Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Movie Mix

The Mysterious Murder of the Electric Car

By Hannah Eaves, Grist.org. Posted June 30, 2006.


The makers of the documentary 'Who Killed the Electric Car?' try to solve the riddle of why the dearly beloved -- and wildly efficient -- EV was eliminated.
Advertisement

Chris Paine, the director of Who Killed the Electric Car?, looks a little embarrassed as he walks toward his waiting limo. "I should really have them drop us off a block away from the theater," he says, laughing uneasily.

At least he's carpooling.

With him are Dean Devlin, one of the film's executive producers (whose other projects include "Independence Day," "Godzilla" and "The Patriot"); former electric-vehicle sales rep Chelsea Sexton, who appears in the film; and Sexton's husband, Bob, who helped launch Saturn before becoming the go-to technician for EV owners.

They have come to San Francisco for the city's International Film Festival, after having premiered "Who Killed" at this year's Sundance. So far, the local audience has responded strongly to the alternative-vehicle whodunit, since a large percentage of the country's former electric-car owners -- indoctrinated in the late '90s during California's short-lived pro-electric mandate -- were from the Bay Area. Most of the rest lived in Los Angeles, allowing filmmakers to draw on the support of the Hollywood elite, both on-screen and off.

Roughly divided into two segments, "Who Killed" first addresses the broad history of the electric car, from its birth in the early days of the automobile through its sudden realization and untimely demise. Leased in limited quantities beginning in 1997, the EV was developed by auto companies to fulfill California's mandate even as the companies sought to have the law repealed. When the requirement was altered to their liking in 2003, the cars were taken back and destroyed.

The passion and ire of the drivers left behind is touchingly captured in a funeral held for General Motors' flagship electric car, the EV-1. This sets the stage for a dramatic unmasking. Who were the players behind the car's death? Paine pinpoints many possible culprits, including consumers, corporations, and the government. Underneath its tongue-in-cheek premise, "Who Killed" is deadly serious -- not just about the fate of the cars, but about some of the most essential questions America faces today.

For the most part, the media has portrayed EV enthusiasts as a likable, ragtag bunch who just won't shut up, and that's not too far off-base. They really, really loved their fast, sexy cars. But they are also reasonable, intelligent debaters who come off, more than anything, as justifiably angry. And what do you do if you're mad about something and live in L.A.? Like, obviously, duh. You make a movie.

HANNAH EAVES: When did you start driving an electric car, and what were your first experiences?

CHRIS PAINE: My boyhood hero was Paul MacCready, who designed the bicycle-powered airplane and the solar-powered airplane that crossed the English Channel. I had heard that he was working on an electric car for General Motors, so I wrote and said I'd like to be a test driver. I didn't get accepted, but when the car came out I immediately went and got one. It was amazing. I didn't really like cars before, and suddenly I was a car lover. And I drove the thing for years -- then GM said they were going to take it away. It was leased, so I said I'd buy it, and they said I couldn't. Finally, I took it in for a repair one day, and they wouldn't give me my car back.

We started getting the feeling that there was a lot more to the story than met the eye. We thought Frontline or 20/20, or Michael Moore, somebody would do it. Nobody did. So rather than have our [story] rewritten by the media, we decided we would dive in and try to tell the story the way it really happened.

EAVES: Was there a moment when you said, no, really, we have to make this?

PAINE: I guess the moment was when we put together the funeral. We thought, this is going to do it, the media is going to pay attention. We had all these engineers and politicians come and speak. The story that ran the next day was: EV drivers bid a fond farewell to a car they loved and get ready for the hydrogen car of the future. We were pissed! This was a great technology that was working well today.

I knew from making documentaries that you can spend years on a documentary and no one ever sees that. Dean, it turned out, had a similar experience. So [he got involved and] suddenly we had the resources to make a film that could achieve another level -- not just be about a car, but about why America's having a hard time getting out of the 20th century. What are the obstacles that keep making the status quo win?

EAVES: Dean, the film is dedicated to your father, who had been outspoken about GM's seeming unwillingness to promote the EV.

DEAN DEVLIN: That's right. My father had one of the very first EV-1's that were delivered. He was a huge enthusiast of the cars and the future he hoped they could bring. But he was suspicious from day one that the car companies had been forced to do this, and their hearts weren't really in it ... The advertising got worse and worse. My father was [complaining to the company]: why aren't you saying that the car's fast, why aren't you saying it's sexy? Why aren't you showing the car?


