The auto industry is reeling so badly that it’s hard to imagine it generating a huge money-making market.
Auto companies are in horrible shape. Will GM survive? Has Toyota seen its best days? Is Ford’s funk temporary or permanent?
You should stay away from them. But why not invest in the next big technology the auto companies will need?
All of them have plans to introduce or step up production of battery-driven cars beginning around 2011-12.
The batteries these cars are using today won’t be the batteries they will be using in a few years. Nickel-cadmium batteries are on their way out. And on the way in are lithium-ion batteries.
The lithiums have twice the capacity and half the weight of nickel-cadmium batteries. Plus, unlike the nickel-cadmium ones, they work fine in hot and cold weather.
This market is flying under the radar. From $9 billion today, it could reach $150 billion in the next ten years.
There are about 30 car companies around the world dying to get their hands on this new technology. The race has already begun. And those companies that have already begun production have the best chance of becoming big players in this market.
With the market getting ready to experience explosive growth, the stakes are huge.
By Andrew Gordon
Posted 20 Jan 2009
read more articles in www.stockmarkerwatch.info
Disclaimer…The subject matters expressed above is based purely on technical analysis and personal opinions of the writer. it is not a solicitation to buy or sell
Showing posts with label Autos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Autos. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Technology For Electric Vehicles Is Moving, Only It Is In Reverse
My previous articles on General Motors and the EV1 generated quite a bit of reader feedback, and many of you asked the same question:
If GM could build the EV1 to go up to 150 miles on a full charge 10 years ago, why can the Volt only go 40 miles on a full charge today?
Excellent question. Surely, battery technology has advanced in the past 10 years, right?
Yes, but that’s not the real problem.
The battery pack powering the EV1 was NiMH (nickel metal hydride). The Volt will be powered by lithium ion batteries like the ones in laptops and cell phones.
So, yes, battery technology has advanced in the last 10 years, but I think the problem of reduced battery range goes beyond that. I think the “regression” in battery capability is intentional. Here’s why:
In 1994 General Motors bought a controlling stake in ECD Ovonics. By doing so, GM gained control over the development and manufacturing of Ovonics large NiMH batteries. This move also provided GM with all the patents on the batteries.
As mentioned, these NiMH batteries were used in the final examples of the EV1 in 1999, and reportedly worked flawlessly.
Fast forward a couple of years to 2001, and a relatively unpublicized transaction took place. GM sold its share of ECD Ovonics (and the patents) to…
Texaco.
Yep, the oil company.
Six days later, Chevron completed its’ purchase of Texaco. So now the battery technology that allowed the EV1 to run for 150 miles without a single drop of gasoline is in the hands of one of the largest oil companies in the world.
In 2003, Texaco Ovonics Battery Systems was renamed Cobasys, a 50/50 joint venture between Chevron and ECD Ovonics. Independently, Chevron owns a 20% stake in ECD Ovonics.
By now, you are probably guessing that an oil company with the patents to a very effective battery technology would never let that technology see the light of day. It could very well put them out of business.
To state that the technology was buried is not entirely true. But what Cobasys did is extensively limit the ability for any one to get their hands on NiMH batteries. And anyone found utilizing the NiMH battery technology that Cobasys had the patents on were sued and sued often, such as Panasonic. In essence, Cobasys controlled the market for NiMH batteries, and they were doing their best to make sure none of the batteries made it into any electronic vehicle.
And that brings us nearly full-circle to the current crop of electronic vehicles, including the Volt. The Volt, as mentioned, will run on costlier lithium ion batteries, which will drive up the cost of the Volt. GM could have used the cheaper and proven NiMH batteries, but alas, they sold the patents to Cobasys (Chevron). Do you think Chevron would allow the Volt to be produced with NiMH batteries, eliminating the need for a gasoline engine to supply power after 40 miles? Not a chance.
