Jul 9: Who Killed the Electric Car?
Has anyone seen the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?"? We watched it last night, and I'm still all fired up.
It deals mainly with the GM EV-1, and all-electric car that came about because of the zero-emissions mandate enacted by California in the early 90's. It shows how they were fast (really fast!) and quiet, but doesn't shy away from their downsides, mainly their limited range (60 miles per charge at first, but 120 in the later models--newer lithium-ion batteries in an EV-1 could easily do 300).
They were much loved by the people leasing them, but then when the leases were up, GM wouldn't re-up the leases, collected all the cars and destroyed them. No official explanation was given, but several auto industry representatives said that no one wanted a car that could only go 120 miles per charge and required charging overnight (but could get an 85% charge in an hour). This was in spite of a huge waiting list due to the fact that they insisted on hand assembling the cars, which artificially drove up the price and increased production time.
Personally, I would LOVE a car that I could plug in overnight that would take me to work & back each day with some charge left over for some errands. To think that such a thing existed, was actually on the roads and was killed really turns my stomach, especially in light of the mess we're in right now with gas prices. Since they were taken off the roads, we could've had 6 more years of development and improvement on these cars, but instead we're wasting money and time on pie-in-the-sky ideas like hydrogen cars and half measures like hybrids, with a bright light being plug-in hybrids that should be here 'soon.'
I can only imagine how well these would sell these days. If only GM had stuck with it, they'd be raking in the money instead of losing billions on big gas-guzzling SUVs.
I highly recommend this movie. I can't recommend it enough.
This guy, however, disagrees. While there is some truth to some of the points he makes (specifically the list in #1), mostly he's having fun calling conjecture 'fact.' You can have your own fun by comparing his argument tactics to Wikipedia's list of logical fallacies. While you're at it, you may as well figure out which one I'm using in this paragraph 
On a side note, the movie also touches on how, in the mid 20th century, GM bought out a bunch of streetcar companies, dismantled the electric streetcars and replaced them with GM buses. More info here.
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Yeah, the wife and I saw that a couple of months back. It was pretty infuriating and saddening all at once. Seeing them round up all those perfectly good cars to cart away and smash (or was it shred?) for no good reason. Seriously wasteful on so many levels. Had that technology been allowed to progress, we'd probably be more advanced in our hybrid/electric vehicles today.
When doing security I would pass by 2 of them parked in the Marriott parking garage. Plugged into an outlet. I thought it was the coolest thing. I just finished watching Wal-Mart the high cost of Low Price on Demand. I was up until 1am. It makes me never wanting to shop there again, and burn the 2 here in Salisbury to the ground. I just wish they would get rid of the Sam's Club and replace it with a Costco and life would be ok.
related to walmart, i just read this: http://simplystated.realsimple.com/home/2008/07/walmart-botox.html It looks like Walmart is making some changes in order to boost sales. It reminds me of Bloom (aka; prettier Food Lion)
I just read this:
http://finance.comcast.net/www/news.html?x=http://www.origin.comcast.akadns.net/data/news/2008/07/09/1004844.xml
Maybe we need to move to Japan:o)
You folks can't possibly be so gullible as to believe that
1) GM was the only company that built and cancelled an electric car program or that they were, for some bizarre logic, the only company required to build a zero emission vehicle
2) That it's possible to claim that an electric car is a zero emission vehicle when there is no zero emission electricity.
3) that an electric car using NiMH batteries was even remotely viable as an alternative technology - the EV-1 after 3 years had a driving radius less than 35 miles. Now how many destinations that you want to go are over 35 miles away?
4) that the EV-1 was either "cheap to operate" or reliable
The cost was almost $50,000 and the battery packs lasted 5 years and cost over $20,000, making the EV-1's per mile operating costs greater than any other vehicle on the road.
Cheap, my ass.
5) that the EV-1 was anything other than a coal powered car.
6) that anyone gave a damn about carbon emissions during the period from 1996 until 2002.
