GM announces “Volt” plug-in hybrid concept car
The plug-in revolution is gaining steam.
There’s a lot of excitement building around the North American International Auto Show in Detroit (a four-day event beginning today), where GM is introducing a concept car called the Volt — a flex-fuel plug-in hybrid that the world’s largest automaker is serious about mass-producing. You can read about the Volt in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Forbes and IEEE Spectrum. Here’s GM’s press release, which was put out this morning.
“Today, there are more than 800 million cars and trucks in the world. In 15 years, that will grow to 1.1 billion vehicles. We can’t continue to be 98-percent dependent on oil to meet our transportation needs. Something has to give. We think the Chevrolet Volt helps bring about the diversity that is needed. If electricity met only 10 percent of the world’s transportation needs, the impact would be huge,” said Larry Burns, GM’s vice-president of research and development and strategic planning.
Felix Kramer, founder of California Cars Initiative, or CalCars, applauded GM for taking this important first step. “We commend GM for being first out of the starting gate in the Great Plug-In Car Race of 2007,” he said in a release sent out to media and bloggers. “GM’s announcements are the biggest victories yet for CalCars.org and other PHEV advocates. Now, our campaign is in third gear.”
Kramer added: “We’ll work with the auto industry, government, fleet buyers and advocates to get to the day — soon, not in a decade — when customers can buy PHEVs as easily as any other car.”
Tyler Hamilton is senior energy reporter and columnist for the Toronto Star, Canada's largest daily newspaper. In addition to this Clean Break blog, Tyler writes a weekly column of the same name that discusses trends, happenings and innovators in the cleantech market. This blog is a personal project started in April 2005. It is not an official blog of the newspaper. Tyler can be reached at tyler@cleanbreak.ca
January 7th, 2007 at 10:19 am
This is exciting. I hope that it’s a serious effort, and that they’ll come through on production instead of just conceptualizing.
I wish they hadn’t cut the electric range quite so close. 40 miles just isn’t that far. On the other hand if the numbers they give are accurate and this would cover 78% of driving, then that’s big.
If they can do this for a price most people can pay, then we’re talking.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:57 am
I agree with the “This is exciting.” This is more then I expected from GM, but of course there are initial limitations. If you look at the IEEE report, they explain the limited range. They car as spec now has only 16 KWHs of storage. From the electric cars I have seen so far, most seem to be around 35 KWHs, this providea a range around 110 to 200 miles (see Phoenix Motors). The batteries for their car SUV/SUT are 35 1260 WH 12 volt batteries, which I believe the car is spec’ed for 35 KWHs and 420 volts. The batteries have now tested for 15,000 cycles, which should be way more then 12 years (like 40). Altairnano.com has delivered 11 set for the end of 2006 and is scheduled to 500 sets in 2007, and I believe they were trying to be ready for 6000 for 2008, so I would say they are in production.
The best part of this discussion and the GM announcement is that the race is on to the correct type of hybrid, and with this type and the new and improved batteries and Ultracapators, we should be able to see straight electric cars that would be produced in volume and well priced
Tom McGreer, Green Works.
January 8th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
What is GM talking about when they say the EV-1 failed due to “limited range?” Even with the old lead-acid batteries I could get to and from work with the 60 mile range they provided since my round trip to work is 49 miles. The Nickel-Metal Hydride batteries that gave the EV-1 increased range of 110-120 miles would, of course, given me more than enough range for a day’s commute.
I do applaude GM’s new car, The Volt, but I will wait and see. I’ve seen high mileage concept cars for decades that never saw the inside of a show room floor. Still it is a plus that it is a plug-in series hybrid and that GM is emphasizing the electric plug-in part of the car. Eventually the public will be comfortable with electric propulsion and the internal combustion engine will be phased out of the car in future remakes.
Making it a 4 door sedan will make it practical for those who want to take the wife and 1.5 kids on errands near home too and with 40 miles on a charge that is plenty of range.
January 8th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
It is not so much limited range as it is limited range and hours to charge. The newest batteries are getting more then 10 years in life, enough storage to go 110 to 200 mile in a real car (see Pheonix Moter’s SUV/SUT), and 10 minute charge capability. Add to that new Ultracapators and enough storage and you should be able to go 200 to 400 miles between charges; then stop for lunch and get recharged and ready for another 200 to 400 miles.
