Who Killed the Electric Car? (1 Viewer)

[Otis]

And why have you started referring to yourself in the third person again?

2005 and 2006 down?

 

[cstu]

If anyone is interested

GM's side of the story

GM's fourth-generation hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, which enhances the technology found in today's HydroGen3 fuel cell vehicle, (currently in demonstration fleets around the world), will be introduced later this year and will represent a leap forward toward a production ready version of a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. For the longer term, GM sees hydrogen and fuel cells as the best combination of energy carrier and power source to achieve truly sustainable transportation. A fuel cell energized by hydrogen emits just pure water, produces no greenhouse gasses, and is twice as efficient as an internal combustion engine. Although hydrogen fuel cell technology was cast as a pie-in-the-sky technology by the moviemakers, GM is making great progress in fuel cell research and development and is on track to achieving its goal to validate and design a fuel cell propulsion system by 2010 that is competitive with current combustion systems on durability and performance, and that ultimately can be built at scale, affordably.

I've driven this car and was impressed by it, even if it was far from being production ready.

 

[cstu]

All of those are possible with fuel cells.

What about that author's list of 5 impossible things that would have to happen in order for the idea of a hydrogen fuel cell car to work?

What are those 5 things? Like I said, I've driven the car and it's not "pie-in-the-sky" technology.

 

[Otis]

At the end of the movie they said they have a battery capable of going 300 miles on one charge. If that's not enough for your daily commute... I can't remember the last time I drove 300 miles in a single day. One thing I initially forgot was how they mentioned that Jimmy Carter took great strides towards making this country greener and even had solar panels installed on the roof of the white house. One of the first things Ronald Reagan did after assuming control of the house was to have the panels removed.wtf?

100 miles might be enough for in town driving, but have you ever driven cross-country? Good luck finding a place to charge up when crossing Utah and Colorado.

I considered this and figured it's a cinch. If you are traveling for pleasure you rent a car, if you are moving just hitch it to the back of a U-Haul. If you want to drive 600 miles round trip to go to a football game or something then I don't know what the solution is, but I'll bet somebody will think of one. I don't buy in to the charging station idea, don't batteries typically charge very slowly?

Regardless, if you watch the movie, it's pretty easy -- you just pull the car into the garage, plug the connector cable from the wall of your garage to the car, and just let it charge overnight. You only need to deal with a charging station if you need to driving longer than the 300 miles.

 

[TenTimes]

All of those are possible with fuel cells.

What about that author's list of 5 impossible things that would have to happen in order for the idea of a hydrogen fuel cell car to work?

What are those 5 things? Like I said, I've driven the car and it's not "pie-in-the-sky" technology.

I can't remember all 5 off the top of my head but #1 was that the car would cost a million dollars and another one was the size of the battery.

 

[Otis]

Very nice!!

Electric Car

This is quote from the article, very interesting:

Tesla Motors got $60 Million to put these on the road and they got it from the Google guys, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, along with executives from eBay and PayPal.

This thing looks awesome. I have another thing to add regarding electric cars. Living and working in Manhattan and Brooklyn has caused me to come to absolutely despise gasoline engines, if not for the nasty fumes, for the VOLUME. It is almost impossible to have an intelligible cell phone conversation on the street. Imagine how much more peaceful inner cities will be without all the noise of gasoline car and bus engines.

 

[TenTimes]

Very nice!!

Electric Car

This is quote from the article, very interesting:

Tesla Motors got $60 Million to put these on the road and they got it from the Google guys, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, along with executives from eBay and PayPal.

This thing looks awesome. I have another thing to add regarding electric cars. Living and working in Manhattan and Brooklyn has caused me to come to absolutely despise gasoline engines, if not for the nasty fumes, for the VOLUME. It is almost impossible to have an intelligible cell phone conversation on the street. Imagine how much more peaceful inner cities will be without all the noise of gasoline car and bus engines.

Nice! Noise pollution, a form most don't even consider.

 

[Otis]

I have to repeat, for the record, that I am historically the furthest thing from a liberal, that I voted for Bush, and that I am a car nut and former owner of multiple high-powered sports cars that have absolutely miserable fuel economy.

Regardless of all of the above, this electric car thing just makes way too much sense.

 

[Kleck]

Otis took a beating in this thread for liking the flick and buying into the hype. The thread contains some good counterpoints (though I still ultimately buy into the filmmaker's views).

Dude, why did you provide a link right back to this same thread? Are you trying to shut down the internet or something?

I merged his older thread with the newer one.

 

[Righetti]

Otis,

Serious question.. are you a bigger tree-hugger or zionist?

waiting for your response

Righetti

 

[Otis]

Otis, Serious question.. are you a bigger tree-hugger or zionist?waiting for your responseRighetti

What means the 2nd option?And this should be a pole.

 

[Gator Shawn]

Very nice!!

Electric Car

This is quote from the article, very interesting:

Tesla Motors got $60 Million to put these on the road and they got it from the Google guys, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, along with executives from eBay and PayPal.

This thing looks awesome. I have another thing to add regarding electric cars. Living and working in Manhattan and Brooklyn has caused me to come to absolutely despise gasoline engines, if not for the nasty fumes, for the VOLUME. It is almost impossible to have an intelligible cell phone conversation on the street. Imagine how much more peaceful inner cities will be without all the noise of gasoline car and bus engines.

The Tesla car does 0-60 in 4 seconds. I mentioned somewhere today seeing this car in a documentary on HDNet a few months ago.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I think that for the cost of three months in Iraq, we could set up the necessary infrastructure for a hydrogen-based transportation system.

