Comments on: The plot behind killing electric cars

Why are we still driving gasoline-powered cars? CNET News.com's Michael Kanellos says there's plenty of blame to go around.

[dargon19888]

Depends on where you live...

Mass transit works in major metropolitan areas.

Boston area, Washington DC, Chicago, New York,
and even in San Francisco (BART)just to name a few.

Chicago has both the CTA (bus and el) along with Metra (rail) for commuters. Its the reverse commute which is a pain.

The point is that if you look at urban environments, you really don't need a car. And when you do, you can either rent one, or join ZipCar or one of those other groups.

[iBuzz]

Don't need a car?

> The point is that if you look at urban environments, you really don't need a car.

Unless you lived in New Orleans in 2005, when a Category 5 hurricane was headed right towards you, and they told you to evacuate but offered no public transportation.

[GrandpaN1947]

Hydrogen forgotten?

Why no mention of Hydrogen cars? Perhaps that's the conspiracy.

Why no massive government support for the tech that will work?

[lorcro2000]

Hardly a realistic silver bullet

Hydrogen is hardly a silver bullet - but I'm sure the oil companies love the thought of Hydrogen cars. They'd still be in the position of raking it in at the pump - the pump would merely be full of Hydrogen instead of Gasoline.

There are no commercially viable Hydrogen cars out there. If it was easy to run on Hydrogen reliably and easily there would be. The demo models all have issues.

Electrical cars have a huge advantage that wasn't mentioned anywhere - they are mechanically ludicrously simple in construction compared to any internal combustion engine. Yes, today batteries cost a lot, but if battery packs were being manufactured in huge amounts and on construction lines, that cost would no doubt come down a lot - and since the mechanical construction of an electric car is so simple, gains would come from that too.

Of course, everybody in the car and fuel world hates them. Minuscule amounts of oil used, no fuel used, very little need for maintenance - boom, big oil hates them, car manufacturers who won't get to sell expensive parts hate them and repair shops hate them because they'd be nearly out of work.

[Phillep_H]

Might as well forget it.

Hydrogen is not promising enough to justify the development.

[bgulien]

What about mamaking the batteries

Ever seen how they manufacture batteries?
It's a dirty job, involving lead, sulphuric acid and more highly toxic chemicals.
Also after 5 years the batteries are finished. Recycling them has also an impact on the environment.
I'm not sure which is the cleaner: gasoline or battery power

[Reachstacker]

toxic

I find it odd that when God put all these toxic materials in the ground (including uranium) that the EPA did not stop him?
But once we dig them out it's a No NO to put them back in??? what gives?

[EV Rider]

Murder of the First Degree

Who Killed the Electric Car?

Chris Paine grins as he describes why he made his former car the star of his award-winning documentary: ?It blew the doors off any car I?ve ever driven,? he recalls. ?It was super-fast, quiet, tune-up free and fun.? Fun while it lasted, that is, until GM suddenly ordered the cars recalled and destroyed. ?There was only one thing left I could think to do: make a film.?

Paine's film chronicles the life and mysterious death of the GM EV1, examining its cultural and economic ripple effects and how they reverberated through the halls of government and big business. The film points damning fingers at EV-1 foes: i.e., Bush & Co - who push hydrogen fuel-cell technology that is far from viability; Big Oil (for obvious reasons); and the short-sighted GM itself.

See this film. It has nothing to do with high gas prices, but a lot to do with the unacceptable levels of greed and corruption that plagues Big Biz in America today. The filim is also about those who rage against the machine with varying levels of disgust and protest as a result of such folly. It's very likely you will come away from seeing this film with a better understanding of why electric cars offer convincing evidence of superior fuel efficiency; a vital ingredient for tomorrow's world and now.

EV Rider - drive-electric.com

[okvol]

You missed another factor entirely

It didn't sound like a car. What is the point of the SUV craze that was building as the electric cars were coming out? V8 horsepower, the roar of a Cayenne, that you could get with a vehicle that bypassed CARB MPG limits since it was a "truck". This is also known as the closet red-neck factor that so many yuppy femails embraced.

