Who Killed the Electric Car?

I don't buy there's some big corporate & government conspiracy to keep electric vehicles off the market. I think it's just the market - it would cost a fair amount to develop the vehicle (leaving out most small companies or entrapenueurs) and corporations are afraid of risk.

I agree choice is important, but there's no comparing a Ferrari to an electric car. A Ferrari is purely a luxury item, I doubt many are driven cross country. But NO ONE ever makes the argument "It doesn't make economic sense - you'll never make up the extra cost of the car." since it obviously isn't practical in the least. BUT even if the electric car was only, say, $45,000, do you think everyone won't start saying "You'll never make up the cost of the premium" as we've all heard over and over and over. It won't matter if it's true, but as a practical vehicle, it will get the same bad press... (Electricity still makes pollution, recharging takes too long, can't use it for this and that, yada yada yada.)

It was a big risk to make the hybrids, and so far only Toyota seems to be getting a return on their investment (so far). So no conspiracy - just scared corporations and no entrepeneurs with lots of money.

I'm sure if Darrel had the capital he'd be designing his own mass market EV straightaway!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gschoen @ Jul 7 2006, 07:56 AM) [snapback]282518[/snapback]</div>

That is the exact market Tesla is marketing for. The richboy toy market. And that is the Ferrari market. If you market the electric roadster as Ferrari beating car, who really care if it is electric or petro. Those richboys don't care about battery replacement... or evironmental concerns either. Just as long as it is "fast"... or chick magnet.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gschoen @ Jul 7 2006, 07:56 AM) [snapback]282518[/snapback]</div>

Or a dealership, importing ones from other countries. Have solar panels on the roof of the building so every customer (even if it's just a tire rotation) goes away with a full charge.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gschoen @ Jul 7 2006, 07:56 AM) [snapback]282518[/snapback]</div>

Well, I agree. And so does the movie, really. The word "conspiracy" carries some unfounded connotation with it, though. There can still be a conspiracy of corporations for the reasons you state. Honestly, there is no doubt of conspiracy - just not in the secret, under-handed way that the word so often implies. Conspiracies happen in business every day, for sound business reasons.

Yes. And this does not mean EVs are not good for the consumer. And it does not mean we shouldn't have them available. It just means that like seatbelts and catalytic converters, that it will cost more money than doing business as usual. How much will it cost us to continue with the status quo that seems cheaper in the short run?

Or to put it more accurately - a conspiracy because of scared corporations with their eyes on this quarter's bottom line.

Already designed in my head!


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Jul 7 2006, 07:18 AM) [snapback]282508[/snapback]</div>

All valid points with real-world proof.
I agree that my outlook is almost purely practical, where the general buying publics' outlook is irrational at best. We see similarities with the Prius. See if this sounds familiar:

I'm driving a particular type of car that only a small percentage of the population understands or has ever experienced. I am bombarded by accusations and "facts" about how impractical my vehicle is. Too expensive for what it does, etc. I'm told that the range and refuel time is too limiting to be practical... yet this whole time, we're driving this vehicle EVERY DAY as our primary car. It would be funny if it weren't so sad, really. Here are all these people with no experience with the cars who are absolutely convinced that they know the answers. I live with these cars, and I know their limits and benefits, yet these other folks seem to know better!

Crazy. But there you go.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jul 7 2006, 11:49 AM) [snapback]282642[/snapback]</div>

Did you know that the original idea for the movie Cars was about an electric car in a gas-guzzling world? I wonder how far they got on the plot.

 

I would like an electric car too, but I don't see it as a right that one should be available, or affordable for that matter. If a corporation I hold stock in isn't interested in their bottom line, I'd be looking to unload it. If I was a venture capitalist, maybe they have a different perspective.... Airlines often price their fares the same/very similar. Is it a conspiracy or price fixing? I don't see it as such, since they have a relatively in-elastic price mechanism (like gasoline stations) where most aren't brand or amenity loyal, they'll choose the lowest fare first and everything else later. It's just business in our market economy.

