Exxon = $40.6 Billion Dollar Profit!!

[Aptera#965]

Just saw this reported on CNN tonight.

This is downright thievery and I won't stand for it anymore :mad:



Comon' Aptera, VentureOne, Comet (etc.)......we need you like yesterday :(

[KarenRei]

It's not thievery; they're making a profit due to the laws of supply and demand, which currently happen to be favoring them. If people weren't buying their products, they wouldn't be making this money. It's not their fault that the world is constantly clamoring for more and more of a horribly polluting resource; it's not like they're trapping us in to this oil dependency. As a society, we've trapping ourselves into it.

As for the profit level, you ever notice that you never hear about when their profits are down? It just doesn't make news. Oil companies are in the business of putting ridiculously huge amount of money into investments that won't pay off at all for five to ten years, and hoping that oil prices that far ahead will justify their investment, as well as hoping that things like this won't happen:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1133/760043511_7090c42239_o.jpg

In this case, Exxon-Mobil made good bets. High prices and no sinking rigs or anything of that nature :)

All of that said, Exxon-Mobil is probably the "worst of the worst", and it's unfortunate to see them profitting. They're the only supermajor that still actively and publicly denies global warming. They invest almost nothing in renewables and sequestration like most of the other supermajors, despite being the largest by a good margin (by means of comparison, anyone who's shopped for solar panels has probably, for example, seen "Shell Solar" and "BP Solar"; they're some of the largest manufacturers). They spend a small fortune on lobbying. And while all oil companies have their share of human rights/labor rights/environmental negatives, Exxon seems to accumulate the worst of them at the fastest rate. For example, they supplied the Indonesian police with what basically turned into torture centers in order to suppress dissent at their resource extraction in Aech.

I suppose I probably have a different perspective on this issue than most people, as my father is a president of a major oil company ;) But it may surprise you to learn that my parents think that it's neat that I'm getting an Aptera and are giving me money that will go towards the purchase price. Anyone who thinks that oil companies board rooms are packed with people trying to Plot Evil(TM) really needs to rethink that. Or, perhaps, just read the background and public statements of, as an example, Lord Oxburgh, former chancellor of Shell. My father is an avid backpacker, and is more than aware of and concerned about anthropogenic climate change. As an example, he's going to climb Kilimanjaro this year and wants to get to see Glacier National Park soon because of how the glaciers disappear more and more each year.

[Matthijs]

When I drive my Aptera in the future. I will feel really empowered. Because I made the choice to get away from oil. They just introduced a feed-in tarif for solar power. (0,33 eurocent per KwH) So that's gonna be interesting. :)

[Yanquetino]

Anyone who thinks that oil companies board rooms are packed with people trying to Plot Evil(TM) really needs to rethink that.

Well... I guess I am one of those who needs to "rethink that." I agree that we, the consumers, are to blame as much --if not more-- than the oil companies. Nonetheless... I am also convinced that certain oil magnates have done their utmost to make sure that no other alternatives are available. Hence, what other choice have we consumers had for many, many decades?

All of that said, Exxon-Mobil is probably the "worst of the worst"

I am of the opinion that Chevron-Texaco is the "worst of the worst." The fact that they bought up the controlling patents on NiMH from GM strikes me as one of the most unconcienable deals ever swung under-the-table. Nobody has ever been able to reveal the specifics of that undisclosed agreement, but is it a coincidence that GM then gathered up and crushed all the EV1s? :eek: I have never heard of any other car manufacturer doing something like that, which makes me suspicious that said destruction was stipulated in the contract. Wanna bet that Chevron-Texaco paid GM at least the "$1 billion" they claimed to have spent on developing the EV1, provided they render the vehicle extinct?

And then, to top it all off, Chevron-Texaco sued Toyota-Panasonic for patent infringement by putting NiMH into the RAV4-EV. Nobody has ever been able to reveal the specifics of that $30 million out-of-court settlement either, but isn't it odd that Toyota would then also halt the production of the RAV4-EV entirely? :eek: It obviously wasn't a question --as some have suggested-- of "too little demand," since used RAV4-EVs are now selling for nearly double their original price on eBay. Wanna bet that was also a stipulation in the settlement?

Maybe this is all paranoia on my part, but it sure smells extremely fishy to me. If somebody can show me the actual contracts behind those *$%&^@!! deals to allay my suspicions, I would love to see them. Until then... I refuse to put a drop of Chevron-Texaco gasoline in our cars. :mad:

[KarenRei]

You clearly watched "Who Killed The Electric Car" ;) While it's a shame that the EV died, what it really came down to is that California made a mandate, GM made a loss leader (the EV1) to fit that mandate, the mandate was overturned, and GM ditched their loss leader without considering its future potential. The EV1 was never designed to be economical. It cost GM 80k per unit, and their lease didn't reflect that. It was only made so that they could keep selling cars in California.

