Who Killed the Electric Car?

[JAFO]

"Who Killed the Electric Car?" Film Review

Friday, July 21, 2006
SHAWN LEVY - The Oregonian - Portland, OR

"They were fast, they were sexy, they were clean, they were the future -- and they're already gone.

For about seven years starting in the mid-1990s, a series of production cars built to run on electricity instead of gasoline could be seen whooshing around the freeways of Arizona and Southern California. Manufactured by the likes of General Motors and Toyota, using battery packs and electric motors instead of internal combustion engines, cheap to operate, fun to drive, they were loved by the people who bought them as well as the folks who made and sold them. For a few years, it seemed that the vehicle of the future was a present-day reality.

And then the plug was pulled.
"Who Killed the Electric Car?" is a fascinating account of this little-remarked history of how an invention that everybody liked was crushed, literally, out of the marketplace. A little preachy and a little dry, the film nevertheless manages to prick your interest and your conscience -- and to raise your ire toward the folks who created this wondrous technology and then obliterated it.

According to documentarian Chris Paine, the production of electric cars first became a wish during the oil crisis of the 1970s and was then required by the state of California, which sought in the 1990s to save its air quality by requiring auto manufacturers to produced zero-emissions cars.

Naturally, the big car companies fought this demand, but at the same time they prepared for it, especially General Motors, which produced the most successful and beloved electric car, the EV. With a sales force that was almost evangelical in its belief, customers (including Tom Hanks and Mel Gibson) who adore it and innumerable advantages over traditional cars (it didn't require oil changes, for instance), the EV seemed a sure hit. But eventually the California regulation was overturned, and GM went from making green cars to making Hummers. The fleet of EVs -- which were leased by their drivers but never owned by them -- were literally crushed and shredded. The purely electric car was dead.

Paine's narrator, Martin Sheen, walks us through a number of theories as to why this happened, and you don't have to be Matlock to figure out who done it: big oil, big auto and a big, bored American public, which prefers to drive gas-guzzling SUVs. The film ends on a hopeful note, pointing out that hybrids like the Toyota Prius represent a step toward all-electric cars. Chiefly, though, you learn enough here to leave you frustrated, confused and angry: Why did it take the death of this technology for most of us to learn about it?"

Source July 21, 2006 - The Oregonian
http://www.oregonlive.com/search/ind...an?alfs&coll=7

[Joe_Black]

I heard this was pretty good and I'm looking forward to seeing it. Mainly interested to see how and if it addresses American's unrealistic expectations from EV's.

[johnnyapollo]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=160009055892

-- John

[VehiGAZ]

Oh, whaaa-whaaa-whaaa... that's such crap!

Here's more than a "theory" about why the EV run ended: EVs were leased to customers because no one was going to pay the actual $100,000+ cost for producing one! Sorry to break it to you greenies, but Big Evil GM spent a TON of their own money developing and manufacturing the EV, and only got a fraction of a percentage of it back in lease fees - the rest went down the drain. I don't know if they teach this in economics classes in Berkeley, but companies that need to burn more money than they take in don't do very well in the long run. I'd crush and shred a product that cost my company as much as the EV cost GM, too!!!

Second, the EV pollutes just like every fossil-fuel burning machine. "What?! He's MAD I tell you!!! Completely MAD!!!" Actually, it's true - the only difference is that the pollution comes out of the smoke stack at the electric plant, not out of the tailpipe of the vehicle. The fact is that the electricity that charged the EV's batteries came from a fossil-fuel-burning power plant nearby, and that's where the pollution is. Converting the energy produced by the fuel into electricity before turning it into motion also reduces the overall efficiency of the process, meaning that you need to burn comparatively more fuel at electrical plant to produce XX miles traveled in the electric car than you would if the fuel were burnt on-board the car without converting to electricity first. I'll grant that there is an advantage to managing pollution from one exhaust pipe over managing the polution from a 100,000 exhaust pipes, but nevertheless, there is fossil fuel pollution in the system (unless you prefer to go nuke, of course!).