[godseyesore]

Over stated

I live in NC and rented a hybrid honda to travel length of this long
state, and back (1100 miles). It was the best ride experience I've
ever had. Quiet, smooth, problem free, and no perceptible
difference in perforrmance from a gas powered car. It was simply
an exceptional and memorable experience. Now, if I could just
afford one...

[asdf]

Note to self: Michael Kanellos isn't trustworthy

I'll just file that away for future use...

As to the facts in this article- there are none.

All his arguments are of the type, if a conspiracy was in effect, then this other improbable thing that I am going to pull out of my as* must have also been true.

That's not even an argument, much less evidence.

I can produce an infinite number of ad-hoc suggestions about what *must also* be true if the criteria for *must also* is I found a way to express it that sounds good, even though such assertions are totally evidence-free.

What is the point of this twaddle from this jerk?
Let me engage in my own *must also*.

Since there is very strong REAL evidence that, in fact the auto industry in cahoots with oil industry did in fact kill the electric car, and did in fact put us where we are today vis-a-vis oil wars and global warming,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F

it *must also* be the case that this author is receiving from those implicated in the movie, money, stock or other benefit from running this editorial.

See how that works?

[nyabdns]

You all missed the point

Electricity is NOT free. You will pay as much to charge your car as you do to fill the tank with gas. The only point to the story, which was missed, is that when gas is prohibitivly expensive, there will be an alternative. What you have to think about is how the growing demand for electricity will be met. We are already straining the grid just to keep cool. Try adding the charging of millions of auto batteries to that and you have the makings of a disaster. Face it, as it stands today, the only real solution is an alternative fuel like hydrogen or some sort of fusion or fission, ethanol won't even come close to supplying enough.

[tonybelding]

mistaken points

I suggest doing a bit of research. No, electricity is not free. . .
but it's a lot cheaper, per mile driven, than gasoline. You can
typically see about $0.02-$0.04 per mile for electricity. (If you
have time-based billing, and you charge your car at night, it's
possible to achieve $0.01 per mile.)

How will the growing demand for electricity be met? Easily.
Most electric cars will charge at night (via simple timers) when
electrical demand is low. The grid already has enough off-peak
capacity to support tens of millions of electric cars.

Then you raise the subject of hydrogen, which is laughable. . .
Hydrogen is several times less efficient than battery power.
Where are you going to get the electrical power to produce that
much hydrogen? It just doesn't add up.

[nle9]

Electricity is not that expensive

The tesla roadster and Zap-X electric vehicles that are coming out this year have a per mile cost to charge of only 1 cent. Tesla to go 200 miles on a charge and the Zap-X to go 350 miles. A "tankfull" therefore is only $3.50 compared to $50 or more for gas. $3.50 to charge is little more than 1 day of a home air conditioning charge. Electric demand for these vehicles will not be high for many many years, and when it does, the power companies will have to expand most likely to nuclear.

[the.sw.man]

Electricity only 1 cent per mile; gas 10 to 30 cents/mile

Electricity is way cheaper. Many cities have special off-peak rates you can use for overnight charging. Here in Detroit, I can charge my electric vehicle for about 3 cents per KWH.

If electricity gets expensive, buy a solar panel. An EV-sized panel can be had for as little as $1000.

See why the oil interests want to stop this idea at all costs?

[Wiz Wildstar]

I wish it was all true, but.....

Having spent over 40 years of my life working for, and being screwed over by, the automobile manufacturers, I know it to be a little different. I have worked for Chrysler, General Motors, Honda and Porsche-Audi, and the american automobile manufacturers are the cause of most of the problems that they, and the consumers, face today.
For example, it was a terrible coincidence that two newly retired automobile engineers both died within a week of each other, only a couple of months after debuting their closed-circuit freon powered engine? The engine was powered by freon recirculated thru a turbine engine. Power requirement was only that the outside temperature be 85 degrees or above. If the temperature was too low, they used a camp stove to heat the dissipator. 285 free horsepower, and using only 1 gallon of camp stove fuel to travel over 500 miles if the temperature was below 80 degrees. The entire project died with them, after they refused to sell it to any major manufacturer and threatened to produce the cars themselves. I watched (and even got to ride along) in the original test vehicle. A VW micro bus that went over 120 miles an hour and did 0 to 60 in under 7 seconds.
And whatever happened to the Hi-Tech "test" carburetors that we were ordered to replace on specific vin numbered vehicles in the mid-eighties? Customers driving mid and full sized V8 autos were totally upset when their vehicles were returned to them after a "scheduled maintenance" or "warranty recall", only to find that the 40 to 50+ miles-per-gallon they were getting, had suddenly dropped to less than 20!
I was there, saw it happen, even had the "return for recall" carburetor in my hands. At least long enough to hand it to the impatiently waiting "factory service rep".
"Follow the money, as crazy people like to say" is NOT crazy, it's fact. Or do you truly believe that the oil companies would graciously accept a 50 to 70 percent drop in income revenue? If "follow the money" is crazy, then why don't you tell your boss, you'll work for half the salary you are currently getting.