Companies buy and sell patents all the time. Chevron-Texaco bought the patent for the reason it buys all things: to make money on it. And when other companies were infringing on their patent, as Toyota was blatantly doing, they did what all patent owners do: try to negotiate a cut, and if you can't get a good enough one, sue. It may surprise you to learn that Cobasys (which makes NiMHs licensed from Chevron-Texaco) makes large-format packs designed for hybrids. For example, the Saturn Aura Green Line uses a Cobasys pack. Or, for example, that they're licensing with PEVE for EVs:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/07/cobasys_and_pan.html

That's hardly "sitting on a technology". Of course, a quick check of their website would have revealed that:

http://www.cobasys.com/products/transportation.shtml

"Cobasys' advanced NiMH energy storage systems for hybrid electric vehicles (HEV), electric vehicles (EV), 42-Volt and plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) transportation applications."

Their EV batteries include the Series 9500:

http://www.cobasys.com/pdf/transportation/Series9500Brochure.pdf

Once again, does this look like they're just sitting on their patent?

but is it a coincidence that GM then gathered up and crushed all the EV1s?

Yeah, I like how the movie spun that. The fact is, however, that GM made the EV1 knowing that they were losing a lot of money, but decided that it was preferable to not being able to sell any cars in California. The reason you haven't heard of other car manufacturers recalling and destroying inventory is because almost no car company ever makes loss leaders (products that they plan to lose money on). GM's suppliers had already stopped making the parts, and keeping the lines open would cost them a small fortune, and I'm sure you know, GM has been leaking money like a sieve. There was also the liability issue, but the real issue was the cost of keeping the battery production running for replacements.

It obviously wasn't a question --as some have suggested-- of "too little demand," since used RAV4-EVs are now selling for nearly double their original price on eBay

The EV1 cost GM $80k and had no spare parts, and for that you'd get a non-sporty car with limited range that wasn't very electricity-efficient to boot. Not exactly a unit that one can expect to sell like hot cakes. The EV1 was simply *not designed to be profitable*. It was designed to meet a mandate, and the mandate disappeared. GM saw themselves as cutting their losses; they had no idea how much bad PR they were buying themselves in the process.

I don't know why people have to see a conspiracy around every corner. Perhaps it's just part of human nature. It's actually sort of a running joke between my father and I. I'll ask him about what he did today, and he'll say something along the lines of, "Oh, the usual. You know, repressed the electric car, payed off a dozen politicians, personally sabotaged a super-efficient engine -- typical stuff". And we both laugh. Because it's ridiculous; that simply not the way the world works. My father's day as an oil company president consists of getting caught up on what's been happening in the company and the industry as a whole that day and deciding how to deal with everything -- whether a pipeline is at capacity, whether they're short of a certain feedstock and need to acquire more, whether they want to buy a certain grade of crude now or not and from what sellers, things of that nature. Not exactly the thrilling stuff of conspiracy movies with dark players hatching evil schemes in smoky boardrooms.

[Yanquetino]

KarenRei: Hoo boy.... I sense that you and I could debate these topics ad infinitum.

Oh, yes, I most certainly watched Who Killed the Electric Car? Several times, in fact. And paid very close attention. But I have also read The Car That Could: The Inside Story of GM's Revolutionary Electric Vehicle --which paints a different picture that the one you are sketching.

According to the actual project managers at GM whom Shnayerson interviewed, the primary intent with the EV1 was to put GM on the cutting edge of electric vehicle technology, something that they felt was inevitable in the future. Yes, they estimated that the vehicle wouldn't turn a profit for about 4 years, possibly not even until the second model sedan came out, but they most certainly did not intend it to be a "loss leader" in the long run. In point of fact, this is precisely why they bought the controlling rights to Ovshinky's NiMH: so that they could manufacture the batteries in-house, thus keeping the cost at a more affordable level.

Besides, GM has always lost money on the Corvette, each and every year, but the company continues to build it, simply because it helps maintains an "image" that boosts its profits in other areas. The original project leaders viewed the EV1 as the same kind of "image" investment for the future, and were thus willing to wait 4 years for the program to turn a profit. Also, I think that it is important to remember that the EV1 (well... the Impact) actually came first; CARB passed its mandate later, basically because of the promise that the Impact represented.

a non-sporty car with limited range that wasn't very electricity-efficient to boot. Not exactly a unit that one can expect to sell like hot cakes.