And for my third torpedo in the side of that sad eulogy (there are many, many more), I'll just say that the practicality and performance of the EV sucked butt, which is the main reason why people didn't want them (millionaire Hollywood airheads aside)... In real-world driving in California, it only went 50-70 miles tops on a 12+ hour charge (although you could cut that time down if you installed a 220 V charger in your garage, too bad if you don't have one), and at that point, you'd be hobbled with greatly-diminished performance. Also, it only had room for one passenger, and not much after that for your shopping bags. A $100,000 car that can't go as far or as fast or carry as much as a $2000 Yugo... who could possibly pass one up?!

It's nice and easy and fun to blame the usual big bad bogeymen for all of our ills, but the fact is that reality is far too complex for such quick, curt conclusions.

Phew! Sorry for the soapbox rant! But this thread really pushed my buttons!!

[Ldub]

VehiGAZ...so which side of this issue are you on ???

Pardon me, but it's kind of hard for me to imagine anyone who drives one of these gas guzzling little piggies thinking of themselves as a "greenie".
Eco friendly is not in the VX tradition.

[JAFO]

...I'll just say that the practicality and performance of the EV sucked butt, which is the main reason why people didn't want them...

Electric vehicles have an advantage over internal combustion vehicle --torque-- Conventional internal combustion engines need to rev to a certain rate before reaching their peak torque, but electric motors achieve maximum torque instantaneously.

That with coupled with a light aerodynamic body makes a very fast car. The EV-1 production model has 1209 ft/lbs of torque and the ungoverned prototype did 180 MPH. The currently produced AC Propulsion's tzero does 0 to 60 in 3.6 seconds with only 200 horsepower. And has a range of 280 to 300 miles at 60 MPH.

[Joe_Black]

the EV pollutes just like every fossil-fuel burning machine. "What?! He's MAD I tell you!!! Completely MAD!!!" Actually, it's true - the only difference is that the pollution comes out of the smoke stack at the electric plant, not out of the tailpipe of the vehicle. The fact is that the electricity that charged the EV's batteries came from a fossil-fuel-burning power plant nearby, and that's where the pollution is. Converting the energy produced by the fuel into electricity before turning it into motion also reduces the overall efficiency of the process, meaning that you need to burn comparatively more fuel at electrical plant to produce XX miles traveled in the electric car than you would if the fuel were burnt on-board the car without converting to electricity first. I'll grant that there is an advantage to managing pollution from one exhaust pipe over managing the polution from a 100,000 exhaust pipes, but nevertheless, there is fossil fuel pollution in the system (unless you prefer to go nuke, of course!).

Okay, first off this is one of the most common points of ignorance regarding Renewable Energy today. Yes, thirty years ago this would've been true but today most folk using RE are completely off-grid or at the very least grid-tied. They're producing energy from sources that use very little one-time fossil outlay such as photovoltaics, wind power or micro-hydro. Some are generating their power from bio-fuels or other natural heat cycle sources which have no fossil fuel impact. We've come a long way in the past few decades and with a lot of experience and better technology the use of dependant-energy intensive electricity generation is for those who don't want to change. And it's not about being "green", it's about not lining the pockets of the oil companies who've been robbing us blind for the better part of the past century.

And for my third torpedo in the side of that sad eulogy (there are many, many more), I'll just say that the practicality and performance of the EV sucked butt, which is the main reason why people didn't want them (millionaire Hollywood airheads aside)... In real-world driving in California, it only went 50-70 miles tops on a 12+ hour charge (although you could cut that time down if you installed a 220 V charger in your garage, too bad if you don't have one), and at that point, you'd be hobbled with greatly-diminished performance. Also, it only had room for one passenger, and not much after that for your shopping bags. A $100,000 car that can't go as far or as fast or carry as much as a $2000 Yugo... who could possibly pass one up?!

This is where Americans and EV's hit head on. Most folk just couldn't wrap their head around the simple concept of keeping a conventional car in the garage for those rare long drives (or maybe just renting when needed) and using the electric for the everyday commute and errand running. There's a major grassroots movement right now converting gasoline cars to pure electric for just such a purpose. Sure, the range is around 60 miles but the cars are regular cars otherwise with the same passenger/cargo capacity and in most cases the performance is a blistering improvement over the original fossil fueled power plant.

