netnews.worldnet.att.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 205152041
references: <588qdh$k0f@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>
<32ACA758.637@worldnet.att.net> <32b01cee.984959496@Newshost.grace.cri.nz>
<32B151C5.63C9@patriot.net> <hatunenE2Es50.L70@netcom.com>
<32b34307.38731347@news.airmail.net> <591703$ltn@thrush.sover.net>
<32b4452c.19419090@news.airmail.net>
<32b7b705.38360268@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
<32babff4.1682158807@Newshost.grace.cri.nz>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: sci.energy
On Fri, 20 Dec 1996 18:15:58 GMT, B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) wrote:
>>I think it got dumped in Saturn's lap, and they're taking their damn time about
>>researching NiMH, etc. I called Saturn, just because I was curious about
>>similar issues to yourself, and they said they're looking into other systems.
>>My personal line of thinking, at this point, is that I'm hopeful that other
>>companies, such as Honda, Nissan, Toyota or Mercedes, tend to "toggle" GM's
>>half-baked battery efforts. I don't think GM's done this on purpose, but it
>>sure isn't overly impressive, as you indicate. Honda has taken a stake in
>>Ovonic, Nissan is working with Sony (Lithium Ion), Toyota is working with
>>Matsushita (NiMH, probably in violation of Ovonic's patents) and Mercedes has,
>>oh I don't know. Maybe Ballard Fuel Cells or Electric Fuel Zinc-Air or
>>something.
>
>Given that it was GM who fronted up with the research funds and major
>contracts that started Ovonics, I think your allegations are unfair.
I am, to be sure, merely taking my best guess that GM could have done better.
I'm simply tired of hearing great pre-publicity from them about this, and then
seeing old technology on the road.
>Given that production scale (10,000-40,000/yr) facilies were not
>expected before 2000, and the historical slippage of the pilot scale
>facilities, GM really had no choice but use Pb/H+ if they wanted
>to keep the cost down, and CARB had no choice but defer the mandate.
>
>Gasoline refuelling rate is 500kWh/min, whereas the 110v domestic
>outlet is around 50Wh/min, ie 10,000x slower.
An aside: I wonder if anyone is or has considered simply replacing the batteries
at refueling stations.
>>The energy equivalent is roughly about 1.5 gallons, but it's like carrying about
>>3-4 gallons of gas (because of the superior 90% or so energy conversion aspect).
>
>Only if the gasoline is burnt in an inefficient engine, if the ICV was made to
>the same body weight and cost, it would offer much improved performance
>like the GM Ultralite demonstrated.
Terrific. I'm sure all of us here realize that the "coach" surrounding this
new EV is very innovative and begs the question of "what if they'd done this
with an IC and a good trans instead of an EV?"
But they never have made such a thing for sale, which, from GM, doesn't surprise
me.
MM
From: B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Subject: Re: EV-1 recharging
Date: 1996/12/22
Message-ID: <B.Hamilton.885.0AAB17D9@irl.cri.nz>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 205350368
references: <588qdh$k0f@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>
<32ACA758.637@worldnet.att.net> <32b01cee.984959496@Newshost.grace.cri.nz>
<32B151C5.63C9@patriot.net> <hatunenE2Es50.L70@netcom.com>
<32b34307.38731347@news.airmail.net> <591703$ltn@thrush.sover.net>
organization: Industrial Research Limited
newsgroups: sci.energy
In article <32bbed05....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
mur...@worldnet.att.net (mur...@worldnet.att.net) writes:
>On Fri, 20 Dec 1996 18:15:58 GMT, B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) wrote:
...
>>Given that it was GM who fronted up with the research funds and major
>>contracts that started Ovonics, I think your allegations are unfair.
>I am, to be sure, merely taking my best guess that GM could have done better.
>I'm simply tired of hearing great pre-publicity from them about this, and then
>seeing old technology on the road.
GM is?/was? a major shareholder in Ovonics. The people
promoting the NiMH were Ovonics ( including Stempel
- formerly of GM ). The reason EV proponents have enthused
over the Impact/EV-1 is because it was the first EV from a
major manufacturer to even approach levels of performance
that some ICV owners might accept. According to newspapers,
GM have spent over $250 million on the Impact/EV-1 and other
aspects of the EV infrastructure, and several aspects if the EV-1
have won innotive technology awards - like the plastic battery
tray that is part of the vehicle structure.