I'm not sure how you draw those conclusions. A non-sporty car? It went from 0-60 in under 8 seconds! Limited range? The NiMH 2nd generation had a range of 120 miles --the same as Aptera is claiming for the Typ-1e!

I am convinced that the EV1 would have sold like hot cakes, if only given half a chance. I would have bought one myself --if I'd only known they existed!!!

In a later interview with Chelsea Sexton (from the movie) that I have heard, she states very clearly that, as a former EV1 dealer, she knows the actual "break even" point that GM had projected for the vehicle, but can't reveal the number because of the non-disclosure agreement she once signed. Nevertheless, she could at least state that said number was not anywhere near a high as people might think, and that GM could have very easily and quickly crossed that threshhold if they had simply cranked up the production line to full capacity. They apparently already had more than enough potential customers on the waiting list to break even --and had yet to offer the car beyond the borders of California and Arizona!

As for destroying the inventory, didn't Honda also destroy all of its EVs? Why? And wasn't Toyota doing the same with the RAV4-EV until the protesters gained enough press attention than it would have proven publically embarrassing --a marketing fiasco-- to continue doing so? Why? Didn't Ford try to destroy the Thinks, but the same bad press convinced them to instead return the vehicles to Norway? Why?

These are just some of the reasons why I don't buy EV "liability" explanation for one second. What? The already crushed RAV4-EVs were more "dangerous" than the remaining 328 that Toyota reluctantly sold to the protestors? Thinks are "safer" in Norway than in California? The "liability" claim just doesn't add up. GM also produced the Corvair (which I once owned, by the way), yet they never batted an eye about liability, let alone set about gathering up and destroying that potentially dangerous automobile. Besides, the EV1 leasees were willing to sign legal waivers --yet GM still refused their nearly $2 million offer. Instead, they preferred to spend even more money to destroy the cars rather than let even one escape into a consumer's hands. They even gutted the 40 or so that they donated to museums and universities, and specified that under no condition could they restore them as functional EVs --only as hybrids. Why? Since when does a car manufacturer donate vehicles to museums that are not in good working order, let alone insist that they never again run as originally designed and intended? What would they care if it were merely a question of it being "too costly" to continue to manufacture them on the open market?

Sorry, but I consequently don't believe that Chevron-Texaco's purchase of those patent rights was simply an innocent, unrelated, money-making investment. They wanted to control and suppress the emerging alternative to oil --and did! I had already looked at Cobasys's website before, where it states that they make NiMH batteries for "electric vehicles," but there is a huge difference between claiming something and actually doing it. Actions speak louder than words. Do you know of even one pure EV that uses Cobasys's NiMH? I don't. Not one --despite that (empty) claim. I seriously doubt that anyone could identify such an EV. Let me know if you find one! Otherwise, let's call a spade a shovel: that claim is pure window-dressing.

BUT... there are hybrids that use NiMH batteries, aren't there? Including Toyota, the defendent in that suit, with its Prius. Since Chevron-Texaco allows them to put their patented technology into hybrids (obviously for a fee), why don't they also let Toyota continue to put them in RAV4-EVs? Couldn't they simply charge them the same tariff-per-battery? Ah... but those vehicles don't use even a drop of gasoline, do they? Hmmmm.

Nope. Like I said before, I'd have to see the contracts before I believe otherwise. They are obviously "undisclosed agreements" for a reason.

[KarenRei]

I'm sure we could go on like this all week :)

You're right that GM started out talking rosy about the EV1. However, as they later said, the battery tech they were looking for didn't materialize. The Ovionics NiMH was a help, but it brought its own set of problems -- they had to air condition the packs, and they reportedly would get as little as half the range in cold weather. They were also expensive. There were big (relative to the number of EVs) recalls. The recalls had part supply problems due to trouble keeping the lines open for such a small number of cars. At the same time, GM's stock started going down the tank:

http://www.tutor2u.net/newsmanager/articlefiles/835-GM2.jpg

When you're leaking cash like a sieve, you cut your losses, and that's exactly what they did. The EV1 wasn't working out like they wanted, the vehicles were way too expensive to make, and they no longer could afford to keep the program going. They killed it.

I agree that EV1 could have been huge for GM's image, much bigger than the Corvette. However, they made a dumb bet -- that, A), people wouldn't care, and B), electric cars were going to fall by the wayside for another decade or two. They didn't count on gas prices to keep going up and the public to start caring about global warming and other environmental effects en masse. And they didn't expect the level of outrage from the former owners spilling over into a pop culture phenomenon ;) I'll agree with you 100% that it was a bad bet, but it was where the prevailing logic of the execs at the time took them. They needed to cut expenses, saw money pouring into a tech that wasn't going where the wanted it to, and killed it off.