[SPasse]

The EV1 saga needs a congressional investigation

Hi All,

As an electronic hardware architect, the more I read up on the EV1 saga, the more I am convinced that the demise of the EV1 needs to be investigated on this level.

Only with witnesses under subpoena do we have even a slim chance of finding out what really transpired.

The US taxpayer monies spent on the ?Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles? initiative is justification in and of itself.

Regarding this program, This Wikipedia entry speaks volumes: ?On track to achieving its objectives, the program was cancelled in 2001 at the request of the automakers.?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership_for_a_New_Generation_of_Vehicles

Regards,

Scott

[savagesteve13]

GM was no innovator

It was a simple business decison for GM. Kill the electric car before it puts GM out of business. It was quite possible that an electric car could kill a car company because GM invested in existing infrastructure and had business deals that would all need to be tossed and redone, costing utold billions.

The final straw came when the newer Ni-MH batteries came on the scene, extending the range of the car to practical usage. It was time to kill it.

Was it illegal? Nope, was it immoral or unethical, well thats business. Clinton almost got electric vehicles on the road, but the timidity of the auto manufacturers coupled with pressure from oil companies and the GOP made sure it will never ever happen.

[2damnSmart4U]

Hi, I'm Michael Kanellos. Certified retard.

I guess it's the nature of free speech in America and the open mic of the internet that lets every two bit wannabe journalist and writer spew forth their uninformed drivel.
The case before us today. Michael Kanellos.
I am not an avid reader of Mr. K's perspectives, but his stupendous lack of knowledge and logic in this article brings his "HACKiosity" to thrilling heights.
1.US Automakers- not innovative enough to come up with a conspiracy? What is your point? And, you don't have to be genius to have a global conspiracy. There's this guy I know that lives in this white house...
3.Hybrids- Toyota surpassed GM in global sales based on the Prius' success? I would love to see your numbers on that.
4. Sales weren't great... Are you being redundant with your "batteries are expensive" point? Sales weren't great because there weren't any cars. There weren't any cars because they were expensive to develop. Isn't this logic obvious? Also, Elon Musk sucks and his car company keeps backing down from his performance and efficiency claims.
8. A car company is about the worse thing you can do to yourself? What the hell does that have to do with anything, you moron? How does that tie into electric cars developed by established automakers, you blithering idiot? Maybe the worse thing you can do to yourself is subject yourself to bad and unintelligent writing.
--You might be wrong? Really.
Sadly, my base nature actually hopes I do read an article about you being strangled with a piano wire. Hopefully, it will not have been written by you, because you would probably just do lousy research, misinterpret or screw up the information and write a dumbfounded report of your own pathetic demise.
You are a bad writer and a hack. You should have stuck with selling time shares. Hack.

And yes, I do realize the irony of my opening paragraph as it pertains to me. I just hope my writing in some way counteracts your half-witted ramblings.

[savagesteve13]

Its not about the electric motor!

Its about the power source! Batteries are expensive? NO THEY AREN'T. Hydrogen Fuel cells are all the rage now, but the industry still hasn't managed to make on that doesn't cost $1,000,000. Fuel cells are old technology that won't get any cheaper unless an alien spaceship crashes and we salvage its technology.
Battery cars are practical, cheap, and have little or no maintenance. What does that mean....its a HUGE threat to the oil industry, its a huge threat to the existing auto industry and the replacement parts industry, and its a huge threat to congress which gets campaign contributions from all 3 of those entities.
The fact is that HFC cars are a cynical attempt to keep the public on gasoline for at least 50 more years until they 'perfect' the technology, which will never become cheap enough for the average consumer.

