EV1(battery powered car)?

Question

Do you think that if enough people rallied together that GM would bring back the EV1 even if its only for lease.

Go here if you dont know about it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

Answer 1

You probably wouldn't get the Ev1. Electric vehicle technology has moved a long way since then.

GM has released a concept vehicle called the volt

http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/

There is a number of promising electric cars that are due to be released in the next while.

The tesla roadster is probably the closest to production

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roads...

this is quite expensive though.

A general search using "electric vehicles will turn up a lot of options.

So no to the EV1 but other options are and will be available.

--------------------------------------...

In terms of pollution A coal fired power station produces around 880-990 g of co2 /KWh

Figures obtained for the Tesla roadster show 110 watt/hrs /km

or around 104g of co2/km (on coal only power).

The Prius  returns figures of 106g of co2 /km.

Yes there are transmission losses as are there transport emissions for fuel (delivery and pick up).

Bear in mind that the U.S. power grid is only about 66% coal fired (probably less off peak) which makes the figures for electric cars look even more attractive. (from an environmental perspective) (zero if charged from green sources only).

Also search "clean coal technologies" that promise to largely clean up coal emissions.

Yes electric cars transfer pollution to power stations but in total less than normal I.C.E. vehicles.

The only big minus for electric cars is the cost. (very expensive to buy)

The Bicycle is still the form of transport with lowest pollution

Answer 2

Nice try, but don't think it'll happen.

They were destroyed for a reason and whatever that is (and we've a good idea) this is America and nobody is going to make a company, especially one as huge as that (or anyone else) do something that they don't want to do. Good Question.

Answer 3

I don't know but that is a good idea. You can only try. Plus if you get enough people they will put it back to make more money. At least try.

Answer 4

I believe the electric car is just a way to move pollution from the city to the power plant location, and not really good for the environment at all.

Here is my reasoning. Power plants burning oil, coal, or gas are only about 25-35 % efficient or less. That is, the energy in the fuel (BTU'S) mostly goes out the stack, or into power needed to run the plant. There are further losses in the transmission of electricity to your location. There more losses in the charging / battery / motor in the car.

In a normal car or hybrid, the fuel is burned at the source where the power is used. It seems like this would be much more efficient and use less fuel for the same use.

I like the idea of no pollution in the city, but I don't want to support something that isn't best for the environment overall.

Answer 5

I think GM will see where they shot themselves in the foot and try to make a come back in that area.  Even if they don't, there are other companies that are developing and even marketing and selling EVs in other parts of the world.  Sooner or later, they will make it to the US.  Until they get here, you better believe that US auto makers will be paying close attention (along with oil company execs) to the popularity and sells figures.  

Expect oil companies to try and sabotage any and every effort.  An EV that can get 100 miles to a charge will benefit the majority of the commuters in this country.  I think the average commute is about 30 miles round trip.  If recharging stations were at or near place of employment, a 90 mile one way commuter would be able to benefit from an EV.  

We know that battery technology has advanced to the point that 100 miles is not the maximum anymore.  It's more toward the lower end.    

GABY, do a fair comparison between the internal combustion car and the electric car.  There IS no comparison.  The internal combustion car is a looser.  There is just more money backing it, and hindering the development and growth of any other means of propulsion that can be used in a vehicle.  Petroleum has been used for powering vehicles of all types for over 100 years.  It's time for a change!!!  Oil companies need to migrate to another fuel source and stay on top, or get the h**l out of the way so natural evolution, invention, and development can take its due course.  Instead of pouring all those millions in profits into R & D for alternative fuel sources, oil companies have used their revenue to buy politicians and buy inventions.  Once they buy new inventions, they crush it, and it is never heard from again.    

Gasoline and diesel have to be refined from oil.  Just like coal has to be transported to the power plant, oil has to be transported to the refineries.  Those refineries use large amounts of energy.  They also have stacks that release pollutants into the air.  Refineries also get a bill from the power company.  So, some of the power plant pollution attributed to EVs can also be attributed to making gas.  The delivery of the fuel to the gas stations uses energy.  There is the evaporation of the gas filling the deliver truck, delivering the gas to the gas station, and also while refueling your car.  

The internal combustion car wastes WAY more energy than an EV.  At least 60% of the energy that gas produces radiates out of the hood and into the coolant as heat.  The torque converter that is in automatic transmission models wastes energy as well.  

If the power used to recharge an EV comes from a power plant that uses air, water, or solar, then they don't have stacks and that negative disappears.  Any negative due to the lose of power from one of those sources disappears as well since it was a natural and free source to begin with.  

Internal combustion cars also use motor oil (which takes energy to refine).  The motor oil has to be changed on an average of every 3 month/3000 miles....as per manufacturer recommendations.  If a car holds 4 quarts, that's about 1 gallon per year and also 4 filters.  An EV doesn't require motor oil, nor a filter.  You couldn't POSSIBLY still think that the internal combustion car is better.  

Also, the power company produces power that is used for way more than just recharging EVs.  Millions of EVs can plug into 1 power plant, but EVERY internal combustion car has an exhaust pipe.  The millions of exhaust pipes attached to cars, along with the smoke stacks of oil refineries surpass the pollutants of about 500 coal burning power plants beyond simple calculations.  

I am all for using natural resources for the generation of electricity, even nuclear.  Take a look at this link.  Coal FAR exceeds the dangers of a nuclear plant.  http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev2...

You claim to be an 'Engineer'.  Every engineer I know and work with try to be as open minded and view situation/problems from every angle possible.  If this the case/rule with the average engineer, that would make you an exception to the rule.  Since your calculations were so lump sided, ok, SINGLE sided, that would lend to reason that you are a Petroleum Engineer.  NOW the information you typed makes sense.  The average EV is better environmentally than the most efficient internal combustion vehicle by far.

Answer 6

As they decided to ignore customer demand before and crush them, and sell patents to oil companies. I don't see how they could resurect it.

also it is basically a 20year old design, there are better options out there now http://www.teslamotors.com http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/

best to let GM die for it's sins & focus on those who understand the beuty of the ev driving experience to take the industry forward.

Answer 7

as long as oil companies lobby the car companies there will never be a large selling of only electric cars from the major car companies, the technology is already there the EV1 was twelve years ago imagine what the have now