Last night I finally got the opportunity to see the film Who Killed the Electric Car?, and while it immediately became one of my favorite documentaries (imagine Super Size Me about cars, oil companies, & politics), it made me really, REALLY pissed off. The film was an eye-opener in a variety of ways, 1st among them being that there was a time when electric cars were actually the vehicles of choice in America. It's true. From the late 1800's to the early 1900's, electric cars were the most common on the roads, their numbers being entirely gone by the time America became obsessed with automobiles in the 50's. The electric car is both a car of the past and of the future, that is, it would be if it weren't snuffed out by consumer foolishness/apathy, oil companies, car manufacturers, the California Air Resources Board, etc. But why?
I don't want to spoil the documentary for those of you who intend on seeing it, but the arguments for why the electric car suddenly disappeared are various, and the blame seems to be shared among various groups. American consumers don't care about ecology or personal sacrifice, which is why it has been exceedingly difficult to get any "green" technologies to be widely embraced or used. Oil companies don't like the idea of not making money and will continue to exploit a resource that becomes exponentially more valuable as it becomes rarer. Car companies didn't try very hard to get the electric cars sold and they purposefully put vehicles with more limited range so people wouldn't be very interested in them. The California Air Resources Boad changed their Zero Emissions Policy to play ball with the car companies rather than taking a hard line against pollution, one of its primary members being tied up with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. But wait, aren't hydrogen cars BETTER than electric ones?
Hydrogen fuel cell cars are a lot further away than most people like to think. There's an entire slew of problems that need to be fixed, which probably won't be entirely resolved for the next 20 or 30 years. Car companies can claim they're doing research on hydrogen vehicles to look good and give the impression they care about the environment, but they don't seem to be trying very hard to develop the technology. Funny how in 20 or 30 years there will be such a pinch on oil that by then hydrogen cars will be a reasonable alternative, so it's really just away of buying more time to make money off internal-combustion cars. Sure, emissions from a fuel cell car might be less than today's SUV, but why settle for that when we can make a much cleaner electric car today? Batteries have been developed to the point to give electric vehicles as long a range (about 300 miles) as a standard vehcile with 1/50th of the pollution, and the infrastructure for recharging stations is easily built since electricity runs just about everywhere. Will electric cars solve all the problems? Of course not, but it's a start, and perhaps once we are not so dependant on fossil fuels for our cars the way weget electricity can change too, moving away from coal, natural gas, etc.
I don't believe in many "conspiracy theories" but it seems plain to see that big business (and therefore, the government) is threatened by the electric car and kept it from being developed. Even when people said "We want these cars" and offered to pay for them, the companies destroyed the vehicles anyway. We have the technology to develop these cars and improve them, especially if a bigger push by the government and car companies was behind the science. Hydrogen fuel cell technology is really just a way of pandering to the public, making it appear that something is being done, when in actuality the technology is inefficient, expensive, volatile, and has no point if we can run cars entirely on electricity. I hope the new Congress puts some pressure on the administration for more environmental reform, but unless people really get behind alternative modes of transportation I suspect the electric car will only be made availible when some companies start losing profits.
Nice insight on the documentary. It's definitely an eye opener, and everyone should really watch it.
lol Reminds me of the X-Files episode when the government destroyed the car engine that was able to run off the hydrogen taken from water - pour water in the tank and there ya go! Some of the characters were "let's take this to the world" while others were saying "imagine how many more car related deaths there will be when a cheaper car is available to more people"
...
What???
Why do American cars consume so much petrol? I don't live in the States, but one thing I remember being amazed by when I was there, was these cars with 4 litre engines, and these were just standard sedans driven by people's mothers, I'm not even talking about SUVs. I mean it would be something if we were talking about high performance sports cars, but these were just these giant sized lumps of metal which don't actually go fast, they can't corner worth a shit, I don't get it. I mean I understand how oil companies and car companies in the States have a vested interest in selling cars with these gargantuan engines, but do people not realise that cars in Europe and Japan consume a fraction of the fuel, are a fraction of the size and actually handle much better than these HUGE American cars. Oil companies seem to have injected this macho attitude into Americans when it comes to cars. A car does not need a 4 litre engine, that's what tractors use. Most young drivers in Europe drive 1 litre cars, 2 litre max. I mean a 2 litre Volkswagon Golf GTI would whip most of these big American monstrosities in a race. What's the deal? Why do American's need such big engines? When you see an American car in Europe it looks like something from the land of the giants.