Now, to be fair, Cobasys is allowing their NiMH batteries to be used in the Chevy Malibu hybrid, the Saturn Aura Hybrid, and the Saturn Vue Hybrid. But all of those vehicles are hybrids, so they still rely on gasoline. Not one vehicle is utilizing Cobasys batteries as the sole source of power.
But it gets better. The company chosen to supply the Lithium Ion batteries for the Volt is called A123Systems. Guess who they are partnered with? Cobasys.
Great.
So, to bring this all together, the battery technology from 10 years ago that powered a car 150 miles, is now controlled by an oil company, and any new hybrid vehicle in production now relies on batteries from an oil company.
Is it any wonder that we are 10 years down the road from the EV1, but have yet to see a true mass market electric vehicle? Not when the technology is owned by an oil company. I guess we can only sit and wait until 2014 when the patents expire.
Christian Hill
Posted 04Dec 2008
more articles in www.stockmarketwatch.info
Disclaimer…The subject matters expressed above is based purely on technical analysis and personal opinions of the writer. it is not a solicitation to buy or sell.
If GM could build the EV1 to go up to 150 miles on a full charge 10 years ago, why can the Volt only go 40 miles on a full charge today?
Excellent question. Surely, battery technology has advanced in the past 10 years, right?
Yes, but that’s not the real problem.
The battery pack powering the EV1 was NiMH (nickel metal hydride). The Volt will be powered by lithium ion batteries like the ones in laptops and cell phones.
So, yes, battery technology has advanced in the last 10 years, but I think the problem of reduced battery range goes beyond that. I think the “regression” in battery capability is intentional. Here’s why:
In 1994 General Motors bought a controlling stake in ECD Ovonics. By doing so, GM gained control over the development and manufacturing of Ovonics large NiMH batteries. This move also provided GM with all the patents on the batteries.
As mentioned, these NiMH batteries were used in the final examples of the EV1 in 1999, and reportedly worked flawlessly.
Fast forward a couple of years to 2001, and a relatively unpublicized transaction took place. GM sold its share of ECD Ovonics (and the patents) to…
Texaco.
Yep, the oil company.
Six days later, Chevron completed its’ purchase of Texaco. So now the battery technology that allowed the EV1 to run for 150 miles without a single drop of gasoline is in the hands of one of the largest oil companies in the world.
In 2003, Texaco Ovonics Battery Systems was renamed Cobasys, a 50/50 joint venture between Chevron and ECD Ovonics. Independently, Chevron owns a 20% stake in ECD Ovonics.
By now, you are probably guessing that an oil company with the patents to a very effective battery technology would never let that technology see the light of day. It could very well put them out of business.
To state that the technology was buried is not entirely true. But what Cobasys did is extensively limit the ability for any one to get their hands on NiMH batteries. And anyone found utilizing the NiMH battery technology that Cobasys had the patents on were sued and sued often, such as Panasonic. In essence, Cobasys controlled the market for NiMH batteries, and they were doing their best to make sure none of the batteries made it into any electronic vehicle.
And that brings us nearly full-circle to the current crop of electronic vehicles, including the Volt. The Volt, as mentioned, will run on costlier lithium ion batteries, which will drive up the cost of the Volt. GM could have used the cheaper and proven NiMH batteries, but alas, they sold the patents to Cobasys (Chevron). Do you think Chevron would allow the Volt to be produced with NiMH batteries, eliminating the need for a gasoline engine to supply power after 40 miles? Not a chance.
Now, to be fair, Cobasys is allowing their NiMH batteries to be used in the Chevy Malibu hybrid, the Saturn Aura Hybrid, and the Saturn Vue Hybrid. But all of those vehicles are hybrids, so they still rely on gasoline. Not one vehicle is utilizing Cobasys batteries as the sole source of power.
But it gets better. The company chosen to supply the Lithium Ion batteries for the Volt is called A123Systems. Guess who they are partnered with? Cobasys.
Great.