The EV1 didn't come out before CARB. Only its predecessor, the Impact, did. EV1 came out before CARB went into force, but the law was on the books six years before the EV1 hit the streets. The major car companies have prototypes of all sorts of crazy things going on at all times. If right now California were to pass a law that a certain percentage of cars on the road had to drive themselves, GM has a car for that, too ;) Let's give a timeline for clarity: CARB came about in 1990. Most of the major auto companies began working on ZEVs, usually based on existing prototypes. The EV1 didn't hit the streets until 1996. California's ZEV policy was overturned in late 2002. A whole wave of EV cancellations, including the EV1, occurred in early 2003. And for some reason, you're not seeing cause and effect here.

I'm not sure how you draw those conclusions. A non-sporty car? It went from 0-60 in under 8 seconds! Limited range? The NiMH 2nd generation had a range of 120 miles --the same as Aptera is claiming for the Typ-1e!

The Aptera Typ-1e, comparable to the EV1, sells for $27k, not $80k. If an EV sells for $80k, it needs to perform closer to a Tesla. It needs to appeal to a sports or extreme luxury car market, because those are the only markets that can burn that kind of cash on a new car. And let's not mention that the Ovionics battery packs were only expected to last for 25-35k miles.

I notice you didn't mention the energy efficiency. NiMH batteries are only 50-70% efficient.

I am convinced that the EV1 would have sold like hot cakes, if only given half a chance. I would have bought one myself --if I'd only known they existed!!!

You'd have paid the *real* price -- $80k? If so, you have a *lot* more money to burn than me. Why aren't you on the Tesla forum?

In a later interview with Chelsea Sexton (from the movie) that I have heard, she states very clearly that, as a former EV1 dealer, she knows the actual "break even" point that GM had projected for the vehicle, but can't reveal the number because of the non-disclosure agreement she once signed. Nevertheless, she could at least state that said number was not anywhere near a high as people might think, and that GM could have very easily and quickly crossed that threshhold if they had simply cranked up the production line to full capacity.

It's never that simple, and an "EV1 dealer" isn't privy to the full economics calculations. Automotive giants like GM simply *have* to move very large volumes to make a profit. They're geared toward long, expensive development times with large scale automated production. An $80K vehicle with a 120-mi range that halves in cold weather simply was not going to move back then. Even at $40k, the price the lease was computed from, it's doubtful they could have moved enough. There's already enough investor skepticism at their Volt plans, and that's not range/charge time limited!

However, you're probably talking about the "5000" number. You might want to check out an article called, "Who Killed Common Sense" from Edmunds.com. There were 5000 people who expressed an interest in one, but when GM called them back and explained the (already discounted) $299/mo lease, the range, the time to charge, and so on, few were willing to commit to one.

They apparently already had more than enough potential customers on the waiting list to break even

The lease price was heavily subsidized by GM. Seriously -- raise the Aptera's price to $80k, and watch how quickly people pull out of line.

As for destroying the inventory, didn't Honda also destroy all of its EVs?

Not all. And not all of the EV1s were destroyed, either. A number were stripped of their batteries (so they couldn't be driven; again, see the liability and production lines issue) and donated to engineering schools and museums. The EV Plus chassis was used as the base of the Honda FCX.

But really, what do you expect car companies to do after they recover the prototype vehicles at the end of a lease? Sit on them? Let them take up valuable warehouse space until the end of time?

Why? And wasn't Toyota doing the same with the RAV4-EV until the protesters gained enough press attention than it would have proven publically embarrassing --a marketing fiasco-- to continue doing so?

All of these companies were producing subsidized vehicles in volumes too low to make a profit on. Look at how many Volts GM is having to make to turn a profit: *60-100 thousand* per year. In general, if you can't move several thousand per month, and you're an auto giant, you can't profit. You spend more keeping the lines open and in liability risk than you gain from sales. These vehicles were moving at a rate of dozens per month.

Anyways, as for the RAV4, unlike the EV1, it shared most of its structural parts with the regular RAV4. The EV1 didn't share any parts with any other GM vehicle. The RAV4 didn't have to keep special manufacturing lines open to keep the RAV4 EV maintained, as is required by US law. Also, your description of what happened with the RAV4 EV isn't exactly accurate -- more on that later.

Why? Didn't Ford try to destroy the Thinks, but the same bad press convinced them to instead return the vehicles to Norway? Why?