Most Americans have demonstrated their gluttonous attitude toward fuel consumption this year by actually increasing need right alongside rising prices. And the oil companies are applauding that appetite all the way to the bank.

[WiSDoM]

All I want to know is can i take it in the Mud? hehehe

[VehiGAZ]

OK, Joe, you have a point regarding RE, but the amount of electricity running through the grid that was produced by RE sources is probably less than 1%, so I'll discount my original argument by that much too - the rest is still fossil-fuel-derived electricity.

Regarding having both a conventional vehicle as well as an EV, well, that doesn't make sense to me - that second e-car for short trips costs a huge amount of energy, materials, and toxic chemicals to develop and manufacture, and I should be responsible for consuming it all just so that on my short trips, I can take the EV and reduce the pollution coming from the vehicle I'm driving that trip just a marginal amount? I'm in no position to do the math on that, but I can't believe it pays off.

[Joe_Black]

It is a hard concept for most, but it's got to start somewhere. We can't just blindly travel down the same dark tunnel like a bunch of lemmings. Yes, an EV takes energy and materials to produce. Once it's completed however there isn't any more consumption of petroleum products with the exception of minor lubrication and tires. Now, if most folk replaced one fossil-fueled vehicle with an EV in their household and recharged it from an RE power source then that's an outright 50% reduction in fossil fuel consumption across the board. For the life of the vehicle. 50%. Period.

The impact of that one change alone, if widely adopted, would be staggering.

[WyrreJ]

OK, Joe, you have a point regarding RE, but the amount of electricity running through the grid that was produced by RE sources is probably less than 1%, so I'll discount my original argument by that much too - the rest is still fossil-fuel-derived electricity.

It is today. It is not necessarily tomorrow. With conventional vehicles it is and always will be oil. The major benefit of electric vehicles (same thing applies to hydrogen or any other non-petroleum powered vehicle) is centralized energy production.

Even today with oil/coal/gas powered electrical plants, the energy extraction efficiencies are much higher at the plant than they are in your car (up to 60% for natural gas vs up to 40% for diesel engines, significantly less for gasoline engines). They also (can) have better pollution controls. (I say "can" because we have this foolish policy of grandfathering in the dirtiest plants in the USA and exempting them from pollution control upgrades, but that's not the case in all countries).

But beyond simply upgrading the pollution controls, having centralized energy production means we can swap out one form of production for another. Already the USA produces 20% of our electricity from nukes, while France does 80% of their electricity from nukes - electric cars already make use of that. It's a lot easier to upgrade a couple of hundred power plants than it is to do a couple of hundred million cars.


As for the costs of the EV1? About $80K including R&D and they leased for about half that. The problem with cancelling the line because the costs were too high is that R&D costs were already sunk. Cancelling the line didn't get those back, meanwhile battery technology continues to be improved by many other sources. So GM would have been able to ride that development curve and realize reductions in manufacturing costs "for free." Additionally, at the time the cost of the electricity was between 1/3rd and 1/2 the cost for the equivalent amount of gasoline, a ratio that's only improved in recent years - although GM probably can't be blamed for not knowing that.

Since demand for the car far exceeded supply (waiting lists were full up, despite GM's claim of a lack of demand) they could probably have rejiggered the numbers to come out a lot better than they were. As a SWAG I bet the base lease price could have gone to at least $60K and they would have still had enough demand for the 200 vehicles per year that they were producing. Combine that with better and cheaper batteries and they are probably around the break-even point sans the already spent R&D.

Last and perhaps least with GM averaging losses of around $1B per quarter recently, losses due to EV1 were a teeny-tiny drop in the bucket. That $1B/qtr didn't do squat for improving the baseline technology in the market for automobiiles while the EV1 as an extended prototype had lots of potential for developing the EV2, EV3, etc that may easily have been cost effective. As tax-payers we gave GM over $1B in pork to support the EV1 development, I consider GM to have had a moral obligation to continue with the EV line. But I blame our government for handing out the pork apparently without a hard contract to keep GM from bailing. (I say apparently because I am entirely willing to believe that such a contract was signed back when the program started, but our pork stuffers just didn't have the guts to enforce it in 2003 because I am cynical that way).