"Who Killed the Electric Car?" is Hollywood's version of a
documentary. The rest of the civilized world would call it
fantasy, but I more accurately describe it as a fictionalized
con job. Even the title itself is a total con, since the
electric car is anything but dead, and why the EV1 died
anything but a mystery.
In order to succeed, this particular film's con requires
two essentials : 1) a gullible (typically young) audience
that believes in the power of conspiracy to control events,
and 2) an audience that knows practically nothing about the
EV1 electric car, or electric cars in general. Being retarded
and/or unable to follow simple logical arguments greatly enhances the film's plausibility. Otherwise you get some nasty logical dissonances. For example, the film's concept of a manufacturer consciously trying to torpedo his own new and winning revolutionary technology. That simply doesn't compute, so the film feels obliged to throw in big oil, big money, big bribe.
And not just one company but to all the big four : GM, Honda,
Toyota and Nissan. Aside from the fact that back then, big oil
didn't have big money, there is also the fact that GM and Nissan
and Totyota stopped work on their non-oil based electric cars in
order to develop, you guesed it, a non-oil based fuel cell car,
which is nothing more than an electric car that has a hydrogen fuel cell instead of a battery pack. More logical dissonance. Apparently there was a loophole in that theorized bribe. Gas stations could easily and cheaply incorporate electric charging posts for gas pumps. Building a hydrogen infrastructure is a whole different kettle of fish. That would be very difficult and VERY expensive. Big oil also has no hydrogen infrastructure, delivery system or production capability.
Fortunately, this film's typical audience is, as noted, big stupid.
As we can see, logic is not this film's strong suit. Nor is
evidence. Here motivation is all that's required to assign guilt.
The film contains one irreplaceable, all important con : that
the General Motors EV1 electric car (unlike their other hundred
production autos) was a wonder car that shouldn't have been
canceled.
If the audience doesn't buy into this big lie, then the entire
logic of the film (if one can call it that) falls to pieces,
since no fool would pay to kill a total failure that presents no
threat.
If the film were to consider the EV1 objectively, the EV1
would quickly be exposed as the loser that it was : a high
priced($43,000+ but could only be leased because it failed
to meet all Federal safety requirements and could not be sold -
it was designated an "experimental vehicle), tiny and cramped,
restricted range of 75 to 130 miles (Version II, Version I had a
range between 55 and 90 miles), which became smaller as the
batteries age, so that often round trip destinations (all
destinations were round trips) over 25 miles away were out of
reach; high cost of batteries ($20,000+ for Version II's nickel
metal-hydride's) that last no more than 5 years; the need for a
240 volt, 60 amp electrical outlet near the car's parking spot at
home (no condo owners, apartment or townhouse dwellers could keep an EV1); the enormously long time required to recharge the batteries (6 to 8 hours). There's also the problem that an EV1 out of juice has to be towed home : no side of the road rechargings are feasible (but the [sort of] good news here is that at least you can't be very far from home when that happens). It's very interesting to note that the EV1 had a range that was essentially no greater than that of the
most successful American electric car (the Detroit Electric), that
was produced from 1907. In other words, in 90 years, the electric car had not progressed beyond what was available before World War I, in terms of its most important characteristics : range and time to recharge and cost of batteries. The Detroit electric only survived as long as it did because it had two big advantages over the gasoline
engine : you didn't need to crank the engine, and you didn't need to shift gears. This made the car popular with women and elderly gentlemen. In spite of this, only 14,000 of America's most popular electric car were produced during its 22 years of full production. In short, the EV1 represented technology that was, in all important respects, no better than the failed technology that existed long before World War I.
Recently a town in California that was leasing a Toyota Rav 4
electric for the past 4 years was told that many of its batteries
needed replacment and the leasees were responsible for that expense. Toyota quoted a price of between $24,000 and $36,000 as the cost for replacement, depending upon exactly how many batteries needed to be replaced. The town manager called back twice to confirm that the price quote was correct, and then terminated the lease and returned the Rav4
to Toyota. The GM EV1 used 26 of these nickel metal-hydride batteries.