There are also so many options. GM could sell the car without the engine-generator and with only the current 16 KWH storage; then say, Option 1, add storage to get between a 110 and 200 mile range; or Option 2, Added Engine-generator and go anywhere any time, but still need ICE engine fuel; Option 3, both Option 1 and 2.
Therefore if you were never planning to use the car without recharging over 40 (or so ) miles; you would need NO options. If you go farther but less then 200 miles, you could do just Option 2. If you drive long distances, you could do just option 2, and so on.
The only thing this GM announcement will really do is get very body moving toward electric drive cars and that is a really good thing. As for GM this is one of their last changes and I hope they do it right but am not counting on it.
Tom McGreer, Green Works.
January 8th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
What is the difference in overall environmental impact between a car that burns fossil fuels and a car that runs on electricity that was created by a fossil fuel burning power plant?
January 8th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
A few things:
1) The grid is increasingly becoming emissions free as we reduce our dependence on coal and other fossil fuels through a combination of nuclear and renewables. If we move to clean coal, at least the CO2 that is produced would be captured and other pollutants could be captured at point of release.
2) Charging a car overnight when we have surplus nuclear baseload or when the wind blows more assures greater use of clean electricity. Indeed, regulation could stipulate that all charging be done overnight between certain hours.
3) The cars themselves could be plugged into the grid and used to shave peaks by providing on-site electricity during peak times, meaning less reliance on imports that tend to be coal-based.
4) Because plug-in hybrids like the “Volt” will also be flex-fuel, they will also run on a renewable fuel like ethanol for longer trips.
Those are just a few of the advantages off the top of my head.
January 8th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
I agree Tyler, but let’s add some to the mix. Should we get Solar Panel to continue to go down in price; we could add enough to recharge the car. There are MANY more issues then grid issues, unless you include grid as all the power stations needed to be added. And, as for environmental who cares whether there is any difference between a car that burns fossil fuels or one that runs on electricity that burns fossil fuels. The point is cost to the individual and what happens in the long run. Should you get more on the grid; good; then I’ll help come up with more grid and power for it. But first we need to start down the road of electric powered cars and this is just another step.
As an another problem, think about this, if you have 35 KWH to charge and you wished to get back on the road in 10 minutes. It would take 210KWatts for 10 minutes. You would need to use a 250KW power Supply. If you could wait an hour you would need only 35KWatts (of course by definition). In both cases that is one hell of a power supply. Who’s going to build, maintain, repair and pay for these power stations? Should you wish to do it at home and using 220 volts; would need (in a preface world) 35K/220 = about 160 Amps. My home is 150; therefore, let’s go to 2 hours 160/2=80 amps. This is do-able, but you can see 3 hours gets you into current house hold large items (160-3= 53 or a 60 amp circuit.
When I think grid, I think of all the places along the trip that would have the ability to provide such a service. As an example the States along the Interstate highway should be required to begin the process of providing “fast” charging services. The high dollar initial start-ups costs are some things the states could help with. Before you begin that though, you need to ask; what is the standard, meaning there can only be so many variations, like type of connectors, maximum Voltages, who can handle it, and so on. The standards need to be set so car manufactures know what to design too and power station the same. This is the kind of planning which is needed
Instead of wearing about CO2, let’s get the plan right. What is it you want? If you think cutting CO2 without coming up with something else to replace the service; then you are out of it! The chicken or the egg is saying which comes first a replacement and then cut back or just cut back and recession. We are moving forward, but it is not going to happen over night. But the best thing we can do is start as soon as possible down the road toward electric powered cars because that is the future whether it make sense or not right now.
Tom McGreer, Green Works
January 9th, 2007 at 1:15 am
Hi Tyler & Tom,
These are good news for EVs either from GM or from Phoenix Motors. Do we know what is the cost of the altairno battery pack, and what is the selling price of the related SUV from P. Motors ?
Thanks.
W.>
January 9th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
For a great discussion of grid vs. gas or diesel fuel, see Tesla Motor’s white paper.
