A sports car is never practical. I, for one, do not consider the Tesla affordable. At all. I thin the Leaf might be a better example.
As far as GM maintaining an inventory of spares, I don’t think this is really a reason not to allow lessees to buy their cars. Turning (once again) to aviation, there are thousands of airplanes flying that are unsupported by their manufacturers. Spares are obtained from old stock, wrecks, and new manufacture by companies that want to supply parts.
One interesting example is the Porsche Flugmotor. Porsche supplied a few engines for aircraft in the late-1950s - early-1960s. They produced the Porsche PFM 3200 from 1985 to 1991. The PFM 3200 was advance over the previous (and current) aircraft engines, using modern technology to be an efficient engine that was simpler to operate. Unfortunately, it appeared right at the moment the General Aviation industry collapsed. Porsche surrendered the type certificate, and as of 2007 stopped supporting it. People still have them, and they’re still flying. It is unknown how they will be maintained once existing stocks of old parts (not supplied by Porsche) become unavailable. Owners may be forced to switch to old-technology engines. Or, new parts could be sourced that comply with, or are made to comply with, federal maintenance requirements.
So I see no reason why the EV-1s should not have been sold to the lessees. Either they would have been used until they stopped working, or they would have been supported by a company or companies other than GM.
Oh, yeah, all of those hydrogen filling stations, like Berkeley Richmond (primarily used for short range fleet vehicles) or the Humbolt State University Schatz Energy Research Center. I count four operating stations in the entire state of California, plus maybe another couple dozen of planned stations.
Automotive companies are working on hydrogen because a) they get government subsidy and incentives to research on hydrogen fuels, b) they also get credit for emissions free vehicles even if they aren’t practical, and c) hydrogen fueled vehicles do have some limited applicability for short range fleet usage. (The US Postal service maintained a small fleet of hydrogen powered Jeeps back in the late 'Seventies/early 'Eighties for short range deliveries; they ended up retiring the fleet because hydrogen was not cost competitive and because of the previously mentioned embrittlement issues in the fuel line system.) However, hydrogen is not well suited as a general transportation fuel due to the very low energy density, regardless of any other considerations.
Do you have any direct experience with hydrogen as a fuel or in vehicle applications?
No, I’m a network engineer, not a surgeon. I assume, however, that Toyota can employ at least one engineer with hydrogen experience somewhere on their pay roll, and that they would have assessed the viability before investing literally billions in R&D and even production. Since the last I read they were planning a limited release of vehicles on the consumer market in 2015 you should seriously write to them, give them your credentials and inform them that what they are planning is impossible and a waste for their money (unless they are getting the equivalent amount of cash from the government of course, in which case you should write the same letter to them to inform them they are wasting OUR money), because they don’t seem to know this.
I helped make the EV1 a reality. I worked for a vendor at the time, and we built them at the Craft Center which was an extension of the Fisher Body plant in Lansing, MI.
At the time, I was paying about $1.00 per gallon for gasoline.
That’s what killed (in those days) the electric car.
These days, we have all sorts of electric cars. They’re still expensive and niche, but the prices are coming down. Tesla is making the concept popular, even though their products are certainly not unique.
The electric car isn’t dead. History is finally at the point in time where they can properly emerge.
Although there is no longer a legal requirement for automakers to produce and inventory spare parts, it would have been very, very bad press for GM to have sold the EV-1 and then turned around and said, “Sorry, no spares. When it dies, you’re on your own.” And it isn’t as if there was a big inventory of beaters and wreckers to get spare parts from.
Although it may have not made loyalists very happy, collecting and demolishing the leased EV-1 makes perfect business sense from the standpoint of limiting the legal and marketing liability of General Motors.
Instead of giving a snarky smartass response which basically sums up to “I don’t know how they do it, but they must be able to magically overcome all of the technical and logistical issues with hydrogen” you may want to go back and re-read what I provided in regard to the incentives that automakers are receiving to work on hydrogen fuels (and although I didn’t discuss it, the lack of incentives for working on other synthetic hydrocarbon fuels such as DME and methonal).
Again, I have worked directly with hydrogen as a fuel. There are some very significant downsides to hydrogen even in applications such as upper stage and spacecraft vehicles where it is the best choice from a propulsive efficiency standpoint. You can try to handwave away and divert such issues all you like, but as you apparently lack any practical knowledge of the issues with handling and storing hydrogen your opinion means diddly fuck-all to anyone who does have such experience.
As opposed to your (usual) categorical assertion of massive expertise, superior to any an all sundry, including engineers and scientists who work for multi-billion dollar companies, right? Yeah, I’m not an expert and I while I’ve read a lot about hydrogen powered vehicles I can’t claim to understand all of the implications. What I DO know, however, is that as on other subjects you weigh in on, yours is not the only (or ultimately authoritative) opinion. You opinion certainly has weight, and I usually enjoy reading your responses, but you have a tendency to attempt to stifle all debate on a subject by asserting your unquestioned expertise, even when it’s clear that other people, presumably with at least your level of understanding and expertise disagree with you.