>>Gasoline refuelling rate is 500kWh/min, whereas the 110v domestic
>>outlet is around 50Wh/min, ie 10,000x slower.
>An aside: I wonder if anyone is or has considered simply replacing the
>batteries at refueling stations.
Use DejaNews ( when their 1995 database is back )
- this topic has been beaten to death in past EV threads
in sci.energy.
...
>>Only if the gasoline is burnt in an inefficient engine, if the ICV was made to
>>the same body weight and cost, it would offer much improved performance
>>like the GM Ultralite demonstrated.
>Terrific. I'm sure all of us here realize that the "coach" surrounding this
>new EV is very innovative and begs the question of "what if they'd done this
>with an IC and a good trans instead of an EV?" But they never have made
> such a thing for sale, which, from GM, doesn't surprise>me.
In the early 1990s GM made two prototype low emissions
vehicles, the Impact and the Ultralite, both of which had
8 sec 0-60 times. The Ultralite was a 80mpg, five seater,
135mph top speed vehicle which also complied with all
all crash test requirements- I've previously posted
detailed comparisons of the two. However, California
listened to the EV proponents promises that successful
technology forcing was possible, and *mandated* the ZEV,
which was only achievable with an EV, not even hybrids
were permitted. GM thus focussed on the far inferior
Impact and tried to bring it to acceptable levels for
price/performance/range .
Until the energy storage problems are solved, EVs will
remain a niche product ( I've also previously posted
the expected costs of owning an EV-1, and described
the target market that GM hoped for it - definitely not
the typical two car family on average income). The premature
mandating of EVs has meant that ICV improvements
have not been pursued as aggressively, and the
deferring of the mandate shows that the EV proponents
were optomistic - something many people have been
saying for a long time. Fortunately, CARB finally
marginalised some of the EV proponents that had been
responsible for the policy earlier this year, so we
may yet see a more rational ICV policy until EVs really
are ready. More likely, suitable fuel cells may have also
have been developed as well, and CARB might change the
rules to permit them.
Bruce Hamilton
From: Will Stewart <wste...@patriot.net>
Subject: Re: EV-1 recharging
Date: 1996/12/23
Message-ID: <32BECDAB.5A7A@patriot.net>
X-Deja-AN: 205629582
references: <588qdh$k0f@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>
<32ACA758.637@worldnet.att.net>
<32b01cee.984959496@Newshost.grace.cri.nz> <32B151C5.63C9@patriot.net>
<hatunenE2Es50.L70@netcom.com> <32b34307.38731347@news.airmail.net>
<591703$ltn@thrush.sover.net> <B.Hamilton.885.0AAB17D9@irl.cri.nz>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: PatriotNet, (703) 277-7737
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: sci.energy
x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
Bruce Hamilton wrote:
> GM is?/was? a major shareholder in Ovonics. The people
> promoting the NiMH were Ovonics ( including Stempel
> - formerly of GM ). The reason EV proponents have enthused
> over the Impact/EV-1 is because it was the first EV from a
> major manufacturer to even approach levels of performance
> that some ICV owners might accept.
Actually, because it was the first passenger car EV from a major US
manufacturer. Others are in close pursuit in this category, but farther
ahead in others.
http://www.calstart.org/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi
> According to newspapers,
> GM have spent over $250 million on the Impact/EV-1 and other
> aspects of the EV infrastructure, and several aspects if the EV-1
> have won innotive technology awards - like the plastic battery
> tray that is part of the vehicle structure.
This is a small investment for such advanced, award winning technology.
The Ford Taurus redesign costed more than $600,000,000.
> In the early 1990s GM made two prototype low emissions
> vehicles, the Impact and the Ultralite,
Correction: the EV-1 is a *zero* emissions vehicle. California has an
aggressive renewable energy policy, and therefore much of the energy
consumed in California is pollution-free. From
http://www.energy.ca.gov/energy/cectext/facts.html ;
"Entering the decade of the 1990s, California has the world's most
diverse resource mix for electricity generation. About 35 percent of the
state's 58,000 megawatt demand is met with non fossil sources. In 1995,
California imported 11 percent of its electricity supply from the
Pacific Southwest (both utility-owned and non-utility owned imports) and
8 percent from the Pacific Northwest.