Digg!

Hannah Eaves is a writer and filmmaker based in San Francisco. Her writing has appeared on GreenCine.com and in SOMA Magazine and the Santa Cruz Sentinel.



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
CUI BONO
Posted by: ssegallmd on Jun 30, 2006 1:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The makers of the documentary 'Who Killed the Electric Car?' try to solve the riddle of why the dearly beloved -- and wildly efficient -- EV was eliminated."

Doesn't this question answer itself? There may be a riddle as to exactly how human progress was scuttled again this time, but there is no question why.

As usual, cui bono (who benefits)? Since both Detroit and Big Oil could expect major losses with such a transition, and since corporate America owns the government and controls America, it therefore follows . . . that . . . that . . she must be a witch! No, wait, that's not right. It follows that . . . wait a minute, what follows? Follows what? What? Never mind. This is too hard.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: CUI BONO Posted by: gar
» RE: CUI BONO Posted by: jpl
» RE: CUI BONO Posted by: doctorsquared
» RE: CUI BONO Posted by: ssegallmd
Important stuff here
Posted by: bttl on Jun 30, 2006 3:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm glad this movie has been made. The public needs to have a wake-up call. The present reality is that some people/corporations are making huge bucks off the present system and they will resist all change(kind of like the insurance industry resisting all attempts to institute government funded single-payer healthcare.) So- in this case, just as when light rail/ electric streetcars were removed and destroyed by oil affiliated industry , they were just watching their own backs in an attempt to keep feeding longer at the trough. Sad really and we all lose.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

fredspage
Posted by: fredspage on Jun 30, 2006 4:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I grew up in Birmingham UK. We had trams (electric street cars), electric trolley busses (electric busses running on overhead wires) and, in those days, a few diesel busses. The electric trolley busses were fast, quiet, and clean, I know, I used to try to follow them on my bicycle. I could always keep up with the diesel busses as long as I could stand the fumes, but the trolley busses accelerated too quickly for me and I often lost them. If you want to stay behind a bus on a bicycle, you have to stay within four to six feet so as to be within the suction at the back.

Eventually the diesel lobby got rid of everything but the diesel busses. Later I worked for a firm that made fuel injection pumps and learned all the tricks the bus drivers would pull to try to get more performance out of their busses. All the tricks involved getting extra fuel into the engine, most of which came out at the back as a black cloud of unburnt fuel. There were no tricks needed for the trolley busses, they could beat a diesel any time.

How we have been screwed by the corporations!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

corporate america
Posted by: rsaxto on Jun 30, 2006 4:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Corporate America (oil and manufacturers) killed the electric cars because corporate america is fixated on making big gas-guzzling vehicles which weigh tons and emit tons of pollution and (until now) are highly profitable. The fact that thier pollution is killing people all over the world doesn't register with these greedy bastards.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Electrical infrastructure
Posted by: gazooks on Jun 30, 2006 4:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are a multiplicity of potential solutions to help solve energy issues that have been sidetracked or derailed by oil industry interests through their Congressional proxies.

One area of project subversion is in the rebuilding and expansion of the electrical grid, barely adequate at present to meet existing demand. Imagine the problems facing EV owners when proportionate demand for recharging their batteries exceeds the ability of the grid to deliver. No spark, no go.

There is no Government initiative or money allocated to replace the aging, inefficient transmission system necessary to support the measurable, additional demand that EV's of meaningful numbers would represent.

While the oil industry co-opted US Government stalls or kills technological innovation, European Governments like Germany are progressing ahead on a variety of energy developments designed towards technical efficiencies and sustainable domestic energy production policies.

Not only are we behind on our electrical transmission capabilities, but electrical production itself is way behind projected demand and we now face the prospects of not only increasing prices from petroleum and natural gas fired generators, but guaranteed rolling blackouts.

The Administration has touted the hydrogen fuel cell myth, and lusted after ethanol, which has only pushed the price of gasoline substantially higher and even at it's pinnacle of production will account for only single digit percentage of gasoline demand.

At the same time, Germany is GRANTING hundreds of millions of Euros to develop it's domestic energy capabilities in ways that are too sensible and achievable for the US Government to support and promote.

Diesel technology in Europe has advanced beyond the gasoline tech of US cars in performance, efficiencies and environmental standards, and Germany is utilizing it's coal in producing ultra clean fuel through Fischer Tropsch synfuel technology at less than half the cost of petroleum based fuels. Most in this country haven't even heard of it.

