|
Quote -Actually GM did worse than just shelve the batteries they sold the controlling interest in the batteries to an oil company.-End quote.
EV stands for Electric Vehicle.
Quote taken from the Documentary description 'WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR'.
The EV1 was among the fastest, most efficient production cars ever built. It ran on electricity, produced no emissions and catapulted American technology to the forefront of the automotive industry. The lucky few who drove it never wanted to give it up. So why did General Motors crush its fleet of EV1 electric vehicles in the Arizona desert? WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR?
Chronicles the life and mysterious death of the GM EV1, examining its cultural and economic ripple effects and how they reverberated through the halls of government and big business. The year is 1990. California is in a pollution crisis. Smog threatens public health.
Desperate for a solution, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) targets the source of its problem: auto exhaust. Inspired by a recent announcement from General Motors about an electric vehicle prototype, the Zero Emissions Mandate (ZEV) is born. It required 2% of new vehicles sold in California to be emission-free by 1998, 10% by 2003. It is the most radical smog-fighting mandate since the catalytic converter.
With a jump on the competition thanks to its speed-record-breaking electric concept car, GM launches its EV1 electric vehicle in 1996. It was a revolutionary modern car, requiring no gas, no oil changes, no mufflers, and rare brake maintenance (a billion-dollar industry unto itself). A typical maintenance checkup for the EV1 consisted of replenishing the windshield washer fluid and a tire rotation.
But the fanfare surrounding the EV1's launch disappeared and the cars followed. Was it lack of consumer demand as carmakers claimed, or were other persuasive forces at work?
Fast forward to 6 years later... The fleet is gone. EV charging stations dot the California landscape like tombstones, collecting dust and spider webs. How could this happen? Did anyone bother to examine the evidence? Yes, in fact, someone did. And it was murder. The electric car threatened the status quo. The truth behind its demise resembles the climactic outcome of Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express: multiple suspects, each taking their turn with the knife.
WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR? interviews and investigates automakers, legislators, engineers, consumers and car enthusiasts from Los Angeles to Detroit, to work through motives and alibis, and to piece the complex puzzle together.
WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR? is not just about the EV1. It's about how this allegory for failure—reflected in today's oil prices and air quality—can also be a shining symbol of society's potential to better itself and the world around it. While there's plenty of outrage for lost time, there's also time for renewal as technology is reborn in WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR? -End Quote
Texaco sold the NiMH battery technology to Amoco. GM had a 60% controlling interest in the technology, and announced their sellout of world wide patent rights to Texaco on October 10, 2000. Six days later, Chevron bought out Texaco in a 100 billion dollar merger. Cobasys is Chevron's subsidiary, which effectively killed further development of the NiMH batteries for all-electric cars. Panasonic had developed a "E-95" NiMH battery that was powerful enough to energize an all-electric car at speeds to 80 mph, and with a range of 120 miles. The expected battery life was longer than the life expectancy of the vehicle, and in fact more than 1,000 of Toyota's RAV4 EV units have already surpassed the 100,000 mile mark. Cobasys successfully sued Panasonic for the sum of 30 million dollars, thus killing any further sales of EV-95 batteries. The batteries cannot be sold, or imported, into the US. Cobasys refuses to grant any other company the license to manufacture the EV-95 batteries, and will not even think of producing the EV-95 themselves, unless guaranteed a massive order by an OEM.
The only currently available alternative to a EV-95 NiMH battery is a lithium-ion battery pack, but these typically cost around $14,000, which is about 6 times as expensive as an EV-95, and haven't been around long enough to establish a proven track record.
The EV technology is a story of two crimes against humanity. The first occurred when GM failed to develop the RV and sold the worldwide patent rights to an oil company, which GM obviously realized would have no interest in the technology other than to suppress it. The second crime against humanity is how Chevron very effectively stifled any efforts to utilize or advance the NiMH technology.
What we really need is a reform of patent laws to allow for criminal prosecution and penalties against any patent holder who participates in any activity that results in suppression of a technology which would otherwise hold great promise for the benefit of mankind. The reform laws should include all past, present, and future patents.
This is the only way to free up the thousands of existing patent rights that are currently being suppressed. Current patent laws only serve to protect the criminal actions and behavior of corporations and special interest groups who wish to advance their own agenda at the expense of all other peoples and groups.If you haven't already done so, please contact your legislative representatives and demand that they initiate patent law reform that fully addresses the changes that need to occur.
Here is a power point presentation showing the history of the EV suppression still going on today.
Electric Vehicles
Smoking Gun: Reason Why GM Scrapped EV1 By Leslie R. Pastor.
Apparently GM had a significant motive for scrapping the EV1. They intend to prolong the use of gasoline system engines in cooperation and collaboration with
the International Oil Companies. The following article explains it:
GM Demonstrates Onboard Fuel Processor That Extracts Hydrogen From Gasoline
We could have transitioned to the all Electric Vehicle [EV1] but it would significantly disrupt the obscene profits being generated.It would also stop all taxes derived from the sale of all oil products
[gasoline, oil, lubrications, synthetics, etc].
The EV1 is still a viable and significant vehicle for all people through out this planet. It would solve one aspect of the energy equation. But the very
people (power-structure) that are shouting for reform, are themselves denying its acquisition and realization.