The EV1 was, simply put, a car that had no business ever being brought to market. It met the needs of no one except California's ill-advised Zero Emission law, which incorrectly categorized the EV1 as a cleaner vehicle than some honest-to-God cleaner gasoline hybrids, like the Honda Insight (the Zero Emission Law short sightedly only paid attention to emissions from the vehicle itself, not those created in generating the electricity to power the car).
There was, in short, no conceivable reason anyone should have desired an EV1, aside from well-heeled souls looking to advertise their bogus "environmental virtue," at the cost of a few thousand dollars that would otherwise be lying around gathering dust, like Hollywood thespian Ed Begley and his fellow very publically environmentally responsible friends, who foolishly take the Zero Emission Law as Gospel.
The film is not above flat-out lying, as happens when it claims
there were "thousands" of eager customers wanting to lease the EV1.
There actually was a list containing thousands of names. Five
thousand, to be approximately exact. Unfortunately, these were not eager customers but simply those who had "expressed interest" in the EV1. When it came time to sign a lease, only 50 of those five thousand were foolish enough to do so.
The film points out that the EV1 was canceled right after the
Zero Emission Law was removed, implying a cause and effect.
The first problem with this claim is that GM immediately beefed
up its fuel cell development program. Since a fuel cell car is
the only other vehicle type that was recognized as having zero
emissions, it makes no logical sense to assert that GM was waiting for the law to be removed before cancelling their electric car program. In other words, if GM was only offering the electric car in order to satisfy the zero emission law (which, by the way, no other automaker felt obliged to do) then why would GM go out and develop a zero emission fuel cell car when the law wasn't even on the books anymore? More cognitive dissonance.
The implied claim by the film is that the presence of the zero
emission law is what prevented GM from cancelling the EV1. This is absurd, since it is claiming, in effect, that only GM was
required to satisfy the law's requirements. Toyota, Honda and
others had no qualms about cancelling their zero emission car
electric car programs. Why in the world would GM have any qualms? It has put a zero emission car on the market for 6 years, while those few others that even had a zero emission vehicle were on the market for less than a year before being discontinued. For some strange, illogical reason, the film seems to think the zero emission law only applied to GM. More cognitive dissonnce.
Another big lie in the film concerns the final disposition of
the EV1s after the program was cancelled. Since the EV1 did not meet all Federal safety standards, it was not legal for GM to sell the cars. This was in addition to such concerns as selling a vehicle that had few spare parts available (and no more would be produced), as the suppliers had refused to continue running production lines for such a low volume of sales. And if all those reasons aren't sufficient, there is the problem of manufacturer liability lawsuits when you provide consumers with a car whose technology has the ability to electrocute its mechanic owners. GM produced 1100+ EV1s, of which 78 were actually sent to a boneyard for recycling. Most were sent to engineering departments of universities and museums and some surreptitiously ended up in the hands of GM employees.
GM attempted to recover those by offering trade in value for their EV1 for a new Saturn, the division that had handled the EV1s.
Considering the many, many deficiencies of the EV1, the film
has no choice but to use the tried and true infomercial personal
endorsement method. Scrounge up some convincing actor types and have them claim the EV1 was a gem, and how much they loved that car, and other assorted false claims. Then comes the monumental killer remark from Ed Begley that "Electric cars are not for everyone. They only meet the needs of 90% of drivers." That's quite a whopper : not 50% of the drivers have a place where they could even recharge an electric car; probably 99% of those living in cities would be in the same boat, ironically, the one geographical area where an electric car might feel at home. Does Begley believe that 90% of the population never goes on vacation, or wants to travel to any destination further than 35 miles from home, or travel more than 70 miles in a day? Thus there exists the small problem that everyone who owns an EV1 must own at least two
cars, since there are simply too many everyday destinations beyond the reach of the EV1 (and even fewer as the batteries age). Is "honest Ed" Begley truly stupid enough to claim that 90% of the public can afford to spend $40,000+ for a second car grocery getter, much less keep it in batteries, which as the above illustration shows, can be over $8,000 per year? To put this in perspective, even with #3 per gallon gasoline, a $12,000 econobox (far more desirable than the EV1) and gets 25 miles per gallon would only spend around $1450 per year to travel 12,000 miles. For him, like his well-heeled actor friends, it's all a matter of image, not economics.
A more accurate restatement of Ed Begley's big whopper would be that the EV1 can handle the transportation needs of approximately one percent of the population.
