-J-P-L-

I recently got this DVD and was suprised and shocked at some of the stuff that has gone on against the electric car's success. Actually, it will make you pretty mad to learn the truth. I recommend people at least rent this as it is entertaining to watch and enlightening.

From Wikipedia,

Who Killed the Electric Car? is a 2006 documentary film that explores the birth, limited commercialization, and subsequent death of the battery electric vehicle in the United States, specifically the General Motors EV1 of the 1990s. The film explores the roles of automobile manufacturers, the oil industry, the US government, batteries, hydrogen vehicles, and consumers in limiting the development and adoption of this technology.

It was released on DVD to the home video market on November 14, 2006 by Sony Pictures Home Entertainment.

The film deals with the history of the electric car, its development and commercialization, mostly focusing on the General Motors EV1, which was made available for lease in Southern California in the late 1990's, after the California Air Resources Board passed the ZEV mandate in 1990, as well as the implications of the events depicted for air pollution, environmentalism, Middle East politics, and global warming.

The film details the California Air Resources Board's reversal of the mandate after suits from automobile manufacturers, the oil industry, and the George W. Bush administration. It points out that Bush's chief influences, **** Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and Andrew Card, are all former executives and board members of oil and auto companies.

A large part of the film chronicles GM's efforts to demonstrate to California that there was no demand for their product, and then to take back every EV1 and dispose of them. A few were disabled and given to museums and universities, but almost all were found to have been crushed; GM never responded to the EV drivers' offer to pay the residual lease value ($1.9 million was offered for the remaining 79 cars in Burbank before they were crushed). Several activists are shown being arrested in the protest that attempted to block the GM car carriers taking the remaining EV1s off to be crushed.

The film explores some of the reasons that the auto and oil industries worked to kill off the electric car. Wally Rippel is shown explaining that the oil companies were afraid of losing out on trillions in potential profit from their transportation fuel monopoly over the coming decades, while the auto companies were afraid of losses over the next six months of EV production. Others explained the killing differently. GM spokesman Dave Barthmuss argued it was lack of consumer interest due to the maximum range of 80–100 miles per charge, and the relatively high price.

The film also explores the future of automobile technologies including a deeply critical look at hydrogen vehicles and an upbeat discussion of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle technologies.


The suspects:
The last half hour of the movie is organized around the following hypothesized culprits in the downfall of the electric car:

Consumers
Lots of ambivalence to new technology, unwillingness to compromise for the environment.

Batteries
Somewhat limited range and reliability in the first EV-1s to ship, but better later.

Oil companies
Fearful of losing business to a competing technology, they supported efforts to kill the ZEV mandate. They have also bought patents to prevent modern batteries from being used in US electric cars.

Car companies
Negative marketing, sabotaging their own product program, failure to produce cars to meet existing demand, unfair business practices with regards to leasing versus sales.

Government
The federal government joined in the auto industry suit against California and has failed to act in the public interest to limit pollution and force increased fuel economy.

California Air Resources Board
The CARB, headed by Alan Lloyd, caved to industry pressure and repealed the ZEV mandate. Lloyd was given the directorship of the new fuel cell institute, so had an inherent conflict of interest. Footage shot in the meetings showed how he shut down the ZEV proponents while giving the car makers all the time they wanted to make their points.

Hydrogen fuel cell
The hydrogen fuel cell was raised as an alternative that distracted attention from what was presently possible to what might some day be possible.

-J-P-L-

Here's what GM didn't want you to see. Almost all EV1's crushed at only 3 years old!!! Owners were not allowed to buy them after the lease even though they faught like hell to do so.

Trexus

Very interesting. Just imagine if GM mass produced electric cars and offered it to all the model ranges the oil companies would most likely go out of business...

-J-P-L-

Some interesting points:

- There were more electric cars on the road around 1910 then there is today (pathetic).

- The average American drives 28 miles a day. And yet electric cars "don't offer enough range". The EV1 could go at least 80 miles on a charge and was actually very quick. Further developement would have turned into much greater range and lower prices.

- People still have the perception that electric cars can only be small. They can be any size! The government currently has electric TANKS in action!

cpone

I have this DVD in my hands actually.
I will see it and comment then.

But if I am not mistaken what killed the electric car was unpractical.
I mean what if I drive daily 50+ miles and my car only has a charge that goes 35 miles. Say I get to my job. Where the hell am I going to plug it in? At the street lamp post?

Ok... Say I am driving and I run into some MAJOR traffic on the turnpike. No where to go bumper to bumper and its the middle of summer. To save on charge I roll my car in traffic?

I'll watch it but I think function killed the electric car.
Otherwise Toyota would have produced it in spades much like they did with hybrids. Even though even those are doubtful on MPG.

drink300

This movie infuriated me. It showed me just how far along we were with electric car technology, even in the early 90s. If you could combine the technology of the GM car shown in the movie with hybrid-like charging devices (like those that pull energy from the brakes), we would reduce our dependence on foreign oil, overnight.

I cannot belive these types of cars are not being mass produced. I would buy one tomorrow.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

Ah yes, the free market is such a conspiracy. Not.

