Consumer Reports ignores NiMH, taken in by GM, Chevron
Your article on GM and the EV1 is completely wrong, from start to finish. CR should be embarrassed.
"GM flashes back to its electric future
"GM says most of the technology used in the Chevrolet Volt--and many
of its engineers--came from the original EV1 program..."
That's just false. The engineers work now for Aerovironment and
ACPropulsion.
"...In fact, the EV1 team has also provided key talent and
technology at the leading independent electric car companies. GM
clearly did not kill the electric car..."
GM did, in fact, kill the Electric car, by selling control of the
Nickel Metal Hydride batteries to Texaco, which passed them off to
Chevron, whose COBASYS unit sued Toyota-Panasonic, and production of
the EV-95 battery used in the RAV4-EV (and all other successful EVs)
was stopped.
"...the EV1 was a response to the 1990 California mandate that 10
percent of cars sold in the state in 2003 had to be battery-powered
electric vehicles. (By 2003, the state had reduced the mandate to
the point that today's gasoline-electric hybrids and other low-
emissions vehicles satisfy the requirement.)..."
Under great pressure from GM and Chevron oil, that is.
"...The road to the Volt has been long and rocky, and GM has
traversed it in fits and starts..."
If GM were serious about the VOLT, it could produce it now, with
NiMH or even with lead-acid batteries. Waiting for research on
Lithium is just a ploy, which apparently, CR has fallen for, hook
line and sinker. Outageously, GM has asked COBASYS (Chevron Oil) to
do the research on Lithium! CR misses this.
"The EV1 had about a 60-mile range..."
Actually, the 1997 EV1 had a 60 mile range with defective GM DELCO
lead-acid batteries, but when replaced by NiMH, the EPA certified
range was 140 miles. When replaced with non-defective lead-acid
batteries, the range was 110 miles.
"...before needing a five-hour recharge..."
We want the Electric car to do slow charging overnight, when
electric goes begging and generators are shut down. The prudent
driver can more than pay for this charging by on-peak production of
electric via a solar rooftop PV system. Part of the money that was
spent on gasoline can then be used to amortize the solar
investment. Naturally, GM and Chevron are opposed to this, because
it takes these drivers out of the "gasoline-oil-repair" cycle that
they make so much money from.
"...GM needs a breakthrough product to retain the title as the
world's largest automaker, as well as achieve the leadership role it
once held in the auto industry. The Volt has the potential to be
just such a revolutionary vehicle, marking it and the underlining E-
Flex technology as worth watching. --Eric Evarts"
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2007/01/gm_flashes_back.html
And "watching" is all you are going to be doing, if you ignore the
facts. The NiMH battery is here, now, and works fine, giving a
small SUV (the Toyota RAV4-EV) a 120 mile range. But your article,
like GM, ignores this actual, factual oil-free car. GM will
do "research" with Chevron, and "fail to find the Lithium
batteries", pushing the VOLT back past 2012.
CR has an important mission, to bring the truth about good and bad results of product use...in this case, CR is not giving good advice. CR could help bring pressure on GM to actually be forced to produce the VOLT, instead of just using it as a Public Relations ploy to defuse the onus of killing the EV.
The VOLT could be made now, even with lead-acid batteries. The idea
that all drivers would not want a 60 mile range EV is just an
excuse; even GM acknowledges that it only takes a 1000 CC engine to
generate the electric to run an EV. If some folks were happy with a 60 mile,
or 140 mile, EV-only range, why take their cars away and crush them?
These facts, of the existing NiMH battery and that GM teamed with
Chevron to kill the EV, indicating that the VOLT is nothing more
than a Public Relations ploy, are ignored by CR.
Why is CR taken in? Gullible?