[savagesteve13]

Why electric cars won't ever see the roads

The issue is infrastructure, and who controls it. An electric car will essentially hand over the power to the coal, nuclear and alternative energy (wind, solar, etc...) industries. With no "fuel" to sell, suddenly the oil industry loses 75% of its profits and is limited to selling its product for production of asphalt, chemicals, and plastics.
The electric energy companies would LOVE to see electric cars on the road, but simply don't have the power of big oil. The average citizen just doesn't understand the grip the oil energy industries have on the entire planet. Don't think this type of obsessive control of energy is limited to the USA.

[swharper1]

Hybrids

I had always heard or that conspiracy to halt electric cars and high gas mileage carbs, ect.
I am the owner of two Hybrids. A 2003 Honda civic and a 2003 Honda Insight. Both were purchased used. The civic gets around 46 MPG and I get around 54 on the insight. The cars have been very nice and reiable so far.

[tpluma]

How about a Solar Powered SUV?

We all know that at some point in the future and perhaps even in our lifetime, the world will run out of oil and/or get so low that nations may go to war over the dwindling resource. Not a pretty picture.

The train is on the track and heading right for us folks. We need to develop alternative fuels not only for automobiles but for our homes, offices, factories, etc etc.

So what's the answer, Hydrogen, Nuclear, Solar, Electric? All good possibilities with each having distinct benefits and drawbacks.

My preference is to focus on Solar power as it is the only one that is clean and renewable for the next couple billion years and every country on earth has it.

I realize that a solar powered car for the average consumer is probably decades away, but hey, if we can get two little rovers to roam Mars for many months powered by the Sun, why can't we do that here on earth?

Bottom line is that if the auto industry put as much time and money into making a Solar powered car as they do in sponsoring Nascar races, we'd be a heck of a lot closer.

Tim Pluma

[gromm75]

Because that's stupid.

Congratulations, your post was so idiotic that I decided to sign up for a Cnet account just so I could reply.

Here's why you can't *ever* build a solar powered SUV: Science.

At the equator, on a nice sunny day, the maximum amount of energy you can collect from the sun is about 1000 watts per square meter (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power). 1 horsepower is 746 watts. You can create maybe 3 square meters of solar energy collection on your standard SUV - 1 on the hood and 2 on the roof. Possibly as much as 4, so we'll use that figure just for argument's sake. So 4000 watts is the most you could collect from the sun, ever, assuming everything was perfectly efficient, which it's not and never will be (another topic altogether).

4000 divided by 746 is 5.36. So you'd be trying to push a 4,000 lb SUV with 5.4 horsepower. And only at noon on sunny days at the equator. Not quite so much in say, the US. Do you think this is acceptable?

This is the reason that "cars" participating in the World Solar Challenge (http://www.wsc.org.au/) weigh roughly 80 lbs and carry a single driver in a cockpit roughly three cubic inches larger than he is. They don't even have cupholders.

The reason the Mars rovers can run on solar power, - even way out there on mars - is twofold. 1 is that they cover maybe 50 meters per day. 2 is that they spend some days doing nothing but charging. In fact in the winter time, they don't spend many days moving at all. If we were to put humans on mars, they could cover hundreds of times the same distance just *walking*. In 4 years, they have gone just 7 miles (source: http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/mission/traverse_maps.html)

[menotbug]

more FUD than common sense

I'll start off with a few key facts that are generally glossed over in these discussions:
a) Yes, electric recharges aren't free, but in equivalent terms I think the consumer cost is reduced by 75% over gas.
b) Fuel cell cars have major drawbacks over electric, technology isn't there yet, proven economical, and fuel costs are thus far higher than gas.
c) Electric reduces dependence on foreign oil.

Article #1 This seems to imply that GM/Ford/Auto parts manufacturers are not capable of recognizing the massive losses they'd receive by converting to an engine that requires significantly less maintenance and parts? They may be slow but they're not stupid. Neither Hybrids nor fuel cell vehicles have that same impact on auto maker's (and oil's) bottom line, which is why they're being pushed so hard.