It uses any bio-mass, coal, natural gas to produce a crystal clear, non polluting, bio-degradable fuel that unlike ethanol is completely compatible with existing fuel supply infrastructure and auto/ truck/ ship/ aircraft/ power plant technology for a bit over $1 a gallon. Ethanol is close to $4.

So, how come the Pentagon just this week signed a contract (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123020290), and ordered 100,000 gallons of synfuel from Oklahoma based Syntroleum Corp. to test in B-52's, and DC Metro busses have been running on it for years, but the Administration has never mentioned it in all of it's energy policy statements? Why are they pushing this fuel towards obscurity when it's less than half the price of what we're currently buying? Why when we have the largest coal reserves in the world, which we don't utilize because it's too "dirty" yet there's proven technology that purifies it to the point that it's completely non-toxic? New coal gasification technology allows the carbon extraction without strip mining as well.

Electricity needs fuel, clean fuel. While Europeans progress towards intelligent, practical solutions our Government squanders precious resources, wages war and delivers record profits to it's owners. Guess who's paying?

Imagine a world where we could completely abandon energy imports. The major oil companies can, and are resisting through a bought Administration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: lectrical infrastructure Posted by: jrmart66
» Alternet! Let Gazooks write a story! Posted by: starvinmarvy
» Too good to be true? Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Too good to be true? Posted by: gazooks
» electrical grid, barely adequate? Posted by: Iconoclast421
nothing new here...
Posted by: Farmertim on Jun 30, 2006 6:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
wether it is electric cars or the ones we stumble around in now the car companies and the oil companies that feed them are in no way interested in saving fuel or changing anything that is working for them currently.
Take any diesel vehicle currently on the road made in america send it to a diesel calibration company or garage and you will find this engine is set "within specs".
Ask the same garage or company to set the specs to a more efficent higher tolerance and you will get a boost of power and fuel economy of 20 to 30%.
I can buy engine computers out of Canada for my Ford V10(gas) that will increase my mileage by 35% with no reduction in power and less emissions.
If our car companies don't even care or try to become more efficent in the ways now available as I listed above for a mere $400.00 per car, why would we think they would build and promote something as great as the EV-1's unless legislated to do it.
On a farming note, Allis-Chalmers Co. had a electric tractor in the 50's with equivilant 38 horse power.
This was just the size for the average farm back then of about 60 acres.
Plug it in at night and during lunch, but as farm got bigger it became to small.
If there was one made now I would own one, and a plug in truck as well.
I also can generate that power needed with the wind that blows across my farm at any given time......
Farmertim

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stop the grid and let me off
Posted by: JPHickey on Jun 30, 2006 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It all depends on what you want. Personally my first concern is with maximizing my energy independence. No I'm not talking about returning to a sod house on the prairie. It's just that I prefer to utilize the best that technology has to offer to enable me to get off the grid and to minimize carbon release by charging my car with solar and/or wind power generated at home.

Stop the grid and let me off! If most people submit to the status quo of centralized everything, perhaps they'll soon have a rude awakening. Dick Cheney really doesn't know what he's doing, and staying under his thumb is an invitation to disaster!

Electric cars will be available again before long, so start planning for your own independent electronic self-sustaining homestead now! That way we can do a lot more with a lot less impact. Personal autonomy feels darned good. Then we'll have the strength to collaborate as equals for a change.

There are many brilliant minds working on the technical side of these challenges, but we must have the dedication and vision to recognize the opportunities and make good use of them. Let's make electricity our friend again!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The Farnam's Freehold Fantasy ... Posted by: AdamSelene40
Anyone heard of Troy Reed?
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Jun 30, 2006 7:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I saw him in a movie called "Free Energy: The Race to Zero Point"