By pursuing new generation technologies, California now has 40 percent
of the world's geothermal power plants, 54 percent installed wind
capacity and 90 percent of the world's solar generation.
California also leads the nation in the amount of electricity supplied
by non utility generators. Although one-third of the West's total
electricity generating capacity is found in California, the state has 85
percent of the regions capacity associated with independent power
producers."
> both of which had
> 8 sec 0-60 times. The Ultralite was a 80mpg, five seater,
> 135mph top speed vehicle
The EV-1 has been clocked at 187 MPH. The speed is now "governed" to a
more than sufficient 80 MPH.
> which also complied with all
> all crash test requirements- I've previously posted
> detailed comparisons of the two. However, California
> listened to the EV proponents promises that successful
> technology forcing was possible, and *mandated* the ZEV,
> which was only achievable with an EV, not even hybrids
> were permitted.
This is the same old tired whining common to oil company propagandists.
The simple fact is that EVs don't emit pollution from their tailpipes
(indeed, they don't even have tailpipes).
As a matter of fact, ULEVs *do* have a place in CARB's policy.
See http://www.calstart.org/fleets/carb.html
> GM thus focussed on the far inferior
> Impact
The California Air Resources Board sought to relieve the congestion of
large urban areas of Southern California. The Ultralight, while having
lower emissions than a typical ICE, had a far inferior emissions
performance compared to the EV-1.
> and tried to bring it to acceptable levels for
> price/performance/range .
Inclusion of NiMH batteries (or equivalent) will increase these levels
even higher.
> Until the energy storage problems are solved,
You are a year out of date; the NiMH battery, among others, *has* solved
any perceived energy storage problems. A number of vehicles are coming
to market with these batteries
> EVs will
> remain a niche product
This opinion is no longer applicable.
> The premature
> mandating of EVs has meant that ICV improvements
> have not been pursued as aggressively,
What is stopping the car companies from pursuing refinements to an
already mature technology? In fact, fuel cell advancements seem to be
far more promising than any further refinements in gasoline-burning
techniques.
> and the
> deferring of the mandate shows that the EV proponents
> were optomistic
Or that the aggressive, heavily-financed oil company lobbying was
partially successful.
> - something many people have been saying for a long time.
Who are these "many people"? This is a typical appeal to mass opinion.
You have yet to show us any evidence for this.
> Fortunately, CARB finally
> marginalised some of the EV proponents that had been
> responsible for the policy earlier this year, so we
> may yet see a more rational ICV policy until EVs really
> are ready. More likely, suitable fuel cells may have also
> have been developed as well, and CARB might change the
> rules to permit them.
Already have.
Cheers,
--
William R. Stewart
http://www.patriot.net/users/wstewart/first.htm
Member American Solar Energy Society
Member Electrical Vehicle Association of America
"The truth will set you free: - J.C.
"Troll:
A deliberately disrupting, confused and incorrect
post (or one posting trolls) to a Usenet group to
generate a flurry of responses from people called
"billygoats" trying to set the record straight.
Other trollers enter the fray adding more and more
misinformation so that the thread eventually dies of
strangulation. Trolls/trollers cannot be affected
by facts or logic." - bash...@psnw.com
From: B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Subject: Re: EV-1 recharging
Date: 1996/12/24
Message-ID: <32bffad3.33580196@Newshost.grace.cri.nz>
X-Deja-AN: 205822548
references: <588qdh$k0f@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>
<32ACA758.637@worldnet.att.net>
<32b01cee.984959496@Newshost.grace.cri.nz> <32B151C5.63C9@patriot.net>
<hatunenE2Es50.L70@netcom.com> <32b34307.38731347@news.airmail.net>
<591703$ltn@thrush.sover.net> <B.Hamilton.885.0AAB17D9@irl.cri.nz>
<32BECDAB.5A7A@patriot.net>
organization: Industrial Research Limited
newsgroups: sci.energy
Will Stewart < wste...@patriot.net> wrote:
>Bruce Hamilton wrote:
...