So, to bring this all together, the battery technology from 10 years ago that powered a car 150 miles, is now controlled by an oil company, and any new hybrid vehicle in production now relies on batteries from an oil company.
Is it any wonder that we are 10 years down the road from the EV1, but have yet to see a true mass market electric vehicle? Not when the technology is owned by an oil company. I guess we can only sit and wait until 2014 when the patents expire.
Christian Hill
Posted 04Dec 2008
more articles in www.stockmarketwatch.info
Disclaimer…The subject matters expressed above is based purely on technical analysis and personal opinions of the writer. it is not a solicitation to buy or sell.
Monday, December 1, 2008
More Related Articles Automaker
US auto sales plunged 32 percent in October to lows unseen in a quarter-century, led by a 45 percent drop at General Motors Corp in a sales collapse that hit every major automaker and offered little sign that the industry has hit bottom in its largest market.
Hurt by tighter terms on auto financing by skittish banks and finance companies and the worsening economy, US auto sales fell to their weakest month since February 1983, sales data released on Nov. 3 showed.
The decline in US October sales represented the first results since word emerged last month of merger talks between GM and Chrysler LLC…
Auto sales for four European countries reporting on Nov. 3 showed the spreading effect of the slowdown. Sales fell 40 percent in Spain and 19 percent in Italy.
The United States, the world's largest vehicle market, remains at the industry's vortex. October represented the weakest month for US auto sales on a per-capita basis since the end of World War Two, GM said.
– Reuters
more related articles Automaker Bailout: I-A - Coca-Leaf click here
www.stockmarketwatch.info
posted 28 Nov 2008
Disclaimer...The subject matters expressed above is based purely on technical analysis and personal opinions of the writer. it is not a solicitation to buy or sell.
Hurt by tighter terms on auto financing by skittish banks and finance companies and the worsening economy, US auto sales fell to their weakest month since February 1983, sales data released on Nov. 3 showed.
The decline in US October sales represented the first results since word emerged last month of merger talks between GM and Chrysler LLC…
Auto sales for four European countries reporting on Nov. 3 showed the spreading effect of the slowdown. Sales fell 40 percent in Spain and 19 percent in Italy.
The United States, the world's largest vehicle market, remains at the industry's vortex. October represented the weakest month for US auto sales on a per-capita basis since the end of World War Two, GM said.
– Reuters
more related articles Automaker Bailout: I-A - Coca-Leaf click here
www.stockmarketwatch.info
posted 28 Nov 2008
Disclaimer...The subject matters expressed above is based purely on technical analysis and personal opinions of the writer. it is not a solicitation to buy or sell.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
The Bailout of The UAW
The UAW holds the key to the success of the U.S. auto industry.
The recent Senate hearing with the CEOs of the big three car manufacturers was better than most sitcoms. The CEOs were unable to answer questions about how they plan to pay back the loans, or just avoided the question, or how long the loans would keep them afloat, or how they would change their business models to avoid asking the taxpayers to bail them out again. It went on and on.
The CEO of GM was asked how long GM had to pay the employees of a plant that had been closed. His answer, “I don’t know.” How long do you think you would be working for him with answers like that? The senator who asked the question shook his head in disbelief and muttered, “Unbelievable!”
The whole time the panel questioned the CEOs about how they were cutting costs, how they plan to make their operations profitable and how they were reducing their pension liabilities, the answer was sitting at the end of the table; the President of the UAW.
Autoworkers of the big three are paid significantly more money and benefits than employees of Honda and Toyota in plants in this country. Not in Asia, but here. Honda and Toyota are profitable, the big three are back for more free money from you and me.
It is so simple. GM, Ford and Chrysler cannot be profitable with the labor agreements they have in place. It is impossible. No one bothered to ask the UAW president about this. He and his members are the answer.
The real issue isn’t will we bail them out, of course we will. A Democratic congress and a Democrat in the White House will not jeopardize a half a million blue-collar jobs, not if everyone knows they are doing it. If they could sneak it through, maybe, but not if everyone is watching.
