"Chevy has green car vision"

Hmmm. now let's see:

In my view and reading up on the subject over the last 24 month I can only shake my head in light of you going nuts over a vehicle that represents the oil industrie's attempt to, once again, sabotage, divert and redirect the necessary funding for the long-suppressed battery which we are owed by the powers that be.
It is time to move out from under that generation -old stranglehold these minorities have on the world's population.

Hydrogen is one of the by-products of oil-refineries.

The electric engine which effectively propels this car forward, does NOT need the fuel cell. Hydrogen requires 4 times the amount of energy to produce than even regular gasoline and has NO infrastructure that could reasonably be implemented, at least for another 10 years or more.

The batteries are here. Even with an unleashed version of NiMH cells (which Chevron sued Toyota about in order to make them stop producing the RAV 4 EV - which they gladly did, as each RAV 4 cost them a freaking fortune to produce), we still would be better off.

What would it take to equip a 8 year0old car (RAV 4) and upgrade it's battery pack to LiFePo? Only a different battery management system, that's it! The auto industry knows this but are afraid of the wrath of the sheiks who pay our lobbyists (and the Bush family through 2 generations).

Give us the goddarn battery - I know we have all it takes to implement it.

Even GM's CEO spelled it out for all of you. It's the electricity, ^&*$%&*id

;-)

I have my doubts as to how serious GM (a.k.a. Chevy) is about EV's or other clean vehicles. I am certain however that GM realizes they were made the bad guy by Who Killed The Electric Car, meaning there's a PR campaign to change this. So for example every time I see the Volt mentioned it's described as an Electric Car, while it's more accurate to call it a Plug-In Hybrid. But for the company that killed the electric car it's probably important to be seen as reviving the Electric Car, as if they had simply let it take a nap for awhile.

But, yeah, Fuel Cells are a true boondoggle. However a couple years ago I was at a ride-and-drive event sponsored by the California Fuel Cell Alliance. They had all the major car companies and they had demo models of all the fuel cell vehicles and we could drive them around a track. GM had one (?two?) cars there and I overheard a GM guy talking about how they want to be out from under the thumb of the oil companies.

I guess to some at GM it's not a comfortable position being in the duopoly relationship with the oil companies...?

But if they wanted to get out from under the oil companies all they have to do is sell an effective EV - something they do already know how to do. And to market them effective, rather than the pathetic mismarketing they did with the EV1.

Something I'm learning at my day job is that large companies are not homogenous. Any company is made up of a flock of individuals each with their own thought of how best to do the company interests (or their own interests). Of course the fuel cell guy is going to be predisposed to think GM wants to get out from under the thumb of the oil companies. But is that belief shared by everyone? Probably not. Probably there's a lotta people at GM who think the only effective way to move a vehicle down the road is with lots of oil.

Eh. Whatever. Not particulary fond of H2 fuel cells. Batteries, FTW! (Or supercaps if they even turn up.)

But if they wanted to get out from under the oil companies all they have to do is sell an effective EV - something they do already know how to do. And to market them effective, rather than the pathetic mismarketing they did with the EV1.

Something I'm learning at my day job is that large companies are not homogenous. Any company is made up of a flock of individuals each with their own thought of how best to do the company interests (or their own interests). Of course the fuel cell guy is going to be predisposed to think GM wants to get out from under the thumb of the oil companies. But is that belief shared by everyone? Probably not. Probably there's a lotta people at GM who think the only effective way to move a vehicle down the road is with lots of oil.

Thats a very good point. I recently visited the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn MI late last year. The EV1 looks amazing in person. I should have got some pictures. Here's from the wikipedia EV1 article:

GM doesn't have to feed us bulls***. They have already spent over 1 billion in development and marketing of the EV1. They could put the EV1 in production and sell it if they really had a "green car vision." Just go visit the Henry Ford Museum, or the Petersen Automotive Museum and see an EV1 in person if you are not convinced.

The EV1 looks amazing in person. I should have got some pictures.

The EV1 was also amazing to drive. I got to test-drive it- twice. What a beautiful machine. I think it was criminal of them to cancel it and crush these beautiful cars.

BTW a few days ago I found EV TransPortal: Chevrolet Volt where they have some videos interviewing some people on the Chevy Volt team. There's a lot of deep technical details such as the power levels used in the Volt, etc. Also they are recycling engineers who had worked on the EV1 to work on the Volt.

Alias wrote:
After doing some more research on fuel cell vehicles, they aren't necessarily a bad thing to the environment.

I don't think so either. In concept they look good. But implementing the technology is too expensive. There has not been one fuel cell powered vehicle sold on the consumer market. In terms of practicality for mass market adoption they are useless, and a good way to absorb government resources and divert attention from something with real potential.

Alias wrote:
My question in mind is; why have other resources to come up with other things when using an electric vehicle is the safest for the environment, what is really stopping us besides the obvious?

This is a multidimensional issue. If you've seen "Who Killed the Electric Car," they present a balanced perspective to integrate many factors.

Most notably though IMO, electric vehicles just do less and cost more for the consumer. That is why their use declined 100 yrs ago in favor of the ICE (internal combustion engine).

We want an all encompassing solution without any sacrifices. So what is stopping consumer acceptance on a massive scale is the technology to directly compete with what is already available (the ICE). It only makes sense to investigate all of our options, and put money toward research and development of all potential technologies in hopes that one will offer a solution on our terms.

What's important, is that the BEV is the most practical of the alternative technologies available. The predominant reason for the general negative mentality and lack of enthusiasm is that the concept is old. The recurring theme of mass BEV implementation has been failure after failure after failure since its decline 100 yrs ago. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles look fresh to the public, and they also satisfy the need for infrastructure stagnation for large corporations while maintaining profits that BEVs could not offer. They want a mechanically complex and expensive technology to prevail that also can utilize existing hydrocarbon energy sources. The energy to generate electricity for battery storage on the other hand can come from many sources, but the most practical source for hydrogen fuel cells will remain fossil fuels.

That's the best quick answer I can give. This issue is complex, and you'll find many conflicting opinions.

In concept they look good. But implementing the technology is too expensive. There has not been one fuel cell powered vehicle sold on the consumer market.

Most places I go on the web they are referred to as "hydrogen fool cells". I have a hard time trusting the sincerity of Detroit when they bitterly oppose increasing fuel efficiency, decreasing vehicle size, or even attempting the electric car that we treehuggers are clamoring for. But, in 20 years or so they'll have something that will solve all the problems. Yeah, right. I've heard fusion power is about 20 years away and that estimate hasn't changed since the 1970's. From what I've read recently it's still 20 years away.

Right now what I hope for is a future where people travel much less and much less often. Then BEVs become a very good choice.