>> According to newspapers,
>> GM have spent over $250 million on the Impact/EV-1 and other
>> aspects of the EV infrastructure,....
>This is a small investment for such advanced, award winning technology.
>The Ford Taurus redesign costed more than $600,000,000.
:-)
The Ford Taurus was intended for sale over a wide range of
location and that investment is likely to provide some return to
shareholders. the premature madating of EVs means that
bleeding edge costs will be irrelevant to any successful EVs.
Mandating EVs has failed to achieve the desired time frame,
and if it slips further CARB may have to impose additional
emissions limits on other sources to comply with federal
requirements.
>> In the early 1990s GM made two prototype low emissions
>> vehicles, the Impact and the Ultralite,
>
>Correction: the EV-1 is a *zero* emissions vehicle. California has an
>aggressive renewable energy policy, and therefore much of the energy
>consumed in California is pollution-free.
No. It's an PEEVE ( Produced Elsewhere Electric Vehicle Emissions ).
>"Entering the decade of the 1990s, California has the world's most
>diverse resource mix for electricity generation.
Really?. I'd like more information before I'd believe that...
>By pursuing new generation technologies, California now has 40 percent
>of the world's geothermal power plants,
Geothermal plants have long been used in New Zealand, and
Geothermal is now recognised as having serious pollution
problems that have to be considered when installing it. Taking
hot, saturated fluids from underground and converting them to
electric energy results in both water and thermal pollution that
has to be handled. Approx 7% of NZs electricity came from our
geothermal plants in 1991 ( the last year I have data for ), what
% of California's comes from Geothermal? .
> 54 percent installed wind capacity
Denmark has a much higher % of wind generated electricity
than California - a more useful statistic than % of world
capacity. What % of California electricity is wind generated?
> and 90 percent of the world's solar generation.
I doubt this also, even if they were just considering utility
photovoltaic.
>California also leads the nation in the amount of electricity supplied
>by non utility generators. Although one-third of the West's total
>electricity generating capacity is found in California, the state has 85
>percent of the regions capacity associated with independent power
>producers."
:-)
" Fossil fuel pollution? - that's not *our* problem!. Talk to that
independent producer over there, he's the bad guy".
As I have noted before, fossil fuels are the source of approx 67% of
US electricity. The pollution moves from the tailpipe to the smokestack.
>> both of which had
>> 8 sec 0-60 times. The Ultralite was a 80mpg, five seater,
>> 135mph top speed vehicle
>The EV-1 has been clocked at 187 MPH. The speed is now "governed" to a
>more than sufficient 80 MPH.
No, a special version of the EV-1 has been clocked at 187 mph.
The Impact III ( and it's successor the EV-1 ) were governed to 80mph
to obtain an EPA City range of 50-70mi. If it went faster the range plummets
( due to increasing tyre rolling resistance as well as the increasing
aerodynamic resistance ) It could go 250 miles at 25mph. I'll let readers
work out how far a Pb/H+ EV-1 goes at 187 mph, given the rate of increase
of aerodynamic drag, tyre rolling resistance etc :-)
>The simple fact is that EVs don't emit pollution from their tailpipes
>(indeed, they don't even have tailpipes).
No Will, it is emitted elsewhere, and the public are learning that.
>As a matter of fact, ULEVs *do* have a place in CARB's policy.
This *only* appeared in 1995, after it became apparent that
all those false promises of EV proponents were just that.
That *panic* change was because CARB regulators realised
the Governor Wilson was likely to demand an independant
review ( which he subsequently did - and deferred the
mandate based on the experts' opinions ). It represented
the first indication to the general public that the CARB
stance was unreal. Even as that report was being prepared
they were stating that 1998 was still achievable and it was
the wilfullness of the motor companies that was the problem.
Given that the USABC manages a $260 million battery
development programme, which wouldn't even result in
production batteries meeting the near-term goals in 1998,
I'm not surprised that they had to change....
>> GM thus focussed on the far inferior
>> Impact
>
>The California Air Resources Board sought to relieve the congestion of
>large urban areas of Southern California. The Ultralight, while having
>lower emissions than a typical ICE, had a far inferior emissions
>performance compared to the EV-1.
They would have succeeded. The roadsides would be littered
with dead EVs :-).