Solar/nuclear plants to power the hydro production facilities, plus fitting existing gas stations to provide hydrogen fuel.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Very nice!!

Electric Car

This is quote from the article, very interesting:

Tesla Motors got $60 Million to put these on the road and they got it from the Google guys, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, along with executives from eBay and PayPal.

Great little note on the Philly kids that built the supercool prototype car...very cool indeed.

 

[Kleck]

The Tesla car does 0-60 in 4 seconds. I mentioned somewhere today seeing this car in a documentary on HDNet a few months ago.

I searched all over for a price on that car. Only thing I found was $79,000. That was enough to make me realize I won't own one.

 

[trader jake]

None of us will live long enough to see hydrogen as a main fuel source for cars. The electric car (and the needed infrastructure changes) is a much more pragmatic solution...not that I think either has a chance in the U.S. due to the political strength the oil and auto manufacturers wield.

One thing that hasn't been noted here about the film: a "re-fill" for an electric car would be 5 minutes at a charging station using today's technology. Also, the cost of parts and maintenance items was given as a reason to discontinue the car, but the car has very, very few parts and maintenance when compared to our current automobiles. Not to mention zero emissions, noise reduction, etc.

 

[Otis]

None of us will live long enough to see hydrogen as a main fuel source for cars. The electric car (and the needed infrastructure changes) is a much more pragmatic solution...not that I think either has a chance in the U.S. due to the political strength the oil and auto manufacturers wield.One thing that hasn't been noted here about the film: a "re-fill" for an electric car would be 5 minutes at a charging station using today's technology. Also, the cost of parts and maintenance items was given as a reason to discontinue the car, but the car has very, very few parts and maintenance when compared to our current automobiles. Not to mention zero emissions, noise reduction, etc.

 

[Al Czervik]

From GM: Who Ignored the Facts About the Electric Car?

From the Blog:

Lastly, because the movie made some harsh criticisms of GM for discontinuing the EV1, let me set the record straight:

* GM spent more than $1 billion developing the EV1 including significant sums on marketing and incentives to develop a mass market for it.

* Only 800 vehicles were leased during a four-year period.

* No other major automotive manufacturer is producing a pure electric vehicle for use on public roads and highways.

* A waiting list of 5,000 only generated 50 people willing to follow through to a lease.

* Because of low demand for the EV1, parts suppliers quit making replacement parts making future repair and safety of the vehicles difficult to nearly impossible.

If anyone is interested

GM's side of the story

What, am I invisible?

 

[Otis]

From GM: Who Ignored the Facts About the Electric Car?

From the Blog:

Lastly, because the movie made some harsh criticisms of GM for discontinuing the EV1, let me set the record straight:

* GM spent more than $1 billion developing the EV1 including significant sums on marketing and incentives to develop a mass market for it.

* Only 800 vehicles were leased during a four-year period.

* No other major automotive manufacturer is producing a pure electric vehicle for use on public roads and highways.

* A waiting list of 5,000 only generated 50 people willing to follow through to a lease.

* Because of low demand for the EV1, parts suppliers quit making replacement parts making future repair and safety of the vehicles difficult to nearly impossible.

If anyone is interested

GM's side of the story

What, am I invisible?

I linked to your posts so that they would be part of the discussion (it's now merged).Have you seen the movie?

 

[TenTimes]

From GM: Who Ignored the Facts About the Electric Car?

From the Blog:

Lastly, because the movie made some harsh criticisms of GM for discontinuing the EV1, let me set the record straight:

* GM spent more than $1 billion developing the EV1 including significant sums on marketing and incentives to develop a mass market for it.

* Only 800 vehicles were leased during a four-year period.

* No other major automotive manufacturer is producing a pure electric vehicle for use on public roads and highways.

* A waiting list of 5,000 only generated 50 people willing to follow through to a lease.

* Because of low demand for the EV1, parts suppliers quit making replacement parts making future repair and safety of the vehicles difficult to nearly impossible.

If anyone is interested

GM's side of the story

What, am I invisible?

Your post wasn't there when I made my post. Two electric car threads got merged and ended up making a couple of us look like #######s

 

[RavenFan]

LOFL

Stupid.

Wilbur and Orville that flying thing will never catch on.Henry Ford, trying to mass produce cars is stupid, we have horses for goodness sakes.

No body needs a computer at work and home

.That's what makes our country great, lack of innovation and staying the course. Just because one thing works, lets not try to find another, better way. And, if something doesn't make sense now, drop it, I'm sure it never will.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Just watched it - funny how the Japanese are so far ahead because they "overracted" to the fear of US regulation and now they're light years ahead of US automakers.

GM and Ford only have themselves to blame.

 

[The Z Machine]

Does anyone own a Yaris? if so, how is it performing? Thinking about eventually trading in my Xterra for a Yaris. I don't see my car as a "status-symbol" but rather a way of getting around town. I'm sick of paying $50 to fill it up. It is paid for though. If I bought a Yaris now, it would pretty much be an even swap.

Good friend of mine owns one here in Madrid. It's a medium sized car for this city. Very functional, pretty comfortable, and feels fairly safe too. I think it's well built.

 

[SofaKings]

Just watched it - funny how the Japanese are so far ahead because they "overracted" to the fear of US regulation and now they're light years ahead of US automakers.

GM and Ford only have themselves to blame.

GM and Ford are both working on alternative fuel cars to bring to market as quickly as possible. I know you would rather bash anything American but your statement is false.

