60° F | Schenectady, NY
Waging Peace
Peace & oil ... and one other rant
If you've been watching the news at any time over the last 10 years, even the mainstream media, you've seen stories on how our country's security, and by implication peace, depends on energy alternatives to oil and especially vehicles that use that alternative energy.
So this morning I'm lying on my couch, recovering from oral surgery (which takes longer when you're pushing 53), watching the “Today Show” and there's Matt Lauer with some exec from GM touting the Chevy “Volt”, the hybrid that is supposed to be coming out in 2010. It runs for the first 40 miles on electricity. They were both all charged up (pun but no humor intended) over this “new” GM product.
I was appalled by the gall of the GM exec and the lackadaisical attitude of the uninformed Mr. Lauer, who is supposed to be a journalist. Have either of them seen the documentary, “Who Killed the Electric Car?” If either of them did, they sure kept it to themselves. Probably a smart move given the circumstances; after all the “Today Show” does depend on GM for advertising revenue and GM depends on mass media for a place to advertise. It's a cozy relationship to be sure.
“Who Killed the Electric Car?” was made in 2006 and released to home DVD by Sony Pictures Entertainment on Nov. 14, 2006, so there's no excuse for either one not having seen it. The film is about the EV-1 (Electric Vehicle-1), a prototype developed by GM in the 1990s. It details how the auto manufacturing industry, the oil companies, the U.S. and California governments and a few other industries with a vested interest in keeping electric cars off of the roads, managed to kill the electric car.
The cars were so popular with drivers that when they were recalled (they could only be leased) the drivers offered to buy them outright. GM refused. Some drivers went so far as to go to jail in their quest to keep the car they were leasing. People after my own heart!
Just so you know, the technology exists for vehicles to get 90 miles (if not more) per gallon of gas, and there were more electric cars on the road 100 years ago then there are today.
Instead of needing a bailout, GM with the EV-1 could have beaten the gym shorts off of Toyota and owned the auto market.
I am one of the people who does not in the least bit feel sorry for that company and thinks they should be allowed to die the death they so freely chose while royally screwing the American public in the process.
My government (which used to be defined as “a government by the people and for the people”) has given my hard-earned tax dollars to this irresponsible, “sell out” company to reward them for swindling me. Instead of spending my income on gas, I could have been investing it in my retirement or helping our consumer driven economy, but then Exxon-Mobil would not have enjoyed their record profits over the last couple of years, would they? (Ever wonder about the difference between how much Bush and company were worth when they took office and when they left? Condi has an oil tanker named after her, as does Barbara Bush. Read “House of Bush, House of Saudi: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties” by Craig Unger for a more eye-opening view.)
Remember Bush talking about our addiction to oil? Can you imagine how much more difficult it would have been to sell the Iraq War to the American public if we weren't so concerned about where to get our next fix?
There's much more in this film to get your dander up (I recommend a consultation with your physician to check your blood pressure before viewing). I've just given you a very quick overview. To learn more about the film go to www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com.
One other rant
High praise indeed to Carl Strock for his column today, where he calls Mr. Michael Gabor of Slingerlands on the carpet for his letter to the editor, published in yesterday's Daily Gazette, accusing the “liberal” media of not “properly vetting” Caroline (Kennedy) Schlossberg's candidacy to replace Sen. Hilary Clinton.
In fact, the “liberal” media has done a fine job of vetting Ms. Schlossberg (the name by which she has been known until recently – like until she started running for office – and this statement comes from someone who is often tarred with the liberal brush) and Mr. Strock has done a superlative job, worthy of a prosecuting attorney (and I have some experience here), of detailing this to Mr. Gabor and anybody else who has not read a recent newspaper or gets all their news from the FOX network or Rush Limbaugh.
I had the same thoughts as Mr. Strock, but he expressed them much more astutely and eloquently than I could. (Sigh, maybe someday ...)
Want to let Gov. Patterson know how you feel about Caroline being appointed Senator? Contact him at 161.11.121.121/govemail.
Pro or con - it's your voice!
print
email
twitter
facebook
reddit
4:40 p.m. [ Suggest removal ]
Did you know that, even in the face of the EV-1 experience, Honda is trying again? Their FCX Clarity is an absolute ZEV (Zero Emission Vehicle) run by electric motors powered by hydrogen fuel cells. As in the EV-1 trial, it's only available on lease. Also, the hydrogen fuel is only presently available in Southern California. This car gets the equivalent of 70+ mpg and now has a range of nearly 300 miles. The ultimate goal is to have home refueling stations (presently in R&D with local company Plug Power). You can learn more at http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity...
9:52 p.m. [ Suggest removal ]
Thanks for the info newgrant18 - I'll check it out. It'll be interesting to see if they can get it past the same powers (principalities) that quashed the last successful electric car.
I also appreciate you reading my blog and especially for taking the time to comment. I know I've seen your name before. I think you were very active in the comments on the "Sock & awe" entry.
7:47 p.m. [ Suggest removal ]
The late Roger B. Smith, at the time GM's CEO, developed the EV1 in secret, and it may have cost him his job.
After the California Air Resources Board (CARB) decided to force GM to make the EV1, GM spent years sabotaging and then crushing it.
The EV1 was originally designed to run on lead-acid batteries; even though it only had 100 miles range, about 5000 drivers loved the "Impact" test vehicle, which was the prototype for the later EV1.