The real question is how will congress explain to the unions, who were a big part of Obama winning the elections in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, that they have to take pay cuts for there to be any chance their companies and jobs will survive, even with the bailout.
What we have is a bottomless money pit or guaranteed failure for GM and Chrysler. Ford still has a chance.
Congress and the President-elect have a huge problem. Go the bail out route and have to do it again in eight months if the credit markets don’t loosen up. Or, don’t bail them out and have a bankruptcy that will shake this country at its very roots. Or, face the music and force the UAW to make the needed changes.
The political ramifications are so huge for any of the options, the most likely scenario is they will blame Bush and come up with some half-baked solution that just pushes the problem down the road for someone else to deal with.
Some would argue that the big three have been making cars no one wants, and that’s why they’re in this mess. Partially true, but no matter what cars they make and sell, they can’t be competitive if they don’t see some change in their labor and pension costs.
Even if the big three have an epiphany about the type of vehicles people want, and are willing to buy, if they magically shift gears and come out as the world leader in new alternative technology cars, put the huge technological advantage this country enjoys to work to make significant improvements to cars and then sell it to the rest of the world, they still won’t be competitive.
What this bailout amounts to is subsidizing the difference between the cost of the union contracts the big three have compared to the union contracts Honda and Toyota have.
The big three and the UAW signed these agreements in very different times than what we have now. Globalization, Japanese auto makers in Ohio and Indiana, a worldwide labor market that is putting pressure on wages everywhere and products being manufactured in other parts of the world at a fraction of our costs.
The issue is quite simple. Adapt or die. We cannot afford to continue to subsidize 1950s style management and union thinking. This is a fight we need to win and it will require sacrifice from more than just the taxpayers.
Steve McDonald
Posted 26 Nov 2008
more articles in www.stockmarketwatch.info
Disclaimer...The subject matters expressed above is based purely on technical analysis and personal opinions of the writer. it is not a solicitation to buy or sell
The recent Senate hearing with the CEOs of the big three car manufacturers was better than most sitcoms. The CEOs were unable to answer questions about how they plan to pay back the loans, or just avoided the question, or how long the loans would keep them afloat, or how they would change their business models to avoid asking the taxpayers to bail them out again. It went on and on.
The CEO of GM was asked how long GM had to pay the employees of a plant that had been closed. His answer, “I don’t know.” How long do you think you would be working for him with answers like that? The senator who asked the question shook his head in disbelief and muttered, “Unbelievable!”
The whole time the panel questioned the CEOs about how they were cutting costs, how they plan to make their operations profitable and how they were reducing their pension liabilities, the answer was sitting at the end of the table; the President of the UAW.
Autoworkers of the big three are paid significantly more money and benefits than employees of Honda and Toyota in plants in this country. Not in Asia, but here. Honda and Toyota are profitable, the big three are back for more free money from you and me.
It is so simple. GM, Ford and Chrysler cannot be profitable with the labor agreements they have in place. It is impossible. No one bothered to ask the UAW president about this. He and his members are the answer.
The real issue isn’t will we bail them out, of course we will. A Democratic congress and a Democrat in the White House will not jeopardize a half a million blue-collar jobs, not if everyone knows they are doing it. If they could sneak it through, maybe, but not if everyone is watching.
The real question is how will congress explain to the unions, who were a big part of Obama winning the elections in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, that they have to take pay cuts for there to be any chance their companies and jobs will survive, even with the bailout.
What we have is a bottomless money pit or guaranteed failure for GM and Chrysler. Ford still has a chance.
Congress and the President-elect have a huge problem. Go the bail out route and have to do it again in eight months if the credit markets don’t loosen up. Or, don’t bail them out and have a bankruptcy that will shake this country at its very roots. Or, face the music and force the UAW to make the needed changes.
