Why the electric car failed

[The Toecutter]

Title- Expert Engineering, Marketable Technology, and Politics: Why the Electric Car Flopped
Author- John Westlund
Date- 02/24/05

A World in Need of a Car Without Oil



See the above chart? An energy crisis looms over us in the near future. This is known as Hubbert's curve. Essentially, we have about 10 years of oil left at current consumption levels before we start to experience a reduction in crude oil production; this is from the optimists’ perspective. The pessimists believe oil production has already peaked a few years ago, while those in the middle of the issue claim the world will peak in late 2005, this year [1]! Meanwhile, worldwide oil demand keeps increasing by 1.8% per year [2]. Also, if the United States would have to fully rely on their own oil reserves for any reason, at 22.4 gigabarrels [3], at the US consumption rate of 19.9 megabarrels per day [4], we'd have less than 3 years before the oil ran out. Of that 19.9 megabarrels per day consumed, 45% of it is used for automobiles [4].

We have a problem. Not only are we running out of cheap oil, but America is not self sufficient for its energy needs. We, as a nation, are reliant on politically volatile nations such as Saudi Arabia for our energy needs, willing to risk everything to fuel our cars. Meanwhile, air pollution, according to the American Lung Association, is responsible for causing an estimated 50,000-100,000 deaths per year [5] and transportation is responsible for at least 25% of that total air pollution and perhaps as much as 77% [6]. This is more deaths in America than homicide at 18,000 deaths [7], AIDS at 17,000 deaths [8], terrorism at 3,512 deaths in 2001 [9], and drunk-driving related car accidents at 16,000 deaths, per year [10], COMBINED. This is no small problem.

Imagine never having to fork over your hard-earned dollar at the gas pump for the privilege of transportation. Imagine cities, free from smog and the air within them odorless. Imagine never having to take your car to get serviced; no oil changes, no tune-ups, no belts, no hoses, no radiators. Imagine riding without hearing the loud clatter of your engine and having to put up with the vibration it makes, replacing it with a smooth, quite ride. Imagine a motor that lasts over 500,000 miles, without ever needing a single repair. Imagine no gas tank that could explode in a crash. Imagine getting into a car on a hot day to find it is already pre-cooled, or already heated on a cold day. Imagine jaw-dropping torque to embarrass any high-end sports car, for the cost of a compact while maintaining energy efficiency that the hybrids of today cannot hope to match.

The battery electric vehicle provided all of these possibilities. Far from a dream, the technology for such a car has become viable and many working examples exist. But the EV(Electric Vehicle) failed. You, as a consumer, cannot go into a dealership lot and buy one. Why?

Problems the EV doesn’t have

Low Cruising Range

One might say that electric cars cannot go far enough on one charge to meet the needs of consumers, nor are they suitable for interstate travel. This is a load of bull****. Electric cars using Nickel Metal Hydride or Lithium Ion batteries are achieving routine cruising ranges comparable to internal combustion engine vehicles. In fact, the Solectria Force EV has achieved 250 miles on one charge using NiMH(Nickel Metal Hydride) batteries [11]. The TZero electric sports car has driven from San Dimas to Las Vegas on a single charge at 70 MPH speeds(near 300 miles) with a pack of Lithium Ion batteries [12]. The KAZ Limousine can achieve over 180 miles on a charge with Li Ion(Lithium Ion) batteries [13]. An electric Mitsubishi Eclipse prototype has claimed 240 miles on a single charge, also with Li Ion batteries [14]. A GM EV1 sports car with NiMH batteries has achieved 225 miles on one charge [15]. An SUV known as an Electrovaya Maya100 is claimed by the manufacturer of being able to go 230 miles on a single charge on Li Ion batteries [16]. Even a Solectria Sunrise has achieved more than 350 miles on a single charge using NiMH batteries [17]. Home built conversions can also achieve competitive ranges. Gary Graunke’s Honda Insight conversion, after completion, is expected to achieve a 230 mile range per charge using ThunderSky Li Ion batteries [18]. An electric Mitsubishi FTO EV has in fact traveled 1,250 miles in a single 24 hour period, for an average speed of over 50 MPH, and that includes stopping to charge [19]! All of these range numbers are competitive with internal combustion engine vehicles, which typically have cruising ranges of around 300 miles per tank of fuel. Meaning, battery electric vehicles using recent technology are easily capable of interstate travel and excel as a viable replacement for the internal combustion engine automobile should the proper charging infrastructure be constructed.

Sluggish Performance

One might say they cannot go very fast. But electric cars have a performance advantage in acceleration over gasoline cars due to the high torque outputs of electric motors at low RPMs (Revolutions per Minute). Electric motors don’t need to wind up to a few hundred RPM until they are usable like an internal combustion engine(ICE) does. With no need to keep angular momentum going at a stop to prevent the engine from stalling, an electric motor thus doesn’t even need a flywheel attached to it, cutting down on inertia and improving acceleration some more. Many examples of fast BEVs(Battery Electric Vehicles) exist. The TZero electric roadster when equipped with Li Ion batteries can accelerate from 0-60 MPH in 3.6 seconds [20] and is claimed to be able to tie or defeat a Porsche Carrera GT, Ferrari 575M, and Lamborghini Murceilago in the ¼ mile drag race [21]. Even home built electric conversions such as Roderick Wilde’s Mazda RX7 and John Wayland’s Datsun 1200 can hold their own in drag races. Wilde’s RX7, called the “Maniac Mazda”, popped wheelies, potentially tops 140 MPH [22], and completes the ¼ mile drag in around 11 seconds [23], on par with a Dodge Viper, which completes the ¼ mile drag in 12 seconds [24]! Wayland’s Datsun 1200, affectionately known as “White Zombie”, can achieve 0-60 acceleration of about 4 seconds [25] and a ¼ mile drag time in the high 12 second range [23]. A street-legal electric limousine called the Eliica can top 250 MPH [26]! Countless other EVs that can hold their own on the race track exist.

