Who Killed The Electric Car?

[Craig]

Posted: 5/31/07 at 10:56pm

Just watched this tonight... great documentary which reminded me how much I also loved the movie "Tucker: The Man and His Dream"

Anyone else see either... both great movies that show how innovation in this country gets thwarted for the simple reason that it's "too good"

[mateo]

Posted: 5/31/07 at 10:58pm

no. but I want to see it- i hear its excellent.

[Chloe]

Posted: 5/31/07 at 10:59pm

Is this the documentary that shows the car companies smashing up their perfectly good electric cars? A friend of mine saw this, I think. He was appalled.

[Craig]

Posted: 5/31/07 at 11:01pm

That's the one...

[Craig]

Posted: 5/31/07 at 11:04pm

Pretty interesting doc to watch - especially because since the car was killed, oil prices have soared...

[SNAFU]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 12:08am

I thought the most interesting part was GM selling their controlling interest in the company that finaly was perfecting the battery to Texico. No sabotaging there!

[Yawper]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 1:21am

At the outset the auto industry had electric, ethanol fueled, and gasoline fueled cars - gasoline won out and became standard. Back then there was no obvious need to pursue development of the alternative energies.

Posted: 6/1/07 at 8:16am

Cardiff University worked for years developing an electric car. My husband's company supplied them with the traction batteries to run the two protoypes. They gave him one to run around in for his sins, it did 60 miles on one charge and had a top speed of 60 mph, it was a lot of fun.

This was around fifteen years ago, a lost opportunity for sure...

[ALittleNorthofKansas]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 8:33am

A great movie and the lengths GM went to make sure all the electric cars they built would never survive - shame.

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 9:16am

I haven't see the doc, but "Tucker: The Man & His Dream" is a very good movie. Fascinating. And Jeff Bridges is excellent. It deserved to do a lot better than it did.

[Yawper]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 10:08am

"This was around fifteen years ago, a lost opportunity for sure... "

Do you people seriously think this stuff gets developed overnight? The automakers have been working on alternatives for over 15 years. A 60 mile range before recharging (how long did it take to recharge? a matter of hours I'm sure) won't work in the American market, nor will a tin can sized car. For alternatives to work they have to be able to meet the needs of the driving public.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 11:14am

yawper, that is such an American statement. We really need to look at what's good for us AND the world.....and not be so damn self-centered.
I am not saying you are at all......just your "Michiganess" shows through at times like this.
The major car companies killed the electric car, this is documented fact. They are here to make money.
Yes, they are "working-on" things, but really how seriously.
Most of them, like most Americans have the opinion that they'll be long gone before any environmental issues happen, so why car?
It just bugs me

We all need to do our part, and if that means not buying huge gas-guzzling vehicles, so be it. I mean who needs a Hummer or a Caddy anyway?

Updated On: 6/3/07 at 11:14 AM

[Yawper]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 11:26am

Newsflash - people in Michigan KNOW the auto industry better than the rest of the country - how would others like it if I pointed out that, despite MILLIONS in federal and non-profit funding (which the auto industry doesn't get), and over 20 years of research no cures have been found for AIDS and many cancers.

Stop assuming that truly viable technology exists for the market just because the problem is mechanical.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 12:34pm

And are we not to believe that the Oil Interests play NO role in the developement (or non developement) of a viable alternative fuel source auto?

[Yawper]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 1:17pm

The oil companies are very, very good at shifting blame to the auto companies e.g. CAFE standards are pushed by the oil interests. Why? Because they shift the burden and expense of adaptation to the auto makers instead of promoting alternative fuels. Despite ever increasing fuel economy standards Americans are using more gasoline than ever before.

Not including war costs, etc., which the oil interests don't care to acknowledge, gasoline is still the least expensive, most efficient fuel available and that's something oil interests pound into the ground. Pay attention to the arguments - every time ethanol is mentioned the cost factor comes up. Also, the oil interests control the conventional fuel delivery system in the US, which has hampered the switch to ethanol. In the Midwest the ethanol market has been expanding because states and non-oil businesses have been working around the oil companies instead of depending on them. For obvious reasons that's not the case in oil dominated states in the south and west. How about the oil companies be required to make E85 ethanol available at their stations nationwide, along with gasoline? The vehicle technology for ethanol has been on the road for years and, without oil company opposition, the switch could have been made by now while other alternatives are still being developed. (E85 is 85% ethanol, 15% gasoline - a substantial reduction in gasoline demand that's possible RIGHT NOW).

Another promising note - one of the auto manufacturers recently succeeded in getting 300 miles on a single fill of hydrogen.

[mrs felciano]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 1:29pm

Brilliant movie. I watched it for my Sociology class.