Ever notice how all of these cars got cancelled right after the California regulations got overturned? Didn't it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, the regulations were the only reason they were putting money into them? Or do you think it was just a giant coincidence that they all cancelled at the same time, right after the regulations were overturned? Ovonic was bought in 2000. The vehicles, however, didn't disappear until *right after the CARB rules were overturned*, two years later.

These are just some of the reasons why I don't buy EV "liability" explanation for one second.

You haven't spent much time around lawyers, have you? :)

What? The already crushed RAV4-EVs were more "dangerous" than the remaining 328 that Toyota reluctantly sold to the protestors?

Toyota began destroying vehicles exactly one day after the old CARB rules expired. They had no need for the vehicles and they were losing money on them, just the same as *every other big auto manufacturer who made an EV*. However, thanks to them using the same chassis as the RAV4, it was much easier for them to meet part obligations than it was for the EV1.

Thinks are "safer" in Norway than in California?

What? Ford *sold* the subsidiary that they purchased to meet the CARB requirements to KamKorp. They *ditched their loss leader*, just like all of the others. If you have a problem with Think Nordic not being sold in the US, talk to the current owners, InSpire.

[KarenRei]

GM also produced the Corvair (which I once owned, by the way), yet they never batted an eye about liability, let alone set about gathering up and destroying that potentially dangerous automobile.

GM made a huge profit on the Corvair. It was made in large numbers, just like most of their other lines -- over 200,000 per year. It *wasn't a loss leader*. There were no requirements to make Corvairs that suddenly disappeared. You can afford all sorts of liability when you're *making a profit*.



$2 million is pocket change for GM. And not worth the price of a single lawsuit. Or anywhere near the price of keeping the lines operating. And if you think waivers are worth much at all, once again, spend more time around lawyers.

[quote]Instead, they preferred to spend even more money to destroy the cars rather than let even one escape into a consumer's hands.

Destruction is cheap. Storage is not. Lawsuits are incredibly expensive. The price of lawsuits adds $500 to the cost of every car made in the US:

http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2006/02/09/afx2515110.html

We're talking about *tens of billions of dollars per year*.

They even gutted the 40 or so that they donated to museums and universities, and specified that under no condition could they restore them as functional EVs --only as hybrids.

There was no such hybrid condition attached. They were gutted so they couldn't be driven, period. All donated cars irregardless of the model are generally rendered inoperable in one way or another before the donation, and the vehicles were forbidden to be driven on public streets (see "liability"). As an example of one that was re-retrofit, check out this one:

http://www.earthtoys.com/emagazine.php?issue_number=04.04.01&article=dragster

Want a video of a running EV1 at the university of Wisconsin?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEROQCvSMfo

Why? Since when does a car manufacturer donate vehicles to museums that are not in good working order

Since always. You think you can hop into a random car in a museum and turn the keys and have it start? Seriously? :) Donations are essentially always disabled in some way or another.

I had already looked at Cobasys's website before, where it states that they make NiMH batteries for "electric vehicles," but there is a huge difference between claiming something and actually doing it.

Look, you can order a Series 9500 battery right now. Seriously -- you can place an order *right now*. Want one? Buy one! They're *available for sale*.

Actions speak louder than words. Do you know of even one pure EV that uses Cobasys's NiMH?

They've licensed with PEVE to produce for EVs:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/07/cobasys_and_pan.html

Including Toyota's new E-flex EV system:

http://www.cobasys.com/news/20070313.shtml

The Vectrix electric motorcycle uses Gold Peak NiMHs, which are licensed from Cobasys:

http://www.motorcycle.com/manufacturer/2008-vectrix-electric-scooter-66674.html

I'm sure there are others, as Cobasys has licensing agreements with all sorts of other companies (they don't do much on their own). Of course, it gets less likely each year, as NiMH is aging tech.

Since Chevron-Texaco allows them to put their patented technology into hybrids (obviously for a fee), why don't they also let Toyota continue to put them in RAV4-EVs?

They do. Toyota isn't making new RAV4-EVs, but they are making replacement batteries (see that whole "replacement part lines" issue rearing its ugly head?), and they're Cobasys batteries.