Stephen
January 10th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
If you look back to the EV1 days you will see that standards are already in place and that an infrastructure was on the way. Car parks with chargers for EV’s and home charger modules using a standard induction charger. It’s really not all that complicated. Add in a 120/220 plug and we are rolling. Most larger institutions, factories etc consume a ton of power as it is, and support the amperage for relatively fast charging. It’s more a matter of getting them installed.
Taking 2 hours to charge at home is OK by me. Thats enough charge to get me where I want to go over my lunch break. If i need a quick charge, I can go pay a premium at a ‘gas’ station (i suppose they will have to change the name to ‘energy station’).
As far as the source of the energy is concerned (gas vs electric from coal) an electric car will always be more efficient then its gas fueled friend. Even when creating the power from a coal plant, it’s still more efficient and direct. Gas engines are at BEST 40% efficient (and thats saying a lot) while electric is closer to 80-90%.
I’m glad that GM is exploring this unique hybrid, but I won’t get too excited just yet, taking into account its shady background with the EV1. Just like that vehicle, this one will be hated by some. Less drive train components to break down, uses less gas / oil… the story is relatively the same. I can tell you that I take my Prius to the shop a LOT less often then other cars I have owned – and it still has a transmission. (I’m expecting my first brake job in another 150,000 km).
January 10th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
I would like to congratulate you on your Prius. After I saw the spec, I was sold on the Toyota design. Then I got to rent one and was really sold, but the problem is it is still the wrong Hybrid. It is the best today, but wrong in that they do not rely on powering the car by using just the electric drive. I know the beliefs they had in there design; that people wanted something that they didn’t have to plug in. The first thing I said after driving it was, I would add 2 more modes of operation, that being Serial only (like the GM and Ford designs) and battery only. Now if they were to add additional battery storage and some display changes, you could go a few mikes and back on just the battery whether you plug it in or not. Should you deplete the battery, then the engine could just run faster, which would recharge while driving. The display could say, “You have xxx miles available at this speed, and so on.
What is good about the GM and now Ford’s design is the fact they are only electric drive and somehow you get electric power. Both have a very small storage amount of electric power and then rely on the APU to power the car. In GM case the APU is an ICE engine with generator and in Ford’s case it is a Fuel Cell, see http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=25150 . In any case the Prius style of using the ICE engine to push the car at all is on the way out, meaning everybody is now lining up to go the other way. I believe Toyota also. This is a really good thing. My dislike of both GM and Ford’s design is the limited electric storage. We must remember though, these are development specs and the real thing may be better. What you should be able to get is at least 60 miles before needing the APU. That should cover 70 to 85 percent of most local trips without the needed uses for the APU. Also note in GM’s design, it could be EEstor Ultacapators, which would add range I’m sure.
Tom McGreer – Green Works
PS: I’m trying to get some information on cost for the Altairnano batteries and car.
January 10th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
It is intereting that you mention EEstor as if their device is ready for prime time. There is nothing coming out of EEstor and an inquiry with Feel Good Cars gets an non commital answer involving 2008. I get the feeling that EEstor, while well intentioned, is not the real thing. None of the car companies are ever mentioning this devise.
January 10th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
The hybrid or fully electric car is obviously the prime market for high capacity electricity storing system. Some of the Lithium Ion companies are working feverishly with the car companies on getting their batteries as the specified ones.
You would think that EEstor would make a supreme effort to get into the game, so that a car company would build their system around their “capacitor”, and yet none of the car companies ever mentiones EEstor. I assume they realize that EEstor will not have a system in the forseeable future, if ever.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:58 am
Tom – I agree that the idea of the all electric drive is a BIG step in the right direction, and if it had been available in another vehicle at my time of purchase, you can bet that I would be motoring around in one! I had been wondering when an electric drive car with gas generator backup would come about (its not rocket science). It’s a very logical move as it removes many of the mechanical components (especially those that see harsh operating conditions like acceleration) from the drive train… and that means a reduction in cost. The only setback, as they discovered with the EV1, was that service centers will a hit because, well, they don’t need nearly as much service with the fewer mechanical parts to break down.
Right now it’s just a matter of time before one of the auto companies gets aggressive and produces one of these automobiles – and when the do, you can bet that the game will change in a hurry if the magical price point is met. I’m guessing thats the reason for the limited battery range too – thats the most expensive part. They mention the system being modular, so maybe you could just check the [x] extended battery option.
