Who Killed the Electric Car?

[AFCM]

Over the weekend, I sat down to watch this documentary and it was very educational and eye-opening. If you're easily angered by high gas prices, global warming, and excessive vehicle maintenance, this is the film for you.

[BaconCheeseburgerDeluxe]

Sure, the gas prices irriate me but, I also keep in mind my vehicle is a luxury. I do not have to the vehicle I drive to survive. I could by a little go cart car like a toyota or a hyundai. I could use public transportation. I could walk.

I chose to drive a full size truck, nobody was twisting my arm. In fact I love my truck. Part of loving my truck means I have to pay more when gas prices rise. Sure it sucks but in other ways it saves me money.I do not eat near as much fast food nor do I spend my money on frivalous junk.

During the winter it cost me $50 dollars to fill up. Now it cost me $65. Again it does not bother me because I am driving what I want to drive and sure beats the hell out of the other options out there.

I think more Americans need to hold themselves a little more accountable for the bad things that happen to them. The way I see it I am at least 50% accountable for the bad things that happen in my life. 9 times out ten I made a poor choice that could have altered that situation.

On a side note I am not sure if I agree with the electric car. They need electricty to charge and wouldn't that put more of a strain on our problem ridden power grid. Just a thought.

I am not saying the high prices are justified. I am saying that the American people need to take some accountablity and cut back on consumption. We need to quit acting like every source of energy is never ending.

[SoonerDave]

Be careful about documentaries like "who killed the electric car." They enter with a presumption that the electric car was inevitable, and someone had to have actively killed it, which implies a bias in how that material is presented.

The problem with electric car technology in general is that our current level of technology with batteries and such just doesn't allow the kind of sustained performance necessary to allow such a car to be 100% electrical. Most recently, I've heard/read that you might have a low-performer for low-speed trips, but if you need sustained higher speeds, you have to have a higher-power backup - and that means some variety of conventionally fueled engine.

That's why these so-called "hybrids" are so annoying, because they are more marketing than reality. You achieve maximum efficiency from the non-traditional engine component only in a very, very narrow performance window, and outside that, you're a regular car just like everyone else. The non-gasoline engines end up performing something like 90-95% of the work, so the "hybrid" aspect is overblown.

I think alternative fuel vehicles are a fine idea, but people also have to understand that we are constrained by the limits of our own technology. Right now, electric cars are an awesome concept, and we've made great leaps, but to imply that some sinister conspiracy has kept them from mainstream adoption is to ignore our technological constraints.

As far as tieing the urgency of alternative vehicles to being worried about "global warming," that's a non-starter in my book. GW is, sadly, so much UN claptrap that is more about a grab for power than it is anything scientific. But that's another thread.

-soonerdave

[soonerliberal]

Be careful about documentaries like "who killed the electric car." They enter with a presumption that the electric car was inevitable, and someone had to have actively killed it, which implies a bias in how that material is presented.

Did we watch the same documentary? There sure didn't seem to be that presumption to me. It seemed very fair and non-Michael Mooreish to me.

[metalhead]

I thought it was very interesting. Just how biased it might be is hard to determine since I really didn't know anything about the subject matter(the EV-1 and all that) to begin with, but the way in which the material was presented made sense to me.

[BailJumper]

That's why these so-called "hybrids" are so annoying, because they are more marketing than reality

How so? Everyone I know that has one bought it for the fuel economy. While they don't get the mileage stated on the sticker (no new car does), they far exceed traditional cars.

[SoonerDave]

I did not see the documentary in question, so I could not comment on it directly. My observation is that the title of the documentary was inflammatory on its face, thus leading me to question its credibility.

Next, EPA fuel economy estimates have been garbage for years. Second, the hybrids push the fact that they're "hybrids" to convey the impression they're revolutionary, alternate-fuel technology, when something on the order of 90% or thereabouts of their average performance is provided by conventional, gasoline-fueled engines. It's mostly marketing hype under the name of the "green" religion, and people are falling for them.

-soonerdew

[windowphobe]

EPA is tightening up the specs for 2008.

I tend to defend hybrids: they are stupefyingly complicated, which bothers me, but they do produce some genuine fuel savings. Still, they won't necessarily save you any money over the long haul, if only because they command a price premium these days and tax credits are diminishing: if you want cheap wheels with reasonable speed and abstemious thirst, you can buy a Honda Fit or last year's Scion xB (the '08 is fat and unworthy of the badge), and about $8000 worth of gas with the difference in price.

[Easy180]

I did not see the documentary in question, so I could not comment on it directly. My observation is that the title of the documentary was inflammatory on its face, thus leading me to question its credibility.

Next, EPA fuel economy estimates have been garbage for years. Second, the hybrids push the fact that they're "hybrids" to convey the impression they're revolutionary, alternate-fuel technology, when something on the order of 90% or thereabouts of their average performance is provided by conventional, gasoline-fueled engines. It's mostly marketing hype under the name of the "green" religion, and people are falling for them.

-soonerdew

Should they have just termed them Better Gas Mileage vehicles?...Don't think many are buying because of the perception they are revolutionary...Pretty sure the ole gas mileage factor is 90% of why they are purchased..They simply get better gas mileage and several get significantly better miles per gallon

I think Sean Penn and other ultra rich movie stars owning one has more influence than the actual hybrid name

[California L33]

I saw it, but I was a bit disturbed by the focus on folks trying to save the EV-1. They had the designer of the power plant who said it was nothing special- essentially a 200 kilowatt stereo amplifier, the prototype of which he built in his garage. They had a battery supplier who could deliver better batteries than GM installed. They had a dedicated sales force. They had a customer base. Why waste their time trying to force GM to save it when they could make their own? (Unless GM really was taking a bath on each one.)