Toyota to test plug-in version of Prius hybrid

July 26, 2007

BY YURI KAGEYAMA

ASSOCIATED PRESS

TOKYO -- Toyota already dominates the hybrid market with more than a million of the vehicles sold over the past decade.

Now, it has developed a new type of hybrid that plugs into a home socket for a longer ride as an electric car, raising the stakes in the race to develop the vehicles.

The Toyota Plug-in HV received government approval Wednesday to run on public roads for tests -- the first time a manufacturer has received such certification in Japan, Toyota Motor Corp. said. Toyota plans tests for the United States and Europe.

Other major automakers, including General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co., are developing plug-in hybrids, whose batteries can be recharged via a standard wall outlet.

GM is developing the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid and says it hopes its plug-ins can reach showrooms by 2010.

Earlier this month, Ford announced a partnership with Southern California Edison to test rechargeable hybrid vehicles and hasten mass production of plug-in hybrids.

Ford has been testing plug-in hybrids based on the Escape SUV, for one, but has not said when it plans to start mass producing them.

Like most hybrids now on sale, which are powered by electric motors and gasoline engines, the new Toyota model also gets recharged by converting energy from braking and when the wheels spin. The advantage of the plug-in is that it runs longer on electricity than regular hybrids.

Masatami Takimoto, the Toyota executive in charge of technology, declined to say when Toyota will bring a plug-in hybrid to market. Innovation in battery technology is needed, he said.

"We still need some time," he said.

The Plug-in HV displayed Wednesday runs on the same nickel metal hydride battery as the Prius and has a cruising range of 8 miles (13 kilometers) on electricity. Takimoto said tests will help in deciding the range consumers want, as well as gather information about emissions and fuel efficiency.

The maximum speed of the Plug-in HV is 62 m.p.h. (100 k.p.h.) as an electric vehicle. The batteries require about 1.5 hours to recharge at 200 volts and three or four hours at 100 volts. The company recommends recharging overnight when power costs are cheaper in Japan.

Copyright © 2007 Detroit Free Press Inc.

 

[El Floppo]

Very nice!!

Electric Car

This is quote from the article, very interesting:

Tesla Motors got $60 Million to put these on the road and they got it from the Google guys, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, along with executives from eBay and PayPal.

This thing looks awesome. I have another thing to add regarding electric cars. Living and working in Manhattan and Brooklyn has caused me to come to absolutely despise gasoline engines, if not for the nasty fumes, for the VOLUME. It is almost impossible to have an intelligible cell phone conversation on the street. Imagine how much more peaceful inner cities will be without all the noise of gasoline car and bus engines.

Just found this car through another website... amazing looking! Here's the company's website. Wish I had 100k and a garage.

 

[Otis]

That's pretty awesome.

 

[Rayderr]

Very nice!!

Electric Car

This is quote from the article, very interesting:

Tesla Motors got $60 Million to put these on the road and they got it from the Google guys, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, along with executives from eBay and PayPal.

This thing looks awesome. I have another thing to add regarding electric cars. Living and working in Manhattan and Brooklyn has caused me to come to absolutely despise gasoline engines, if not for the nasty fumes, for the VOLUME. It is almost impossible to have an intelligible cell phone conversation on the street. Imagine how much more peaceful inner cities will be without all the noise of gasoline car and bus engines.

Just found this car through another website... amazing looking! Here's the company's website. Wish I had 100k and a garage.

I'll believe it when I see it. If it's legit, one of the major manufacturers will purchase the engine and make it more available which should bring the cost down considerably.

 

[Foosball God]

Very nice!!

Electric Car

This is quote from the article, very interesting:

Tesla Motors got $60 Million to put these on the road and they got it from the Google guys, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, along with executives from eBay and PayPal.

This thing looks awesome. I have another thing to add regarding electric cars. Living and working in Manhattan and Brooklyn has caused me to come to absolutely despise gasoline engines, if not for the nasty fumes, for the VOLUME. It is almost impossible to have an intelligible cell phone conversation on the street. Imagine how much more peaceful inner cities will be without all the noise of gasoline car and bus engines.

Just found this car through another website... amazing looking! Here's the company's website. Wish I had 100k and a garage.

I'll believe it when I see it. If it's legit, one of the major manufacturers will purchase the engine and make it more available which should bring the cost down considerably.

Tesla Motors just opened up a facility in the town I live in.

 

[Bri]

Why can't they use that wind powerred electricity thinking to make a car powerred similarly? It's got a fan so there's obviously room under the hood for one. It travels along the road creating it's own wind thru the grill to the fan. Batteries to store the electricity generated-they have that already too. I never understood why this technology never happenned except maybe some oil company Tucker like BS.

That Tesla car looks pretty cool BTW

 

[tommyGunZ]

Just watched it - funny how the Japanese are so far ahead because they "overracted" to the fear of US regulation and now they're light years ahead of US automakers.

GM and Ford only have themselves to blame.

GM and Ford are both working on alternative fuel cars to bring to market as quickly as possible. I know you would rather bash anything American but your statement is false.

Toyota to test plug-in version of Prius hybrid

July 26, 2007

BY YURI KAGEYAMA

ASSOCIATED PRESS

TOKYO -- Toyota already dominates the hybrid market with more than a million of the vehicles sold over the past decade.

Now, it has developed a new type of hybrid that plugs into a home socket for a longer ride as an electric car, raising the stakes in the race to develop the vehicles.

The Toyota Plug-in HV received government approval Wednesday to run on public roads for tests -- the first time a manufacturer has received such certification in Japan, Toyota Motor Corp. said. Toyota plans tests for the United States and Europe.