7) that there were "throngs" of EV-1 lovers when there were never more than 800 of the 1100 EV-1s under lease at the same time. 800 out of 10 million drivers is NOT a throng. It's a small group of people desperate to greenwash their image and appear superior.
You people are just gullible brainless dupes. ignorance is no excuse for being a lying accessory to a completely fictitious film.
Chris Paine is a complete asshole. And I told him so to his face,
and the skinny little wimp wouldn't even give me an answer.
Cowardly little bastard.
Wow, where'd you come from ramon? I'm surprised anyone other than my normal readers has found this so quickly. Do you have an ongoing search for the title of the movie, so you can have these arguments? Also, you don't have to be a jerk about it. I'm happy to argue, but no need to stoop to infantile name-calling.
But, to your points:
1) Of course, GM wasn't the only one. The movie deals mostly with the EV-1, but it also discusses cars & trucks from Honda, Toyota & Ford.
2) True, but it's a lot easier to clean & regulate the more centralized power plants than 200 million (or whatever) little power plants driving around.
3) It may not have been viable then, but is it not viable now? Wouldn't technology have improved since then?
4) The movie specifically deals with this, too. Of course the initial costs were high. But as they produced more, switched them to a mass production model and technology improved, they'd become more reasonable. Initial costs are always high, but with time they generally come down, so this is certainly not a reason to not produce the original models.
5) See reply to #2. It's only coal powered as long as coal is producing the electricity. It's a lot easier to add new clean electricity to the grid than it is to switch all of the cars out there to some new technology like hydrogen. We need to switch the cars at least once, but if it's to electricity, we only need to do it once.
6) What's you point? How does the ignorance, or lack thereof, of whoever 'anyone' is refute anything said in the movie or in my post?
7) I don't think anyone claimed that there were throngs of EV-1 drivers, so again, what's your point? The quantity of EV-1 drivers doesn't change the potential of the idea or technology. It's the lost potential that I feel has really harmed us.
Again, no need to resort to child-like name calling. Make your argument and let your ideas stand on their own. Attacking us or Chris Paine doesn't strengthen your ideas and only serves to make you look foolish. Whether or not we are dupes or Chris Paine is a wimp doesn't change the validity (or lack thereof) of our ideas. As you can see from my reply, I'm doing exactly what you claim Chris Paine did: I'm not answering your personal attacks. He probably felt that replying to that was beneath him, as I do. It's beneath you to make them.
Add Comment
Has anyone seen the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?"? We watched it last night, and I'm still all fired up. It deals mainly with the GM EV-1, and all-electric car that came about because of the zero-emissions mandate enacted by California in the early 90's. It shows how they were fast (really fast!) and quiet, but doesn't shy away from their downsides, mainly their limited range (60 miles per charge at first, but 120 in the later models--newer lithium-ion batteries in an EV-1 could easily do 300).
They were much loved by the people leasing them, but then when the leases were up, GM wouldn't re-up the leases, collected all the cars and destroyed them. No official explanation was given, but several auto industry representatives said that no one wanted a car that could only go 120 miles per charge and required charging overnight (but could get an 85% charge in an hour). This was in spite of a huge waiting list due to the fact that they insisted on hand assembling the cars, which artificially drove up the price and increased production time.
Personally, I would LOVE a car that I could plug in overnight that would take me to work & back each day with some charge left over for some errands. To think that such a thing existed, was actually on the roads and was killed really turns my stomach, especially in light of the mess we're in right now with gas prices. Since they were taken off the roads, we could've had 6 more years of development and improvement on these cars, but instead we're wasting money and time on pie-in-the-sky ideas like hydrogen cars and half measures like hybrids, with a bright light being plug-in hybrids that should be here 'soon.'
I can only imagine how well these would sell these days. If only GM had stuck with it, they'd be raking in the money instead of losing billions on big gas-guzzling SUVs.
I highly recommend this movie. I can't recommend it enough.
