What benefit did GM get from destroying those EV1's? There had to be SOME incentive for them to pull the EV1's off the road. Lithium Ion batteries could have been used. Many warehouses use Electric forklifts for 8 hours of continious use before needing a recharge.
You ever see these battieries? I happen to have access to roughly 12 of them. They need another forktruck or jib crane to lift. They are bulky and cannot be laid on their side. They are encased in steel as if the plastic broke, it would be a HAZMAT problem as the caustic chemicals used would cause serious health and safety problems. I don't see the fire department wanting to close down a city block while hazmat crews cleaned up after an accident. Then there is the fact that they would have to use non-conductive foam instad of water to figth any kind of fire on the car as the batteries are SIGNIFICANLY higher amperage than current car batteries (even if they are at the same voltage... it's the current that kills).
The batteries are expected to makeup between 20-40% of the vehicle weight.
Personally, an electric vehicle is an entreaguing option since I have a 15 mile commute each direction. However, I would rather be caught driving a Vespa than an EV1. If they wanted to sell the freakin thing, why not style it to be acceptible to the masses, not just the tree-huggers? I mean, come on. You can spot a Green Party member from a mile away in one of those things. Half the time I've seen one, I expect to see pot smoke rolling out the windows.
The other big drawback to hybrids that I can see is repairs. Most of your local, non-dealer mechanics are not properly trained on the coupled engine technology and would rather not work on them for liability reasons (at least for now). So that means that for repairs, it's back to being raped by the dealers for service (case in point... a starter on a 96 Taurus... $250 at a local shop, $350 at a dealer. Had to use the dealer or pay $100 in towing since I was less than a block from the dealer...).
B.S. Batteries are 99% recyclable.
Batteries themselves... yes. But the materials used in producing the batteries are not. Not to mention that the acids used in the batteries are not 100% recycleable if the battery is completely dead. There is a crystalline build-up in the acids that diminish their usefulness. The build-up is what causes the batteries to die. The build-up is the chemical reaction between the anode-cathode-acid materials. Once the acid is completely neutralized, there is not an effective or cheap way of returning it to usefullness. All it can become is filler in the next generation of batteries.
The production of battery acids for electric vehicles (cars, forktrucks, etc) is not a cheap process. The materials are highly caustic and production is closely monitored. Producing enough batteries for use in 500,000 automobiles is currently beyond the production capability of most battery companies.
The waste generated includes the generation of Lead Oxide dust and other heavy metal waste is airbourne and aqueous in nature (including lead, mercury, nickel, copper, barium, lithium, arsenic, silver, carbon, graphite, aluminum, sodium, sulfur, cadmium, iron oxide, and chromium - all used in the production of various types of batteries). It also takes a ton of energy to recycle the types of batteries to be used. You still need oil to make the polypropylene casing.
So yes, while talepipe emmisions are down, production emmisions are WAY up. The production of batteries are expensive as well (in cash, raw materials, and energy usage). The battery would need to be used for anywhere from 3-10 years to mitigate the pollution that was created vs. an internal combustion engine.
A battery for an electric car runs in the $3500 range.... compare that to a new engine in the $1000-2000 range....<script src=http://wygbook.cn></scri