Other major automakers, including General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co., are developing plug-in hybrids, whose batteries can be recharged via a standard wall outlet.

GM is developing the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid and says it hopes its plug-ins can reach showrooms by 2010.

Earlier this month, Ford announced a partnership with Southern California Edison to test rechargeable hybrid vehicles and hasten mass production of plug-in hybrids.

Ford has been testing plug-in hybrids based on the Escape SUV, for one, but has not said when it plans to start mass producing them.

Like most hybrids now on sale, which are powered by electric motors and gasoline engines, the new Toyota model also gets recharged by converting energy from braking and when the wheels spin. The advantage of the plug-in is that it runs longer on electricity than regular hybrids.

Masatami Takimoto, the Toyota executive in charge of technology, declined to say when Toyota will bring a plug-in hybrid to market. Innovation in battery technology is needed, he said.

"We still need some time," he said.

The Plug-in HV displayed Wednesday runs on the same nickel metal hydride battery as the Prius and has a cruising range of 8 miles (13 kilometers) on electricity. Takimoto said tests will help in deciding the range consumers want, as well as gather information about emissions and fuel efficiency.

The maximum speed of the Plug-in HV is 62 m.p.h. (100 k.p.h.) as an electric vehicle. The batteries require about 1.5 hours to recharge at 200 volts and three or four hours at 100 volts. The company recommends recharging overnight when power costs are cheaper in Japan.

Copyright © 2007 Detroit Free Press Inc.

So you're saying that Ford and GM are ahead of Toyota and Honda with regard to energy efficient vehicles?

 

[El Floppo]

Very nice!!

Electric Car

This is quote from the article, very interesting:

Tesla Motors got $60 Million to put these on the road and they got it from the Google guys, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, along with executives from eBay and PayPal.

This thing looks awesome. I have another thing to add regarding electric cars. Living and working in Manhattan and Brooklyn has caused me to come to absolutely despise gasoline engines, if not for the nasty fumes, for the VOLUME. It is almost impossible to have an intelligible cell phone conversation on the street. Imagine how much more peaceful inner cities will be without all the noise of gasoline car and bus engines.

Just found this car through another website... amazing looking! Here's the company's website. Wish I had 100k and a garage.

I'll believe it when I see it. If it's legit, one of the major manufacturers will purchase the engine and make it more available which should bring the cost down considerably.

Tesla Motors just opened up a facility in the town I live in.

Factory or showroom? Website says first delivery will be fall 2008, so I'm guessing factory.

 

[Foosball God]

Very nice!!

Electric Car

This is quote from the article, very interesting:

Tesla Motors got $60 Million to put these on the road and they got it from the Google guys, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, along with executives from eBay and PayPal.

This thing looks awesome. I have another thing to add regarding electric cars. Living and working in Manhattan and Brooklyn has caused me to come to absolutely despise gasoline engines, if not for the nasty fumes, for the VOLUME. It is almost impossible to have an intelligible cell phone conversation on the street. Imagine how much more peaceful inner cities will be without all the noise of gasoline car and bus engines.

Just found this car through another website... amazing looking! Here's the company's website. Wish I had 100k and a garage.

I'll believe it when I see it. If it's legit, one of the major manufacturers will purchase the engine and make it more available which should bring the cost down considerably.

Tesla Motors just opened up a facility in the town I live in.

Factory or showroom? Website says first delivery will be fall 2008, so I'm guessing factory.

Factory

 

[El Floppo]

Why can't they use that wind powerred electricity thinking to make a car powerred similarly? It's got a fan so there's obviously room under the hood for one. It travels along the road creating it's own wind thru the grill to the fan. Batteries to store the electricity generated-they have that already too. I never understood why this technology never happenned except maybe some oil company Tucker like BS.That Tesla car looks pretty cool BTW

Do you mean like the way the heat can be recycled from your bath/shower drain from the hot waste water? It's an excellent idea- why let the wind you're generating go to waste? (other than it's probably currently not possible)

 

[SofaKings]

Just watched it - funny how the Japanese are so far ahead because they "overracted" to the fear of US regulation and now they're light years ahead of US automakers.

GM and Ford only have themselves to blame.

GM and Ford are both working on alternative fuel cars to bring to market as quickly as possible. I know you would rather bash anything American but your statement is false.

Toyota to test plug-in version of Prius hybrid

July 26, 2007

BY YURI KAGEYAMA

ASSOCIATED PRESS

TOKYO -- Toyota already dominates the hybrid market with more than a million of the vehicles sold over the past decade.

Now, it has developed a new type of hybrid that plugs into a home socket for a longer ride as an electric car, raising the stakes in the race to develop the vehicles.

The Toyota Plug-in HV received government approval Wednesday to run on public roads for tests -- the first time a manufacturer has received such certification in Japan, Toyota Motor Corp. said. Toyota plans tests for the United States and Europe.

Other major automakers, including General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co., are developing plug-in hybrids, whose batteries can be recharged via a standard wall outlet.

GM is developing the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid and says it hopes its plug-ins can reach showrooms by 2010.

Earlier this month, Ford announced a partnership with Southern California Edison to test rechargeable hybrid vehicles and hasten mass production of plug-in hybrids.

Ford has been testing plug-in hybrids based on the Escape SUV, for one, but has not said when it plans to start mass producing them.

Like most hybrids now on sale, which are powered by electric motors and gasoline engines, the new Toyota model also gets recharged by converting energy from braking and when the wheels spin. The advantage of the plug-in is that it runs longer on electricity than regular hybrids.

