If the EV-1 had been allowed to succeed, who says we wouldn't have had lithium batteries sooner?
[0]https://www.batterystuff.com/kb/articles/battery-articles/pr...
However, it's not like the lead went anywhere so recycling your batteries for new ones every 5 years could be very practical.
Even LiOn batteries have charging patterns as the blocker to adoption, which means that practically, you'd get cars with less than 50% capacity by 2 years.
> Mobil and other oil companies are also shown to be advertising directly against electric cars in national publications, [...] Chevron bought patents and a controlling interest in Ovonics, the advanced battery company featured in the film, ostensibly to prevent modern NiMH batteries from being used in non-hybrid electric cars.
> car makers engaged in both positive and negative marketing of the electric car [...] In later days it ran "award-winning" doomsday-style advertising featuring the EV1 and ran customer surveys which emphasized drawbacks to electronic vehicle technology
> the federal government of the United States under the Presidency of George W. Bush joined the auto-industry suit against California in 2002. This pushed California to abandon its ZEV mandate regulation.
> A portion of the film details GM's efforts to demonstrate to California that there was no consumer demand for their product, and then to take back every EV1 and destroy them. A few were disabled and given to museums and universities, but almost all were found to have been crushed. GM never responded to the EV drivers' offer to pay the residual lease value; $1.9 million was offered for the remaining 78 cars in Burbank, California before they were crushed.
Just because you can make it work with a lot of care doesn't mean that most consumers don't want more.
GM just tapped out too early because despite the cars being incredibly popular, they didn't want the short-term hit to the books that a niche product full of brand new technology represents.