| Back to main menu? | Back to Index of Entries? |
TO: Chris Preuss, GM PR
| [email protected] RE: Examination and rebuttal of GM's attack on NiMH EVs Hello Chris, I was not aware of any attempt by GM at an answer, least of all in the Detroit Free Press. No one addressed a response to me. I'll look for it, and rebut it. Of course, the Freep is not likely to print my answer in a free forum. Here are your claims, contradicted, sadly, by simple facts: 1. GM claims "NiMH is too expensive" for an Electric car Nickel Metal Hydride ("NiMH") is cheaper than Lithium per kWh, as I've detailed ($225 to $350 per kWh, according to the California Air Resources Board) while the very cheapest 18-650 Lithium cylinders, with all the economies of scale and all the dangers of thermal runaway, is over $400 per kWh. Altair nano quotes $2400 per 1.3 kWh module. 2. GM claims "NiMH is too heavy". NiMH battery packs are not too heavy for putting in an EV. A 780 lb. battery pack in a 3000 lb. SUV (RAV4-EV) is not excessive, that gives over 100 to 200 mile range; the Volt would only need a 300 lb. NiMH pack. A slightly smaller pack carried the over-3000 lb. 1999 NiMH EV1 up to 160 miles on a charge, faultlessly. While NiMH in our RAV4-EV may last over 200,000 miles, amortizing its CARB-estimated $13,000 cost at 6.5 cents per mile, no Lithium battery pack has so far exceeded 50,000 miles in a production car. While Lithium is lighter, you have to consider life-cycle costing, and Lithium's slight advantage in weight is not worth the shorter life, thermal and toxic dangers, and wildly more expensive life-cycle cost. Perhaps some day these problems will be solved; but Lithium is not here yet and may never arrive, as even Bob Lutz admits freely. 3. GM claims on a "wells to wheels" basis NiMH is a "really bad choice" for CO2. I'd like to see the "well-to-wheel" calculations you claim; I wonder if you consider the upstream costs of oil exploration and extraction, oil wars, etc. I doubt that you have considered NiMH EVs that are powered by off-peak charging paid for by on-peak excess generation of electric by rooftop solar systems. This effectively eliminates the "wells" part of the "wells to wheels", since our NiMH RAV4-EV don't need any supply of petroleum beyond that required to make the solar cells and EV itself. This is actual, in-practice, verifiable experience visible right now at the homes of hundreds of NiMH RAV4-EV owners, not fantasy. So far this year, we generated over $200 in excess electric after powering two NiMH RAV4-EV; last year, we donated $89, the year before $99 in excess electric production credits. That's not generating CO2 at all for over 30,000 miles per year, avoiding (at our fleet averge of 20 mpg) burning 1,500 gallons of gasoline, and avoiding releasing more than 30,000 lbs. of CO2 per year. You are welcome to visit our solar home and take a test drive in one of our all-electric RAV4-EV. Bring Bob Lutz, if you wish. 4. GM claims NiMH EVs have "Worse performance". Performance of the primitive NiMH used in the 1999 EV1 was GREAT; the current better NiMH still in use in the RAV4-EV is even more satisfying. The EV1, with these better Panasonic NiMH, would, it is estimated, have a 200 mile range (or only need a 400 lb. battery pack for 100 mile range). The 1999 EV1 scampered up and down hills like a billy goat, and beat anything off the line except some big Mercedes. 5. GM claims "No long-term hope to get much cheaper". This does not answer the question "why not rely on NiMH now, and do research into the future?". This is a critical need we are talking about, oil dependence, GM's reputation, air, land and water pollution, oil wars, energy independence, industrial future of America, and more. Perhaps some day Lithium will be practical; but NiMH is the standard. 6. GM claims "If you think NiMH is so good, build a NiMH EV yourself!". This is the same old cheap shot that EV deniers have used for decades. Why don't [fill in name here] go build an EV if you think it's so easy, they say. The real argument behind this kindergarten ploy is that the auto makers have the right to decide what cars to make, and don't want to be told what to do. I'd merely rephrase what David Freeman stated, in WKtEV: "making clean cars should not be entrusted to the auto makers". We in the General Public have subsidized and trusted the auto industry for decades, built up and supported companies like Ford, GM and Toyota with government handouts and emoluments. Now, there's a public interest, which GM has recognized, in selling to the general public that can run oil-free for at least a thousand miles of driving per month. The question is whether GM is serious about its pretense of fulfilling this need, or whether it's just lying. Nothing, no diversion, no trick, can change the subject from that. GM seems to be headed for failure on the Volt, inexplicably ignoring the standard EV battery; is GM just fooling us again? GM has not yet provided an answer to the issues and numbers raised here. GM is still ignoring the existing NiMH used in the RAV4-EV, still running and still wonderful. The biggest problem with the idea of GM needing Lithium to release the serial plug-in Volt is that Lithium might not work. Even Bob Lutz now qualifies the program by claiming a "10% chance of failure", as if failure to develop Lithium vitiates the entire program. With NiMH, there's a record of success. It's the most researched, most proven, and the standard EV battery, studied in the millions of EV miles. GM's problematic quest for Lithium prior to using existing NiMH puts in question GM's entire Volt program. Moreover, GM's ignoring existing, working, standard NiMH batteries is baffling, especially since GM should know about NiMH -- having sold control of the battery patents to Texaco (after Oct. 16, 2001, Chevron) on Oct. 10, 2001. Finally, personal motives or attacks have nothing to do with the issues; if you have an answer, I'd like to see the numbers. The numbers I've given, and the existing NiMH used in the RAV4-EV, are real, valid and demonstrable. If you wish to raise motives and past misdeeds, I might ask why GM went to all the trouble of vindictively crushing our two EV1 vehicles, refusing to sell them to us for cash, then billing us for "scratches" and "excessive wear" on the EV1 cars that GM crushed, which ran as well when crushed as they did when new. When our lawyer advised us to demand that GM prove the claim, GM sold its false claim to a credit bureau ("GC Credit") which harassed us with phone calls each week. Behind our back, GM reported us as "charge-offs" (instead of "disputed claim") to the three credit agencies, violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act and damaging our credit. When forced to remove the false mark on our credit, GM made multiple inquiries on our credit, apparently trying to knock down our FICO score. But let's stay away from GM's past failures and misdeeds. Let's concentrate on the issues that are important to GM, to America, and to those who want to buy an oil-free car that helps address our global warming, pollution and energy-independence issues. Doug ------------------------------- >At 09:29 AM 3/19/2007 -0400, [GM's Chris Pruess] wrote: >Doug, >We responded to your question to the Free Press, you simply didn't like the answer. >What, are you heavily invested in NiMH batteries and upset you're on the wrong train? >To restate it, NiMH is heavy, >expensive and on a wells to wheel CO2 basis, a really bad choice for global climate change. >It's also got worse performance and >no long term hope to get much cheaper. >The fact no car company in any market is using nickle batteries for pure EVs is the answer to the question. If you feel differently, please get an investment group together and go into the NiMH battery car business and prove the entire global auto industry wrong. Please also consider this the last response to your question and give Katie a break. >Kindly, >Chris Preuss >GM PR |
| Back to main menu? | Back to Index of Entries? |