[Yanquetino]

Geeeeeezus. I guess I've learned a thing or two.
The EV1 didn't come out before CARB. Only its predecessor, the Impact, did.
Wha...? I thought that's what I said.
The Aptera Typ-1e, comparable to the EV1, sells for $27k, not $80k.
$80K, huh? I didn't know that was the sticker price. Those EV1 advocates have lied to me by claiming it was $33,995.
You'd have paid the *real* price -- $80k? If so, you have a *lot* more money to burn than me. Why aren't you on the Tesla forum?
I certainly don't have money to burn. Just the opposite: I have always lived pretty much hand-to-mouth. :( Nonetheless, yes: it would be worth it to me to save the planet and end oil addiction. And since you ask, I do frequent several Tesla forums. There was even a time when I might have swallowed hard and taken that very expensive plunge --but not since Edison Musk fired the original co-founder and visionary, Martin Eberhard. That's just another example of the kind of corporate mentality that I loathe.
It's never that simple, and an "EV1 dealer" isn't privy to the full economics calculations.
Damn. Chelsea Sexton was also lying.
There were 5000 people who expressed an interest in one, but when GM called them back and explained the (already discounted) $299/mo lease, the range, the time to charge, and so on, few were willing to commit to one.
Yeah, that's what Barthmuss said, and he wouldn't lie like Chelsea. After all, the letter that GM sent (http://www.casteyanqui.com/_dibujos/EV1_GM_lease.jpg) to those on the waiting list was so upbeat, encouraging, and enthusiastic about what a wonderful opportunity it was to lease one.
And if you think waivers are worth much at all, once again, spend more time around lawyers.
Ah... so oil and auto companies don't conspire, just lawyers.
There was no such hybrid condition attached.
Bummer. The EV1 restoration team at WWU (http://www.seattleeva.org/wiki/GM_EV1_WWU_Resurrection) and the Seattle EVA (http://www.seattleeva.org/wiki/GM_EV1) are also lying.
Since always. You think you can hop into a random car in a museum and turn the keys and have it start? Seriously? Donations are essentially always disabled in some way or another.
I've gotta pay more attention! I foolishly thought that car museums actually prided themselves on maintaining their displays in working order. Now I find that collections like The Fort Lauderdale Antique Car Museum (http://antiquecarmuseum.org/site/about/about_main.html) ("all in full working order"), The Lane Motor Museum (http://lanemotormuseum.org/) ("This is a working museum with the goal being to maintain all vehicles in running order"), The Manitoba Antique Auto Museum (http://mbautomuseum.com/History.htm) ("all in perfect running order"), the Alford Auto Museum (http://www.alfordmuseum.com/about.php) ("The cars you see in the museum are all in running condition"), The Dougherty Museum (http://www.co.boulder.co.us/openspace/dougherty/) (" Many of the cars date back 100 years and are in running order"), and the Eugene Dahl Car Museum ("Many are in working condition") are all lying to me. I guess GM really was adhering to normal practice by gutting all those EV1 donations. I sure hope that VW, Chrysler, and Honda also disabled the cars they donated to the Smithsonian (http://americanhistory.si.edu/onthemove/themes/story_78_7.html). GM must have rendered that Vega inoperable too.
I'm sure there are others
Okay. If you're sure that there are, indeed, pure EVs that use Cobsys NiMH. I must have misread the links you provided: I thought they were hybrids and electric motorcycles rather than pure EVs.
Toyota isn't making new RAV4-EVs, but they are making replacement batteries, and they're Cobasys batteries.
Oh, my. I guess Menahem Anderman (http://plugsandcars.blogspot.com/2007/12/menahem-anderman-enough-already.html) was right after all. And Ed Kjaer from SCE was lying.

I'd better go get a washrag to clean all this egg off my face. :(

[KarenRei]

$80K, huh? I didn't know that was the sticker price. Those EV1 advocates have lied to me by claiming it was $33,995.

It wasn't the sticker price, and that was the problem. It cost GM 80K each to make them, but they calculated the lease on the basis for $34 to 44k. I.e., it was heavily subsidized.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61508-2003Oct21?language=printer

They put in $89 million to make 1115 cars. That's $80k each for *breakeven*. To make a small profit and handle liability, it'd be at least $100k.

It's like I said; the big automakers are simply not equipped to make cars in small volumes. They need to sell cars, minimum, by the tens of thousands per year unless they're high-end luxury, in which they generally will go for "only" thousands per year. 1115 cars at subsidized price (and "5000" potential buyers, most of who waffled when they heard the already subsidized price and limitations of the vehicles, doesn't nearly cut it).

Damn. Chelsea Sexton was also lying.

Look, it's words of a dealer versus GM itself. Hmm, who should I believe knows more about the economics of the car as a whole, one dealer selling subsidized cars or the company itself? Gee, that's a tricky one.

After all, the letter that GM sent to those on the waiting list was so upbeat, encouraging, and enthusiastic about what a wonderful opportunity it was to lease one.

Yeah, how dare a company do full disclosure before a purchase. You'd almost think they didn't want people to sue them or something.

Ah... so oil and auto companies don't conspire, just lawyers.

