General Motors Commits To 40 Percent Emissions Cut By 2010
There are some encouraging trends out there recently, aren't there? Once Democrats assumed power this past January it seemed that most large corporations finally stopped fighting about environmental stewardship and instead decided to join the movement.
General Motors is one of the few American automakers to see the writing on the wall and has quickly begun adding shades of green to its future vehicles and manufacturing processes. Today's announcement, that the automaker will reduce carbon emissions by 40% (below year 2000 levels) by 2010, is another step in the right direction.
GM plans on making these cuts by harnessing energy from landfill gases, as well as utilizing solar power at various manufacturing facilities. Production efficiency (and let's hope recycling) are also being implemented for further gains.
This isn't the first time GM has pledged to reduce emissions. Back in 2002, a tiny 10% was promised after the automaker helped found the EPA's Climate Leaders Program. The program is designed to help major corporations find ways to cut their emissions. I imagine, however, that even those involved with the program have only recently taken use of its advice.
It's an interesting road that lies ahead of us. On one hand, it seems to me that the industry is testing the waters with new technologies and green publicity to gauge public reaction. On another, there appears to be a genuine push to take auto manufacturing in a new direction that can benefit from the increased efficiency and reduced costs associated with 'going green'. My only hope is that business follows the science and not the fads we're likely to see with consumer interest in "all things green". If we can standardize green auto additions and not hype the hell out of them, people won't think twice about how unusual a hybrid is or the oddity of an all-electric vehicle. They'll just get in and go. GM just hopes it's a Volt, and not a Prius, that they're driving.
Tags: auto industry, Automobiles, Climate Change, Conservation, emissions, fuel-efficiency, general motors, global warming, greenhouse gases, solar
- Uncategorized
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:16 pm
If GM were serious, it need not engage in Lithium “research”.
The Nickel Metal Hydride (”NiMH”) batteries used in hundreds of Toyota RAV4-EV, and formerly used in the 1999 EV1, the Ranger-EV and Honda EV-plus, fulfill all the specifications required for the Volt.
GM is planning to drag its heels until 2010 or 2012, when it expects the NiMH batteries running our Toyota RAV4-EV fleet to finally wear out.
GM is just plain ignoring the existing, standard EV batteries, the ones still giving us over 100 miles range.
GM has never answered the challenge:
http://drivingthefuture.com/#Challenge
This is a Challenge for GM to prove its claims, and prove its Volt announcement wasn’t just a cover for killing the Electric car all over again. The challenge below has not been answered with substance by GM, because their position is wrong. The facts show that NiMH works fine, has adequate power, and has a low life-cycle cost.
Here are GM’s claims, contradicted, sadly, by simple facts:
1. GM claims “NiMH is too expensive” for an Electric car
Nickel Metal Hydride (”NiMH”) per kWh, ($225 to $350 per kWh, according to the California Air Resources Board, “CARB”) is less costly than Lithium. 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. The most advanced Altair nano Lithium batteries are quoted at over $1500 per kWh. An EV travels four to six miles on each stored kWh of electric energy, so a full EV needs at least 25 kWh and the Volt needs at least 10 kWh.
According to CARB, the full price of a full-sized NiMH battery pack containing 30 kWh, three times the 10 kWh size needed for the Volt, would be $13,000 retail, including software and profit. The pack needed for the Volt would cost only $4,333. Perhaps some day Lithium would be as cheap as $100/kWh, but that time is not yet. Currently NiMH is cheaper in initial cost and much cheaper in life-cycle cost.
The 30 kWh NiMH pack in our RAV4-EV may last over 200,000 miles, amortizing its CARB-estimated $13,000 cost at 6.5 cents per mile. But no Lithium battery pack has so far exceeded 50,000 miles in a production car, making the life-cycle cost of NiMH much lower than that of Lithium. Furthermore, NiMH recycles, its ingredients are non-toxic and plentiful, and it’s stable and not fiercely reactive as is Lithium.
GM’s claim of excessive cost is FALSE.
2. GM claims “NiMH is too heavy”.
A 780 lb. NiMH battery pack in the over-3000 lb. small SUV Toyota RAV4-EV is not excessive. Depending on the quality of NiMH, such a pack can be expected to give 100 to 200 miles range on a charge.
The Volt would only need at most a 300 lb. NiMH pack, little more than the weight of the transmission and clutch that it displaces.