This is a film stupid like few others I've ever seen. The
supposed big mystery of why electric cars have failed is as obvious as the nose on your face : It's the batteries, Stupid. Mike Jackson, chief economist of Autonation recently spoke about the failure of previous efforts to build a viable electric car, summing up the cause of all those failures in a single word : batteries. Until there exists a low cost, high capacity, quickly rechargeable, long lasting battery, a practical and viable electric car is an utter impossibility. For example, unless the batteries are quickly rechargeable, no public recharging stations are conceivable or feasible. Without those recharging stations thruout the nation, an electric car can only operate in an area whose distance from home is less than one half of the car's range. As the batteries age, that area grows progressively smaller.
Preventing a successful electric car could only happen by
preventing a successful battery. That would be more or less and impossibility, since such a device would simply be far too valuable for far too many businesses not to bring to market, and that market would be far larger and more profitable than the automotive market.
There currently does exist the very real possibility of a practical electric car, in the form of a vehicle about to be produced using Altair Nanotechnology's nano titanate version of the lithion ion battery.It's called the NanoSafe battery. This battery apparently has overcome at least two of the deficiencies that have precluded a viable electric
car in the past : quick rechargeability (8 to 10 minutes with a very powerful feed) and long lasting (a lithion ion battery can be recharged 750 times before it becomes useless - once a day for 2 years, while Altair's NanoSafe battery can be recharged 15,000 times and it still retains 85% capacity - 40+ years), thus lower cost - presumably also many times cheaper than current batteries ($4500) on a cost per year basis. It also can produce power at four times the rate of current batteries and can
do so even in cold temperatures, unlike current lithion ion batteries. It is also completely safe (no laptop fires or overheating problems) and environmentally benign. This battery holds the very real promise of causing
a revolution in the automotive industry. The battery that GM was waiting and hoping for during the entire EV1 life cycle, from 1988 until 2002 may finally have arrived. There is also another recent advancemet from Technical Research Laboratories in the form of a plastic battery. It cannot be rapidly recharged,
so it could never be used to build a viable electric car, but it's low cost and virtually infinite lifespan make it a candidate for hybrid applications and plug-in hybrid apps.
That's the longest reply I've ever read, but it was worth it.
C'mon Kerry -- tell us what you REALLY think! ;-)
The EV1 did pass safety testing. As did the electric Ford Ranger truck, the electric Toyota RAV4-EV SUV, and other electric vehicles that the automakers refused to sell. To Toyota's credit, it did offer the option to buy at the end of some leases, which is why I still have a RAV4-EV today. The batteries are as good as new after 4 years and 55,000 miles and are expected to last the life of the car.
My car's 125-mile range allow me to drive more than 200 miles in a day without waiting around for it to charge, because it can be charging while I'm going about my business. More modern batteries have longer ranges and faster charging still. If that doesn't suit you (it won't everyone), plug-in hybrids are the next best option -- the ability to drive on electricity for local driving, with a fuel tank as backup for much longer trips.
Your concerns about pollution from plugging in vehicles is misplaced. For an overview of more than 30 studies of well-to-wheels emissions (that include pollution from making the fuel as well as driving the car), see the FAQ at my website, www.sherryboschert.com.
And for more on all these topics, read my new book, Plug-in Hybrids: The Cars that Will Recharge America (New Society Publishers, November 2006).
I've wanted to see this film. I heard about these cars about 7 years ago (I think) during my first undergraduate. Fascinating stuff. I personally plan to eliminate cars and the road system as a method of transportation by the time I'm 80.
I still don't know how i'm going to do it yet.
www.worldcantwait.com
I've corrected Kerry Beauchrt's misinformed negative comments about electric vehicles (EVs) in at least one other forum in the last six months. He continues to disinform; over half of his 'facts' aren't. Six major automakers built eight highway-capable EVs for US drivers, and they all were fully certified for safety. The lithium-battery Nissan Altra was never even offered for individual leasing; only the (underpowered) Ford Ranger EV and a few hundred of the thousands of Toyota RAV4 EVs were offered for sale. A 2000 market study projected that mass-produced EVs will sell into the hundreds of thousands in the US within five years of introduction. See EVWorld.com, ElectrifyingTimesMag.com and other EV sites for more information.