Rafbílar. Don't you just LOVE that they still say batteries aren't here yet, though Henry Ford himself put his wife in an EV as he thought they were safer and more reliable than his ICE cars.

Rafbílar

16.3.2012 | 22:47

Ég er ekki viss um hvað ég má setja frá öðrum í svona birtingu?

Piltar, þið eigið að styðja Landsvirkjun, við eigum að eiga orkulindirnar sjálfir.

Ef ég man rétt, þarf aðeins tiltölulega litla virkjun fyrir allann bílaflotan.

Lesið greinina í Morgunblaðinu, ÁL - MÁLMUR ORKUNNAR, Boris Birshtein keypti fyrirtækið og hefur ekki leyft notkun á orku sellunni.

http://www.mbl.is/greinasafn/grein/609466/?item_num=0&searchid=ad31f09a3a0f2b1be67699136691b567f8a20848

Hér er sæmilegur rafbíll,http://www.repp.org/discussion/ev/200007/msg00326.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBvOMXDEzQ (þarna er önnur slóðin óvirk)

****

Hér skin í gegn að General Motors og Toyota gera aðeins það sem olíulindaeigendur, sem eru eigendur hlutabréfana segja, að bílarnir eigi að nota bensín eða olíu.

Olíulinda eigendur eiga líka einkaleyfin og fóru í mál við þá sem ætluðu að nota rafgeyma þar sem einkaleifin voru í þeirra eigu.

Það eru fjöldi þjóða sem lifir á því að olían sé í háu verði.

*******************

Í dag, 02.01.2009, þekkist það að Toyota Raf 4 rafmagnsbílar framleidir 1998 til 2002, eru búnir að aka yfir 150.000 mílur, og allt er í besta lagi, bill og rafhlöður

******************

8. 21/Jun/2008 [62309] Hardly Toyota's fault crushing them, given the outcome of the lawsuit by the "large oil company" against Panasonic, which made the batteries used in both the RAV and Prius.

Toyota probably had little or no choice in the matter. The Prius is one thing: all the energy it uses ultimately comes from oil. A car that does NOT use oil is another thing entirely... Posted by: Ben C:

10. 21/Jun/2008 [62311] What did Toyota learn from the Rav4EV experience? The answer, apparently, was that Toyota made the car last too long.
11. 21/Jun/2008 [62313] Don't you just LOVE interviews with corporate shills who obviously know nothing about that which they blather on and on about?

Don't you just LOVE that they still say batteries aren't here yet, though Henry Ford himself put his wife in an EV as he thought they were safer and more reliable than his ICE cars.

The only thing that amazes me more than the reach of the oil industry, is the American public's refusal to believe that all modern wars are fought for oil. We waste. They profit.

Every night I pray to God for $10/gal. gas as that's obviously the only thing that will wake Americans up enough to demand the technology that's been sitting on the shelf for the last forty years.

Don't forget GE had a freeway capable EV in 1965- but their two largest customers convinced them to not bring it to market. And those two industries were?...the US auto and oil industries. Posted by: J. Marvin Campbell:

12. 21/Jun/2008 [62317] Gary Smith, And ALL of the Toyota officer / directors. SHAME on you for mearly following GM: 1) Suing CARB (as did GM), so you that you didn't have to build EV's anymore.

Just think how far of a lead you'd have, if you hadn't simply followed GM's processes. 2) Not even researching you own owner's experiences so you'd learn more about your own EV product (just like GM).

Poor Gary Smith has to give inaccurate interviews, on your behalf, because of this silliy policy. It's as though you're ASHAMED of your own great product, simply because GM never wanted to build the EV1.

****

3) Letting ownership of the best deap cycle battery in these EV's (Panasonic E95) be snapped up by GM, so that (patents) they'd ultimately end up being sold to / owned by Chevron,

who'd rather SUE Toyota if they try to make more E95's for the RAV4-EV, rather than let them compete with their oil product(s).

Chevron's action, rather than being branded as a criminals, just sits on the patent, doing NOTHING with it ... even as their oil products become more and more scarse.

****

4) Had it not been for GM claiming they were trying to perfect hybrids over 10 years ago, Toyota likely wouldn't have bothered to enter the game,

and managing somehow (dispite Toyota's 'follow GM, what ever they do' mentality) to end up being the world-dominant leader of the hybrid product.

So COME ON Toyota, you're getting a 'free-pass' due to hybrids, but if the oil crisis hadn't begun yet, you'd still be mimicing GM.

Don't waste the free pass! BRING BACK EV's before GM wakes out of its stupid mode. Posted by: Gary Hill:

13. 22/Jun/2008 [62327] What a bunch of LIES! The price of Nickel is higher, but Nickel RECYCLES for high price, too. Most Ni is used in stainless steel, monel and other common metals, so there's a LOT of it.

Toyota stopped making the EV-95 battery after Chevron acquired control of the worldwide patent rights (from GM) on Oct. 10-16, 2000, and sued Toyota,

extracting $30 million in penalties and forcing Toyota to stop making the RAV4-EV and the EV-95 batteries.

The last 328 RAV4-EV were sold to the public, ENDING in Nov., 2002, so ALL RAV4-EV are more than 5 years old!

To say that they stopped making it because the battery is too expensive is just a blatant lie!

Lithium is MUCH more expensive than the EV-95; and Toyota, if it were honest, would sell more of these batteries, because after perhaps 200,000 miles the RAV4-EV will be needing a replacement pack.

Thus, the RAV4-EV battery lasts longer than the life of the vehicle, even a Toyota vehicle. Why so many lies? Toyota just lies, like GM? Posted by: Doug Korthof: ******************Í dag eru Toyota Raf 4 rafmagnsbílar búnir að aka yfir 150.000 mílur Og allt er í besta lagi, bill og rafhlöður

*******************

Ég er ekki viss um hvað ég má setja frá öðrum í svona birtingu?

Jónas Gunnlaugsson (IP-tala skráð) 19.9.2009 kl. 13:12