The right cell phone doesn't exist for me, either. Everyone is a tradeoff of some sorts, even though there's lots of choices. Most are sold by the cell phone providers, and the phones are made to THEIR best interests, not mine. I don't see it as a conspiracy against the right cell phone, but it is frustrating.

Lots of things would be good for the consumer and industries don't respond accordingly (drug companies are a GREAT example of not responding to the consumer's best interest.) Energy and autos are no exception.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jul 7 2006, 08:49 PM) [snapback]282642[/snapback]</div>

You hit the hammer right on the nail! This sounds familiar indeed. The most common question we hear when people see our Prius is "doesn't this car cost more than a conventional car?", sounding almost like an accusation. Apart from the fact that it's wrong, what really bothers me is that *nobody* would ask this question if it were a BMW, or even a Porsche. People find it normal that you pay extra money for a performance car, but they consider it odd to pay extra money for a greener car. We decided that we would enjoy driving a Prius, because we like it: the fact that it's less polluting, the hightech aspect, and the incredibly smooth ride. Overall cost wasn't even important. So, again, a irrational decision in a sense. But it makes me really angry that so many people find it normal to pay a premium for a sports car, but consider it silly to pay a premium for a greener car.

To come back to EV's though, I understand your rational arguments but I'm not ready to accept them. I'm still trapped in the "what if" reasoning. We have two cars: a Volvo XC70 and a Prius. Suppose our second car was an EV. What if I was using the Volvo (to go to work), and my wife unexpectedly needed to drive a long distance? For example, if her parents suddenly get ill, living 150 km away? Most likely, the problem will never arise, but the "just in case" reasoning would make me not consider an EV, because it would mean to give up some flexibility (although we perhaps never use that flexibility).

Now, of course, if that EV would have an extra gas engine, just in case... Wait... wouldn't that be a plugin hybrid then? Where can I buy one?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aaf709 @ Jul 7 2006, 12:08 PM) [snapback]282655[/snapback]</div>

Seriously? Where'd you hear that? I just saw the movie with my daughter. Love the way the Porche babe purrred.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gschoen @ Jul 7 2006, 12:20 PM) [snapback]282659[/snapback]</div>

Hmmm, I can't think of any asthma patients suffering if your cell phone doesn't take 5Mpix photos. I can't imagine any of our military dying to defend your use of a phone's address book. I'm not trying to get the perfect vehicle for the consumer on the market. I'm trying to get the least damaging vehicle available. Think of it as a safety issue, not one of convenience. Should we not have forced the automotive industry to provide seatbelts? Catalytic converters? It turns out that government's entire purpose is to provide for the common good. We need some sort of viable energy policy - and one based completely on keeping the price of gasoline down isn't really getting us where we need to be.... is it? We're providing incentives to use gasoline in this country. We should be providing for more incentives to drive clean, and to produce clean power. But that's not where the bread is buttered at the current time. I sure don't mean to come off sounding like I think the auto industry should cater to my needs and desires. And comparing something like this to how convenient a cell phone should be is tirivializing a very important national and world-wide issue.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Jul 7 2006, 12:25 PM) [snapback]282661[/snapback]</div>

Silly, isn't it? Ignorance is what seems to compel most people to comment. Like you, I did not buy a Prius to save money on gasoline. I bought it because I liked the car, and it was the cleanest, most gadget-complete, most convenient long-distance car I could find.