Masatami Takimoto, the Toyota executive in charge of technology, declined to say when Toyota will bring a plug-in hybrid to market. Innovation in battery technology is needed, he said.

"We still need some time," he said.

The Plug-in HV displayed Wednesday runs on the same nickel metal hydride battery as the Prius and has a cruising range of 8 miles (13 kilometers) on electricity. Takimoto said tests will help in deciding the range consumers want, as well as gather information about emissions and fuel efficiency.

The maximum speed of the Plug-in HV is 62 m.p.h. (100 k.p.h.) as an electric vehicle. The batteries require about 1.5 hours to recharge at 200 volts and three or four hours at 100 volts. The company recommends recharging overnight when power costs are cheaper in Japan.

Copyright © 2007 Detroit Free Press Inc.

So you're saying that Ford and GM are ahead of Toyota and Honda with regard to energy efficient vehicles?

No, I'm countering your "light years ahead" argument/hyperbole.

 

[Southside Stosh]

I live in a urban downtown location which encourages alternative transportation and park in a public garage adjacent to my casa for which I purchase a monthly pass . In the garage they offer a private parking space for electric vechicles and FREE electric charging in each designated parking spot.

I'm seriously looking to purchase one of these when they become available for commuting to the J-O-B.

 

[roadkill1292]

I live in a urban downtown location which encourages alternative transportation and park in a public garage adjacent to my casa for which I purchase a monthly pass . In the garage they offer a private parking space for electric vechicles and FREE electric charging in each designated parking spot.

I'm seriously looking to purchase one of these when they become available for commuting to the J-O-B.

That's a righteous rod.

 

[Bri]

Why can't they use that wind powerred electricity thinking to make a car powerred similarly? It's got a fan so there's obviously room under the hood for one. It travels along the road creating it's own wind thru the grill to the fan. Batteries to store the electricity generated-they have that already too. I never understood why this technology never happenned except maybe some oil company Tucker like BS.

That Tesla car looks pretty cool BTW

Do you mean like the way the heat can be recycled from your bath/shower drain from the hot waste water? It's an excellent idea- why let the wind you're generating go to waste? (other than it's probably currently not possible)

wow you have some memoryif ya google wind turbines you'll see quite a few people have been trying to get patents on these recently. As I mentioned, there's not a whole lot that they need to produce wind power that isn't readily available in a car-fan, battery, shaft to turn on...eh I just think it'd be a simple leap and I guess I wish I knew someone in Detroit that could hash out the realistic or unrealistic thoughts here.

Also FWIW-Someone forwarded this link to me not too long ago

http://media.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1292

That was from 2001

Fabulous idea, IMO, but I haven't been able to followup if there's some building in the world that uses it or if it just failed or what. Many articles like this http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15939038/ that are plans plans plans but nothing on actual use of these concepts

 

[Slingblade]

I'll take a monstrous V8 over that sissy electric/hybrid crap any day.

I need feeling and power when I drive.

 

[El Floppo]

Why can't they use that wind powerred electricity thinking to make a car powerred similarly? It's got a fan so there's obviously room under the hood for one. It travels along the road creating it's own wind thru the grill to the fan. Batteries to store the electricity generated-they have that already too. I never understood why this technology never happenned except maybe some oil company Tucker like BS.

That Tesla car looks pretty cool BTW

Do you mean like the way the heat can be recycled from your bath/shower drain from the hot waste water? It's an excellent idea- why let the wind you're generating go to waste? (other than it's probably currently not possible)

wow you have some memoryif ya google wind turbines you'll see quite a few people have been trying to get patents on these recently. As I mentioned, there's not a whole lot that they need to produce wind power that isn't readily available in a car-fan, battery, shaft to turn on...eh I just think it'd be a simple leap and I guess I wish I knew someone in Detroit that could hash out the realistic or unrealistic thoughts here.

Also FWIW-Someone forwarded this link to me not too long ago

http://media.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1292

That was from 2001

Fabulous idea, IMO, but I haven't been able to followup if there's some building in the world that uses it or if it just failed or what. Many articles like this http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15939038/ that are plans plans plans but nothing on actual use of these concepts

Here's a building in Bahrain. Pretty San Francisco just did finished a gov't building that incorporates wind turbines to some degree (by the same Architect as the link above in La Defense, Paris)

 

[El Floppo]

I live in a urban downtown location which encourages alternative transportation and park in a public garage adjacent to my casa for which I purchase a monthly pass . In the garage they offer a private parking space for electric vechicles and FREE electric charging in each designated parking spot.

I'm seriously looking to purchase one of these when they become available for commuting to the J-O-B.

That's a righteous rod.

Passenger side air-bags? Looks a little dangerous.

 

[Bri]

Here's a building in Bahrain. Pretty San Francisco just did finished a gov't building that incorporates wind turbines to some degree (by the same Architect as the link above in La Defense, Paris)

wow that's a spectacular looking building

 

[squidrope]

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.

THIS GUY KNOWS THINGS

 

[squidrope]

At the end of the movie they said they have a battery capable of going 300 miles on one charge. If that's not enough for your daily commute... I can't remember the last time I drove 300 miles in a single day. One thing I initially forgot was how they mentioned that Jimmy Carter took great strides towards making this country greener and even had solar panels installed on the roof of the white house. One of the first things Ronald Reagan did after assuming control of the house was to have the panels removed.wtf?