A slightly smaller pack than that in use on the Toyota RAV4-EV carried the over-3000 lb. 1999 NiMH EV1 up to 160 miles on a charge, faultlessly.
It’s true that Lithium is lighter, but the Battery Management System and Life Cycle Cost is much higher. 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 grudgingly.
GM’s claim of excessive weight is FALSE.
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 GM uses. It seems it might be yet another example of “figures don’t lie, but liars use figures”. I wonder if GM considers the upstream costs of oil exploration and extraction, oil wars, foreign aid, etc., costs beyond the “well” expense.
I doubt, furthermore, that GM has considered NiMH EVs that are powered by off-peak charging paid for by on-peak excess generation of electric by rooftop solar Photo-Voltaic (”PV”) systems.
The “EV powered by PV” effectively eliminates the “wells” part of the “wells to wheels”, since our NiMH RAV4-EV cars 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 average 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.
GM’s claim of CO2 generation is FALSE.
4. GM claims NiMH EVs have “Worse performance”.
Performance of the primitive NiMH used in the 1999 EV1 was GREAT; the current much 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 the big Mercedes E500. Just yesterday we traversed, albeit slowly because it was a long trip, across the 4500 ft. Cajon Pass to Palmdale in our Toyota RAV4-EV small all-electric SUV. The Volt, aided by a small Internal Combustion (”IC”) engine for long trips, would have even better performance up hills than the NiMH RAV4-EV, although not as good as the EV1 with NiMH. We often drove that up to Big Bear or Mt. Baldy.
GM’s claim of worse performance is FALSE.
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. Use NiMH now, and if research pans out, upgrade later.
GM’s claim of no long-term hope for improvement is FALSE.
6. GM claims “If you think NiMH is so good, build a NiMH EV yourself!”.
Actually, we drive NiMH EV every day, great cars that were sold to us by Toyota, the Toyota NiMH RAV4-EV. Toyota sold the last 328 of these great cars, ending in Nov. 2002, while GM was afraid to sell its EV1 for cash on the barrelhead. We want others to have the free-market choice of purchasing such plug-in cars, especially those who have solar PV systems to charge them up with.
This is the same old cheap shot that EV deniers (like GM) have used for decades. Why don’t [fill in name here] go build an EV if you think it’s so easy, they said. The real argument behind this kindergarten ploy is that the auto makers do 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, “making clean cars should not be entrusted to the auto makers”, it’s a public policy issue affecting our common future.
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 cars to the general public that can run oil-free for at least a thousand miles of driving per month. That’s what the Volt announcement was all about. But if it just stays an announcement, if it’s all a ploy, say it now. The question is whether GM is serious about its pretense of fulfilling this need, or whether it’s just pretending. Nothing, no diversion, no trick, can change the subject from that. GM seems to be headed for failure on the Volt, inexplicably ignoring the NiMH standard EV battery; is GM just fooling us again?
GM’s claim that others should build NiMH Electric cars is FALSE.
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. These batteries are 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 kills the Volt. 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 on Oct. 10, 2001 (after Oct. 16, 2001, Chevron).
Personal motives or attacks have nothing to do with the issues; IF there is an answer, I’d like to see the numbers. The numbers you see here, and the existing NiMH used in the RAV4-EV, are real, valid and demonstrable.
If GM wishes 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.
Lastly, GM is suing the State of Vermont for, basically, the continued “RIGHT TO POLLUTE” with Internal Combustion (”IC”) cars. Does this sound like a company that ruefully and honestly is reversing course, changing its spots, and “going green”? No, it sounds like the SAME OLD GM, FIGHTING FOR THE RIGHT TO POLLUTE, and keeping the newspapers out of the courtroom based on phony “proprietary information” secrecy grounds.
If GM is not conning the public, explain yourself.
>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…
March 23rd, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Doug
This is the second time you've posted this particular set of facts. In this case, I don't see how it's relevant to this post.
You're welcome to comment, but keep in mind that your comments lose their effectiveness if you keep posting the same information over and over, or if they're only tangentially related to the topic at hand. I understand you're passionate about this issue, but passion isn't an excuse for poor manners, or abuse of our system.
This would be a perfect topic for our discussion forums — I suggest you try posting over there, and get a discussion going.
Jeff
_______________________________________
Jeff McIntire-Strasburg
Senior Editor
Green Options
jeff@greenoptions.com