Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Play fair

Expand Messages
  • sidneybrooks
    A couple of people have sent me emails in reponse to my posts, but when I respond Yahoo can t deliver the response. Here is an example: The answer to your
    Message 1 of 3 , Feb 24, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      A couple of people have sent me emails in reponse to my posts, but
      when I respond Yahoo can't deliver the response. Here is an example:

      The answer to your question is simple. At the time
      that EV1 was being leased, California, the country's
      largest car market, mandated that a certain percentage
      of cars had to be zero emission. Only electric cars
      met that condition. The American car makers all
      campaigned against this mandate. EV1 was designed to
      prove that the mandate could not be met. They
      ultimately got CA to repeal the mandate.

      There is no such things as the limited kind of license
      that you describe, so that guess is wrong.

      They could not make as much money building electric
      cars as they do make with gas guzzlers. A New Yorker
      Times reporter wrote a book about SUV's several years
      ago which pointed out that the American car makers
      made all or most (I forget which) of their money on
      SUV's which had the biggest mark-up in the industry.


      --- prius1111 <prius1111@...> wrote:

      > --- In toyota-prius@yahoogroups.com, "sidneybrooks"
      > <sidneybrooks@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Chuck makes a very sophisticated argument for GM
      > and EV1. Let him
      > try
      > > this question. Why did GM go to the expense of
      > recalling every EV1
      > > and then smashing it. It would have been cheaper
      > to have given
      > them
      > > away to the leasees in exchange for a release from
      > all liability
      > from
      > > the receipent.
      > >
      > > To me the answer is pretty obvious, GM wanted EV1
      > to fail. Even
      > > accepting his hearsay of GM's rationale about the
      > batteries, what
      > > makes him think that better batteries would not
      > have been found by
      > > the EV1 owners?
      >
      > My guess would be that the cars were not licensed or
      > taxed for use
      > beyond a certain period, somewhat like "Concept
      > Cars" which are also
      > destroyed after a certain term of use.
      >
      > Why do you think that GM wanted the car to fail?
      > They can make just
      > as much money building electric cars as conventional
      > ICE cars, and
      > at the time they were pretty advanced in the
      > technology. In my
      > opinion, unless someone comes up with a new battery
      > that expands the
      > current technology about ten fold, electric cars
      > will never satisfy
      > most comsumers. They certainly wouldn't work for me.
      > I think that
      > the "Plug-in Hybrid", with a range of about fifty
      > miles on battery,
      > would be the best near term solution. Of course, I
      > don't see
      > conspirators behind every bush either.
      >
      >
    • David Kelly
      ... One big problem was that an EV only met the mandate if one ignored many other sources of emissions. That of gasses being released from batteries being used
      Message 2 of 3 , Feb 25, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        On Feb 24, 2007, at 5:26 PM, sidneybrooks wrote:

        > The answer to your question is simple. At the time
        > that EV1 was being leased, California, the country's
        > largest car market, mandated that a certain percentage
        > of cars had to be zero emission. Only electric cars
        > met that condition.

        One big problem was that an EV only met the mandate if one ignored
        many other sources of emissions. That of gasses being released from
        batteries being used at their limits. That of manufacturing
        batteries. That of recycling batteries.

        The Prius deals with this issue by operating batteries outside of the
        stress regions where outgassing or wear occur in significant amounts.
        An EV can not limit battery use the way a Prius can.

        > The American car makers all
        > campaigned against this mandate. EV1 was designed to
        > prove that the mandate could not be met. They
        > ultimately got CA to repeal the mandate.

        And rightfully so. The Zero Emission Mandate was flawed.

        The argument claiming domestic auto makers killed the EV for profit
        reasons is also largely flawed. Manufacturers *like* change, they
        invented the Model Year as a means of tossing out the old and
        relabeling it "new" to generate sales.

        Massive changes cost massive amounts of money more than the
        proportion of change. The mantra in my business is, "Good, Fast,
        Cheap, pick two." And if one wants it really fast, forget good or
        cheap. California wanted "really fast", ruling out good or affordable.

        --
        David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@...
        ========================================================================
        Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.
      • Lee Hart
        David Kelly wrote: ... It should be noted that California wrote the ZEV mandate in 1991 -- the auto companies had *10 years* to find a way to meet it. They
        Message 3 of 3 , Feb 27, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          David Kelly wrote:
          sidneybrooks wrote:
          >> At the time that EV1 was being leased, California, the country's
          >> largest car market, mandated that a certain percentage of cars
          >> had to be zero emission. Only electric cars met that condition.

          It should be noted that California wrote the ZEV mandate in 1991 -- the
          auto companies had *10 years* to find a way to meet it. They could have
          used hydrogen, compressed air, natural gas, propane, biodiesel, or other
          alternative fuels that produces pollutants that weren't measured or
          counted as emissions. They chose to do nothing for as long as possible,
          and spend most of their efforts on lobbying and legal challenges. They
          finally chose to meet the mandate with electric cars because it was too
          late to develop any other technology.

          > One big problem was that an EV only met the mandate if one ignored
          > many other sources of emissions. That of gasses being released from
          > batteries being used at their limits. That of manufacturing
          > batteries. That of recycling batteries.

          Correct. California wanted "zero" emissions of the normal types that
          cars emitted at the time.

          The emissions from unsealed gassing batteries are mainly water,
          hydrogen, and oxygen, with trace amounts of H2SO4 or KOH. The amounts
          are so low compared to ordinary cars to be effectively zero.

          > The Prius deals with this issue by operating batteries outside of the
          > stress regions where outgassing or wear occur in significant amounts.
          > An EV can not limit battery use the way a Prius can.

          No; but they all used sealed batteries which still have no emissions
          under normal operation.

          >> The American car makers all campaigned against this mandate.
          >> EV1 was designed to prove that the mandate could not be met.
          >> They ultimately got CA to repeal the mandate.

          > And rightfully so. The Zero Emission Mandate was flawed...
          > California wanted "really fast", ruling out good or affordable.

          No; they gave the auto company 10 years. The auto companies wasted most
          of it.

          I agree that the ZEV wasn't perfect; but the "perfect" is the enemy of
          "good". The ZEV was a spur in the side of the auto companies. It made
          them move ahead -- a little. Without that spur, we wouldn't have made
          any progress. Without ZEV, we probably wouldn't have the Prius!
          --
          Ring the bells that still can ring
          Forget the perfect offering
          There is a crack in everything
          That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
          --
          Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.