January 13th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
I think this is great news, and is obviously one being watched closely by those plugged into this source. I am concerned however that since the scientific community is telling us we have a decade to complete 60 – 80% cuts, (even less time than that now) can we wait two or even one generation of automobiles? We twiddled thumbs, or worse turned efficiency gains into the ability to produce more power, or squished them flat, in the EV1’s case, ignoring the scientists. Now we’ve got millions of guzzler-emitters taking daily to our roads. Science at the time told us we had to make drastic changes to our lifestyles, but we pushed those changes ahead of us to avoid the inconvenience. We are now at the point where climate change is staring us all in the face. We now don’t have time to bring these saving-grace fleets into service. Its not the situation of the cars of the future that need to change, it is the cars on the streets right now. This is the reality that we shoved forward onto ourselves by ignoring this problem 15 or more years back. Modernity’s acceleration in the pace of change reveals a difficult to swallow fact, that our own thinking is proving obsolete within our own lifetimes, and worse, catastrophic for everything around us, including our own children.
What will be the fate of the SUV’s roaring past my home this evening? Will they be publicly de-commissioned, taken out of service altogether? If not, will many of them be shipped to India or China, so that we can retain at least something from our investment, again allowing convenience to trump physics, again by shoving the problem somewhere else?
January 15th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Oops, that should read BEGIN 60 – 80% cuts, not complete them.
January 16th, 2007 at 10:29 am
First I would like to say that link to the Tesla Motor’s white paper was GREAT. It really shows the difference between the different solutions and makes a great case for electric cars off the grid. My reasons are a little different. To go to a Hydrogen system you must almost generate from scratch everything, but we have and electric infrastructure. We would only need to add to theat power station for recharging cars and the additional power plants. I propose the idea, that maybe not so many new plant because of the coming changes to the solar power. As we start to get $1 or $0.50 per Watt for solar cells, we should see a great push in the next few years. I for one any trying t figure out how I can get into this business as a new career. I was going to wait to 2012 to retire, but now if I can find a place for me in installing power stations and-or solar cells I’m out of here. I’ve even came up with a name Green Works.
I have some misinformation on the Phoenix Car and I was asked about Price for Phoenix Motors cars. I am still not getting official answers, but the good news is 75 are on order and they have 16 in Certification testing. Once Certified they are ready have fleet sales. Their thinking (and I think is the correct starting point) is for sales to Municipalities, Utilities, and other such fleets uses. The price could be around $42,000 for fleet orders. Take the link (provided by John at the end of the EEstor line) to read up on the Sale:
http://hybrids.autoblog.com/2007/01/14/phoenix-motors-takes-order-for-75-electritrucks
I need to correct some facts on the Phoenix SVT, I said it had 35 batteries. It has 28 batteries, which make the 35 KWH total, but the voltage is 336 Volts and not 420. They told me the complete battery assemble is about 1400 pounds (I did write that it down so my memory may not be correct). Altair generates the complete assemble and Phoenix installs that onto the car. The car comes in a box (or two) and is assembled at Phoenix’s site. They also will be coming out with a 7 passenger SUV at the end of this year. There are no details on this, but I am guessing there marketing ideas are for taxis.
As for Jp Warren’s CO2 issues, I look at this issue as you have to get started somewhere and that progress will happen faster then most people expect. As for the issue of what is on the road now; I also look at the changes in fuel sources for ICE engine cars, such as Biodiesel and Ethanol. As we go to self made fuels the carbon cycle should improve. Then there are the cost incentives, such as adding substantial tax to the ICE engine fuels. This should cost enough to get people to switch; then once there in an infrastructure and marketed alternatives (EV/Hydrogen and so on); then Government could buy out (could cost less then other solutions) the remaining ICE vehicles but for destruction and NOT for resale. This type of action could remote them. However, there are individuals who love the ICE cars and will fight to the end. (There are still people who think the tube amplifier is better then a transistor amplifier).