I've posted: on JLN Labs Yahoo energy groups my
concerns on Jean-Louis Naudin's Research Group earlier:
Back to the Future:
Link
GM-EV-1 Commercial
GM-EV-1 (1997) Resurrection
EV-1 In-Car Video
GM-EV-1 Charger Demo
EV-1: It's the Battery Stupid (Stan Ovshinsky)
Panacea has included a do it your self EV conversion course located on our online university.
The only problem that exists currently stopping the EV-1 are the oil companies, who do not want self-powering batteries.This would eliminate the need for oil/gasoline as fuel in combustion engines.With an electric car, there is no combustion, only pure electro-motive power.With the right battery........this car will endure till the end of time.
View the video again and you will see the reality of this: The oil companies simply don't want this to happen. Stan Ovshinsky built a very good battery for the EV-1, but GM bought it and then sold it to the oil companies. Talk about a control paradigm, this one is a beaut..........shame on you, GM, Exxon, and the Global Elite.
Stan Ovshinsky was the inventor of the amorphous semiconductor......(he was told by the pundits that it was impossible).Mr. Ovshinsky undetered.....went to the Japanese, who financed his invention.Every single copy machine on this planet has one of those Ovshinsky devices in them. That enable him to create his significant R&D facility:
At Ovonics Stan and Iris Ovshinsky developed a significant battery produced solely for the purpose of powering the EV!. Instead of receiving accolades and
Champaign for a tremedous invention. He was silenced, censored and told to shut up by GM, when he tried to advertize his invention in the trade papers. Stan Ovshinsky, the CEO of Ovonics, developed significant core technologies, that would enable
this world to transition into the future, gaining significant momentum towards advanced technologies.
The Corporations stopping that advancement are the very people creating the stumbling blocks hindering the transition from Oil-based systems, including all
hydro-carbon based technologies. Those Corporations are doing this to aggrandize their own profits, while preventing new 'novelty of fact' discoveries from advancing the human race. This is the clearest most blatant example of control over an entire economy (of every single nation) on Planet EARTH.
What you have is a partnership between the STATE apparatus of world governments and the CORPORATIONS that benefit from such partnership. The STATE benefits from higher prices, because higher prices means greater tax revenue for the STATE.
Corporate profits increase with every rise in the commodity price structure.Simply create (allow) a shortage of the oil resource, by withholding production, and prices will automatically (artificially) rise proportionately. Antony C. Sutton discovered that the very people who created the problems, were also
government beneficiaries.
He wrote about such control in his book:
[("Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Trade Commission under the thumb of thumb of American Industry" (CORPORATIONS))].
The Control Paradigm is in full effect, prohibiting any and all inventions that would attempt to deviate from the existing (Oil, Coal, Gasoline, benzine) energy
based systems. Until this created problem is mitigated..........nothing will change for the better.-End
ENTER THE MAIN PAGE HERE
Those of us who happen to live in a large crowded city, have to breathe the air seen on the horizon here every single day. Like it or not, every time you turn ignition on, you inevitably contribute to this situation. What can you do about it? You can drive an Electric Vehicle.
Are the EVs possible? Sure. Here are a few photos of (and links to) what the world's engineers came up with. Major auto makers have produced several OEM models - in USA most noticeable ones being GM's EV1 and Ford's Ranger and Toyota's RAV4 to name a few. They are clean, quiet, require no gas, oil or expensive maintenance. So what's the problem? Like to admit it or not, it is only...MONEY.
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, but unfortunately it is the documented fact.
New evidence from the recent 2006 film documentary "who killed the electric car" also proves the suppression case of the EV1 cars from the public. To verify these facts please consult the Wiki source.
Despite long waiting lists, they try to convince you there is no demand, and of course never advertise EVs. Simple truth is, they don't know, because they never offered EVs for sale to the general public. If they would, the public would demand more, and auto makers will be pressured to work against their interest, so they simply never offered any EVs for sale to general public.
Can you buy EV1 or RAV4? How about Ford Think City or Ranger? No. GM scrapped its EV program, and despite long waiting lists, keep telling "there is no demand", and never allowed anyone to buy a single EV1 vehicle. People were not even allowed to extend their leases, their vehicles were taken away from them and physically destroyed.
Toyota at least offered RAV4s for sale, but only in certain locations in California.It complains (see above) that despite "aggressive" ad program people just don't want these vehicles, despite waiting lists and willingness of people to buy them even without California rebate. Well, how many ads on TV or in press have you seen about RAV4 compared to other vehicles ads? Simple fact is, major auto makers don't want you to want an EV - pure business decision for them. In true market economy no one indeed can mandate to manufacture something there is no demand for, but it is up to manufacturers to create demand and up to us to hold them responsible for failure to create demand. After all they did create demand for profitable SUVs advertising them on every corner.
There is nothing wrong with SUVs themselves, I own one and don't have any problems with them at all. The problem is not with cars, but with people driving them. If a SUV is used for sport or utility purpose, perfect. But what I observe more often than not, is that they are used by a single person to commute 3 miles to run errands and as a means to demonstrate social status, wealth or to play "tough guys" while wasting 10 MPG, beating the roads and polluting more than necessary. I wonder how did we survive without SUVs 10-15 years ago.
EV technology exists 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 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 (= 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?!
Finally, Please read this independant report to be better informed about reality.
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 EV'ers. Thousands have done it!
You too can make a difference. If you are thinking about doing EV conversion yourself, I'll show you how I did it.
ENTER THE MAIN PAGE HERE
EV1 supppression page
| 