MJHSC400

I really don't think function was the downfall-- that's what {[(someone)]} wanted you to think. It worked.

Look at this currently available production car and you'll change your mind.

http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/performance.php

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

No I won't. Why does everyone seem to think electricity is free? How do you really think we will be freed from foreign oil - by burning more coal and natural gas to produce electricity? There isn't enough spare generation capacity in California to meet demand on a hot day right now. People will come home, plug in their cars and we'll have rolling blackouts.

"Hey Ed, you were late to work again for the third time this month. What's the story?"

"Oh, you know, those blackouts hit my neighborhood and my car didn't get charged, so I had to walk to catch the bus. Thank God it's still diesel powered and reliable!"

Apparently there is a new study out saying a plug in fleet would be a combination energy source/energy drain because everyone would have a big battery in their homes for their transportation device, and these devices could be used to add temporary capacity. It's all a nice thought, but I don't think anyone's considered the problems of having all these very large batteries - smelting the metals; creating, containing, and controlling the reagents; recycling the batteries; what happens when an electric vehicle crashes and creates a huge acid spill (even gel cells can make a mess if their containment is compromised). It's one thing to have a small portion of the fleet electrically powered, it's a completely different animal when 25% or more is electric.

Also, are we going to catch the hydrogen from the batteries when they charge for our fuel cells, or will it just vent to atmosphere and become the new menace to our lungs?

I've got a lot more doubts than I have happy thoughts.

I do have one very happy thought though - 100% torque at zero rpm. No engine can do THAT!

Lil4X

The electric died because there was no supporting infrastructure. When it runs out of juice, how and where do you recharge it? Are you willing to sit for eight hours while it does so?

Worse, the electric car does not reduce the dependence on energy, it simply displaces it. Rather than produce motive power from a modern clean-burning gas or diesel engine, it taps the power grid and all of its losses for electricity from some of those nasty ol' nuclear or smokestack power plants. Folks may be chillin' with their trendy EV's in Bel Aire, but they're choking in El Segundo pumping out the power.

The reason the EV's were crushed has to do with taxes. These vehicles were leased - primarily because the manufacturer paid no tax on them. Their actual cost to manufacture was considerably more than their book price, so to encourage this "research" project, the cars were not taxed. By agreement with the government, at the conclusion of the "test" they had to be destroyed. The alternative was to go back and pay the taxes due, as well as the probable replacement of the battery - making the cost of a used EV actually higher than the "cost" of a new one.

Without the heavy customer demand for infrastructure, and with no real chance at selling in the mainstream market, the EV would probably be, for a few years at least, a considerable loss leader for the company that chose to create the market for it.

Chrysler ran into similar problems with the lovely Ghia-bodied turbojet-engined cars of 1963. A limited production run of 50 was scheduled to be driven about 50,000 miles each by several families (mostly Chrysler engineers and execs) before meeting their appointment with the crusher. The handmade Ghia bodies were actually worth more than the exotic powerplant, and their import duty would have been staggering without a prior agreement they be destroyed.


Obviously a good deal of Ghia's styling reappeared in the Dodge Dart of the era, recovering at least a small part of Chrysler's investment (Photo courtesy www.turbinecar.com )

This project was a practical engineering study for Chrysler Corp. to evaluate the application of a turbojet engine to an ordinary daily driver. The car itself was about the size, weight and market level of a contemporary Thunderbird. The engine produced the equivalent of about 130 hp, producing a 0-60 time of about 12 seconds - pretty well on a par with conventional cars in this market segment. It was not designed for performance or economy, but simply as a real-world test of turbine technology. In the end it acquitted itself well, but it was an answer for which there were at the time, no questions.

It suffered much the same fate as the EV cars. It was well accepted, performed reasonably, got average fuel economy and produced average performance numbers. From an engineering standpoint, even with all of the fiddly mechanical engine controls, it was a success. From a marketing standpoint, it was going to be a problem to tool up for a reasonable production run that would have to be sold at a pretty high price to justify the long term unknowns of service. Despite the good record of the first 50 units, there were teething problems to be expected. It ultimately failed because there was simply no good reason to offer it (other than market positioning, showing off the vaunted Chrysler engineering prowess).

I had an opportunity as a member of the "working press" (poor slobs who had to work weekends) to drive one of these well thrashed vehicles during their 1964 farewell tour of several college campuses, and except for its muffled 707 sound effects, an EGT gauge and a 20K rpm tach, (turn the key and wait for the tach to reach a 17,000 rpm idle before putting into gear), it drove like a rather poorly-sorted concept car - OK, but no breakthrough. A little disappointing considering the hype. It was exceptionally smooth as I recall, driving a three-speed Torqueflite automatic through an extremely loose torque converter made it seem like being on the end of a long rubber band. The gas producer turbine took its own sweet time to come up to speed, so the power turbine was a bit poky. Oh, and don't stick your foot under either of those lunchbox-size exhaust outlets at either end of the back bumper . . . lots of 850 degree exhaust poured out the back end, sufficient to scorch your Weejuns.


