July 12, 2006
Who Killed the Electric Car?
With gas prices at hellishly high levels and lobbyists calling for government intervention in Ontario to lower prices, it seems that there's no better time for Who Killed the Electric Car?, an excellent documentary about the slow death of the EV1, General Motors' electric car.
Quick backstory*: In 1990, The California Air Resources Board (CARB) targeted the source of California's pollution problem: auto exhaust. CARB created the Zero Emissions Mandate (ZEV), which required 2% of new vehicles sold in California to be emission-free by 1998, 10% by 2003. With a jump on the competition thanks to its speed-record-breaking electric concept car, GM launched its EV1 electric vehicle in 1996. It required no gas, no oil changes, no mufflers, and rare brake maintenance. A typical maintenance checkup for the EV1 consisted of replenishing the windshield washer fluid and a tire rotation, nothing more. But the fanfare surrounding the EV1’s launch disappeared and the cars followed. Carmakers cited a lack of consumer demand, and, within 6 years, the entire EV1 fleet was gone.
It's a fascinating and oft-ignored topic, and there are plenty of things to like about Who Killed the Electric Car?: It's not preachy or overly environment-centric, and doesn't guilt car owners. It tells its story as honestly as you could expect, with a ton of facts and no conspiracy theories (if connections aren't based on irrefutable evidence, the movie doesn't draw them). The blame for the death of the car is not attributed only to who you might think, either; it's distributed around evenly, and even consumers don't escape being marked as a guilty party. Electric Car also features tons of interviews with celebrity fans of the EV1: a creepily-bearded Mel Gibson! Tom Hanks (on Jay Leno)! Ted Danson! The guy who looks like the mayor from Spin City! And, last and least, an unfortunate narrator choice: Martin Sheen!
But the real strength of the movie is its heart. Who Killed The Electric Car? does such a good job making you fall in love with the car that when it is taken out of production by General Motors, it's not just some corporate move to cut costs: it's sad. Those who had the car genuinely loved it, and no amount of oil company corruption, government foolishness, or consumer idiocy is allowed to obscure that. When the EV1 is pulled off the market and out of the hands of the owners, for example, the car's fans hold a funeral for it - a funeral that feels real. Making a movie-going audience care about the "death" of a machine is a remarkable feat, one that the documentary pulls off effortlessly.
By the end of the too-short 94 minutes of Who Killed The Electric Car?, you'll probably want an EV1 too. In fact, the film might just be the best car ad ever. At the very least, it's certainly the only car ad worth paying twelve bucks for.
Who Killed The Electric Car? opens in Toronto and Vancouver on July 14th. You can view the trailer or visit the website for more details. NOW Magazine is giving away some free passes to the movie, as well.
* Shamelessly lifted and condensed from the film's press kit, of course.
|
I'm glad the electric car is dead.
It didn't do anything to solve the vast majority of the negative effects the car has on people and places, instead pretending to be "zero-emission" while large quantities of coal and oil was burned upstream to provide the electricity it sucked from the grid.
The north american love affair with cars puts pedestrians and cyclists in danger, discourgaes social interaction, wastes huge amount of land for parking (how many 2.75x6m spaces exist per car?) and absurdly wide roads, and contributes to a huge number of health problems because of the sedentary lifestyle it encourages. The supremacy of the automobile promotes (and necessitates) horribly inefficient land use patterns that idolize mobility and throw by the wayside the far more important factor of accessibility.
EV1, with its 50 mile radius existed for daily commuters, a market much better served by improved transit and intensified development. The private automobile is only acceptable when filling a limited role where other modes of transportation can not be used effectively, i.e. necessary access to remote destinations.
It's not just the power source that's the problem, it's the whole damn concept. All EV1 did was encourage a group of people to feel good about themselves as they went on with socially-devastating business as usual.
The thing is, John, we can't just abandon cars. People simply won't accept that, at all, ever. Not until there's a very, very good alternate (and for many, public transportation isn't it).
I drive, walk, cycle, and use the TTC. Each one is suitable in different times and for getting to different places. I think the EV1 was, at worst, a valiant effort to make the car less environmentally-damaging. At best, it is this awe-inspiring machine that is really, really, really cool.
I would be really interested in looking at the stats about its consumption, though.
As John says, electric cars wouldn't solve all our problems. Electricity generation creates about as much CO2 as cars do; so in a way we'd just be changing the means of destruction. But still, I suspect they'd be somewhat better on the environment than traditional cars, so perhaps could be have been useful as a transitional technology.
And as David says, most people won't give up their cars. But this assumes they have a choice -- it is very possible that oil and gas prices could eventually push the use of cars out of the range of affordability for many people. Many may simiply not have a choice. By then, unfortunately, they'll have very little to fall back on, especially for those with long commutes from the surburbs where there are very few options for transit. This could eventually damage the market for suburban homes and cause serious economic problems that will trickle throughout our society.
the unfortunate thing, at least here in N.A., our countries are HUGE and major populations are still somewhat far apart. YES, there is train and plane (still environmentally crappy though ...).
the sheer size of N.A. is what helped drive the automobile industry and the mystic/myth of car culture.
basically, you are fighting 100 years of ingrained culture. very tough battle ...