Higher power plant pollution than a gas car makes

But don’t they simply move pollution to the power plant? This is only half true. Yes, they do move pollution to the power plant. However, not only is this pollution reduced, it is displaced from populations within our cities, alleviating smog and the problems associated with it. In fact, electric vehicles with power plant emissions factored in would produce 98% fewer toxic emissions than an average 2002 model year car [27]. Another study shows that BEVs, in contrast to a typical ICE vehicle, will produce 96% fewer hydrocarbons, 99% less carbon monoxide, and 67% less nitrogen oxides, while increasing production of sulfur oxides and particulates, using America’s total power generation mix, while still displacing the pollution away from population centers [28]. In 1993, the Green Car journal reported that from a strictly coal-fired plant, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter were reduced by a combined 71% [29]. The Institute for Lifecycle Environmental Assessment reached the conclusion that an electric vehicle getting all of its electricity from a coal fired power plant, over the course of its lifetime, would produce less CO2 than a gasoline-powered car [30]. The results worked even more in an EV’s favor when other sources of power like natural gas were used. Also, as power plants become cleaner, so do electric cars. It is much easier to upgrade emissions controls on a few thousand power plants than on over 250 million petroleum-fueled automobiles. Not only that, but when fueled with electricity from renewable sources such as hydroelectric, wind, or solar power, the emissions of the car are literally zero, aside from the emissions associated with initially producing those power sources, but that’s marginal at best, if not outright insignificant.

High Production Cost

Then of course, the cars must be expensive to make if they are so good! The reason most EVs and their components can be pricey is because they aren’t mass produced. In fact, an electric vehicle can be far cheaper to manufacture than an ICE vehicle. Electric motors have anywhere from zero to one moving motor part vs. thousands in an ICE. EVs need no multi-speed gearbox due to their high levels of motor torque, unlike ICE vehicles.

Hand-assembled electric sports cars like the Mendo Motive electric Spyder are already cost competitive with mass produced name brand cars of similar performance. The racing model of the Spyder has been reported to have accelerated from 0-60 MPH in 8 seconds and capable of topping 120 MPH [31] while having a base price of $30,000 [32]. Compare with the mass produced Mazdaspeed MX5 Miata with 0-60 in 7.8 [33] and base price of $25,500 [33].

Although the maximum cruising range of the Spyder is only 100 miles [31], it is still useful for most travel a person may make. AC Propulsion claims that they could make in low volume a 140 mile range per charge all-electric conversion of the Toyota Prius for the same cost as a standard Prius, plus or minus about $2,000 [34]. In Britain, a company called Greener Energy claims they can build in small volume an electric commuter car called the Jester EV, for about $25,000 [35], which will achieve 200 miles per charge and top out at 70 MPH [36]. All of this is done, without any economies of scale even! Think of what the price of EVs would be at the moment be if they were mass produced! Even a decade ago, AC Propulsion claimed that if they could produce 10,000 electric cars per year, they could sell them for under




$20,000. These converted Honda Civics would have rocketed from 0-60 miles per hour in about 6 seconds, quite a bargain for performance enthusiasts. In prototype form, they are over $70,000 [37].

Why the EV failed

“If electric cars are so great, why aren’t we, as consumers, seeing them on our streets and why can’t I walk into a car dealership and drive home in one?” is probably what you may be asking right now. In general, there are three main interests keeping electric vehicles from American consumers. They are the United States Government, the petrochemical industries, and the major auto industries, in increasing importance of influence towards holding the cars back. What actions and measures are they taking to hold the vehicles back? How is it that these groups keep the vehicles from consumer hands? For what reasons do they do this? These issues will be covered in brief.

The United States Government:

Before the critiscisms begin, in the past, the U.S. government has done many things to encourage EV development. The Hybrid and Electric Vehicle Research and Development Act was passed in 1976, despite a veto from Gerald Ford and auto industry whining, providing provisions to gauge the feasibility of electric vehicles and providing funding towards their research and construction. Unlike the recent money for “fool’s cells”, it actually went somewhere besides auto industry pockets! Who’d-a-thunkit?

In 1990, the U.S. Clean air Act was amended to provide provisions for reducing air pollution in individual states around the U.S. This resulted in the state of California establishing a zero-emission vehicle mandate through the California Air Resources Board [38]. This is perhaps the most influential factor in the development of electric vehicle technology, forcing the automakers to develop some form of zero-emission vehicle and place them for sale at a given date. However, earlier auto industry lobbying resulted in the government restricting individual states from passing their own emissions standards, clearly infringing on their 10th amendment right. States were free to adopt California’s standards, or the federal standards, but weren’t allowed to make their own.

The technology progressed in the 1990s and the cars were repeatedly shown to have worked. They flew off the dealership lots when available and lessees loved them, whenever they were lucky enough to get one. Best of all, the cars needed no oil changes, tune ups, servicing, fill ups at the gas station, or any maintenance aside from brake and tire maintenance. The auto industries became scared, noticing that these cars would not be as profitable as gasoline cars should they have widely been adopted, and did what they could to stall the ZEV mandate. The auto industry lobbied successfully to overturn the CARB ruling in 2003.

