Don, I read and enjoyed your article about GM and the EV1 when you first published it -- and I read it again in the present context. However, I find it a bit over-dramatized and leaving me with the same reservations I originally had.
I do not doubt that GM and the auto industry in general are significantly collusive and recalcitrant regarding major innovations. This problem is a given, IMO, and I have little trust in auto makers in this regard. Instead, the issue I have with your interpretation is simply that I find it far from being true re mass-market acceptance of battery EVs.
The characteristics you so admire and enjoy in the EV1 derive from the nature of the electric motor drive -- which develops maximum torque at low rpms, whereas ICEs require, typically, 1500 rpm or even much more. So, electric drive vehicles have great tractability and initial acceleration. Exceptionally quiet too -- very nice vehicles to drive, I am sure.
But, fuel cell EVs have the same driving attributes along with greatly increased milage range -- and hybrids, to a significant extent, do too (lots of initial torque boost from the electric motor). The real issue with the EV1 and other battery EVs has been and is the high cost of the batteries and the limited range. This combination, paying more for a limited capability auto, is pretty deadly from the marketing standpoint. And, it will be difficult to remove this problem: even at 20,000 auto battery packs per year, NiMH batteries will cost an estimated (ECD) $150 per kw, or over $5000 mfg cost for the batteries alone for a family sedan with a 35 kW battery pack. This needs to be compared to about $3000 for an ICE for the same auto.
Is it really surprising then that GM, Toyota, and others have recently claimed the battery EV is not a satisfactory solution to alternative automotive propulsion? Toyota in particular tried both battery EVs and hybrid EVs in essentially the same time frame and claimed poor market response for their EVs and much higher than anticipated response for the Prius hybrid (they quickly had to double then triple production rates). While a nefarious conspiracy against BEVs on part of the auto industry is possible, I suppose, I see no reason to favor that argument over what simply appears to be true: while the market for BEVs is not non-existent, it is much smaller than the market for hybrids, which are VLEVs or ULEVs. I ask, which is better for improving air quality in the short term: 20,000 BEVs or 100,000 ULEV hybrids?
CARB's recent decision to maintain the CA ZEV/ULEV mandate is IMO a good decision because it will accelerate production of ULEV hybrids and FCEVs. I do not expect to see the BEV become a true mass market auto. An ORFC auto, in particular, will be a delightful, fully capable replacement for ICE autos. |