Jp, you seem to take the carbon problem as the big problem and it may be, but you can NOT start you journey at the end. It will take time and if the global warming issue seems to get worse or not (which some think); then more action can be taken. To provide you with additional thoughts, the real problem is Methane and Nitrate (from agriculture). These are the real known causes of global warm, especially Methane. This gas really holds the heat in. The Carbon cycle can be part of the problem, but Methane cycle is an inherently harder problem to solve. In 1977 a professor and the University of Illinois, explained that termites are the largest source of Methane and I add all living animals that uses plant live for food. I can see now the next thing that the environmentalist will want stopped is animals as food products, since the animals generate Methane as part of their food cycle.
One thing for sure, there are no easy solutions, but one thing also for sure, all cars will be electric drive some day, so the sooner we get started the better.
Tom McGreer Green Works
January 16th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Hi Tom, thanks for your inspiring thoughts.
I use a 1970’s mono tube radio to feed signal into and from my 2005 Sony minidisc digital recorder! (But I also hear where you’re coming from)
My point is basically that if you work backward from the 80% cuts from 1990 levels called for by the Union of Concerned Scientists, and take into account the lowest-hanging fruit phenomenon, by weighting those cuts to be heaviest in the first half of that period (up to 2025) and then again in the first half of that period (I’m saying the next decade) then its likely plausible to say that this means 60% cuts needed in roughly the next decade, which aligns with what Nicholas Stern said, in his review, that it all hangs on what we do in the next decade or two. (My calculations are weighted on the side of caution, based on the recent weather manifestations representing phenomena scientists were saying global warming would likely lead to the increased probability of occurrance of, but in their minds were still a long way off, not to be found here and now.)
I’m saying we need seriously consider ditching the SUV, unless all that trunk space is taken up with retrofit batteries, the ICE replaced with an armature-drive.
We didn’t march in the streets when the scientists were ignored by the government and the automakers, now maybe we’ll be walking them instead. Provides some time to reflect, and to envision and consider other ways out of this predicament.
January 16th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Hi JP, I wish I could answer you with a complete discussion, but I am trying to get ready for right knee replacement surgery, so my time is limited here. I am a believer in man, technology, and the fact that we usually find away to solve problems.
I believe there are two basic types people with all colors in between. I call them Artist and Engineers. There is value in both. The Artist doesn’t know how to do anything and the Engineer doesn’t know right from wrong. The Artist says this is happening and then that is happening and he says stop that because it is BAD. The Engineer says, Stop That – We can’t do that; there is NO other way and it is required. Now you have to ask; who it right? To me the answer is time.
In must cases the Engineer is right because he understand what is needed to get thing done, but the artist may have correct position on the over all problem. The artist job is to just keep shouting, stop that it’s BADD. The engineer starts to question his belief and says, well we can’t just stop this, but we could change the way we are doing it from this to that.
This begins the process of change and even if the change is mostly what the artist wanted, he still continues to want more, which is not bad and the race will continue to the end of time. Me-I’m an Electrical Engineer and I what you to tell me what should be changed and it is my job to figure out how!!
My last point is, as my dad would say, we couldn’t solve all the problems for you guys. We needed to leave you something to do! So at my age of 61 I look forward to the next 10 to 15 years of helping people install solar systems in – on – and around their houses. I hope to be helping get as many Car Power Station built as I can; then you guys can figure out the rest of the story.
Tom McGreer – Green Works
January 16th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Great dialogue, guys. Next to my EEStor postings, this is one of my most active posts in terms of comments. It’s nice to see this space being used.
January 17th, 2007 at 8:36 am
It’s amazing that you are coming out of both retirement and right knee replacement surgery to devote your time to progressing the energy alternatives of the next generation, especially in something that involves ladders! May you spur many more to follow, especially those in positions of power and opportunity who may have been thinking along these same lines. Many people want change at a community level, but are feeling trapped into decisions they made earlier in life, as to career and lifestyle. It is my optimistic hope that this inertia will be overcome, and examples such as yours that may well help them reach that tipping point! All power to you, and those you inspire! Myself included!
March 20th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
As a retired, disabled senior existing on a meagre disability pension who is environmentally conscientious; I would welcome the opportunity of replacing my existing gasoline vehicle with an EV. My travel requirements, like most seniors, are minimal. The current gasoline prices and parking fees in our city forces me to restrict my driving to acute needs; I.e., getting my groceries and attending medical appointments.