The federal government catered to the auto industry when the U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief supporting GM, DaimlerChrysler and others in their federal lawsuit against California’s ZEV mandate [39], infringing upon the state’s rights guaranteed within the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Further, the Bush Administration also was in support of the auto industry’s lawsuit, with Chief of Staff and former chief General Motors lobbyist Andrew Card acting as a plaintiff in the case [40]. It is no coincidence that this occurred, considering that George W. Bush received over $1.3 million from the Auto Industry in campaign funds for the 2000 election [41]. Vice President Dick Cheney made his intentions for energy policy quite clear when he stated, “Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy. [42]”

Not only that, but the federal government has further muddied the waters in an effort to improve its image by passing the FreedomCAR initiative, granting $1.2 billion for hydrogen fuel cell research when a working product doesn’t even have to be offered to consumers [43], not to mention the fact that BEVs are already a viable, working technology ready for mass consumption viable and the less-efficient fuel cell cars are currently not. Meanwhile, the auto industry is allowed by the Feds to continue selling nothing but its gas-guzzling vehicles to consumers. This is in fact corporate welfare at its finest [44].

Most effective of all at stalling EV development are the government’s stringent automotive regulations as they apply to small businesses. Unlike the large corporations that sell nearly all the cars in the U.S., these small companies cannot afford these regulations. Companies like Commuter Cars have working EVs ready to be sold, with the exception that they need enough startup capital to cover collision testing, which costs tens of millions of dollars [45]. At best, this drives up the price of the vehicle, and at worst, prevents the vehicles from being marketed at all. On a positive side note, U.S. based Commuter Cars did get a contract to produce its vehicles in conjunction with another small business known as Pro-Drive, from Britain. George Clooney was one of the first in line to order, awaiting his delivery as we speak [46]. The implications of regulations also prevent foreign electric vehicles from being sold to America. Dave Davidson from the EV list summed things up best when he mentioned “Think our government doesn't ban things? Try importing a production EV from Europe, such as a Pugeot 101 Electric, or Citreon Saxo Electric or a Renault electric pickup (pardon my spelling). Can't be done. The US Government bans these vehicles in this country [47].”

Due to America’s Marshall Plan from WWII, the Japanese auto industry is restricted in its market permeability, which would it not be restricted it is alleged millions of EVs would be on the roads in America today [48]. Another startling fact is that the United States and other G7 nations make more money off of oil than does OPEC [49]. Coincidence? I’m sure you can be the judge on that. I am of the opinion it’s time to wean this oversized piece of **** government off of the oil tit, even if it requires dragging it down kicking and screaming, just to subdue it and drown it and all of its oily friends in a bathtub. To quote Tom Gage of AC Propulsion fame, “An energy policy that favors FCVs almost to the exclusion of BEVs, when BEVs use 75% less energy, is an energy policy intended to avoid incremental progress that could threaten the status quo [50].”

Battery electric vehicles threaten the status quo. Within their ranks are the executives and top investors of the oil and auto companies, some of the wealthiest individuals on the planet. Our government has made it its sworn duty to serve the interests of the status quo, as opposed to the American people.

The Petrochemical Industries:

Next up were the actions of the petrochemical industry, made to stall, delay, or even outright stop the development or adoption of battery electric vehicles competitive to the internal combustion auto. It was obvious they were going to face shrinking profit margins from this, given that automobiles account for 45% of America’s crude oil consumption [51].

They made blatantly false advertisements and statements about EVs and their technology, spent millions lobbying politicians in an effort to press their agenda, began setting up organizations intended to stall or prevent the adoption of battery electric vehicles in California and elsewhere, conspired to prevent utility companies from setting up EV charging infrastructure, and have even bought out battery patents in an effort to keep them from being used in motor vehicles.

When New York was considering adopting California’s ZEV mandate in 1991, it was William Cummings of the Texaco Corporation that stated, “Is the motoring public going to be willing to turn the clock back 70 years and drive without the comfort of heaters, air conditioners, and defrosters [52]?” Contrary to his statement, electric cars were well-capable of having air conditioning and heating with no noticeable negative impacts on the driving range. The overall power consumed for heating or cooling and other auxiliary functions would be less than 3% of the required power the car would need to maintain a highway speed. In a November of 1995 New York Times ad, Mobil Oil charged that the California Air Resources Board battery panel found that EV batteries were not ready, and that EV technology was less advanced than claimed. This outraged the California Air Resources Board battery panel so much that they personally wrote to Mobil’s chairman stating, “We, the members of the impartial advisory panel on battery technology quoted in the ad, strenuously object to Mobil’s distortion of our findings. Widely publicized, distorting, and one-sided opinion pieces such as yours do a disservice to objective reporting and the informed decision of electric vehicles; they even could hinder the collaborative efforts and investments needed to realize them [53].” Mobil didn’t stop there, but also ran anti-EV ads in Time, USA Today, and Newsweek, among others, where false charges were made such as the claim adoption of EVs would drive up electricity costs due to cost of infrastructure, that the oil would never run out in a person’s lifetime despite a severely limited number of oil reserves, or that EVs would cause the price of ICE-powered automobiles to go up due to needed subsidies [54]. A group of firemen given support by the petrochemical industry began raising questions about EV safety such as how the batteries would fare in a crash and whether they would release explosive gasses such as hydrogen or whether they would electrocute the occupants. They were urged to make statements in front of CARB by the oil companies [55]. The concerns they raised were legitimate but the questions they asked were bogus and were intended by the oil lobbyists to scare potential EV consumers. Battery boxes in EVs are designed to face minimal damage in collisions and are required to meet basic safety standards as prescribed by the Underwriters Laboratory [56]. The risk of a hydrogen explosion from a battery pack, of course, is wholly insignificant when compared to the amount of gasoline that is stored onboard in an ICE car.