It gets into a different realm than just battery powered electric... but anyway I saw the car in the video. It was a little geo metro. It definately had an electric motor and some other stuff under the hood. But I didn't see any batteries, aside from a small one to start the thing. They showed the car driving around and everything. It seemed like the real deal. Who knows whether or not it was, but the guy just basically disappeared. I haven't been able to find any info on what heppened to him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Goodbye America
Posted by: mn on Jun 30, 2006 8:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Forget about it kids. The only thing that is gonna fix the mess is a complete breakdown. How did Nazi Germany get fixed? Did the people vote Hitler out of office? No, of course not. You have to hit bottom to get up out of the gutter. USA is not there yet, but damn close. Just recognize the crash, watch close, then help push the wreckage over the edge and start rebuilding once the dust clears! Oh, and don't forget the post-catastrophe trials. You need to insert some needles in the people who couldn't stop looting the citizenry. That's how we teach future alpha males that behaving that way is a personal health hazard.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Goodbye America Posted by: willymack
» RE: Goodbye America Posted by: gar
So much for the "free market"
Posted by: Sojourner on Jun 30, 2006 8:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live within a few blocks of the former electric red car line that ran south down the beach from Los Angeles. It was killed by the same folks who killed the EV-1. Wasn't it predictable?

Now Los Angeles is building electric rail lines and subways, because they are affordable, easily maintained (despite vehicle drivers that stupidly crash into them or their line poles) and don't poison the air.

So the EV-1's day will likely come again. In fact, Silicon Valley, so I read, has a start-up electric car company. With the technology as advanced as it is and with performance as satisfying as it is, I hope they cut GM's throat--all in the name of the free market, of course.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another infrastructure question
Posted by: eringhorm on Jun 30, 2006 9:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A plug-in car is fine for someone that has a garage to install the outlet in, but what about apartment dwellers that have to park in a parking lot, or on the street near their building? Would some sort of electric filling station have to be devised to cover this?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Before we go all half-cocked
Posted by: Jesse on Jun 30, 2006 10:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It should be said that sometimes technologies fail in the market because -- they failed in the market.

Businesses have to make money, period. While some may be visionary, others are not and a big car company with lots of investment in plants and such may decide electric cars aren't worth it because they didn't see the sales projections making it so.

For instance, Americans as a whole have a real thing for powerful engines. The efficiency gains of the last 30 years were hurt by that, and it explains some of the popularity of the SUV. While smaller cars sell well on both coasts, much of the rest of the country wasn't as enamored of the Hondas and Toyotas and probably always saw them as symbols of giving up something.

The EV-1s didn't really have the "oomph" that Americans like, even in small cars. So GM may have simlpy decided that it wasn't a seller that would justify the cost of promoting it in any reasonable time. I'm not justifying the decision, just saying that's the reality.

One reason a lot of technologies don't make it is also less because of supression and more that they just don't work well for many people. Sometimes the reasons aren't technological, either. iPods are a success because they are a fashion accessory as much as a piece of technology. Scooters are great for getting around cities and have been a big hit in Europe for a long time, but they never really took off in the states. Why? I don't know, but it sure isn't because they didn't work in a mechanical sense. Maybe they look too nerdy for American men :-)

Sometimes the answer as to why electric cars went by the wayside is pretty darned prosaic, and it isn't always a question of who benefits from the technology not working. Were I a GM exec and told that EVs would sell, and ad reliable projections, I'd want to be the first to market with it. But selling a car--or anything else--is often as much about marketing effort as it is about how superior a technology is for certain things.

After all, a version of the fax machine was invented in the 19th century. It never took off because it wasn't necessary, even though it might allow for images to be sent to engravers. The technology is cool, though.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Before we go all half-cocked Posted by: thoughtcriminal
It's not just the oil companies
Posted by: jpinder on Jun 30, 2006 10:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Big oil is only part of the problem, along with car manufacturers there are 1000’s of part suppliers for combustion engine vehicles, they would also lose, the economy is not ready for this yet. Without proper wind turbines and or photovoltaic panels we are still spewing gases in the atmosphere because one needs power to charge their batteries which comes largely from oil and coal. FYI chekout the new Saphion batteries, better safer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No mystery here
Posted by: inanaturallight on Jun 30, 2006 10:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The electric car "died' because big oil didn't want it- it would have cut them out of the vast majority of their revenue- and the car companies have always colluded with big oil. Any inventions that came along and improved fuel mileage were bought up and "disappeared" by the automakers. Why is hydrogen suddenly appearing to be so popular and being spun as the "solution to our woes"? Easy... big oil will control it, both the manufacture and distribution. The "the hydrogen solution" (just like the ethanol solution) is a sham- hydrogen production (as well as ethanol production) requires far more energy input than it delivers. The other joke of the hydrogen solution is that those fuel cells require massive amounts of energy to manufacture and as far as I can tell are still dependent on platinum, one of the rarest and most expensive to obtain of the minerals on this planet.
Solar panels suffer from the same problem- they won't become widespread until big oil has control over their manufacture and sales (yes, they've been working toward this for years) and you can bet that once it does happen you will either:
1) pay a premium to big oil for every kilowatt you get from the sun
or
2) they will "wear out" every few years, requiring replacement.
We're rushing headlong to our doom with the facists at the helm. My fear is that if the people of the world don't rise up and stop it, by the time it collapses there won't be anything left for the human race to survive on. We have the technology today that could provide for a sustainable future for the planet, the problem is that its fantastically efficient and those at the helm don't get rich that way. Efficiency and capitalism don't mix well except where efficiency is applied to production- and there it mixes very well from the capitalist's point of view.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No mystery here Posted by: thoughtcriminal
Nothing new here - this has been the standard approach for decades
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 30, 2006 11:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Consider the precursor to the electric car - the electric train, which was also deliberately sabotaged in the 50's, as documented in the film, "Taken For a Ride. This film displays the tactics that industry players used to destroy public electric train transportation, and that are still in play today.

