More on this "Documentary"
Who Really Killed the Electric Car?
(Cross-posted on American Automobile Fuel Consumption Debate)
I promised to write something more than just a rant about who really killed the electric car. I had not read Mark Rechtin's review in Automotive News before I saw the movie (see readers responce here). I think that Rechtin makes a good point that instead of engaging in conspiracy theories, the filmmakers could have done a much better job of bringing out the complex technical, economic and social aspect of automobile purchase, and use. A similar, but slightly more angrier sounding take comes from MotorAlley.
I agree with Rechtin and Wasserman on many points. The acquittal of batteries in the movie is quite surprising. The batteries used in EV1 were not up for the job a regular that is expected of an internal combustion engine powered car. It is true that battery technology continues to improve, but even the current Ni-MH batteries would not lead to a satisfactory vehicle performance. Could the next generation of Li-Ion batteries do the job? Possible, but not yet certain since there are a number of cost and safety issues involved.
It is not unvcommon to find a small but highly motivated group of individuals who are supporting a cause such as the group portrayed in the movie. It should be noted, however, that a mere expression of interest by 4000 people in the state of California does not mean that there was a real market for EV1. Most Americans demand not only acceleration and fuel economy, but a number of other vehicle attributes such as interior and luggague space, safety, increasingly automatic and electronic features that consume more power, reliability, convenience and yes, least I should forget, low initial cost of purchase. Neither the EV1, nor other EVs in the movie fit that bill well.
The movie was quite critical of Alan Lloyd and California Air resources Board (CARB) in general. In the end, we should all remember that it was CARB which effectively mandated EVs with its Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) rule. As the movie notes, CARB got the idea after seeing a GM demonstration vehicle at an auto show. If CARB is to be blamed, then the blame should lie with the original ZEV ruling which was too optimistic in its estimate of development of electric vehicle technology. Even with the compromise with automakers, the ZEV rule has not been a complete failure. It can be very easily argued that the development of hybrid vehicles by Honda and Toyota would not have been as quick had the ZEV rule not been in place. In short, the CARB was at least partly successful in its technology forcing goal.
Of course, I have noted far too often that the hybrid vehicles, even after being on the market for several years, currently account for less than 1.5% of new vehicle sales. Even with the kind of buzz that hybrids have generated, there are several skeptics. Quite simply, they make a strong argument that even at 3 dollar a gallon of gasoline, the hydrid vehicles just barely make economic sense for a consumer with lower than average discount rate. The fact is that mainstream vehicle technology keeps getting better, and it is hard for newer technologies to break in to the market.
All this being said, my gripe with a movie like Who Killed the Electric Car? lies in the fact that they perpetrate the myth that somehow we are going to solve our energy, and specially oil, problems by means of technology alone. If we are to get serious about challenging the ever increasing petroleum consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, not only will we need better technology, but we will need a change in behavior and strong fiscal and regulatory policy measures that will induce the change. Too often our attention is foucsed on having our cake and eating it too. It is time to stop living in the wonderland.
And More
Who Killed The Electric Car?
The Consumer killed it. Not George. Not Big Oil. Not Greed. No one cared except CARB and a few hundred consumers that bought the GM EV-1 and Ford Ecostar and Ford Ranger EV (the latter two purchased by fleets).
Saw the preview...I will admit I haven't seen the movie. If the movie follows along the lines of the video, as an acquaintance used to say, "if it's not Scottish, it's crap!" Frankly, for those of us who worked on the EVs, and saw consumer reaction, this crap enrages me.
As some know, I worked on Electric Cars. For 5 years. 1991-1996. Hopeless. Problems:
Where do I start?
Not enough range (50-60 miles/day)...worse in cold weather states and with AC running
Not enough charging stations for slow charging (120 v/40 amp plugs) at work places to charge in 12-24 hours
Not enough charging stations for fast charge (240 V or higher) to charge in 1-4 hours
Batteries were expensive (Thousands of dollars requiring replacement every 2-3 years)
Vehicles were very expensive. If sold based on true cost, $30,000 or more each. And that didn't include the battery replacements every 3 years (Minimum $3,000-$7,000). In 1996 dollars, not 2006 dollars.
Not enough energy/power in most applications and duty cycles. EVs are great 1 or 2 person haulers/commuters in traffic going 50 mph. Or short haul light delivery. Terrible if you're moving lots of people (families) or going distances in stop/go with drains on load (AC, heat, etc.)
Consumers hate changing behavior...we don't buy cars based on need...we buy them based on want. We loaned EVs to consumers and found that it freaked people out to know that they could get stranded if they didn't charge regularly. I did several trips this Sunday...total of 40 miles in 2 hours with AC running. Various errands. Not in an EV if at 40 miles you realize, damn, I might not make it home. Take a look at the best selling Accord and Camry. 200 hp with lots of electronic gadgetry and convenience that suck power.
Very, very limited market - movie stars and people with an axe to grind (Nader and various other people who don't mind living an impractical lifestyle). Limited market means low volume which means high cost. You can't build safe cars inexpensively at low volume. Ever notice how low volume cars typically cost $50k and up? Cost of tooling and assembly can't be spread over large production.
Can't make money selling EVs. In a capitalist market, companies have to make a profit or "GM" happens to them. Massive layoffs and shrinking market share. Out of 17 million new cars and trucks to be sold this year...how many hybrids? Quick, quick!! Less than 1% The only one selling well is the Prius. The rest have incentives.
The EV1 is/was a 2 seater. Anyone know how many 2 seaters are sold in America in high volume? That's right...zero. The Corvette is the best seller. Why? Two seaters ARE NOT PRACTICAL for ANYBODY. It's a toy/fun car.
Better solutions?
Many...yes, many. Conservation is about changing lifestyle and/or making other alternatives more appealing emotionally and financially. We could cut our energy consumption in half if people commuted on bikes. Said this a long time ago in this blog. Lots of people laugh. We solve several problems
Obesity...Americans are gargantuan beasts.
Energy reduction...short trips pollute the most and use the most gas
Potential for reduction in traffic deaths. Bike on bike accidents rarely result in airbag deployment and twisted wreckage. I'll admit...Car on bike is a different story.
So, Dubya, get moving. Let's get some bike lanes approved and tax credits for riding a bike to work. Let's get tax credits for showers installed at work. Even better, all of us idiots paying for health club memberships? Buy a bike and invest in a shower at work. Leave the car at the office for "important" business meetings. And a change of clothes.
And puuuuhhhhhllleeeeaze. Enough with the idiotic electric car initiatives. A 30 Kw battery, that gets 70 miles range and weighs about 800 lbs has about as much energy as a gallon or two of gasoline that weighs 7-15 lbs. Our Ford Ecostar had a 75 horsepower motor. There are no cars sold in the US with less than 150 hp these days. Do you understand the problem now?
More later...when I calm myself.