The political ramifications are so huge for any of the options, the most likely scenario is they will blame Bush and come up with some half-baked solution that just pushes the problem down the road for someone else to deal with.
Some would argue that the big three have been making cars no one wants, and that’s why they’re in this mess. Partially true, but no matter what cars they make and sell, they can’t be competitive if they don’t see some change in their labor and pension costs.
Even if the big three have an epiphany about the type of vehicles people want, and are willing to buy, if they magically shift gears and come out as the world leader in new alternative technology cars, put the huge technological advantage this country enjoys to work to make significant improvements to cars and then sell it to the rest of the world, they still won’t be competitive.
What this bailout amounts to is subsidizing the difference between the cost of the union contracts the big three have compared to the union contracts Honda and Toyota have.
The big three and the UAW signed these agreements in very different times than what we have now. Globalization, Japanese auto makers in Ohio and Indiana, a worldwide labor market that is putting pressure on wages everywhere and products being manufactured in other parts of the world at a fraction of our costs.
The issue is quite simple. Adapt or die. We cannot afford to continue to subsidize 1950s style management and union thinking. This is a fight we need to win and it will require sacrifice from more than just the taxpayers.
Steve McDonald
Posted 26 Nov 2008
more articles in www.stockmarketwatch.info
Disclaimer...The subject matters expressed above is based purely on technical analysis and personal opinions of the writer. it is not a solicitation to buy or sell
Thursday, November 13, 2008
What’s Going to Stimulate Auto Sales?
Another stimulus check should be coming our way as the market keeps falling.
If it doesn't happen as one of the final acts of the Bush administration, it will happen as one of the first acts of the Obama one.
The question is, will it help the fast-falling auto industry?
It'll help retailers. The overwhelming evidence is that the last round of stimulus checks helped pick up consumer spending in the second and third quarters.
But big-ticket retailers like auto dealers play in another sandbox entirely. Unless these checks have a couple of more zero's than the previous ones, the auto industry's fate is tied to getting another $25-billion loan package from the government.
The auto industry needs it. And from Obama's latest statements, it looks like it will get it. And just in time.
The auto industry is getting battered from three trends...
1. A worsening global economic slowdown
2. A global credit crisis which has dried up lending (including for autos)
3. A strengthening dollar, which makes American cars more expensive in overseas markets
The numbers published last week on October sales were abysmal. Toyota reported a 23 percent drop, Ford a 30 percent drop, GM 45 percent and Chrysler 35 percent.
GM is burning cash so quickly it warned this past Friday it'll run out of money during the first half of next year. It sounds like GM is in shock: "In my 27 years, I have never seen a month like this. It was like somebody turned off the lights in the month of October," a GM official said.
The auto industry is in a free fall. September's auto sales numbers were terrible. It showed a loss of 30 percent. October's was worse. It showed a loss of 33 percent.
It's bad and getting worse. By all means don't go bottom-fishing in this sector now. If anything, shorting the sector makes much more sense.
By Andrew Gordon
Posted 11Nov2008
Can Big Oil Find Ways to Grow?
read this article in www.stockmarketwatch.info
Note: few of the earlier articles might be deleted to make room for new once.
Disclaimer...The subject matters expressed above is based purely on technical analysis and personal opinions of the writer. it is not a solicitation to buy or sell.
If it doesn't happen as one of the final acts of the Bush administration, it will happen as one of the first acts of the Obama one.
The question is, will it help the fast-falling auto industry?
It'll help retailers. The overwhelming evidence is that the last round of stimulus checks helped pick up consumer spending in the second and third quarters.
But big-ticket retailers like auto dealers play in another sandbox entirely. Unless these checks have a couple of more zero's than the previous ones, the auto industry's fate is tied to getting another $25-billion loan package from the government.
The auto industry needs it. And from Obama's latest statements, it looks like it will get it. And just in time.
The auto industry is getting battered from three trends...