What? Now you're imagining a conspiracy among lawyers? Look -- *there are no conspiracies* involved. Corporate lawyers discourage risk because of how bloody much lawsuits costs. Lawsuits add a lot of cost to all products, but to cars, it's especially high.

GM already lost tens of millions of dollars on the EV, had shut down lines that it would have had to reopen (even more loss), saw no potential for profit any time soon, and you want them to, on top of this, have retained a liability risk. All while their stock was tanking. Remind me never to invest in any company that you start.

Bummer. The EV1 restoration team at WWU and the Seattle EVA are also lying.

Given that I just gave you video proof of a running all-electric EV1, and an article talking about one... or are your eyes in on the conspiracy, too? :) Or is video proof and published articles somehow not believable when a car club's wiki is? The requirement was that they not drive it on public streets. The cease and desist to WWU was for driving it on public streets. And there's no shock at all that they sent the cease and desist, since they were violating the terms and conditions. Notice how there was no cease and desist to the drag racing ultracapactor EV1? The one that wasn't driving on public streets? Nah, must have been an oversight by GM, right?

And while we're talking about conspiracies, what sort of conspiracy would involve trying to confiscate and destroy a vehicle to hide and destroy the tech while *donating copies of it to universities and museums*, including the bloody Smithsonian, probably the best way one could possibly publicize the technology?

Hey, let's expand the conspiracy while we're at it! The Smithsonian took the car off the display a couple years ago. I guess the Smithsonian is in the pocket of Big Oil too! Anything negative that happens with EVs must be the fault of Big Oil, right? Oh wait. GM is in the pocket of Big Oil, and the Smithsonian is in the pocket of GM, right? There's a big long chain of puppetry going on, right? Let's see, whose strings is the Smithsonian pulling...

Let's land back in the real world. GM is a company. Companies do what they need to for one thing: to profit. If GM thinks they can make money on something, such as selling an EV, by God, they're going to do it. As though an oil company could offer GM any sort of incentives to not do something that it thinks it could seriously profit on; GM makes sales in the *hundreds of billions of dollars every year*. You think any oil company could offer them relevant incentives to hurt their bottom line with that kind of sales? Let alone buy off *every major car company in the world*?

I foolishly thought that car museums actually prided themselves on maintaining their displays in working order

There's a difference between "working order" and "turn the keys and it starts". However, it's a moot point, as the one donated to the Smithsonian *did* have its batteries left in it. It was mainly the university donations that had them stripped so the cars wouldn't just be driven off the lot, so to speak.

I thought they were hybrids and electric motorcycles rather than pure EVs.

What do you think an electric motorcycle is if not an EV? Heck, the Aptera is technically an electric motorcycle.

E-flex is an EV drivetrain that can *also* use other sources to produce the electricty other than batteries (such as hydrogen, or a plug-in hybrid design, or whatnot). But it's primarily designed for EVs.

Really, though, why would you expect modern EVs (which are only now really starting to take off; at the end of the California rules, there were almost no EV manufacturers) to want to use NiMH when li-ion has clearly surpassed it? PEVE has the license to make NiMH batteries for US EV markets. They don't. What does that say to you?

And lets go back to your conspiracy. Why on earth would Cobasys be supporting hybrids and plug-in hybrids? I thought there was a conspiracy to try and make as much gas be consumed as possible. If they were trying to hold back the technology, why on Earth would they not simply refuse to license to any type of car? Do they want to reduce oil consumption, but only somewhat? Seriously, what's the logic here?

Oh, my. I guess Menahem Anderman was right after all. And Ed Kjaer from SCE was lying.

Actually, your article doesn't address whether spare parts were being made or not. They are. Even the conspiracy theorists usually as much, but stating that they're only made for replacement use-only for those vehicles under warranty (ignoring the PEVE license agreement).

Lastly, let me point out that it was *Panasonic's fault* that the lawsuits came about. They *stopped paying royalties* for NiMHs, but kept building them. What on Earth do you expect to happen in a situation like that? What do you think any patent holder would think? "Nah, let's let them throw away money on our investment. Why should we care to profit?" Think companies are nice and cuddly like that?

[Yanquetino]

KarenRei: You obviously have direct access to a vast amount of insider information from all those companies to state the facts so confidently and unequivocally --no matter what others claim.

To summarize your insights, then, Chevron-Texaco didn't buy the NiMH patents to hamstring EV manufacturers at all. They simply saw it as a good investment and thus expected --nay, wanted-- the auto makers to make more and more pure EVs with their batteries to maximize their return. What this means is that GM actually pulled a fast one on Chevron-Texaco! Shortly after the deal went through, GM abandoned their EV1 program, went back to ICEs, and Chevron-Texaco ended up stuck with a dead-end investment. They couldn't even hope to sell replacement batteries someday since all the remaining vehicles were crushed and gutted.

