Who Killed The Electric Car? : New Electric Cars review hybrid car 2008

Who Killed The Electric Car?
by Gillfinn
The auto makers and you have conflict of interests. They sure can produce cars which will last longer than you want, require no expensive service and no gasoline. You want such a car, but the manufacturers want to make sure they keep getting steady income from far more profitable SUV sales, car maintenance, and the oil companies - income from the fuel sales, be it gasoline or hydrogen. EVs are so good that require none of that so you'd pay very little to nothing for your car maintenance and your personal "gas station" is as far as the nearest electrical outlet. So what do you think auto makers will sell you - what's good for you or what's good for them? They afraid of EVs, they try very hard (and unfortunately succeeding) to convince you that no one wants electric cars. They can make EVs if forced by law but at first opportunity they destroy perfectly normal EVs (sad GM's EV1 story). Hard to believe? Yes, this is unfortunate but well documented fact. Despite long waiting lists, they try to convince you there was no demand. EV1's of course were never advertised. Simple truth is, they never offered EV1's for sale to the general public precisely because they knew there was demand. If they would offer EV1's, the public would demand more, GM would be pressured to work against their business interest, so they simply decided to only lease the vehicles putting such lease conditions that very few would qualify, which is "proof" no one wanted EV1's. Can you buy EV1 or RAV4? How about Ford's Think City or Ranger? No. GM scrapped its EV program, and despite long waiting lists, kept telling "there is no demand" while never allowing anyone to buy a single EV1 vehicle and destroying them at the end of lease. If you want to know more about it get "who killed the electric car" movie. Today (2008) they GM changed the tune and promises Chevy "Volt". We'll see. But I'm afraid based on the past history of promises and deliveries, you will die waiting for Detroit. EV technology exist today. Far less complex, electric cars would cost less than gas ones if produced in the same quantities. You can compare the costs of ownership of ICE vs. EV. A word about fuel cell (FC) vehicles, namely ones using hydrogen as an energy source. Don't hold your breath to see them any time soon if ever. A FC vehicle is no doubt a step in right direction in a sense that inefficient internal combustion engine is replaced with an electric motor. The only difference between pure battery EV (BEV) and FCEV car is the energy source; the drive systems and control electronics are almost identical. However, instead of just a plain rechargeable battery, FCEV has to carry a very complex hydrogen reformer using exotic expensive materials, full of pumps, blowers, hoses, and a tank of liquefied or compressed hydrogen you need to keep putting in. Fuel cell manufacturers claim that they are quiet since contain no moving parts. Did you have a chance to stay next to a working fuel cell vehicle? I did. A FC itself is sure quiet, but all necessary supporting equipment (blowers and pumps) make far more noise than modern ICE engine. Here is an example of "quiet" FC for a city bus demonstrated at Michelin challenge Bibendum event in California in 2003. A FC car will have scaled down version of all these components. When it runs, you can't keep a conversation unless you move 50 feet away. For the record, the serious work on FC started in the 60's and GM back then announced that practical FC car for masses is "around the corner". Well, today, 50 years later, we're still wondering about location of that corner...and still waiting. Why? Well, sorry, regardless of your opinion on this subject, it's because of the cold and unpopular in PR fact of reality: MONEY. Auto makers say fuel cell cars are clean an environmentally friendly. But so are EVs, which are even cleaner, considering charging from solar, hydro or wind sources. Auto makers sure are pro environment, but as long as you keep buying fuel and keep servicing overly complex vehicles. Doesn't matter what type of fuel, as long as they are in control of your pocket, they're happy. Are you happy too? Not to mention who exactly gets the money for all that imported oil... Have you questioned anyone how much energy is needed to produce a hydrogen you're going to pay for? You need electricity to run the equipment reforming hydrogen to the useable for FC form. And then, the hydrogen is going to be used to get back electricity to run a vehicle propulsion motor. What's wrong with this picture? Isn't it simpler, cheaper, more efficient and just plain makes more sense to just store initial electricity directly in a car's battery in the first place? Hydrogen is an extremely clever scam. When you step back and ask, "Where will the hydrogen come from?" the house of cards falls apart. You will get hydrogen from fossil fuels. The most economic way to get hydrogen is to catalyze natural gas. When you do this, you throw away 50% of the fuel value. If you were to put that hydrogen into a fuel-cell car, it would only go 50% the distance (at best) that a hybrid car would, if fueled from the natural gas directly. The oil company loves it. They get to sell twice as much per mile driven. It is also twice as much CO2 per mile driven. (G.W. = Global Warming)
If you choose to make hydrogen for your fuel cell car from electricity, an EV using that electricity directly will go at least twice as far.
Many of the foaming advocates of hydrogen say, "But we can figure out a way to make hydrogen more efficiently if we hurl big research dollars at the problem." Unfortunately, there are only so many hydrogen atoms in each methane molecule. Also, until we unlock the secret of photosynthesis, there will be no efficient way to make hydrogen. Batteries will always be more efficient at storing electricity than hydrogen gas.
Think of all the money we have spent on fusion power and it will give you just a peek of how much we would have to spend on electrolysis to make it more efficient. There are many many other areas in alternative fuels that will reap greater rewards on a faster timetable for far less money. (Like biodiesel) Of course, the oil companies really wouldn't like that, would they. Can an EV run far? Well, if an EV could run more than 340 miles on a single charge 10 years ago, you'd think that today technology can be only better, especially if part of the money going into FC research would be spent advancing EV batteries. Can it run fast? Is about 300 mph fast enough for you? Can it be quick? How does 0-60 mph in 3.6 seconds sound? Can you own an electric car for every day use? Yes! If you're fed up with Big three, motivated enough and have a handy man skills or can get help, you can convert a conventional vehicle to an EV yourself. Or you can buy a conversion made by other EVers. Thousands have done it. You too can make a difference.
http://www.gillfinn.mionegroup.com