The fact that US cities are full of polluting, inefficient diesel buses rather then clean efficient electric trains is a result of auto industry, tire industry and oil industry manipulations of government agencies, city politics, etc. It has nothing to do with 'the invisible hand of the free market' or consumer choice.

Consider the difference, in economic terms, between "Emerging vs. disruptive technology". Emerging technology is that which has no existing competition - for example, the birth of the computer industry involved emerging technology - there was nothing like it to compete with. Disruptive technology is technology that destroys an existing market - for example, imagine communications devices that worked on a direct person-to-person basis with no need for an intervening network - a bit sci-fi and very unlikely, but you can see how that would wipe out the cell-phone network cash flows. The fact is that new technologies aren't developed unless someone sees a significant economic benefit, and as long as the competition isn't powerful enough to squelch the new products.

A similar, but less-documented issue, is the relationship between the birth of Prohibition, farm-produced ethanol fuel, and JD Rockefeller's Standard Oil business practices. Prohibition destroyed the prospect of ethanol as a fuel and secured the market for automobile fuel for the fossil fuel industry. The fact that Rockefeller was a major contributer to the 'Women's Temperance Society" which was behind the Prohibition drive gives some credence to this notion. Alcohol consumption never decreased during Prohibition (as in the 'Roaring Twenties') but the mob was established (to be fair, some say this is also how Jack Kennedy got established), but the farm ethanol business was destroyed and the future of fossil fuel in the transportation industry was secured.

Note that Henry Ford's first vehicles were run on farm ethanol at a time when the major market for fossil fuel was in illumination. Edison's invention of a practical electrical light was a "disruptive technology" with powerful backers, and it wiped out the illuminating fuel market. Thus, Rockefeller had to find a new market for his oil, and that new market was the transportation industry, and his major competition at that time was biofuels. He therefore had obvious reasons to support Prohibition.

Isn't history fun?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

helpless sheeple.
Posted by: Franco33 on Jun 30, 2006 11:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This whole problem of electric cars sort of portrays americans as hopeless little babies, waiting for corporations to do something nice for them.

A well-educated populace with a tiny bit of gumption would make their own damned electric cars through engineering coops or independent little companies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

jareilly
Posted by: jareilly on Jun 30, 2006 12:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I used to work for the oxymoronically titled Texaco Environmental Health Dept. Our director and one of our top engineers spent about two years in a sustained campaign to defeat the EV program. They worked in close coordination with the Americal Petroleum Institute (API), which is the main oil industry lobbying group. Their efforts were completely open and public; they were determined to stop the program altogether. They did this by attending every agency meeting on the subject, flooding overworked bureaucrats and agency scientists with reams of mostly irrelevant paper, issuing anti-EV press releases and badgering senior agency officials in closed door face-to-face meetings. I don't know the details but I think they threatened not to cooperate with any air resource board programs and bottle up all new regulations in court for years if the agency tried to "force" the EV on California. They also pressured the political apparatus to ensure more gasoline-friendly appointees on the air resources board. This was done by lawyers but also by engineers and scientists with deep detailed knowledge of the issues. In this case, a loyal and inflexible mindset was as important as technical knowledge.

In about 1994, Amory Lovins wrote a prescient article in Harper's or the Atlantic Monthly, which described hybrid vehicles in precise detail. In it, Lovins reported that Japanese car manufacturers were already at work on hybrids. I showed the article to the senior engineer, who just replied," Interesting stuff, but we're not really ready for that yet here", or words to that effect.