1. A worsening global economic slowdown
2. A global credit crisis which has dried up lending (including for autos)
3. A strengthening dollar, which makes American cars more expensive in overseas markets
The numbers published last week on October sales were abysmal. Toyota reported a 23 percent drop, Ford a 30 percent drop, GM 45 percent and Chrysler 35 percent.
GM is burning cash so quickly it warned this past Friday it'll run out of money during the first half of next year. It sounds like GM is in shock: "In my 27 years, I have never seen a month like this. It was like somebody turned off the lights in the month of October," a GM official said.
The auto industry is in a free fall. September's auto sales numbers were terrible. It showed a loss of 30 percent. October's was worse. It showed a loss of 33 percent.
It's bad and getting worse. By all means don't go bottom-fishing in this sector now. If anything, shorting the sector makes much more sense.
By Andrew Gordon
Posted 11Nov2008
Can Big Oil Find Ways to Grow?
read this article in www.stockmarketwatch.info
Note: few of the earlier articles might be deleted to make room for new once.
Disclaimer...The subject matters expressed above is based purely on technical analysis and personal opinions of the writer. it is not a solicitation to buy or sell.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Will GM Abandon The Volt Too?
The Chevrolet Volt is scheduled to roll off the assembly lines in Hamtramck sometime in late 2010. The vehicle will be powered by onboard batteries and a 1.4 liter 4 cylinder engine that will kick on after the 40 mile range of the battery charge has run out. General Motors likes to refer to it as an “electric car” but in reality it is a hybrid gas-electric vehicle.
The vehicle should provide a long enough range on just the battery charge for an estimated 75 percent of American's to be able to make it to work and back on a single charge. Re-charging the batteries will only take an estimated 10 hours. It is very likely that many who purchase the Volt could go weeks on just battery power assuming they re-charge every night.
Some of the technological innovation that has gone into production of the EV1 is simply amazing:
Aluminum frame
Regenerative braking
Super-light magnesium wheels
Lowest co-efficient of drag on a production vehicle
Oops. Did I say the EV1?
I sure did.
The EV1 was an all-electric car built by GM in the late ‘90s that had a cult-like following and was the centerpiece of the film “Who Killed The Electric Car”. The innovative aspects of the EV1 that I listed above are just some of the reasons why the car was a breakthrough, and unfortunately, may have helped contribute to its demise.
The first generation of the EV1 had a range of 55 to 75 miles on a single charge, and by the time the third generation of nickel -metal hydride batteries were installed, the range was 75 to 150 miles. Keep in mind, this car was battery only, with no gas engine to increase the mileage. Also, the battery could be fully charged in only 8 hours, and could get an 80 percent of capacity charge in only 3 hours.
So, the Volt has worse “battery only” mileage than the now 10-year old EV1 technology, and takes longer to fully charge the batteries. So much for advancements.
I guess the curious part of this whole thing is the weight GM is putting behind the Volt. CEO Rick Wagoner has called the Volt “...the biggest step yet in our industry's move away from our historic, virtually complete reliance on petroleum to power vehicles." This is the same company that five years ago completely pulled the plug (pardon the pun) on the EV1, citing a lack of consumer interest in electric vehicles. Nevermind that GM would not sell the EV1 to consumers, it would only allow leases of the car. When word got out that production of the EV1 would end and leases couldn't be renewed, owners were willing to buy the cars from GM. This was denied, and all EV1's were rounded up and sent to the crusher. Perfectly fine, fully-operational electric vehicles scrapped for no apparent reason.
Did I forget to mention maintenance costs? With the EV1, it was virtually non-existent. No oil change, oil filters, spark plugs, etc. since there was no internal-combustion engine. This is one of the reasons why many feel GM quickly abandoned the car, they couldn't make any money on the upkeep, eliminating a very lucrative revenue stream for the company.
It is sad to think what could have been with the EV1 had GM dedicated time to see how far they could have pushed technology in the last 10 years. Battery advancement has grown, new composite materials are available for further weight reduction, and consumer demand for electric vehicles seemingly just peaked when gas went over $4 a gallon.