>> and tried to bring it to acceptable levels for
>> price/performance/range .
>Inclusion of NiMH batteries (or equivalent) will increase these levels
>even higher.
GM has used Pb/H+ batteries because NiMH were too expensive
Honda and Toyota estimated earlier this year that their NiMH
EV batteries would cost $20,000, and Ford predicts the NiMH
optional battery on their 1999 EV will be between $15,000-30,000
People want an economic replacement for their ICV, not their
bank managers' dream come true.
>> Until the energy storage problems are solved,
>You are a year out of date; the NiMH battery, among others, *has* solved
>any perceived energy storage problems. A number of vehicles are coming
>to market with these batteries
No. The NiMH battery does not solve the energy storage problem
of EVs. It is regarded by experts as a " mid-term" solution only
and it only meets some of the "mid-term" criteria of the US
Advanced Battery Consortium, and even less of the "long-term"
criteria.
>> EVs will remain a niche product
>This opinion is no longer applicable.
Really, the latest Automobile News reports that there is
some disappointment in the lukewarm response to the
EV-1 after the first publicity rush. I'd say the evidence is
that my opinion is more closely linked to reality than
someone elses around here....
>> The premature
>> mandating of EVs has meant that ICV improvements
>> have not been pursued as aggressively,
>
>What is stopping the car companies from pursuing refinements to an
>already mature technology? In fact, fuel cell advancements seem to be
>far more promising than any further refinements in gasoline-burning
>techniques.
Why spend research $ on a vehicle that was going to be prohibited?.
I could dig out some early 1990s posts from myself and others to this
group that claim Fuel Cells would be a better choice than batteries,
and it was only last year that CARB permitted Fuel Cell or hybrids.
Incidentally, some fuel cells use hydrocarbon fractions, and the
problems are being actively researched, but methanol is preferred
because of the much reduced trace levels of undesirable elements.
>> and the
>> deferring of the mandate shows that the EV proponents
>> were optomistic
>Or that the aggressive, heavily-financed oil company lobbying was
>partially successful.
According to Daniel Sperling, an important EV proponent
" California, where air quality regulators are powerful, and
the automotive industry has little political influence but an
important vehicle market ( over 1.5 million vehicle sales per
year )..." "Towards Electric Vehicles " D.Sperling
Chemistry and Industry. 7 August 1995 p 609-612
However, once the mandate had been deferred, he claimed
" This past March California regulators gave into pressure
from both the automobile and oil industries and eliminated
the quota for 1998 and 2001..." " The Case for Electric
Vehicles" D. Sperling in Nov 1996 Scientific American p.36-41.
Governor Wilson asked an Expert Panel to review the
technology, which of the experts are you defaming?
The opinions that lead to the deferrment can be read
in their article :-
" Electric Vehicle Batteries "
F.R.Kalhammer, A.Kozawa,C.B.Moyer, and B.B.Owens
The Electrochemical society Interface, Spring 1996 p32-37.
>> - something many people have been saying for a long time.
>Who are these "many people"? This is a typical appeal to mass opinion.
>You have yet to show us any evidence for this.
Seeing you asked, try
" Candidate Batteries for Road Electric Vehicles "
D.Rand
SAE-Australasia May/June 1993 p.38-49.
or, a more accessible report may be the US GAO report
" Electric Vehicles: Likely Consequences of US and other
Nations Programmes and Policies. December 1994
(GAO/PEMD-95-7 )
or Chapter 8 " Electricity " of
"Alternative Fuels for Road Vehicles'
M.l.Poulton
ISBN 1-56252-225-6 (1994) p.123-156
or " Check the tyres and charge her up'
G.Glanz
New Scientist 15 April 1995 p.32-35.
Also, EV proponents can read how the EV mandates are
being currently being defended in Daniel Sperling's
" The Case for Electric Vehicles" in Nov 1996 Scientific
American p.36-41. Discerning readers will note that
he still uses data from his 1990 study on the " Emissions
Impact of Electric Vehicles" rather than later ones.
Readers might also note that he claims a 10 gallon tank of
gasoline contains 2,100 kilojoules of energy, when
it really contains 1,200,000 kilojoules, some difference.
Bruce Hamilton