[Yawper]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 2:03pm

Brilliant? Did you discuss just what was in the film or other aspects, like what's the film's purpose, what business entities benefit from it's message, what would the effect be if it achieved it's goals?

Much of the Eastern seaboard and upper Midwest had a blackout a few years ago due to demands placed on the electrical grid - what happens if plug-in cars are added to the load?

[SNAFU]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 2:38pm

Yes, gasoline is still the least expensive fuel source but that will not remain so forever. We will soon reach Peak Oil where the supply will not be enough for the world's increasing demand. As natural supplies dwindle, the cost will skyrocket. If steps are not taken soon and technologies put into play to ease our oil dependancy, the World's Economy will possibly collapse.

[Yawper]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 3:35pm

This is true of any product - technology can't fix that. The only solution is for everybody to stop wasting so much of everything, but a capitalist economy is based on continually growing markets, so...

[SNAFU]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 4:35pm

The proper technologies can ease the problem, along with conservation. Alternative power sources,like the developement of a practical and affordable hydrogen car, will lessen our dependancy on oil. Granted, we will never lose our need for it.
All the big players however, the automotive makers, the big oil companies and the like are going to have to be on board. Short term profits are going to have to give way to long term gains. I am not sure that will happen until it is too lateand the Earths oil supplies have dwindled to almost none. It will be like trying to fortify a levee once it has been breeched.

[Craig]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 4:51pm

I'm reminded of the li'l abner quote

Progress is the root of all evil.

As the movie quite clearly commented - no one entity is to blame and it's all cyclical (blame, and lack of "success")

I still think it's a great watch. Many people, I believe are naive about how corporations, governments, etc don't always look out for the best interests, but rather what's best financially at the time. It's a faulty system, but it's one that "works" in america..

Having worked in the technology sector, I can assure you, there are very "careful" decisions made about when and how to release technology based on consumer demands/profits/etc It's nothing new.

It's still a shame.. and as I said in my first post, it disheartens me whenever I read or see stories about innovative ideas that work that are squashed for not-so-altruistic reasons.

That's what makes Tucker a fascination case study and film... and the same with this documentary.

[The Boy From Ohio]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 5:04pm

I need to see this documentary. I saw Tucker and loved it...it was on one of the movie channels not long ago.

[javero]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 5:12pm

I came across an online article about this topic a few weeks back which suggested that electric automobiles once rivaled fossil fuel propelled ones and were very popular with urban women because the engines were much less noisy than their internal combustion counterparts. The author also asserted that mass produced electromechanical starters, improvements in batter technology and greater energy efficienty (at the time) led to widespread acceptance of the internal combustion engine over the battery powerplant.

While I'm all in favor of less dependence on fossil fuels for transportation (and generating electricity), yawper makes a very valid point about the strain the shift to battery-powered vehicles would place on an already over-taxed national power grid. That said, we desparately need to find alternatives to coal-fired turbines in super-polluting power plants that drive much of the electrical grid system still. Much has been mentioned of car pollution but the very power plants that supply electricity to the factories (including GM's), homes and offices of this industrialized nation are doing their share of environmental damage as well.

yawper wrote: Much of the Eastern seaboard and upper Midwest had a blackout a few years ago due to demands placed on the electrical grid - what happens if plug-in cars are added to the load?

Updated On: 6/1/07 at 05:12 PM

[Yawper]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 5:32pm

Tucker's a little different - that's just a matter of an upstart competitor getting crushed by the majors. Had he vowed to stay a boutique manufacturer they wouldn't have crushed him.

What's not acknowledged by many is that it's not the automakers who will lose market by accomodating alternative fuels. They will be selling whatever they can successfully develop - once they have put R&D money into a project they aren't going to kill it if they believe it will be successful. You will, however, see competition between the automakers with regard to what they can accomodate or if they choose to emphasize one technology over another. This is why I asked about the point of the film. Subtly it benefits Toyota even though Toyota right now is the worst positioned in terms of alternative fuel technology because they poured everything into gasoline/battery hybrids. Now Ford's hybrid SUV beats Toyota's in fuel economy and Ford is reportedly working on an E85/battery hybrid. By having their fingers in every pie Ford and GM should be able to move more readily to whichever technology becomes dominant, or they can sell across the board if need be.

edit: vehicle emissions account for about 20% of total emissions - there's a lot more that needs to be addressed.
Updated On: 6/1/07 at 05:32 PM

[Craig]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 5:44pm

I think part of the reason the automotive industry wasn't 100 percent behind it was also because the huge cut in profits they would be making with a combustable engine. It was discussed in the film and I've read articles that state quite clearly - the maintenance and parts needed to keep those cars on the road were a LOT less. So not only would the manufacturers not be all that excited about their loss of aftermarket revenue - but I imagine all of their dealerships, etc would be pissing and moaning as well.