This guy, however, disagrees. While there is some truth to some of the points he makes (specifically the list in #1), mostly he's having fun calling conjecture 'fact.' You can have your own fun by comparing his argument tactics to Wikipedia's list of logical fallacies. While you're at it, you may as well figure out which one I'm using in this paragraph
On a side note, the movie also touches on how, in the mid 20th century, GM bought out a bunch of streetcar companies, dismantled the electric streetcars and replaced them with GM buses. More info here.
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Yeah, the wife and I saw that a couple of months back. It was pretty infuriating and saddening all at once. Seeing them round up all those perfectly good cars to cart away and smash (or was it shred?) for no good reason. Seriously wasteful on so many levels. Had that technology been allowed to progress, we'd probably be more advanced in our hybrid/electric vehicles today.
When doing security I would pass by 2 of them parked in the Marriott parking garage. Plugged into an outlet. I thought it was the coolest thing. I just finished watching Wal-Mart the high cost of Low Price on Demand. I was up until 1am. It makes me never wanting to shop there again, and burn the 2 here in Salisbury to the ground. I just wish they would get rid of the Sam's Club and replace it with a Costco and life would be ok.
related to walmart, i just read this: http://simplystated.realsimple.com/home/2008/07/walmart-botox.html It looks like Walmart is making some changes in order to boost sales. It reminds me of Bloom (aka; prettier Food Lion)
I just read this:
http://finance.comcast.net/www/news.html?x=http://www.origin.comcast.akadns.net/data/news/2008/07/09/1004844.xml
Maybe we need to move to Japan:o)
http://finance.comcast.net/www/news.html?x=http://www.origin.comcast.akadns.net/data/news/2008/07/09/1004844.xml
Maybe we need to move to Japan:o)
You folks can't possibly be so gullible as to believe that
1) GM was the only company that built and cancelled an electric car program or that they were, for some bizarre logic, the only company required to build a zero emission vehicle
2) That it's possible to claim that an electric car is a zero emission vehicle when there is no zero emission electricity.
3) that an electric car using NiMH batteries was even remotely viable as an alternative technology - the EV-1 after 3 years had a driving radius less than 35 miles. Now how many destinations that you want to go are over 35 miles away?
4) that the EV-1 was either "cheap to operate" or reliable
The cost was almost $50,000 and the battery packs lasted 5 years and cost over $20,000, making the EV-1's per mile operating costs greater than any other vehicle on the road.
Cheap, my ass.
5) that the EV-1 was anything other than a coal powered car.
6) that anyone gave a damn about carbon emissions during the period from 1996 until 2002.
7) that there were "throngs" of EV-1 lovers when there were never more than 800 of the 1100 EV-1s under lease at the same time. 800 out of 10 million drivers is NOT a throng. It's a small group of people desperate to greenwash their image and appear superior.
You people are just gullible brainless dupes. ignorance is no excuse for being a lying accessory to a completely fictitious film.
Chris Paine is a complete asshole. And I told him so to his face,
and the skinny little wimp wouldn't even give me an answer.
Cowardly little bastard.
1) GM was the only company that built and cancelled an electric car program or that they were, for some bizarre logic, the only company required to build a zero emission vehicle
2) That it's possible to claim that an electric car is a zero emission vehicle when there is no zero emission electricity.
3) that an electric car using NiMH batteries was even remotely viable as an alternative technology - the EV-1 after 3 years had a driving radius less than 35 miles. Now how many destinations that you want to go are over 35 miles away?
4) that the EV-1 was either "cheap to operate" or reliable
The cost was almost $50,000 and the battery packs lasted 5 years and cost over $20,000, making the EV-1's per mile operating costs greater than any other vehicle on the road.
Cheap, my ass.
5) that the EV-1 was anything other than a coal powered car.
6) that anyone gave a damn about carbon emissions during the period from 1996 until 2002.
7) that there were "throngs" of EV-1 lovers when there were never more than 800 of the 1100 EV-1s under lease at the same time. 800 out of 10 million drivers is NOT a throng. It's a small group of people desperate to greenwash their image and appear superior.