Not only did the oil industry spend millions on a campaign against EVs, but they virtually own the politicians in the United States. According to the Center for Public Integrity, the petrochemical industry spent over $440 million from 1998 through 2004 lobbying and campaign contributions to congressmen, parties, and presidential candidates [57].

Notable still is the creation of “grassroots” opposition to the electric vehicle, funded by none other than the petrochemical and automobile industries. The Californians Against Hidden Taxes group was run by Anita Mangels of the Western States Petroleum Association, with the intent to get the California ZEV mandate repealed. In fact, CAHT was perhaps funded exclusively by WSPA as admitted by Mangels herself [58].

Southern California Edison and other utility companies attempted to raise over $600 million to construct electric vehicle charging infrastructure. The oil industries swiftly lead a smear campaign with the goal of getting the utility industry to raise no funds at all at a hearing before the Public Utilities Commission. They successfully managed to get the utilities’ request down to $425 million [59]. One should note the intentions of the utility companies were not pure, as that was money of the California taxpayers they were trying to raise, and they wanted to make a profit off of building and owning EV charging infrastructure. This example was chosen to show the legnth the oil companies will go to to surpress this technology.

After the Ovonic NiMH battery was shown to be capable of allowing battery electric vehicles ranges comparable to gasoline cars with its repeated demonstration of allowing a converted Geo Metro to obtain a highway range in excess of 200 miles per charge in less than ideal conditions [60], and at a total pack cost competitive with an internal combustion engine in high volume [61], its patent was bought out by Chevron-Texaco, who refuses to mass market the battery at a price affordable to hobbyists and small manufacturers to this day. They are so protective of the patent, that they have sued Toyota for using an allegedly copied version of the battery in its Prius hybrid [62]. There is no reason pertaining to technological limitations why these batteries cannot be placed into conversions by hobbyists and into commercially-manufactured EVs by small businesses for an affordable price. I personally suggest that those reasons are political in nature. To quote Victor Tikhonov of Metric Mind Engineering on the NiMH battery, “Not available for non-technical reasons and may never be to you and to me [63].” The Oilies can be thanked for that. Here’s what I have to say about the Oilies: **** them.

The Major Auto Industries:

The major auto industries were perhaps the most influential in keeping affordable and practical EVs out of consumer hands. As it stands, they may have had the most to lose from it. Widespread adoption of BEVs would mean decreased profits over ICE vehicles due to the simplicity of one or zero moving parts in an electric motor versus thousands in an ICE. EVs need no tune-ups, no oil changes, no servicing, and very little maintenance in contrast to their IC brethren, nor do they even require most of the parts gasoline cars require. The average ICE vehicle and its engine stays in use for approximately 150,000 miles [64], while an electric vehicle’s motor can easily last up to 1,000,000 miles [65] and will routinely last over 500,000 miles. Not to say that EVs aren’t profitable, as they can easily be such, as has been demonstrated in history when there were about as many battery electric cars on the roads as IC ones in the early 1900s [66]. They are just *less* profitable than IC cars due to the fact that they are less wasteful and consumers get more out of them for less. The auto industry and their greed simply cannot have that. They want YOUR money, and they have made sure they will continue to sucker you and others out of your hard-earned dollar for the foreseeable future.

To their credit, the auto industry has developed EVs and batteries on their own in the past to demonstrate what could be done. As early as the 1960s, Ford was developing the Sodium-Sulfur battery [67] and GM the Silver-Zinc-battery powered Electrovair and Electrovair II [68]. But these were for show and never intended to be offered to the motoring public.
What spurred the auto industry to develop electric vehicles was arguably California’s ZEV mandate in the early 1990s. It required that by 1998 for 2% of all vehicles sold in the state of California to emit zero tailpipe emissions, moving up to 10% of all cars sold by 2003 [69]. The easiest if not the only way to meet that goal was through developing and eventually selling battery electric cars.

The auto industry, however, had other ideas. Gas-guzzling SUVs were and are still their cash cow, netting in profit margins of up to $15,000 per vehicle [70]. Why put all of that money into retooling the assembly lines to accommodate energy efficient vehicles that would make them far less profit at the point of sale and certainly over the life of the vehicle? Why compromise an already successful market with another that was certain to spur interest? The answer is greed. The auto industry did everything they could to stifle the threat of reduction to their high profit margins, that threat being the battery electric vehicle. They spread around misleading or even wholly dishonest information on EVs, attempted to suppress information on battery technology, made misleading and dishonest statements about the existing and future market for EVs along with refusing to lease or sell them to customers, spent millions of dollars lobbying politicians in an effort to press their agenda, their lobbyists printed ads in opposition to EVs, and after eventual success in lobbying to repeal the ZEV mandate the auto industry confiscated and crushed perfectly functioning vehicles, rejecting any offers by consumers to buy them no matter how much money the prospective buyer offered.