You're falling into the trap of the Model A vs. today's cars. To level the playing field, we need to either compare the Ford Model A to my Rav4EV... or compare a mature EV industry with today's gas cars. If we had continuned with EVs for the past 10+ years, many things would be different today. We could easily have fast chargers all over the country. They are cheaper to build and easier and safer to use than any gas station. Back-of-the envelop calculations show that for the cost of just ONE Hydrogen filling station, we could put a fast charger on ever 15 miles of freeway in CA! With a fast charging option (not something you'd use every day - or even ever for most folks!) you'd have the ability to refuel and get moving in a hurry. You'd pay a premium for that of course - possibly even as much as you pay for gasoline today! Gasp. And yes, a good plug-in hybrid goes a long way to solving these issues as well. Certainly more conveniently for today. My issue is having to drag around the ICE and the gas tank everywhere I go for the off-chance that I need it once/year. What happens if your wife is at work and suddenly finds that she has to tow a speed boat across town to rescue her aunt who is drowning in the local lake!? Unfortunately, this 0.1% reasoning is what gives us so many SUVs. I don't mean to belittle the feeling. I just know from experience that an emergency of ANY type can crop up at any time... and you deal with it the best you can. What if the Volvo makes it to work almost on empty, and the medical emergency comes up just as the power goes out in your section of town... and the gas pumps all stop working? (hey, that's happened here several times in the past ten years). If you had a full EV that had been charging all morning, you'd be set. Oh wait... one more.... what if that day of medical emergency the Volvo was in for an oil change or tuneup - some regularly-scheduled service... and your wife had to ride in with a co-workier....and the emergency call came? What then?! Borrow a co-workers car? Call you? Call a friend or relative? Take a taxi? Lots of choices. Lots of potential to need help beyond a gasoline car. (Wow... I can ramble!)

Also... in my pretend world of where we should be today... your wife would have a charger at work, and while she works, her 300-mile EV would be charged and ready to go. 150km would be a piece of cake. That's where we should be. That's where we *could* be. Back in the early days of gasoline cars, the range sucked and there were no gas stations. But somehow.... we found a way to make it work, didn't we? Counting EVs out becuase of the limitations of the out-dated, first attempt is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I do appreciate your comments. And I do understand them. Just offering up my particular brand of, "but consider this..."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jul 7 2006, 07:00 PM) [snapback]282769[/snapback]</div>

If we call this a safety issue, the same could be said for every polluting technology and manufacturing process happening today. In a perfect world, we'd have unlimited clean energy and world peace for that matter. Comparing an EV to seatbelts is trivializing the most important safety feature in automotive history. Safety features and emission controls didn't just happen on cars one day, they evolved over a L-O-N-G time and are still maturing. Your cause and effect is a reach.. because we don't have EV, more people have asthma. But the real problem is pollution and energy policy, and EV doesn't change our polluting energy sources. I know you have solar panels but that doesn't work for most of us and it's not going to change soon.

I agree clean energy is important. I just think the problem is much bigger than no EVs on the market. I would love to have an electric car, and I believe the market will get there one day, maybe not the pace I'd like.. but most advances, social, political, environmental, whatever.. dont' happen at the pace I'd like.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jul 7 2006, 05:00 PM) [snapback]282769[/snapback]</div>

Internet Movie Database, my electrical friend. Just click on "trivia" and scroll down to near the bottom.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gschoen @ Jul 7 2006, 06:23 PM) [snapback]282803[/snapback]</div>

Of course. And private automobile use is one of the biggest sources of pollution we have. And it is the one I'm most familiar with. I can't do it all, so I stick with what I know.

How do EVs NOT change our energy sources? We don't burn oil to make electricity. Electricity is the ULTIMATE flexible fuel. It can be made from more sources than any other fuel. So PV panels don't work for you. Would wind? Natural gas? Hamsters on a big wheel? Gas cars have no real choice. Again... how do EVs NOT change our polluting energy sources? Are we going down the "coal-powered vehicle" path? Still different. And still domestic.

Of course it is! Much MUCH bigger. And again there are limits to what I can do. I put my energy where I have the most knowledge and experience. It might not be enough to make a siginificant change - but it is what I can offer.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gschoen @ Jul 7 2006, 08:23 PM) [snapback]282803[/snapback]</div>

It would work for plenty of us.

I'd love to have solar panels on my roof but can't afford the up front cost.

The school where I work just had every roof covered in solar panels. It's being done to every school in the district. It's a deal with the local Gas & Electric.

Now.....what if the State of California said to me "We'll put solar panels on your roof for free, but you have to let us cover your whole roof and any electricity generated above what you use we get for free." I'd say sure. As is, since people have to pay up front and don't get compensated for anything over what they use there is NO incentive to produce more than they need. In fact you're penalized for putting on too many solar panels since you have to pay for them and don't get paid back for the extra energy you produce. So people calculate exactly what they use and only buy enough solar panels to produce just that amount and no extra.