Wow. I'll bet Chevron-Texaco was disappointed --and pissed. Not only at GM, but also at CARB for dropping the ZEV mandate. Just think how much profit they could have made off those batteries, but had to settle for the reduced revenue from their gasoline instead.

Listen, if you can ever get hold of those undisclosed agreements, please be sure to pass them along so that I can eat a generous helping of crow.

[KarenRei]

You keep treating this like this was some sort of advanced stage of development. It was not. None of the companies involved were dealing with immediate profit; they were all dealing with future profit (or, in the case of the car manufacturers, lack of profit if they didn't), and it all hinged on CARB. 1000 cars is nothing to a company the size of GM. A couple thousand battery packs isn't even that much to a typical battery manufacturer. Remember, the Volt is being produced in 60-100k *per year* numbers in order to be profitable. That's what it takes.

What sort of insider info are you talking about? I've been trying to make sure that I reference everything. If you think think I didn't reference something, please, by all means, let me know.

Let's take a look at where your conspiracy stands. In 1990, GM had a prototype EV that was already incredibly advanced. Nonetheless, with this incredibly advanced EV, it still took them six years after the new CARB standards to bring a vehicle to market. GM was really serious about it, even though they only made a little over a thousand of them. All of the other manufacturers were also really serious, even though they made even less. The vehicle only cost $34K and wasn't a loss leader, despite that, ignoring profit and liability, GM spent $80K on each of them (meaning that profit would be over $100K. There were 5,000 people who wanted to buy them, even though there weren't really, as the vast majority of them didn't follow up after being informed of the stats and (subsidized) price. Then, in 2000, Chevron-Texaco bought Cobasys. Panasonic stopped paying the licensing fees, and they were in the right for doing so. Cobasys tried to get the money for the licensing fees for the patent that they spent a fortune on, and they were in the wrong for doing so. Chevron was trying to sabotage this obviously profitable vehicle by pressing suit in 2001, yet not a single EV manufacturer stopped making them until, out of sheer coincidence, the CARB rules were overturned, wherein they *all* stopped making them. This obviously was oil company repression, having nothing to do with the CARB rule changes. GM had already shut down almost all of their part lines, but somehow it was the lack of batteries that killed it (once again, having nothing to do with the CARB rule changes right before they all discontinued their EVs). Despite the tens of billions of dollars that go into facing lawsuits, and the fact that waivers don't begin to eliminate lawsuits, liability was just a cheap excuse. And keeping part lines open, who cares? The fact that GM was leaking money like a sieve was irrelevant. GM was so enthralled with the profit potential for their revolutionary EV1 that they sold the patent for the vehicle's batteries to a third party. Apparently Chevron had paid GM, so that even though GM saw electric cars as having huge profit potential, the potential to replace gasoline cars, and the fact that GM's income is in the hundreds of billions of dollars per year, Chevron apparently had that kind of disposable income so that GM would sabotage their trillions of dollars of future income. Big, big payoff! And they made these billions to trillions of dollar secret deals without the SEC or IRS noticing. And they not only did this with GM, but also with the other major auto manufacturers. So in the pocket of Chevron was GM that they actively continue trying to repress the EV1 to this day. Of course, they had a moment of insanity and instead of destroying them all, they outright donated several dozen to universities and museums where everyone could see them. But then tried to repress them after that. The fact that GM destroyed the ones they repossessed (obviously for reasons other than liability and part lines) instead of leaving them sitting in warehouses until the end of time is clear evidence of this repression, as is the fact that the former owners offered a staggering two million (*gasp*) dollars. Meanwhile, Cobasys continues to try to repress EVs to keep a gasoline monopoly going, despite the fact that their licensees sell EVs and they re-licensed with PEVE to allow them to make EV batteries. They don't want EVs, but hybrids are just fine, because they want to lower the demand for oil, but not eliminate it. Or something like that. And everyone is clamoring for NiMHs, ignoring that they're rapidly becoming obsolete tech, but they just simply can't get them (despite the fact that Cobasys lists their 9500 EV pack as for sale, and that they've licensed with other manufacturers to be able to produce them).

Am I getting all of this correct?

[Yanquetino]

Am I getting all of this correct?
Uh... I guess...? I am evidently in no position to purport expertise in these matters. I learn something new everyday, and this weekend sure set me straight about the message and the people in Paine's documentary. The only thing I can do, then, is keep my napkin handy for that fowl meal.