A favorite tactic by the auto industry was to inflate the cost an EV would go for at market. Companies based the cost of their electric vehicle on immediate recovery of prototype development costs, while under any normal circumstances those costs would be spread over hundreds of thousands of those cars to be built and sold. At the time, small companies without any economies of scale were producing and selling EVs for $15,000 to $45,000 [71]. Ford in fact was caught inflating the price of its Ford Ranger, a conversion of the original gasoline version, wanting to charge $30,000 for each truck, of which was earlier priced at $21,000[72], while one small company without any economies of scale could have produced the trucks for up to $8,000 less [73], and hobbyists have converted the vehicle themselves and have gotten similar performance for far less than that, although to be fair they provided their own labor on the vehicle and used lower-quality components. In fact, Ford was ready to sabotage its own program in an effort to make the ZEV mandate fail. The auto industry’s choice of components was also a dead giveaway. They made use of expensive AC drive systems whose price was high due to their requirement for complicated inverters, as opposed to the use of a simpler DC drive system. The AC drives had small advantages over their DC counterparts, being 5% more overall efficiency and no moving parts as opposed to one moving part. But overall, no one will want to pay for an expensive drive system for such a small benefit. To quote Bill Dube, builder of the world’s fastest electric motorcycle [74], “If the automobile companies gave their customers the choice of either buying a car with a range of around 60 miles at the current price of gasoline cars or paying an additional $53K for sophisticated versions, it would be clear beyond the shadow of a doubt where the real market is [75].” The auto industry also supported the creation of studies that used false figures, often off by a factor of hundreds. One such example is a study that claimed that the lead used in lead acid batteries for EVs would account for 60 times more lead pollution per mile driven than a car burning leaded gasoline. This study was performed at Carnegie-Mellon University and supported by Ford Motor Company. The International Center for Technology Assessment reported that the study used data that was up to 1,000 times greater than the actual numbers and neglected to account for gains made in the environmental impact characteristics of EV battery technology [76].

The big three were caught trying to use the United States Advanced Battery Consortium to keep Stan Ovshinsky from revealing the capabilities of his NiMH battery to the public at a CARB hearing. Ovshinsky remarked, “They tried to stop us from going to California. They threatened us! I said to them, ‘Look, the Communist Party no longer runs the world. A party line cannot be imposed upon people who don’t believe in it. The consortium is set up to make sure the American public has an electric car. It was not set up to fight the mandate. We are a battery company, and we’re not going to lie to the public [77]!’” Further, battery companies were bound by GM not to reveal to the public the advances in battery electric vehicle technology they had made [78]. Ovshinsky also remarked about the viability of his NiMH battery, “The people who are saying that battery technology isn’t ready are absolutely wrong. It’s part of the party line. It’s self-perpetuating. It’s very sad. You tell a lie big enough and long enough, and people start to believe it. The fact of the matter is volume. That’s the only reason batteries are the cost that they are. [79]” Indeed, as mentioned, in volume, the price for an automotive-sized Ovonic NiMH battery pack was competitive with an internal combustion engine, assuming units for 20,000 cars were produced each year [61].

The auto industry has also tried to claim a market for EVs did not exist, despite polls showing the contrary. More than 30% of new car consumers polled in California wanted to buy an electric vehicle as their next vehicle if one could be purchased and if one was affordable [80]. The Wall Street Journal reported a poll that found in the state of California alone, there was a market for at least 150,000 vehicles per year. This was 12% of the entire market for cars and light trucks, assuming they were offered at affordable prices [81]. Ford originally listed the price of its Rangers at under $20,000, and a few months later after deciding to charge more than $30,000 for them [82], the auto industry paid the California Manufacturer’s Association to conduct a survey that had the vehicles listed at inflated prices, and tried to peddle the conclusion that consumers didn’t want them [73]. There was also a list of people that clearly wanted GMs EV1. So many people wanted the car that there was a six-week waiting period and GM refused to let anyone drive an EV1 off the lot [83]. It was not uncommon for an auto dealership to refuse to lease or sell an EV to an individual that clearly wanted one. When Doug Korthof attempted to lease a Honda EV+, the dealership refused, even telling him he didn’t want the car when he clearly did [84]. He was finally successful after repeated efforts.

Another interesting fact is that the auto industry, from 1997 to 2000, spent over $100 million lobbying Congress and then president Bill Clinton [85]. Their strength continued to reach into the highest levels of the government years later, with Bush’s choice of Chief of Staff being none other than auto industry lobbyist Andrew Card. Card fought against California’s ZEV mandate acting as a plaintiff against CARB [86]. Again, it must be mentioned that Bush received $1.3 million in auto industry funding for his 2000 election bid [87]. Both Democrats and Republicans alike are swayed by auto industry campaign money, and it has paid off with the end of California’s ZEV mandate. Also working against the EV was an auto-lobby funded anti-EV ad campaign. Overall, both the auto and oil industries spent over $10 million in the 1990s airing ads against EVs [88]. One such anti-EV campaign called “Short Circuit” was funded by the auto lobby known as the California Manufacturer’s Association. This campaign ran a series of anti-EV ads and said ads were sent to politicians in an effort to stall the mandate [89].

In 2003, California’s ZEV mandate was repealed. GM quickly confiscated EV1s leased by customers and crushed them [90].

