Wednesday
Aug062008
Who Killed the Electric Car? (And why Wikipedia is GREAT)
I just saw the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car" which makes a pretty compelling case that years ago General Motors had a working and practical electric car which they took off the market under what are portrayed as suspicious circumstances.
It's an interesting movie but part of me, while never underestimating the corruption and incompetence in government and industry, still felt like there must be another side of the story.
Here's an article in Wikipedia about the film "Who Killed The Electric Car" and evidence in support and opposition to the case made in the movie. While one might quibble similarly with the Wikipedia article, it is replete with references and links to other sites which tell other sides of the story.
Interesting.
It's an interesting movie but part of me, while never underestimating the corruption and incompetence in government and industry, still felt like there must be another side of the story.
Here's an article in Wikipedia about the film "Who Killed The Electric Car" and evidence in support and opposition to the case made in the movie. While one might quibble similarly with the Wikipedia article, it is replete with references and links to other sites which tell other sides of the story.
Interesting.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008 at 11:43AM 
Reader Comments (7)
Hello. I was reading someone elses blog and saw you on their blogroll. Would you be interested in exchanging blog roll links? If so, feel free to email me.
Thanks.
It's tough listening to yet another victim of
perhaps the most dishonest film ever made.
"Who Killed..." is nothing but a long sequence
of lies, starting with the absurd claim that
GM killed the electric car by cancelling its truly
crappy EV-1. The Toyota Rav4 Electric and Honda
Electric were far better cars than the small
cramped EV-1, and Honda cancelled their electric car
program after less than a year due to lack of public
interest, and Toyota killed theirs the same year the EV-1
program was cancelled, which had been long overdue.
So how come Toyota and Honda aren't painted as killers
of electric car? Simple. Chris Paine made a backroom
deal with those two companies and in return rewrote
history and does not mention them. And do you really
believe that the EV-1 was cheap transportation? If so,
it's quite obvious that the film failed (on purpose)
to inform it viewers just how exorbitantly expensive
those electric cars really were.
Some electric car facts the film never told you:
Production costs: EV-1 : over $50,000, more than 3 times
that of the much better Honda Accord. Toyota Rav4 - $43,000,
Honda EV - $53,000.
Costs of ownership : new battery pack about every 5 years :
25 NiMH batteries that weighed 1200 pounds (!!). Replacement
costs : Toyota dealerships reportedly priced a complete
battery pack replacement at $35,000. The EV-1 battery pack cost
well beyond $20,000, but GM leasees were never asked to replace
their batteries, while Toyota demanded that their leasees pay for
theirs (none ever did - they simply turned in their leased
vehicles). The per mile costs of owning an NiMH powered EV are
astronomical - more than 30 cents per mile in battery costs alone,
or over $4,000 per year, 4 times what gas powered drivers were
paying for fuel.
Still think those electric cars were cheap?
Still think avoiding a $20 oil change makes me want to go
own an electric? Do you really believe that maintenance costs
for an EV are significantly less? How can that be, when 98% of
the parts on the electric are found in gas powered cars? My
Buick calls for its first tuneup at 100,000 miles, and costs $20.
Oil changes cost me less than $20 per year. That's it. The EV-1
wass recalled numerous times for mechanical and electrical
problems.
Popularity : no one wanted the EV-1, despite large federal
and state subsidies to those who leased them. No leasee ever
paid anywhere near the cost of those vehicles. Of 5,000 GM
customers who responded to a survey saying that they were
interested in an electric car, only 50 were dumb enough
to sign up. NEVER, in the 6 year life span of the EV-1 (which was
longer than the production run of most cars, making a complete
lie of the claim that the cars weren't available) were more
than 800 of the 1200 EV-1s on lease at the same time.
ONLY the conscious-striken, those desperate to drive one and
greenwash their image, wanted those cars. They were one gigantic,
expensive headache. The required 8 hours to recharge. Always
available? Get real.
Other problems: GM reported that fear of running out of
electricity was very strong, especially among their women
drivers.
Could the EV-1 get you where you wanted to go? Not likely.
Can you survive with just the EV-1 and without a gas powered car?