The jet exhausts were actually hidden up under the rear bumper, firing straight down. Extended idling could reduce asphalt to gum in a very short time. (Photo courtesy www.turbinecar.com )

Remember this was forty years ago - commercial jets were less than ten years old, and electronic engine controls were unknown. You just wonder what could be done with a modern integrated FADEC system and a CVT on one of these today. Granted, a gas turbine isn't much for short trips, but in extended cruising, even trucking service, the low maintenance and comparative simplicity of a turbine may yet make a comeback.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

Excellent post, Lil4X! One dumb question - what fuel did that turbine car take?? Jet fuel!?!?

-J-P-L-

Yes, thanks for a good post Lil4X.

Although I push for electric cars to make a strong comeback in a more practical package, I agree it still doesn't solve all the problems and yes does create other downsides. The problem is that propelling cars will always seem to cost us something. It's an inherent problem with powering anything. However, there may be future ways of creating power without much sacrifice.
Let's hope so.

Analysts have estimated only 30 years of oil is left for us to consume.
Factorying in the growing development of China could speed things up as they turn their bicycles in for cars. There HAS to be a complete alternative
to the gas we currently use for automobiles. The fact is, we don't have a limitless supply of oil. When it runs out, not only cars will need an alternative but so won't 18 wheelers that deliver all of our product to us, as well as planes, and endless other machinery.

Imagine the devistation if ALL vehicles aren't converted to alternate means of power by the time we run out???
-NO food (delivered by trucks)
-Can't make money because you can't get to your job.
-Our whole way of life ends and we revert back to the 1800's!
Let's face it. Everything right now is ultimately based on gasoline and our dependency is VERY scary.

MJHSC400

The Teslamotors roadster gets a relative 130 mpg ALL THE TIME---

The relative energy usage is diminished greatly and the fossil fuel resources could be diverted to a much more efficient power generation method ie: steam turbine generation---

This car goes 250 miles per charge, 0-60 in 4 seconds, 2 gears, silent operation, 120 mph top speed.. Handles on rails, $80,000 -- nuff said--

Lil4X

That was a funny part of the demonstration. It would usually run on diesel, but for press demos they'd usually run it on gasoline to eliminate the stinky smell. Engineers actually tried running it on Wesson oil - which it burned happily, and I understand it would even run on alcohol. Now, that said, it probably ran best on gas or diesel, getting about 15 - 17 mpg on gas, up to 19 on diesel. If outside air temp and humidity were right, it could be made to run on just about anything that could pour and burn. This actually made it slightly more economical than contemporary cars of the same level of performance.

To clean out the carbon deposits from the burners, they simply poured a quart of Casite or Ring-Free into the intake with the engine at idle, producing clouds of white smoke, but doing a pretty good job of cleaning up the burner cans. This is what passed for a "tune up". There were a few weak points in the engine as far as maintenance was concerned: First were the "ignitors" (sort of big spark plugs) that got only a few thousand miles before being eaten up. Turbine wheels were pretty reliable, but some development models were prone to having their variable pitch vanes stick.


Typical engineer, the photographer shot everything in closeup with no wide shots to orient the viewer. Firewall is at the top of the pic, "air cleaner" at the bottom. This is a museum car with a largely unrestored turbine (Photo courtesy www.turbinecar.com)

The big breakthrough for an automotive engine were the "regenerators" - two big ceramic "wheels" of honeycomb ceramic that rotated slowly on either side of the engine (those two big "earmuffs" on either side). These passed through the exhaust gas stream and rotated around to dissipate their collected heat into the air intake, preheating the combustion air and improving fuel mileage.

Most of the rest of the car was actually a Chrysler Newport under that Ghia skin. Brakes had to be somewhat oversized because the engine produced a minimal amount of engine braking, and naturally accessories had to be driven by a somewhat noisy gear reduction unit - all of which came off of the shelves at Chrysler.

All of these small problems were solvable using the technology of the time - this was very nearly a practical production car. The few problems it had would be MUCH simpler to resolve today, and when you consider the power and efficiency available from modern metallurgy and electronics, it's a still a pretty good idea.


Interior and instrument panel (Photo courtesy www.turbinecar.com)

All of the Turbines were painted "Turbine Bronze" (sort of a copper-bronze) with a matching interior. The color that looked so right on the futuristic car was actually right off the Chrysler paint chart - with only a bit of name-engineering to ensure a match with the Turbine fleet.

Nextourer

I've watched the video. For all those GM fans who think we're always picking and bashing GM, just look at your own company for a second and think. GM could've been ahead in this hybrid or EV race. They could've been the one leading the pack but they chose not to (or were forced otherwise.. whatever the "real" story may be).

Don't forget, you don't HAVE to charge the battery when it's out of juice. Most people only think "oh if it has an 80 mile range, then I'll travel 80 miles and I'm stuck"

There's always the option to charge it while you eat at a restaurant or watch a movie - at least in California and Arizona where these vehicles were sold. If anything, it's more convenient cause you don't stand by the car to refuel it. You continue your daily activities.