Some attempted, in vain, to extend leases of the cars, even when liability for maintenance and repairs on behalf of GM would have been eliminated, but GM refused their offer [91]. It is said that GM faced a liability since their chargers posed a fire hazard [92], but one could argue it would have not been difficult to fix this problem. Just ask Alan Cocconi, who designed the inverter of GMs’ predecessor to the EV1, the Impact. The inverter was also meant to be an onboard charger for the vehicle, capable of making use of a standard 110V or 220V outlet [93], but GM refused this and wanted to peddle their own expensive charger in an effort to siphon more money from potential consumers and inflate their vehicle cost even more. GM also crushed their S10 EVs, with only a select few surviving to this day. Honda extended the lease of their EV+, but those were also eventually crushed. Toyota offered for sale a small number of RAV4 EVs at inflated prices, those of which weren’t offered for sale have also been crushed. Ford attempted to crush the Ranger pickups it has leased to customers, even going so far as to attempt to deny their contract with their lessees to offer the vehicles for sale should they have wanted them [94]. Ford even lied, saying the Federal Government didn’t renew a safety waiver that they needed for the trucks to remain on the road, when in fact no such waiver existed. Ford later retracted its statement [95]. Fortunately, two customers were allowed to buy the trucks, only after holding a week-long protest and vigil [96]. Most of the Rangers have already been crushed.

The auto industry’s abuses do not stop there, but the above were provided as an example to the lengths they have gone to keep EVs out of consumer hands, and possible motivations for doing so.

Conclusion:

And thus you, as an American motorist, cannot buy or lease an EV from the major automakers at present. It is because of the actions of the U.S. Federal Government, the oil industry, and ultimately, the auto industry. Greed at work, keeping you paying gas taxes, tied to the gas pump to the benefit of a certain few oil men, and tied to aftermarket services. All that mid-east oil has to be used for something! In this case, it’s getting your hard-earned money and tax dollars from your pockets to those of wealthy business execs.

To find out more, or if you have any questions, email me at westlujr@slu.edu.


Sources:

[1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5636037/site/newsweek/ – “Princeton geology professor emeritus Kenneth Deffeyes, who's writing a book due in 2005 called "Beyond Oil," waggishly names an Armageddon date: "World oil production will reach its ultimate peak on Thanksgiving Day 2005," he says. Then the long, slow decline begins (for a fuller discussion, see oilpeak.com).”

[2] http://wardsauto.com/ar/transportati...ld_oil_demand/ –“In its long-term forecast, the Energy Department's analytical arm said world oil consumption would grow 1.8 percent a year from the current 78.6 million barrels per day (bpd) to 2025.”

[3] http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/table81.html The chart shows that the U.S. in 2002 has 22.4 billion barrels of oil reserves according to both Oil and Gas journal and World Oil.

[4] http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/usa.html –“The United States is estimated to be consuming an average of about 19.9 MMBD of oil in 2003, up from 19.8 MMBD in 2002. Of this, 8.9 MMBD (or 45% of the total) was motor gasoline, 4.8 MMBD (24%) "other oils," 3.9 MMBD (20%) distillate fuel oil, 1.6 MMBD (8%) jet fuel, and 0.75 million bbl/d (4%) residual fuel oil.

[5] http://www.green-e.org/your_e_choices/health.html – “According to the American Lung Association, scientists have estimated that the number of deaths in the United States associated with air pollution range from 50,000 to 100,000 per year. For every 75 of these deaths per year, there are 265 hospital admissions for asthma and 240 non-asthma respiratory admissions; 3,500 respiratory emergency doctor visits; 180,000 asthma attacks; 930,000 restricted activity days; and, 2,000,000 acute respiratory symptom days.”

[6] http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/1999annual/environ.htm – “Transportation accounts for 25 percent to as much as 77 percent of the different air-polluting emissions in this country.”

[7] http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm –“The US Centers for Disease Control reports that in 1998, there were a total of 18,272 deaths from homicide in the US.”

[8] http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_...ces/andths.htm –The chart displays that 17,000 per year die from AIDS.

[9] http://usembassy.state.gov/tokyo/wwwhse1399.html –“A total of 3,547 persons were killed in international terrorist attacks in 2001, the highest annual death toll from terrorism ever recorded.”

[10] http://www.maddorangecounty.org/oc_stats_1999.htm –“1999 - Total alcohol-related traffic fatalities - 15,794”

[11] http://www.solectria.com/products/accomp.html –“In May 1997, a Solectria Force powered by advanced nickel metal hydride batteries set a new world range record for commercially available electric vehicles by going 249 miles on a single charge.”

[12] http://www.acpropulsion.com/SEMAtrip2003.htm –“We drove the tzero, and although we stopped in Baker, CA for a strawberry milkshake at the Mad Greek, we did not charge at all until we got to Las Vegas.”

[13] http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/kaz.html –“Additionally, the EV features 84 lithium-ion batteries that provide a single charge range of approximately 300 kilometers (about 186 miles).”

[14] http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.jp/i...4-10/0119.html –“En route, the Eclipse EV broke the 400km mark for a single charge at Saga-machi, Hata-gun, Kochi Prefecture in three and a half hours on a single charge.”

[15] http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_...s/20000525.htm –“A production General Motors EV1, equipped with NiMH batteries produced by GM Ovonic L.L.C., the joint manufacturing venture between GM and Ovonic Battery, achieved a range of 225 miles on a single charge.”

[16] http://www.electrovaya.com/products_files%5CMaya.jpg –“230 miles/ 360 km range on a single charge.”

[17] http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/ev3.htm –“Recently a composite bodied Solectria Sunrise went 373 miles on a single charge using nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) batteries.”