"I don't believe in the conspiracy theory. The battery still only had a five-year life. It didn't last the life of the car, so how do you handle that issue?" Hybrids have been successful with this same issue. So you buy a new set of batteries every 5-10 years. An electric motor is rated for a million miles... factor that in.

#7: hard to believe the $30k figure for an accord when the next paragraph has a $15k tag on an upgrade of any car to plug-in hybrid, a more complex beast than straight electric.

[markb1967]

What a load of CRAP!

Terrible research, and baseless assumptions.

The EV-1 would get about 100 miles per charge. (avg. distance driven to and from work=28.

GM sued California to drop the electric car mandate, and the second they won, cancelled the leases.

GM refused to let anyone buy the car, no strings attached.

GM made it difficult for anyone except celebs to get the car, and even they had to fill out an "application" and beg for the car.

GM was spiteful and took all the new cars out in the desert and CRUSHED them, refused to let anyone have the car.

GM gave 1 car to the smithsonian in DC, but they first disabled the engine and did everything they could to stop the museum from having the car.

GM did the WORST advertising for the car. The ads didn't even show the car, or if it did, it was tiny and blurred.

GM refused to do a ramp up in production when people wanted the car. GM claims it cost too much to create the car.

Toyota also had an all electric RAV4, and they too pulled the cars back and CRUSHED them.

Bottom line, After creating the car, GM realized that it would destroy their profits that are made in maintenance (oil changes, parts, etc) An electric car would only need brakes.

Once GM realized what a fantastic car was developed, they did everything to kill it.

CNET usually does a good job researching their articles, but this was a terrible job. go back and do it right.

[jdbwar07]

This article does not refute it well

I guess it's nice to finally see a criticism of this topic, not written by someone working for GM> However I wish you'd have perhaps let the makers of the movie a chance to respond since I think they could answer your objections.

1) This is not some sort of worldwide X-files-like conspiracy thought up by some evil genius. The EV-1 was produced because California passed a law requiring a small percentage of new vehicles in the state to produce zero-emissions. In my understanding the "conspiracy" was more a massive lobbying and PR effort to get the law removed and to discredit the idea of working electric cars to the public. They did everything they could to prevent it from catching on such as not advertising it effectively and grossly exaggerating its flaws to potential customers. They leased them so they could take them back later, and when they did specifically made sure they were all destroyed (if it really just was a flawed car that could never work, why go through all the trouble?). I'm not sure what is meant by saying they would need to "elude" regulators and governments. It's not too hard in the US for large companies to lobby, and influence the government to get regulations and laws passed in their favor, or to spend lots of money on misleading advertising and public relations. After that they decided to stubbornly refuse to innovate in cars that would result in much less gasoline being consumed, so it's more about them not doing something than an ongoing plot. Since the average person obviously can't build an electric car, if the few auto companies don't then anyone who wants one is out of luck.

3) It's not insane to think they'd instead market hybrid cars partly as a substitute for customers who wanted to use less gasoline or help the environment. For all the hype the owner is still required to use gasoline, and current hybrids don't use much less than conventional cars.

4) They purposely exaggerated the negative points and did everything they could to make sure as few customers as possible would be interested.

5) and 6) The battery technology they used was very old, today they could do much better. Is it really that hard to believe if they continued to produce it the prices of batteries and the range would have improved? Many people, for the vast majority of the time, only commute to somewhere nearby and for other trips close to where they live. Even if you wouldn't want an EV1 for a family trip across the country, it would have been an good secondary car for shorter, everyday trips.

[chinanews]

Electric Car not dead

In China, there are millions of electric bikes, motors on the street now.

From Chinese news, one auto maker (BYD Auto)in China will launch a model of electric car in 2008 and sell worldwide in 2009.

The electric car is very similar with normal car in the street and will be powered by a very safe "Iron Battery" with 250 miles per charge (Charging time is short). The price could be below a similar gasline car.

[Genekr]

I want a car

that is like my body. No matter how little I eat and how much I "exercise" I always have plenty of "fuel" left around the waistband area. Now, that would be a great car!