100 miles might be enough for in town driving, but have you ever driven cross-country? Good luck finding a place to charge up when crossing Utah and Colorado.

I considered this and figured it's a cinch. If you are traveling for pleasure you rent a car, if you are moving just hitch it to the back of a U-Haul. If you want to drive 600 miles round trip to go to a football game or something then I don't know what the solution is, but I'll bet somebody will think of one. I don't buy in to the charging station idea, don't batteries typically charge very slowly?

Regardless, if you watch the movie, it's pretty easy -- you just pull the car into the garage, plug the connector cable from the wall of your garage to the car, and just let it charge overnight. You only need to deal with a charging station if you need to driving longer than the 300 miles.

Easy solution: You and all the other "believers" pool your resources and start an EC company. Save the planet and make billions while you're at it!

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Easy solution: You and all the other "believers" pool your resources and start an EC company. Save the planet and make billions while you're at it!

Believers?Explain further, please.

 

[Alias]

Update?

I read somewhere their goal for the Tesla was 0-60 in 4 seconds or less (the acceleration of a Porsche was their goal) and a range of 250 miles.

Looks like 50 are slated for Q1 and 200 by end of 2008. $98k will get you one, after you wait in line:

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9798162-7.html?tag=head\

test drive

 

[SofaKings]

COMMENTARY: THE WEEKEND INTERVIEW

DOW JONES REPRINTS

John Dingell

Some Inconvenient Truths

By KIMBERLEY STRASSEL

October 6, 2007; Page A21

Washington

At the beginning of every Congress, Michigan Democrat John Dingell offers a bill to create a national health insurance system -- the same bill first offered by his father in 1943. As the longest-serving House member, that means Mr. Dingell has been offering the exact same legislation for, oh, 52 years now.

Such tenacity might explain why his own party is alternating between fury and worry over Mr. Dingell's role in today's great energy debate. Democrats took over Congress vowing to make global warming a top priority, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi planned to notch a quick victory with a bill that was long on political symbolism and cost, if short on actual emissions reductions.

Standing in her way has been Mr. Dingell. Much to the speaker's consternation, the powerful chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee is insisting that any bill should actually accomplish something, and that its pain be borne by all Americans (rather than just his Detroit auto makers). In recent months he has been circulating his own proposals for hefty new taxes on energy, gasoline and homeowners -- ideas that are already giving the rest of his party the willies.

His position arguably makes Mr. Dingell the lone honest broker in the global warming debate. But it also makes him a headache for all his Democratic friends, who'd prefer he just play political nice. For his part, the 81-year-old Dean of the House -- as feisty and courtly and colorful a congressman as you'll ever find -- is unrepentant.

"I wasn't sent down here to destitute [my district]. And I wasn't sent down here to destitute anyone else…I've got a responsibility to legislate, but I've got a responsibility to legislate well. I'm going to be honest with the American people about this and say 'look here, fellas, this is what we're going to have to do to you to fix global warming. You tell us whether you like it or not.'"

For the record, Big John doesn't think Americans will like it, but he finds that a poor excuse for not telling them the facts. As he greets me warmly, insists I occupy his best chair, and allows me to take in his striking office (decorated with the many horns and heads the avid hunter has bagged over the decades), he talks about the immense pressure he was under earlier this year to write a quick energy bill that included everything from new standards for light bulbs to a massive new system for regulating C02.

Ms. Pelosi wanted a bill by the Fourth of July; she even set up a new "Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming," headed by Rep. Ed Markey, to hurry the work. Mr. Dingell, who dryly notes that he's worked on "three or four" energy bills in his life, instead bucked his leadership by refusing to include the complex issues of climate regulation and auto standards in the bill the House passed this summer.

Mr. Dingell said he explained that Democrats had a responsibility to put forward a bill that was both "truthful" to the American people, as well as one "that works." And that takes time. "Probably in the 50 years I've been in this place, it's going to be the single hardest thing I've confronted."

Adding to Mr. Dingell's reluctance to hurry is that he feels many of the current climate proposals bumping around Congress are neither honest nor adequate. Most would set up a cap-and-trade program, much like that developed in Europe following the Kyoto Protocol. Mr. Dingell notes how easy it is to rig a system like that, and points out that the market for C02 emissions that Europe did set up has already fallen apart: "Europe has shown that this is hell to make work. They're going back to the drawing board again, with no assurance they won't make the same mistakes they did before."

He adds that a cap-and-trade system alone doesn't convey the real cost of climate change, since it puts its primary cost on companies, which then pass that burden on to consumers via higher prices. It's a hidden tax, he says, which is precisely why so many politicians like it. "I haven't found many [environmentalists or economists] saying cap-and-trade works. But that approach happens to be politically easiest, because people can say the program isn't a tax, which is a bare-faced lie, as you know."

Another worry of the energy committee chairman's is that many of the proposals for cutting emissions aren't fair, in that they dump a disproportionate amount of the costs on a few industries. That's particularly the case with proposals to raise the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards, which would require Detroit auto makers to design much more efficient cars.

Many Democrats want to raise the fleet average to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, while Mr. Dingell (and 169 fellow House members) wants to phase it in over a slightly longer period. As one of the authors of the first CAFE standards in the 1970s, he worries that today's new members don't always consider the financial consequences of big environmental bills.

"There are a lot of people here who don't understand the auto industry," he says. "If you phase these numbers in too soon, you force engineering in ways that can't be done. And you end up forcing a situation where people have to make cars that don't sell, or don't run, or cost too much, and they go broke doing it."