NO, i am not defending cars. i use TTC, bike, and walk (10 minutes to work!) everywhere in this city.
Love 'em or hate 'em, let's at least be accurate in describing electric cars.
The EV1 had a 140-mile range, not 50. I drive an electric Toyota RAV4-EV (one of the few spared from the crushers) that has a 125-mile range. It's a regional (not just local) car that meets 99% of our driving needs.
The overall (well-to-wheels) emissions are less with electric cars or plug-in hybrids than with conventional cars or hybrids. It all depends on where you get the electricity. If the electricity comes from hydro, solar, or wind, EVs have no emissions at all. For an overview of more than 30 studies and analyses of emissions, see http://www.sherryboschert.com/FAQ.html
I work at home. I walk. I ride my bike most places. I take transit or ride a second, battery-assisted bike when needed. My spouse, who has a severe spinal condition and can't do any of those things, drives the electric car to work. We didn't want an electric compact SUV, we wanted a smaller EV to go with the solar panels on our home. The car companies made them, then took them away. See the film, and check out www.pluginamerica.com
John: There have been a number of studies conducted which show that the "longer tailpipe theory" does not hold water. Electic cars--even when the source of their power is 100% coal fired plants--are still cleaner than gas cars. With the exception of just two US states, the electrical grid mix contains a variety of non-coal sources (mainly natural gas, and hydro, but also full renewables such wind and solar) so their emmissions are cleaner still. Here in California, our power grid supply comes from a full 48% natural gas. The effect of this is that electric cars here are substatially cleaner than than even the cleanest burning hybirds.
Lastly, where gas cars become dirtier over their lifetime, the electrical grid becomes cleaner as technologies such as carbon sequestration are added and more renewables are introduced.
I watched the movie for the first time tonight with my wife and we were both impressed.
Since we learned about Tesla Motors we toyed with the idea of a future, 100% electric, town vehicle, then we started noticing downtown San Jose several parking lots with electric plug-in parking spots available. Later on we learned of the intentions of Tesla to create a line of affordable vehicles for the masses in a realistically near future.
At the end of the movie we drew a few conclusions:
1. We spend more for fuel per week than we do in electricity per month.
2. There are parts of the neighborhood that stink like there is no tomorrow.
3. When we get stuck in traffic is always because of some guy having engine trouble, unless it's an accident. And we get stuck a lot in some occasions.
4. Those damn dodge Rams and Hammers are everywhere and make more fumes than my grandpa when my grandma cooks.
5. This is supposed to be SUNNY California.
6. We have at least two computers at home that run 24/7 and we never went bankrupt. Thank you PG&E!
After that my wife went to sleep and i am here on the laptop watching videos of naked... motorcycles being stripped and converted from fuel guzzlers into electric ones by random guys in their own backyard! (Google videos and type "electric motorcycle")
I put all these elements together and what do i have?
1. supply
2. demand
3. market continuity
Tesla is there for a reason... money. they LOVE the concept but they also love the money and they are making a s***load off those concept speedsters!
When the first batch came out they run out of the first 100 models in the blink of an eye for 100 grand a piece. Hell for 100 bananas a piece i would love to get into the electric business too no matter how phony they want to make it look!!
The 2007 models weren't even out yet and they sold out already.
Then we have TV appearances, talk shows, celebrities, the works. Can you see where the business is looking at? It's not a damn conspiracy, it's just bad business. Car companies are battling between keeping up with the new technologies and facing costs of huge updates in terms of expertise, or keeping up with the costs of maintenance of an old, outdated, stinky technology that gives people cancer. How much does it really cost to replace a filter, or repair an engine to the industry itself?
Sometimes not so much... sometimes too damn much. We have been off the electric car for a long time... so why do we start wanting it only in the 90s?? Or now for that matter? Or better yet... why auto makers have started spreading the word about it only in the past 10 years?? Why even producing it and putting it in the hands of the public, only to take it away suddenly and without notice??
Now, THIS is complete bunk!
Automakers are perfectly aware that electric is better, they are just considering how badly is going to damage them in terms of lawsuits and attacks from an oil industry that is starving, angry and scared. Starving for affection, poor oil, now that terrorism is getting all the attention... hungry of 100 trillion dollars, which is how much money the oil industry will get before the reserves run out, and scared of dying... because don't we all love Popeye and the old comforting 1950s feeling of things that never change?
Don't worry, it won't take a revolution, just good old greed and smart business practices will do the work. History will write the rest.
And to those that think that people killed the electric car... nah, sorry... people are too busy or dumbed down by American Idol and get rich quick schemes to make decisions such as "i don't like the electric car because...?" They don't even know what the electric car is for goodness sake. As long as it runs and takes you from A to B, who are we to argue, right?
For me... i just want one that doesn't stink up my neighborhood.