[18] http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/461.html –“Range: 20 miles with 9 year old Hawkers/ estimated 230 miles with LiIon”

[19] http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/SC0002/S00017.htm –“Progress in development of electric power took a major leap forward recently when a mitsubishi fto fitted with manganese lithium-ion batteries covered 2,142 kilometers in 24 hours.”

[20] http://www.acpropulsion.com/ACP_FAQs/FAQ_cars.htm –“The Li Ion tzero accelerates from 0-60 mph in 3.6 seconds and covers the quarter mile in 12.2 seconds. Top speed is 102 mph (rpm limited). Estimated top speed with appropriate gearing is 140 mph.”

[21] http://query.nytimes.com/search/arti...5AC0A9659C8B63 –“A car that, from zero to 100 and through the quarter mile, will run with, or beat, the $281,000 Lamborghini Murciélago, the $224,000 Ferrari 575M Maranello or the $440,000 Porsche Carrera GT.”

[22] http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.03/backyard.html –According to the chart, Roderick Wilde’s “Maniac Mazda” could achieve a 140 MPH top speed in 1999. However, it has received many upgrades since.

[23] http://www.nedra.com/records.html –The “Maniac Mazda” achieved an 11.202 second ¼ mile drag time at 108.31 MPH at Bremerton Raceway, WA, August 22, 1999. The “White Zombie” achieved a 12.991 second ¼ mile drag time at 101.18 MPH at Portland, Oregon Street Legal Drags Drags, May 14, 2004.

[24] http://dodge.jbcarpages.com/Viper/2003/index3.php -2003 Dodge Viper SRT-10 achieves ¼ mile drag in 12.0 seconds at 115 MPH.

[25] http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/035.html –“0-60 in ~ 4 seconds!”

[26] http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?sect...le&storyid=692 –“Powered by eight 55kW electric motors and a huge bank of lithium-ion batteries, the five-passenger vehicle is designed around two basic models: Type A with a top speed of 400 kph and a range of 200 km between charges.”

[27] http://www.eaaev.org/Forms-Docs/eaaf...oemissions.pdf –Page 2 “According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), even when taking into account power plant emissions, ZEVs are 98% cleaner than the average 2002 model year vehicle and 95% cleaner than the lowest emitting conventional vehicle (not including the well-to-tank emissions for gas powered vehicles).”

[28] http://www.radix.net/%7Efuturev/pwrplnt.pdf – Page 3 - According to the chart presented in the study, 96% fewer hydrocarbons, 99% less CO, 67% less NOx, 203% more SOx, and 112% more particulates would be produced by an EV in contrast to a typical ICE car. However, it notes that all of the emissions are displaced away from population centers in the cities.

[29] “The Green Car Journal”, 1993, page 116--The chart shows that coal fired plants produce total combined 71.2% LESS pollutants, HC,CO,NOx & PM than comparative ICE engines. This is due primarily to the coal gasification (electrostatic smokestack precipitators) process regulated by the EPA.

[30] http://www.ilea.org/lcas/taharaetal2001.html –According to the chart, EVs getting their energy from a coal fired power plant over their lifetime produce slightly less CO2 than a gasoline car, including the CO2 generated in manufacture of the vehicle.

[31] http://www.renewables.com/Transport/sustrans.htm –“The range of an electric car is determined in large part by the ratio of battery weight to the overall weight of the vehicle. The Porsche Spyders converted by the author’s company carried about half their weight in batteries. This gave the electric Porsches ranges of over 100 miles (160 km) using off-the-shelf, inexpensive golf cart batteries. The racing model could go 0 to 60 mph (0 to 96 km) in 8 seconds and could reach speeds of over 120 mph (192 km/hr).”

[32] http://www.renewables.com/ElectricSpyder.htm –“Racing 240-320 volt/1000amp, 240KW+ controller, two motors - from $30,000”

[33] http://auto.consumerguide.com/auto/n...x.cfm/id/37678 –According to the link provided, the 2004 Mazda Miata achieves a 0-60 time of 7.8 seconds with a base price between $21,868 and $25,500.

[34] http://www.acpropulsion.com/PDF%20fi...mments%204.pdf –Page 7 – “Range: 140 miles Weight: Same as standard Prius Cost to make: same as standard Prius (+/- 10%)”

[35] http://www.evuk.co.uk/news/index.html#jesterlion –“If I could make a reasonable quantity, say 10-50 a year the price would really start looking good. It's difficult to say what the sell-price would be: I built this prototype for less than £6000 so a fair ball-park guesstimate would be somewhere in the region of £15k - allowing for labour, VAT, return to investors, a little profit etc.” – This is quoted by Steve Green, a former engineer of the Central Electricity Generating Board(Britain), who founded a company called Greener Energy.

[36] http://www.greenerenergy.com/Docs/frames.htm –“The electric Jester is no joke 70 mph and 200 mile range.”

[37] Sacramento News & Reviews, “Electric Smoke Screen”, by Nick Budnick, 7/6/1995, Page 19, –“ The rhetoric obscures the great strides electric vehicles have made in the last several years. A Southern California firm co-owned by Alan Cocconi, a former researcher with GM's electric vehicle program, has developed a 200-horsepower motor that propels a four-seater converted Honda Civic from zero to 60 mph in a mere 6.2 seconds, according to the July Road & Track magazine. The vehicle needs only two hours to recharge using a washer/dryer outlet. Of course, it costs $75,000; but Cocconi told the News & Review the high price is because it is a prototype, hand-built by the company's seven employees--not by an assembly line. "If you build 1,000 a year, it would be below $30,000; and if you build 10,000 a year, you get it down to around $20,000," he said.”