This complexity is why he also insisted CAFE standards be treated separately from the earlier energy bill, and he still thinks there's big potential for Congress to do irreparable damage. "I worry that with mistakes or bad handling, I could shut down the American auto industry, and that holds real terrors for me."

That being said, Mr. Dingell has made clear to the auto industry that his colleagues are intent on seeing some sort of CAFE hike, and that the industry would do well to support him. "I told them, 'Your best interest is in going with me, and let me tell you why. You are going to hate the bill I give you, but it's going to be a bill with which you can live. If you don't work with me, you'll still get a bill. And you'll hate it. But it will be a bill you can't live with."

So if the current proposals for a climate program aren't workable, what does Mr. Dingell think is the right equation? He says he's committed to a bill that makes drastic cuts -- some 60% to 80% emissions reductions by 2050 -- since anything less won't do much good. He also thinks any climate program needs to include an array of powerful tools that will allow policy makers to truly influence how much energy people use.

All this argues for new energy taxes, he says, because higher energy prices are one of the few things that cause people to cut back consumption. While Mr. Dingell has yet to unveil his broader climate-auto legislation, he has been releasing broad outlines. It will include a cap-and-trade system, but alongside that will be a big new carbon tax (probably around $50 a ton), an estimated 50-cent-a-gallon increase in the gas tax, and an end to the mortgage-interest deduction for Americans who own homes larger than 3,000 square feet.

Taxes, he argues, will give policy makers more options in influencing behavior. He uses the example of a gas tax. "Why would I do that? First of all, it means I can reduce the use of gasoline, and I can make it easier for CAFE to work."

But he also explains that it allows policy makers to "differentiate between fuels." By taxing gasoline but not diesel, for instance, he hopes to get more people into diesel cars. That would further reduce emissions, he argues," since diesel gets "about a 20% to 25% fuel benefit."

Finally, Mr. Dingell says new taxes, and the revocation of the mortgage interest deduction, are the only way to truly spread around the sacrifices necessary for significant emissions reductions.

"People have got to understand that addressing the problem we have as the largest user of energy and emitter of greenhouses gases is not something that will exist without pain. . . . It is ultimately going to evolve into a significant cost for everybody, and significant changes in lifestyle. . . . Everybody is trying to tell everyone that we can do this without any pain to you, and we'll just stick it to so and so. . . . But in my bill, everyone is going to put their farthing in the collection box. Nobody will put in too much, nobody too little, but nobody will get out of it."

All this tax talk scares the dickens out of Mr. Dingell's Democratic colleagues, and he knows it. Gas prices are soaring, and most members would prefer to commit hara-kiri than propose legislation that would raise them further. Ditto the idea of meddling with the politically explosive mortgage deduction. House Democrats still have painful memories of 1993, when Vice President Al Gore convinced them to pass a broad energy tax on BTU (British thermal units) usage.

"I knew I'd catch hell for [introducing a carbon tax], because I also did for voting for [bTU] before. As a matter of fact, that vote probably cost Democrats control of the House. Everyone around here is scared to death of it," admits Mr. Dingell. He understands that many of his colleagues would prefer he just get out of the way, and let them collect some political credit for quick climate legislation. But he's past that point.

"I'm 50 years or more in this business, and I've learned to play for the long haul. When I was a kid around here I was like the other guys, saying 'don't worry about the cost, someone else has to worry about that.' Today, I don't want to have someone say, 'Dingell, you jackass, look what you did to us.'"

Given his past skepticism on climate change, and his concern for the auto industry, Mr. Dingell also knows that he stands accused of floating a politically unpalatable carbon tax for no other reason than to sabotage any climate bill. He denies it vehemently. "When I sent the staff out to find out about this, I said 'Look, you go out and find the facts. I don't give a damn about the politics.' . . . I got no end of hell, and everybody has said I'm insincere. My response is that I've never introduced a piece of legislation that I didn't intend to pass."

He admits to some frustration that he's not getting more support. "The administration just huffs and sits back and says we're not interested in working on this . . . Industry is absolutely demoralized on this issue. My colleagues are running around making speeches about what ought to be done, but very few have experience in the matter."

If Mr. Dingell has learned anything in his time in Washington, it's to call them as he's sees them, and when I ask how many votes he thinks he'd get if he offered up his legislation tomorrow, he chuckles and says, "Well, at least one."

I mention that many of his fellow Democrats are still hoping to slip some sort of climate legislation and CAFE rule into the smaller energy legislation on which the House and Senate are about to start negotiations. How does he intend to block that offensive? He chuckles again and says, "If you have any ideas, let me know."

Not that he's about to give up, which gets back to his legendary tenacity. He tells me about working on the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. "I remember people said, 'Dingell, what a great job you did on Clean Air, you passed it on the House floor in 13 hours.' And I said, "Yeah, it only took me 13 years to do it.'"

Will, 13 years from now, he have seen his climate proposal through? This evokes more than a chuckle; it's a giant laugh. "Before 13 years are up, I'm going to seek my 'permanent career,'" he quips. What, I ask, could possibly follow 50-odd years of Washington jousting? "Hunting, fishing and chasing a gorgeous blonde around the bedroom."

Ms. Strassel is a Washington-based member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board.

 

[Al Czervik]

From this weeks TIME Magazine:

LINK

Green Motors

By Bryan Walsh

No one would mistake Chris Paine for a General Motors shill. In his 2006 documentary Who Killed the Electric Car?, the filmmaker laid out a damning case against GM for unplugging the EV1, the electric vehicle it manufactured in the 1990s and then discontinued in 2003, preferring instead to produce high-margin but gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs. "They were a technological leader, and they fumbled that leadership away," Paine says. Ask him about the U.S. carmaker now, though, and Paine sounds almost admiring. "Their new hybrids are making a difference, and their plug-in technology is a real advance," he says. "GM is making some really good moves now."

