Who Killed The Electric Car?

I'm sure this movie has been out for a year or so now, but I caught it last night on Starz and was angered by the obvious greed on the part of the automotive and oil industries. My dad's boss, aeronautical pioneer Burt Rutan had one of these EV1's for a while in the early 2000's. He kept dodging the repo' guy from GM...hiding the car in a hanger at work..because he loved it so much. Eventually he had to turn it in when GM threatened to sue. Then it went out to GM's proving grounds in AZ and became scrap to be buried in a landfill. Isn't it odd that such a good idea would be considered so dangerous that the automotive industry would want to bury it from the American people like it never even existed?
EV's were introduced in California when the California Air Resources Board had the state law changed to make zero emmissions vehicle sales mandatory in the state, with the percentage of such type vehicles sold required to increase on a yearly basis. Basically they were telling the automotive industry that if they wanted to peddle their smog producing vehicles in California, they would also have to start producing vehicles to offset the negative environmental and health issues created by gas powered vehicles. The concept was simple. Start small, and grow. If you build it, people will eventually buy it. The automotive industry, along with their friends in the petroleum industry and the Bush Whitehouse fought the law tooth and nail, with the US Government eventually suing the State of California in an effort to get the amendment lifted. After all, if the EV became popular and affordable... it would decrease America's dependance on oil, kill the auto industry's market on engine part replacement, and probably impact Bush and Cheney's wallet in a negative way.
The EV's did have their disadvantages. They were limited to 70-80 miles per charge, which would be completely unacceptable for those driving long distances. However, technology evolves exponentially, and batteries were in production that could increase that mileage to 300-400 miles a charge.
So why was a good idea quelled before it could be seen for it's full potential?

Comments

  1. Anonymous12:18 PM, January 31, 2010

    There is always more to the story than meets the eye..
    The EV was probably one of the finest cars GM ever built, proving that even they and build a good car when they want to. It did have draw backs other than miles. It had a large number of lead-acid batteries that had to be changed out periodically, very expensive. The danger of acid-spill in case of an accident very high. Under the law any car produced has to have a supply chain set up and maintained by the manufacture. A very expensive thing to do for just a few cars. These cars were leased, not bought. Under the lease agreement, they must be turned back in.
    I got to drive Burt's car out on the airport tarmac once. Loved it. Hopefully someday someone will produce another great electric car with improved batteries and technology.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Universal Healthcare or Corporate Welfare?

Ever since Hillary Clinton's overreaching Universal Health Care project fell flat in the 90's, we constantly hear Republicans tying the very idea of government sponsored healthcare to Communism and Socialism. Privatization supposedly offers more choices and provides a lower overall cost to the consumer. In theory, they are somewhat correct. In practice, however, that is not the case. The healthcare industry is rapidly consolidating. There are maybe five major players nationally at this point, and as with what is happening to many American industries, you can pretty much make a safe bet that in the next few years, there will be even less choices. Much of this is due to deregulatory legislation that has been very healthy for corporate America over the last few years. I think this is one of the major drawbacks of an unfettered Capitalistic economy. When there are no stops in place, the Corporation is allowed to grow and absorb all that it can, thus eliminating competition and incr...
Read more

Right Wing Cheerleader of the Week Award

Image
I'm a frequent reader of right wing propaganda. I'll admit that. I think there are quite a few decent, straight forward Republicans out there who run excellent commentary on their blogs. They are typically warm and open to respectful debate. Mike M. 's blog is a good example. However, I am convinced that there are some real nut jobs out in the blogosphere, who's primary goal is to berate and destroy any opposition to their polar ideology. So, with all due respect, I've opted to create a weekly award to highlight randomly selected right wing nutjobs' hate filled contribution to our online community as well as the political landscape. This section will appropriately be labeled "The Right Wing Cheerleader of the Week Award", in honor of everyone's favorite Yale cheerleader! Without any further ado, this week's Right Wing Cheerleader of the Week Award is given to Ottman, over at The Creative Conservative . Otto is a fearless general of mis-informa...
Read more

How to Cheat, Lie, and Steal and Blame it on Your Opponent - For Dummies

Image
Blognonymous has a great post on a new Washington Post chart that basically shows what Democrats have said all along... Abramhoff was lining three Republican pockets for every one Democrat pocket. But if you read sites like anti-Dem No Agenda or Espella Humanzee , you'll see how Republican apologists are trying to spin the whole "they did it too so it's okay" arguement. In fact, No Agenda makes no note of the blatent corruption happening on their side of the aisle. Typical. Still, I haven't heard squat from the MSM about Bush's $100,000 in campaign contributions received from the lobbyist. Of that $100,000, the Administration has agreed to return 6% of the amount to charity. That's kinda like donating a small portion of your bank robbery pot to the Red Cross.
Read more