I never got a straight answer from them when I asked, "Why not just let the market decide? If the EV is inefficient, nobody will buy it and it will go the way of the Edsel". They were very happy in 1995 when I left, about their success in stalling the program. A few years later, it died altogether and GM aggressively rounded up all the EVs and demolished them. Since then, Toyota has increased it's market share and the Prius is back-ordered for 3 to 6 months. Texaco was bought up by Chevron and GM is laying off 30,000 workers.

The average American has no idea that any of this is going on. I think Americans believe that there is some sort of fair, honest, probing, technical debate going on and that the best idea wins in the end. It ain't necessarily so...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: jareilly Posted by: thoughtcriminal
EV -- 'Wildly Efficient' ?? Non-Polluting ?? Not really
Posted by: AdamSelene40 on Jun 30, 2006 1:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I admit: I don’t understand “Detroit.” OK … profit margins are very small and re-tooling costs are very large. There’s more money in financing cars than building them, and American consumers seem to reward the worst possible choices for personal and planetary safety.

But the plug-in electric design is still grotesquely inefficient by the standards of the Kyoto Accords. It doesn’t ‘pollute’ locally… but the power generators that keep it running put an enormous amount of CO2 into (and worse) into the planet’s atmosphere.

QUESTION: If it “x” tons of fossil carbon are burned to move a payload of ‘y’ pounds along ‘z’ miles, using an internal combustion engine how may tons will be burned to move the same payload the same distance in the same time along the same route using electric motor running on batteries charged from municipal 120v ac service?

ANSWER 1: In Captain Planet’s world: no fossil carbon is used by the electric motor because electricity is generated by wind, solar, hydroelectric, and psychic energy sources.

ANSWER 2: In Dick Cheney’s world: the plug-in electric vehicle requires at least 4 times the fossil carbon because energy is lost to transmission, conversion and storage inefficiencies – unless the internal combustion vehicle is a ‘hybrid vehicle’ that recycles some of the energy it loses to deceleration. In that case, the plug-in is even LESS carbon efficient.

But, the plug-in has enormous Coolness, makes a powerful Personal Identity Statement, and could be designed and built so as to never need power-train maintenance.

Maybe that’s Detroit’s problem with the design.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LindaT
Posted by: lturner1116 on Jun 30, 2006 2:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reminds me of the death of the Los Angeles electric streetcars by Detroit and the oil industry in the '50's, to sell more cars and gas and profit more at our expense. Check out how they bought up the right-of-ways, ripped up the tracks, and destroyed an advanced mass transit system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not dead!
Posted by: Liger on Jul 1, 2006 6:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"People who go around grousing and moaning about who killed the electric car are people with a schooled ignorance about markets and the realities of physics -- and an intellectual arrogance -- not only about what you and I should drive, but about how we should live."

Who Killed the Electric Car?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Unreliable source Posted by: peachmcd
Just Do It
Posted by: Liger on Jul 1, 2006 6:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"How is this for a thought, though? Why don't Paine and Sony Pictures and its parent, Sony Corp., with its $67 billion, get together with Begley, Hanks, Leno and Paul and pony up a few billion to bring the LiIon battery technology to market? Why complain when, as the Nike ad says, they could just do it? "

Technology and Politics as Metaphor

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and then there was the toyota echo
Posted by: hefalumpe on Jul 4, 2006 12:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i bought a toyota echo 4 years ago...and average over 40 mpg... and on a trip to canada i filled up in canada and made it to baltimore on @ 9 gallons... 50 + mpg !!!
so i told the toyota folks what a great car they had ( i bought it for less than 11,000 dollars) guess what ... they will not be making anymore and the model replacing it gets worse mpg... oh yes, we saw many echo hatchback models while in canada, not available here. next time the automakers tell us we will lose our model choices if they raise the cafe standards, remember the echo... a great car they won't make anymore (same story for the civic hatchback.. got 40 to 50 mpg with that in 1992 !)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

zorro
Posted by: rossi on Oct 23, 2006 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
n1 n2 n3 n4 n5 n6 n7 n8 n9 n10 n11 n12 n13 n14 n15 n16 n17

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

subject
Posted by: julio on Dec 1, 2006 7:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
opinion
Posted by: julio on Dec 1, 2006 7:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]