I find it hard to believe, based solely on your word and no cites, that Toyota, for instance, knows that hydrogen fuel technology is not viable, but instead is doing this solely to defraud the government and get juicy subsidies. And they aren’t the only car company looking into hydrogen fuel technology. Are ALL of them scamming the government? All of them doing it, knowing that it’s impossible, simply for the subsidies?
It’s a hijack of the thread I realize, so you don’t need to respond if you don’t want too. And I freely admit that there are serious issues with hydrogen, including storage (though I always heard it’s the making and distribution that’s the difficult part).
So, you don’t have any actual issue with any of the factual statements that I’ve made, and your point of contention is strictly with me personally and my manner of presentation?
Sounds as if you are voicing your opinion in the wrong forum.
I would point out that it makes me less confident of the critics of the electric car when they just point at the un-affordability of it when Tesla has posted a profit in the previous quarters. Something that did not happen with the EV-1, still a niche for sure, but that was the case on many technologies before improvements and patents running out allowed many companies to go for larger markets.
No, it’s the correct forum. I have no desire to Pit you, since as I said I generally enjoy your responses. My problem in THIS thread is your categorical assertion that (to summarize and paraphrase) storage is a major insurmountable issue (despite the fact that storage facilities already exist), and that car companies are developing hydrogen knowing that it’s not viable (except in the very vertical markets you posit) and are doing it for the subsidies.
Overall, especially your input about the problems and issues with the electric car coincide with what I’ve read (including in the Motor Trend article I linked to earlier, as well several other articles I’ve read), and generally I agree, in my layman’s meaningless way, that hydrogen as a general purpose transport medium has some pretty daunting issues (scaling up production and figuring out logistics of distribution seem to me to be major challenges) that may make it uneconomical to use on the scales we are talking about to make a real dent in replacing ICE technology using hydrocarbon based fuels. To me, it’s the economic facets that will make or break it…the engineering, including storage is just engineering and obviously companies spending billions on R&D have thought of the same things you bring up, yet still think it MIGHT be viable.
GM killed the EV-1. My brother has long been an electric car enthusiast. He leased an EV-1. Every one made had someone on a waiting list to lease one. They did not sell them because they did not want to stock parts for the legally required term (10 years I believe) so they didn’t want them out in the wild. My brother was on a long waiting list to buy a Leaf. He also had an electric pick-up truck. I’ve driven the Leaf and the and the EV-1, both fine cars, but the Leaf is far more normal. Lot of Tesla S models in the SF Bay Area.
Tesla has posted a profit due to multi-hundred dollar very low interest loans, subsidies by the DoT, and a $7500 federal tax break to purchasers which is actually factored into the end price of the car. (The promotional literature for the Tesla Model S actually states this in there when stating the purchase price of the car.) Several states also offer tax incentives. Take away all of this taxpayer-subsidized profit and incentives and you’ll find that the Tesla S is no more affordable or accessible to the average person than a high end Porsche Type 997.
This isn’t to say that electric vehicles are impossible, or can never be made more affordably, or anysuch. Obviously energy storage technology will continue to evolve and improve, and while the limits on range and operating temperature will continue to be considerations for the foreseeable future, electric vehicles may certainly be useful to a subset of the population which commutes a moderate distance on a regular weekly schedule. But electric vehicles are not and will not be a total replacement solution for internal combustion powered vehicles for the foreseeable future, and there needs to be more focus and support for research on synthetic hydrocarbon fuels which are cost and functionally competitive with current petrocarbons. To avoid doing this in favor of the pipe dream of electric vehicles and hydrogen transportation fuels is foolhardy and shortsighted.
In Silicon Valley there are plenty of people to whom $60k is perfectly affordable.
That only 10% of drivers is the market is a feature, not a bug. The biggest mistake Tesla could make would be to try to expand too quickly. They have an extensive infrastructure to build, not just charging stations but dealers and service also.
As for range, nearly everyone I know has two cars at least. And most people spend 90% of their driving on short commutes (relatively short, under 20 miles each way.) I can look out my window at work and see two spots reserved for EVs - no charging stations yet, but they will come. My Prius, and many like it, drives for 45 minutes or so twice a day and sits the rest of the time.
Sure there are people for whom EVs won’t work, but identifying a guy who drives long distances several times a week does not eliminate the mass of people who don’t.
I get nervous when someone calls something “just” an engineering problem, as if that were trivial. Apollo was “just” an engineering problem also. But I also get nervous when people put a cap on what relatively primitive technologies can do.
BTW GM just pulled the plug on the EV1. IIRC there was an article in IEEE Spectrum about the time it was introduced on how it was not viable, and IEEE is hardly in the grip of big oil. It was just too early.
It would help your argument if you supplied a cite indicating that the storage issues are insurmountable. That would counter XT’s cite that hydrogen stations exist and, presumably, storing hydrogen.
What’s interesting, though, is that the high price of gas in Europe hasn’t led to an electric vehicle that I know of. That seems to indicate that it wasn’t just the cheap gas that killed the EV-1.
I know nothing about hydrogen storage, but when random person, however smart, says that a major corporation in the industry with a very good track record of new product creation is stupid, I tend to bet on the corporation.