Not unless you never needed or wanted to go to a destination over
40 miles away. That was the limit of the car's driving radius, although
it would shrink as the batteries aged. At 5 years of age, they had less
than 80% of their earlier power (car became slow) and range capacity.
Customers played Russian roulette if they dared try to go too far. Just
because the EV-1 could get you there a year ago, didn't mean it could
today. And those distances varied depedning upon all kinds of things -
terrain, driving style, A/C usage, etc. It simply was often impossible
to know whether the car could make it to you destination or not, even in
the unlikely event that you knew how far you had to go (assuming no
detours, etc).
"Who Killed the Electric Car?" is far and away the most dishonest film
ever created. Contrary to the cheerleading film, the EV-1 was recently named by a panel of auto analysts as one of the worst cars ever built. There was no conceivable reason for producing the EV-1. The film's claim that Califonria's zero emission law required them is a complete lie - the zero emission laws pertained to all two dozen automakers, not only to those three (Honda, Toyota, GM) who actually produced electric cars. The zero emission law was a joke, and wouldn't have withstood a court challenge. Recently an appeals court ruled in an almost
identical situation that states do not have the power to force manufacturers to produce products according to their desires.
Without a practical electric battery, any attempts to build a battery-only
electric car are doomed : even dimwitted 7 year olds are aware of that obvious fact. Anyone can build an electric car - they were doing that long before World War I. Problem is, the EV-1 wasn't any better than those early electric cars in the critical areas of driving range, costs, and recharge times. In 90 years the electric car that had been made obsolete by the Model T Ford in 1906 was much the same. I was originally interested in the EV-1 when I learned about it in 1989. But when it finally appeared (after waiting for those "NiMH wonder batteries" which turned out not to be so much wonderful as expensive) I was appalled to learn of everything it couldn't do. Nobody killed the electric car in 2002, because the electric car wasn't alive. It was, in the words of senior
Motor Trend editor MacKenzie, DOA.
GM is currently building the Chevy Volt, a car which avoids all the stupidity of the battery-only, can't-do electric car. And it will achieve virtually everything an battery-only electric can and still be a viable alternative to the gas powered car, which the EV-1 never was. Do the simple math and you'll find that as a commuter (which accounts for over half the gasoline usage in this country) the Chevy VOLT can eliminate the need of over 96% of liquid fuel (even without any workplace recharging) and what remains can easily be met using ethanol.
There simply is no need for forcing consumers to accept inferior products like the totally crappy EV-1, which met the transportation needs of practically no one, even those who could afford its high costs of ownership, such as Holwood stars looking to greenwash their image by driving that "coal-powered" vehicle.
All you liars who are claiming the EV-1 (or Toyota Rav4 electric or Honda EV) were viable cars will soon have the opportunity to put your money where your mouth is. Mitsubishi announced an electric car to be built in 2009, and it is superior to the EV-1 in every conceivable way : 1) it only takes half as long to recharge; 2) at 100 miles, is has 20% more driving range; 3) it costs much less than the EV-1, especially when comparison take account of inflation - it will cost $39,000 for the
basic model; 4) it can carry three times as many passenger and has room for luggage; 5) its battery pack costs less, at $20,000, and will last 5 years;
Now, all you morons and jerks who claim the EV-1 was a wonder car better be lined up to buy this little gem from Mitsubishi.
Sure you will.
Kerry - you seem quite passionate and informed about the matter. Just curious if you could tell us more about your background? Who are you?
[...] an interesting comment on my previous post on Electric Cars topic, “Who Killed the Electric Car” suddenly I am [...]
Why the electric car is still dead as Disco is easy. You must be a homeowner to have a place to plug it in! Being a condo owner, like an apartment dweller makes it useless unless you install a welding generator in the trunk defeating the purpose. By the way, if you are a homeowner with an electric car and undergo foreclosure, you have _one_ charge left! So you lose your job AND your home!
The most interesting fact that today, i see same article:).
Although I do not remember there may be a link to the source,
but probably not - but your site look solid.
kerry: better make documentary too.. i am not into reading everything you have written...
i see you defend those american crappy cars ... which without lot of money from government would be dead... nobody but american rednecks buys them... ev, or any other, they are crap all...