[MZ-N10]

http://www.fast-autos.net/vehicles/Tesla/2007/Roadster/

i duno.....seems quick to me

[transio]

http://www.fast-autos.net/vehicles/Tesla/2007/Roadster/ i duno.....seems quick to me

The Tesla Roadster is gonna be a badass car. It's based upon a Lotus Elise chassis, with a body and suspension designed by Lotus Engineering. Makes 250 bhp, weighs 2400 lbs (900 lb. battery) and does 0-60 in about 4.0 seconds flat. Also has a range of 250 miles.

Oh, and because it's electric, it gets virtually maximum torque in its entire RPM range - from 0 to 13,000 RPM!

This is the future of sports cars! Imagine when we develop electric fuel technology to the point where we can decrease the battery weight to 100 lbs... then the car will weigh only 1600 lbs!!!

I read somewhere that some electric motor manufacturers have approached Lotus with a proposition to create the first electric F1 car! Woudln't that ROCK!?

Anyhow, electric is not dead... it's just beginning!

[VehiGAZ]

$80k/vehicle including development costs? I don't think so... I just got my brand-spanking-new Car & Driver in the mail today, and the first editorial happens to address this movie (how timely). In the article, the editor pegged the cost of each EV at around $1,000,000 including development costs. This from a guy that has GM's engineering staff on speed-dial. That's a far cry from $80k.

Secondly, the speculation that the lease cost of the EV could be raised to make it a sustainable product is just nonsense, because there was no buy-out option on the 3-4 year lease (since they would need a total battery replacement to go longer, adding thousands to the cost of maintenance) so the "lease cost" is meaningless - all that matters is the monthly vig, and that was a paltry $300-$400 a month. Even on the high side of each of these estimates, that means GM was able to recoup about $19,200 of that million bucks it spent to produce each one. (substitute the $80k figure, and it's still a horrendous money loser) So GM threw millions and millions of dollars (some of which came from our taxes) down the drain to appease the California Air Resources Board for a couple of years before they backpedaled their impossible sell-an-EV-if-you-want-to-sell-anything-in-Cali mandate. And GM is the enemy?

There was another great little factoid about the EV-1 in that C/D editorial... they asked the engineers who developed it what the range would be on a winter day with cold batteries, using the heater and defroster. The answer? 12 miles. Yeah, what a livable, practical means of transportation...

And I don't buy the contention that it makes sense for all of us to replace one of our cars with an EV which we can recharge using our home renewable energy supply. Again, expending tons of resources to replace something that will tax other resources marginally less doesn't make any sense on a macroeconomic scale. Hell, I don't think it makes any sense even on a microeconomic scale - I would have to spend tens of thousands to replace a perfectly good car with an EV replacement, spends thousands and thousands of dollars building a wind turbine or set of photovoltaic cells in my backyard ("What a lovely addition!"), all to move my pollution production to a coal-fired power plant?! Besides, those solar panels and wind turbines don't power a special green outlet out back behind the house - they are metered and feed the electricity back into the GRID while you get a credit against youe electric bill.

If you want to expend resources to reduce pollution, there are a lot of cheaper and more effective ways to do it than that!

[JAFO]

If you want to expend resources to reduce pollution, there are a lot of cheaper and more effective ways to do it than that!

So if there are cheaper and more effective ways to reduce pollution, why did California choose to go with the EV? Are you saying that they are intentionally ignoring other currently available options, as if they like the fact that they have the highest air pollution?

I guess one way to cut air pollution in half would be to pass a law that said you can only drive every other day of the week. That should cut air pollution in half.

Or if people didn't like being told when or where they can or can't drive maybe add a $3 per gallon gas tax. Then keep rasing the tax until the air pollution has lowered to acceptable (heathly) levels.

Either of these two situations wouldn't cost the government any money and the second may actually turn a profit.

Banning use of vehicles because of pollution or environmental abuse has happened before. Example, 2 cycle personal water craft have been banned by California and other states. ATVs have been banned from some public lands. Motorized vehicles have been banned from most of the Oregon coast line's beaches. If we do not take responsibility for our own environmental abuse then eventually, gradually, our freedoms will be taken away from us.