It's been some time since anyone accused GM of making a good move. The company surrendered its title as the world's top-selling carmaker to Toyota this year, in part because GM underestimated drivers' appetite for leaner, greener cars — a desire filled spectacularly by Toyota's Prius. GM is still weighed down by health-care costs and other legacy issues, but the Detroit giant is finally getting serious about hybrids. After dismissing them for years as a niche unworthy of attention, GM will release an average of one new hybrid model every three months for the next two years, beginning with the industry's first full-size hybrid SUVs late this year. "GM has really stepped up to be the standard bearer for the industry," says Philip Gott, director of automotive consulting for the research group Global Insight. "Toyota stole the limelight the first time with nice technology and a brilliant marketing strategy, but I think GM will take the ball back."

In a way, GM never really lost the ball; it just forgot how to play. For all its recent struggles in the marketplace, GM has always been a leader in pure research and development, spending $6.6 billion in the field in 2006. "They've dwarfed the rest of the industry in what they can put into it," says Dan Sperling, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California at Davis. In the late 1980s, GM produced concept cars like the Sunracer, a sleek solar vehicle that can still inspire wistful sighs in green geeks of a certain age. But too often the good stuff stalled between the lab and the showroom. "There is a myth out there that GM is a technological laggard, but that's not true," says John DeCicco, senior fellow for automotive strategies at the advocacy group Environmental Defense. "They just chose not to emphasize those kinds of products in their corporate strategy." Nevertheless, GM's cautious approach stranded its brands in the past while its competitors positioned themselves as smarter and greener.

Nowhere was that clearer than in GM's foot-dragging on hybrids, which use combination gas-electric engines to reduce fuel usage an average of 45%, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. "Hybrids are an interesting curiosity," said Robert Lutz, GM's vice chairman of product development, in early 2004. "But do they make sense at $1.50 a gallon? No, they do not." Lutz was right then, and even with gas prices closer to $3, midsize hybrids are expensive and may not save most drivers much money. But to consumers, the equation was simple: hybrids = environmentalism.

GM just didn't get it. "GM took a gamble that hybrids weren't going to be important," says Eric Noble, president of Car Labs, an auto consulting firm. "That turned out to be a very bad bet."

Even while its image became defined by Paleolithic SUVs, GM was quietly making green investments. The company began producing hybrid buses in 2004, using the technology to boost fuel economy on those big, inefficient vehicles where it would have a big, immediate impact. By the same logic, GM has put its first real hybrid engines not in a midsize sedan like the Toyota Prius but in its jumbo suvs, the GMC Yukon and the Chevrolet Tahoe. The 5,000-lb. (2,300 kg) vehicles will run on a new two-mode hybrid system developed by GM with Chrysler and BMW. The power train will use two electric motors — one to assist city driving, one for highways — giving it up to 40% better fuel rates than conventional models' for city driving. "It's a piece of art," says Mickey Bly, GM's director of engineering for hybrid vehicles. And with a towing capacity of 6,000 lbs. (2,700 kg), the fuel economy doesn't come at the expense of power.

GM hasn't won over all the skeptics. Sticking a hybrid engine in a jumbo SUV is "putting lipstick on a pig," says Ronald Hwang, vehicle policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, who argues that if GM is green serious, it should give up SUVs and build more efficient cars. But other activists welcome the effort. "I'm an equal-opportunity environmentalist, and I'll take carbon reductions where I can get them," says DeCicco. They agree, however, that GM passed up a chance to cement its green rep by failing to support efforts to tighten the federal corporate average-fuel-economy standards. Green darling Toyota has also opposed the proposed new rules, which call for a 35 mpg. (6.7 L/100 km) standard by 2020.

The best way for GM to answer its critics is with a green leap forward — and the company is working with every available technology. GM presented the Chevrolet Volt — a plug-in hybrid that can run on battery power, biodiesel or gasoline — as a 2007 concept car. The company will soon roll out Project Driveway, a consumer test of more than 100 hydrogen-fuel-cell cars, which convert hydrogen to energy and produce no harmful emissions. "No other company has such a broad array of green technology," says Tom Stephens, GM's vice president for global power train. "I intend to lead on this."

Chris Paine will be watching. His next film is titled Who Saved the Electric Car?, but there's one obstacle. "We have to find out if someone actually is saving it," he says. It might just be GM. What better hero than a reformed villain?

 

[JerseyToughGuys]

Who Killed the Electric Car?

The Stonecutters?

More specifically, Steve Guttenburg.

 

[Chaka]

I live in a urban downtown location which encourages alternative transportation and park in a public garage adjacent to my casa for which I purchase a monthly pass . In the garage they offer a private parking space for electric vechicles and FREE electric charging in each designated parking spot.

I'm seriously looking to purchase one of these when they become available for commuting to the J-O-B.

That's a righteous rod.

Passenger side air-bags? Looks a little dangerous.

Safer than a motorcycle maybe?

 

[Amused to Death]

I saw this movie a few years ago and then again last night. Makes you wonder how advanced the technology could be if it was supported more in the 1990's/early 2000's.

at how GM took control of the high-tech batteries then sold it to Big Oil. Then a few years later took a government bailout to avoid going belly-up.

Link to movie if you haven't seen it.