Instead, we are now offered a vehicle with worse mileage, longer charge times, still reliant on gas to travel further than 40 miles, and presumably higher maintenance costs. Given the popularity of the Toyota Prius for its high gas mileage, had GM been selling EV1s for the past few years instead of killing it off, they probably could have sold as many as the produced, and not only been leading the electric vehicle movement, but also improved it's own financial stability along the way.
Christian Hill
Posted 28oct2008
Read more blogs and articles in www.stockmarketwatch.info
Disclaimer...The subject matters expressed above is based purely on technical analysis and personal opinions of the writer. it is not a solicitation to buy or sell.
The vehicle should provide a long enough range on just the battery charge for an estimated 75 percent of American's to be able to make it to work and back on a single charge. Re-charging the batteries will only take an estimated 10 hours. It is very likely that many who purchase the Volt could go weeks on just battery power assuming they re-charge every night.
Some of the technological innovation that has gone into production of the EV1 is simply amazing:
Aluminum frame
Regenerative braking
Super-light magnesium wheels
Lowest co-efficient of drag on a production vehicle
Oops. Did I say the EV1?
I sure did.
The EV1 was an all-electric car built by GM in the late ‘90s that had a cult-like following and was the centerpiece of the film “Who Killed The Electric Car”. The innovative aspects of the EV1 that I listed above are just some of the reasons why the car was a breakthrough, and unfortunately, may have helped contribute to its demise.
The first generation of the EV1 had a range of 55 to 75 miles on a single charge, and by the time the third generation of nickel -metal hydride batteries were installed, the range was 75 to 150 miles. Keep in mind, this car was battery only, with no gas engine to increase the mileage. Also, the battery could be fully charged in only 8 hours, and could get an 80 percent of capacity charge in only 3 hours.
So, the Volt has worse “battery only” mileage than the now 10-year old EV1 technology, and takes longer to fully charge the batteries. So much for advancements.
I guess the curious part of this whole thing is the weight GM is putting behind the Volt. CEO Rick Wagoner has called the Volt “...the biggest step yet in our industry's move away from our historic, virtually complete reliance on petroleum to power vehicles." This is the same company that five years ago completely pulled the plug (pardon the pun) on the EV1, citing a lack of consumer interest in electric vehicles. Nevermind that GM would not sell the EV1 to consumers, it would only allow leases of the car. When word got out that production of the EV1 would end and leases couldn't be renewed, owners were willing to buy the cars from GM. This was denied, and all EV1's were rounded up and sent to the crusher. Perfectly fine, fully-operational electric vehicles scrapped for no apparent reason.
Did I forget to mention maintenance costs? With the EV1, it was virtually non-existent. No oil change, oil filters, spark plugs, etc. since there was no internal-combustion engine. This is one of the reasons why many feel GM quickly abandoned the car, they couldn't make any money on the upkeep, eliminating a very lucrative revenue stream for the company.
It is sad to think what could have been with the EV1 had GM dedicated time to see how far they could have pushed technology in the last 10 years. Battery advancement has grown, new composite materials are available for further weight reduction, and consumer demand for electric vehicles seemingly just peaked when gas went over $4 a gallon.
Instead, we are now offered a vehicle with worse mileage, longer charge times, still reliant on gas to travel further than 40 miles, and presumably higher maintenance costs. Given the popularity of the Toyota Prius for its high gas mileage, had GM been selling EV1s for the past few years instead of killing it off, they probably could have sold as many as the produced, and not only been leading the electric vehicle movement, but also improved it's own financial stability along the way.
Christian Hill
Posted 28oct2008
Read more blogs and articles in www.stockmarketwatch.info
Disclaimer...The subject matters expressed above is based purely on technical analysis and personal opinions of the writer. it is not a solicitation to buy or sell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)