GM heard about a much better battery, Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH); Electric cars fitted with primitive NiMH batteries demonstrated more than 200 miles range.
In 1994, GM bought control of the exclusive worldwide patent rights to NiMH from its inventor, Ovonics. The rights were vested in a company called GM-Ovonics. GM claimed that the NiMH batteries were not viable and would not run the EV1.
In Nov., 1996, GM released the EV1 with defective Delco lead-acid batteries. These were failure-prone, and only gave 60 miles range.
In Mar., 1997, Toyota and Honda brought out small SUV Electric cars with over 120 miles range and with very reliable NiMH batteries. These were the RAV4-EV and HondaEV.
CARB forced GM to upgrade their bad Delco lead-acid batteries to much better PSB EV-EC1260 lead-acid batteries, because CARB finally realized that GM was trying to sabotage the Electric car. With the better batteries, the range improved to over 100 miles, and the batteries were very reliable. GM then issued a "voluntary recall" of all lead-acid EV1, and started crushing them.
CARB also forced GM, in Dec., 1999, to release a version of the EV1 with NiMH batteries; it only had 140 miles EPA certified range, but it was in high demand. The last one was leased in late 2000. But the election of George Bush in Nov. 2000 killed the need for GM to pretend to comply, and GM ceased production of the EV1. No more were leased, and GM started crushing them.
Upcoming Republican control of EPA removed the need for CARB to force auto makers to produce Electric cars. With the pressure gone, auto makers started crushing Electric cars, including the HondaEV and others. It was almost as if they had universally decided to crush them all.
On Oct. 10, 2000, GM sold control of GM-Ovonics, and the NiMH batteries it controlled, to Texaco.
On Oct. 16, 2000, Texaco announced it was merging into Chevron (Standard Oil of California), taking control of the NiMH Electric car batteries with it.
Chevron renamed GM-Ovonics as Chevron-Ovonics BAttery SYStems ("COBASYS"). In 2001, Cobasys filed suit against Toyota and others, claiming violations of its patent rights.
In Mar., 2002, Toyota, perhaps in reaction to the lawsuit, became the only modern car company to offer an Electric car, the Toyota RAV4-EV, for sale to the general public.
In Nov., 2002, Toyota abruptly ended the program and stopped selling Toyota RAV4-EV...[continued]
7:49 p.m. [ Suggest removal ]
...[cont] In Dec., 2002, Cobasys and Toyota announced a settlement agreement had been reached in which Toyota paid $30 million to Cobasys and Chevron. Toyota was licensed to produce batteries too small to allow plugging-in, e.g., for the Toyota Prius. From this date, no more plug-in cars were produced using NiMH batteries; CARB and Toyota discourage volunteer engineers from adding batteries to Prius and other hybrids so that they can plug in.
Toyota ceased production of the NiMH battery that powered the Toyota RAV4-EV, and Toyota ceased production of the Toyota RAV4-EV. No more of these NiMH batteries can be purchased at any price for any reason, not even for replacement in the existing Toyota RAV4-EV.
To this day, Chevron's unit Cobasys retains control of the NiMH batteries; for this reason, it is believed necessary for car companies to try to make Lithium batteries work. Lithium is much
more expensive than NiMH, doesn't last as long, and has no recycle value. Batteries are measured by life-cycle cost of ownership: Lithium is about six times as expensive as NiMH or lead-acid.
While no all-Lithium Electric car has gone more than 50,000 miles without significant battery degradation, there are hundreds of Toyota RAV4-EV in the hands of the public, many of which have more than 100,000 miles. All are still in use, still running.
Lithium perhaps will some day work; but the only proven EV batteries are lead-acid and the far superior NiMH.
It's odd that, in this time of a national energy emergency, car makers are not in control of the NiMH battery that they need to make Electric cars.
It's true that an oil company worked with GM to sequester these batteries, and that the oil company still retains ownership of the patent rights, aggressively defending them against any use for plug-in cars.
Why is it so important? If you could buy a plug-in car, you could use the money you save by NOT buying gas to pay for your rooftop solar system. This is not fantasy, it's fact for hundreds of Toyota RAV4-EV drivers who plug in their EVs for slow charging at night, using credits from their daytime peak production of excess electric. Not only do they get to drive "for free" after the solar
system is paid for, they also get their household electric "for free", free of cost and free of pollution.
If there were plug-in cars for sale, solarizing America would be self-financing; the only loser would be Chevron, as the money that formerly went to buy oil and spread pollution instead went to pay
for rooftop distributed solar power.
Doug Korthof
562-430-2495
http://EV1.org
http://SealBeach.org
7:55 p.m. [ Suggest removal ]
The Honda FCX is a hoax. It's only available on lease because it costs about a million dollars to make, and the idea of using Hydrogen fuel cells is DOA.
You have to MAKE the Hydrogen! Each kg of H2, about 35 kWh, takes more than that energy to make it; then it has to be compressed and stored. So if you need 600 kWh of electric to make 10 kg of H2, at $6.00 per gallon gas equivalent, why not just use the electric to charge your battery (600 kWh of battery power takes the EV1 about 2400 miles).
The FCX only goes 140 miles, requires 10,000 psi (compressed natural gas uses only 3600 psi) and needs an expensive fuel cell stack that wears out in 3 years.
So if you want to use a compressed gas that counts as a Zero Emission fuel, why not use CNG??