Although the Chevy VOLT, TOYOTA RAV 4 EV, Tango, and Tesla may be too large and expensive for retires like myself; however, other options should be made available to purchase or import more economical EVs.
My reasons for an EV:
o Would meet my day-to-day travel requirements.
o Less expensive to purchase, maintain & fuel than the existing vehicles.
o Possibly safer – reducing the risk of fires & explosions when accidents happen.
o Lower the demand for gasoline; that is the only way we will lower prices.
o Contribute less to the destruction of the environment.
o Conserve fossil fuels for future generations.
o Decrease our demand and dependency on foreign oil.
o Prevent sending more of our young men and women to the Middle East.
o Expeditious promote development of alternative electric energy technologies.
o Easier to monitor & regulate electric energy pollution than that of gasoline.
Ø Similar incentives offered to Europeans could be offered to EV owners here.
· Economical licensing and parking fees.
· Economical Insurance cost.
· Access to VAT lanes and other benefits.
Although the Chevy VOLT, TOYOTA RAV 4 EV, Tango, and Tesla may be too large and expensive for retires like myself; however, other options should be made available to purchase or import more economical EVs.
I suspect the Oil Industry and those who benefit from it like governments and auto manufacturers regardless of their claims of being concerned about the environment would ever promote EVs for North America. These have been produced on a test basis in the past, vehicles like the Ford TH!NK, Citroen Berlingo, or the Renault Kangoo which were removed and destroyed. Sadly we are lagging behind California and countries where the use of EVs is being promoted.
The promotion of electric car technology by government policies in Canada and the United States would convince auto manufactures to produce vehicles that reduce Global Warming. However, electric car technology that could ‘mass-produce’ reasonable priced urban transit vehicles, reportedly be suppressed in favour of the objectives of commercial for profit interests of technologies that continue to deteriorate our social and environmental way of life. Maybe when the average North American citizen’s living standards have been reduced to that of 3rd world countries, we will make a better effort.
Amazingly Europeans and some 3rd world countries reported make and sell urban EVs for less than the cheapest North American subcompact. I would like to know the availability and retail costs of EVs in other countries? Also what incentives are offered to encourage people to purchase these EVs?
I did consider purchasing a SMART two years ago when they were introduced here in Canada, as they were appealing, easily accessibility, compact, economical and used less fuel. However, I have recently learned Diamond-Chrysler plan to lease about 200 Smart cars that will be solely electric in England in November 2007. This is similar to what Ford did with its TH!NK in 1999 in Norway. I will opt to wait for these to be offered here keeping my present car on he road. I have volunteered to test an Electric Smart Car but doubt they would bring one into Canada even as proto-type to test its marketability here. They also are testing an A-Class Electric Vehicle that would meet the urban transportation requirements of most people. I would be willing to test that prototype here as well.
Some information I was able to access:
http://www.azuredynamics.com/about_azure.htm
http://www.azuredynamics.com/commercial_fleet.htm
http://getkurrent.com/whykurrent.html
http://www.commutercars.com/
http://www.itiselectric.com/
http://www.acpropulsion.com/ebox/pricing.htm
Note the conversion cost is such that only the very wealthy could afford it. I suspect this is to prevent the conversion being available to the average consumer.
http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/
I am sure Chevy will kill this concept car before producing for reasonable cost to the general public.
http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/index.html
http://www.myersmotors.com/
http://www.autospectator.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8625
http://jalopnik.com/cars/mitsubishi/mitsubishis-latest-miev-conceptev-urban-capsule-157526.php
http://jalopnik.com/cars/news/mitsubishi-to-test-i+based-electric-car-206715.php
http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2006/07/electric-powered-mini-qed-concept-with.html
http://www.elbilnorge.no/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7&bakgrunn=english
http://southcoastauto.us/
http://www.evuk.co.uk/hotwires/jim/art23.html
http://www.goingreen.co.uk/store/content/gwiz/
http://www.goingreen.co.uk/store/content/gwiz/
http://milesautomotive.com/aboutus_news.php
http://www.revanorge.no/
http://www.zenncars.com/
http://www.zapworld.com/
http://getkurrent.com/whykurrent.html
I would be keen to see commentary regarding the feasibility of EVs as an environment friendly option for urban commuting in our major North American cities posted to your Blog.
Thanks, Michael Travaline