You people are just gullible brainless dupes. ignorance is no excuse for being a lying accessory to a completely fictitious film.
Chris Paine is a complete asshole. And I told him so to his face,
and the skinny little wimp wouldn't even give me an answer.
Cowardly little bastard.
Wow, where'd you come from ramon? I'm surprised anyone other than my normal readers has found this so quickly. Do you have an ongoing search for the title of the movie, so you can have these arguments? Also, you don't have to be a jerk about it. I'm happy to argue, but no need to stoop to infantile name-calling.
But, to your points:
1) Of course, GM wasn't the only one. The movie deals mostly with the EV-1, but it also discusses cars & trucks from Honda, Toyota & Ford.
2) True, but it's a lot easier to clean & regulate the more centralized power plants than 200 million (or whatever) little power plants driving around.
3) It may not have been viable then, but is it not viable now? Wouldn't technology have improved since then?
4) The movie specifically deals with this, too. Of course the initial costs were high. But as they produced more, switched them to a mass production model and technology improved, they'd become more reasonable. Initial costs are always high, but with time they generally come down, so this is certainly not a reason to not produce the original models.
5) See reply to #2. It's only coal powered as long as coal is producing the electricity. It's a lot easier to add new clean electricity to the grid than it is to switch all of the cars out there to some new technology like hydrogen. We need to switch the cars at least once, but if it's to electricity, we only need to do it once.
6) What's you point? How does the ignorance, or lack thereof, of whoever 'anyone' is refute anything said in the movie or in my post?
7) I don't think anyone claimed that there were throngs of EV-1 drivers, so again, what's your point? The quantity of EV-1 drivers doesn't change the potential of the idea or technology. It's the lost potential that I feel has really harmed us.
Again, no need to resort to child-like name calling. Make your argument and let your ideas stand on their own. Attacking us or Chris Paine doesn't strengthen your ideas and only serves to make you look foolish. Whether or not we are dupes or Chris Paine is a wimp doesn't change the validity (or lack thereof) of our ideas. As you can see from my reply, I'm doing exactly what you claim Chris Paine did: I'm not answering your personal attacks. He probably felt that replying to that was beneath him, as I do. It's beneath you to make them.
But, to your points:
1) Of course, GM wasn't the only one. The movie deals mostly with the EV-1, but it also discusses cars & trucks from Honda, Toyota & Ford.
2) True, but it's a lot easier to clean & regulate the more centralized power plants than 200 million (or whatever) little power plants driving around.
3) It may not have been viable then, but is it not viable now? Wouldn't technology have improved since then?
4) The movie specifically deals with this, too. Of course the initial costs were high. But as they produced more, switched them to a mass production model and technology improved, they'd become more reasonable. Initial costs are always high, but with time they generally come down, so this is certainly not a reason to not produce the original models.
5) See reply to #2. It's only coal powered as long as coal is producing the electricity. It's a lot easier to add new clean electricity to the grid than it is to switch all of the cars out there to some new technology like hydrogen. We need to switch the cars at least once, but if it's to electricity, we only need to do it once.
6) What's you point? How does the ignorance, or lack thereof, of whoever 'anyone' is refute anything said in the movie or in my post?
7) I don't think anyone claimed that there were throngs of EV-1 drivers, so again, what's your point? The quantity of EV-1 drivers doesn't change the potential of the idea or technology. It's the lost potential that I feel has really harmed us.
Again, no need to resort to child-like name calling. Make your argument and let your ideas stand on their own. Attacking us or Chris Paine doesn't strengthen your ideas and only serves to make you look foolish. Whether or not we are dupes or Chris Paine is a wimp doesn't change the validity (or lack thereof) of our ideas. As you can see from my reply, I'm doing exactly what you claim Chris Paine did: I'm not answering your personal attacks. He probably felt that replying to that was beneath him, as I do. It's beneath you to make them.
Add Comment