Now, how many people would agree to a deal like that? It's essentially renting my roof. I get what I need, they get the excess. Seems to me that would be less of a porkbarrel project and more of an investing in a clean future project. Certainly a great use of my tax dollars.

There are plenty of states and plenty of areas where putting solar panels on as many roofs as possible would be effective.

And if there were programs for putting that many solar panels up....don't you think the industry would develop better panels faster? Just like battery technology is accelerating with the demand?

It's not *the* answer any more than the Prius is, but it's certainly a move in the right direction.

But....I won't hold my breath.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 8 2006, 12:23 AM) [snapback]282921[/snapback]</div>

Only if Execs think like you and I.

But when those Execs get money stuffed into their pockets by the energy producers, great ideas disappears in these Monopolistic market.

 

So... back to the movie Who Killed the Electric Car for a moment... and the positive comments about the Tesla mentioned in the first post:

I just saw the movie again last night (at the opening in San Francisco) and remembered that the Tesla (to be unveiled in about week!) is actually shown at the end of the movie briefly. It is used (like the OP does) to show optimism.

And speaking of brief... I also just realized that I'm *IN* the movie twice... for about 3/4 of a second total.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gschoen @ Jul 7 2006, 06:23 PM) [snapback]282803[/snapback]</div>

Oops. I missed this part the first time through.
I honestly don't think that there are many more important issues facing us today than the economic, social, health and national security aspects of our consumption of fossil fuels. It is not trivializing seatbelts (when compared to, say cell phone gadgetry) to say that many thousands of lives a year are lost due to the use of gasoline in private automobiles. Turns out that wearing a seat belt, or even having the perfect cell phone, does not insulate us from lung disease, or from sending billions of dollars out of our economy. While the seatbelt may well be the most important safety feature in automotive history, gasoline must be the most deadly "feature" of our automobiles.

Adding seat belts has saved an untold number of lives. Is there a reason that we should not try to keep more people alive and healthy by moving away from a gasoline economy?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jul 8 2006, 10:22 AM) [snapback]283019[/snapback]</div>

It would be fantastic! 300 mile range at 60mph, and 250 mile range at 85. 0-60 in under four seconds? Somebody tie me down!

If the thing could seat five, I'd be hard-pressed not to put a second mortgage on the house. The bad news is that a two-seater could not replace either of our current two cars, so that isn't gonna work. I am basically waiting for one of two things:

1. A 250 mile EV that can seat 5. Something like an electric Prius. At that point, we could do without ANY liquid-fueled vehicle in the stable, and just rent something when/if we need a longer-range car.

2. A REAL plug-in hybrid with 40 mile all-electric highway range. This would be our secondary car (like the Prius is today) and would only fire the ICE maybe once a month. I'd invest in gasoline stabilizer, and be happy as a clam.

I don't burn much gasoline these days as it is, but either one of these solutions would cut our already tiny gasoline usage down to under 10% of what it is today.

 

I finally managed to get my ftp client to work on this terribly slow dialup that I'm using today. A picture from last night so you can all see what the movie looks like. The goofy-looking guy is Chris, the director. You guess which one!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jul 8 2006, 04:08 PM) [snapback]283101[/snapback]</div>

With that an EV to fit 5, the battery/car setup will not get you 250 miles range. The Elise is 2000 as it comes, it is small and light. So a 5 passanger car will be at lease 800+ lbs heavier.

As for a plug in hybrid. I prefer not to be an HSD system. I rather have an EV hauling around an ICE instead used only as power source... especially if the ICE will hardly be used.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dipper @ Jul 8 2006, 11:10 PM) [snapback]283241[/snapback]</div>

I'm not sure what you mean here. We can most definitely make a 250 mile lithium 5-seater. It is being done right now with Scion donors.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jul 9 2006, 12:20 AM) [snapback]283254[/snapback]</div>

Yes, it can be done with more battery. But the Scion Xb has only enough battery for 180 miles range. Did that specs change? You were the one telling us about the 180 miles range a few months back.