[38] http://www.technology-catalysts.com/...s/elecvehi.htm –“ The United States Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require states to alleviate regional air pollution. Added to this is the California state government’s initiative to support the widespread introduction of electric vehicles. In 1990, The California Air Resource Board issued far-reaching measures that impose more stringent air quality standards than required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. In doing so, California has become the major influence on EV commercial development.”

[39] http://www.e2.org/ext/document.jsp?docId=1043 –“The U.S. Justice Department filed an amicus brief supporting GM, DaimlerChrysler and several dealers in their federal lawsuit attacking the Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV) program.”

[40] The New York Times, “White House Joins Fight Against Electric Cars”, by Katharine Q. Seelye, 10/10/2002, Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 22 , Column 4 –“The Bush administration went to court today to support the automobile industry's effort to eliminate requirements in California that auto manufacturers sell electric cars. President Bush's chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., was the chief lobbyist for General Motors, one of the plaintiffs in the case. Mr. Card was also head of an auto industry trade association when California proposed to require electric vehicles, and has publicly opposed such a requirement.”

[41] www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/alertv6_45.asp –“During the 1999-2000 election cycle, automotive interests—mainly car dealers--gave $1.3 million to the Bush-Cheney campaign, making it Bush’s 14th biggest industry contributor.”

[42] http://www.time.com/time/classroom/g...2004/pg28.html – “For its part, the Bush Administration is dismissive of serious conservation. Vice President Cheney, who headed an Administration task force to devise an energy strategy–a group whose work was carried out in secret and whose papers remain secret–expressed the attitude two years ago in a now infamous way: "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."”

[43] http://www.greenscissors.org/transpo...n/freeride.htm –“In January 2002, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham announced the $1.2 billion FreedomCAR (Cooperative Automotive Research) program to fund research into hydrogen fuel cells for cars. The program is intended to reduce vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants and end the United States' dependence on petroleum. FreedomCAR is a revamped version of the failed Partnership for A New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), started by the Clinton administration, and consists of joint research between the federal government, Ford, General Motors, and Daimler-Chrysler. The purpose of FreedomCAR is to create an affordable passenger vehicle that has a hydrogen fuel cell engine within the decade. The FreedomCAR program lacks any meaningful benchmarks for evaluating the progress of the research funded. In fact, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars will be spent with no requirement that auto manufacturers ultimately produce a hydrogen-powered car.”

[44] National Taxpayers Union Issue Brief 142, “FreedomCAR: A Realistic Goal - Or Just Another Subsidy?”, by Dariel Colella, 2/21/2003, –“ Rather than forcing American citizens to pay for this program for years to come, why not let private sector firms use their entrepreneurial talents to discover new ways to design and produce more fuel-efficient automobiles? When federal bureaucracy replaces American ingenuity, it can only result in a stagnant, stifled economy. Private businesses should be encouraged to flourish on their own; they should not be locked into a cooperative that answers to and relies on subsidies from the United States government.”

[45] http://www.terabytetriangle.com/inde...article_ID=104 –“The Tango prototype was manufactured mostly in Quebec, but Woodbury says that all the resources are available in the Inland Northwest to manufacture the commuter car. “All we need is money,” says Woodbury. The investment needed to complete the government required crash tests, tools, and training approaches $24 million. Of that, half is for the tests. Support and assistance have been strong in Spokane, and a Seattle based group has submitted a proposal to build the first kit cars.”

[46] http://iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk/01...name_page.html –“The tiny Tango, which is guaranteed to turn heads on the streets of Los Angeles, is being built by staff at Prodrive, which is based near Kenilworth. The millionaire Batman movie star, who has a collection of classic motorbikes, was so impressed when he heard about the new eco-friendly car that he's having it shipped to his home in LA. Prodrive, which is based in Oldwich Lane East, Fen End, is an automotive technology specialist, which works on the design and construction of limited edition vehicles. The car the former ER star has ordered is a prototype of a futuristic electric car, which the American designers hope will eventually be available to the mass market. The car is distinctive not only for the way it operates – its electric battery needs to be regularly recharged - but also because of its shape and size. Ben Sayer, spokesman for Prodrive, said: "The electric car is a two-seater and very narrow. It's only a metre wide - half the width of an average car. "It was designed with the Californian market in mind as it's very environmentally friendly and ideal for moving easily through traffic." And the car's ability to avoid traffic queues by nip-ping between other cars - just like a motorcycle - is perhaps what attracted George's interest. He is known to be a fan of Harley Davidson motorcycles. But the car's makers think George also wanted to be one of the first to own a Tango because of the car's green credentials.”

[47] http://www.mail-archive.com/ev@listp.../msg05229.html –“Think our government doesn't ban things? Try importing a production EV from Europe, such as a Pugeot 101 Electric, or Citreon Saxo Electric or a Renault electric pickup (pardon my spelling). Can't be done. The US Government bans these vehicles in this country.”

[48] http://www.gsreport.com/articles/art000188.html –“Let's not forget that the U.S., through the Army's Marshall Plan, bought and paid for Japan's auto industry. Japanese cars are Japanese in name only. The Japanese have no oil. They live on islands smaller than California with a population half the size of the United States. We went to war in the Gulf to protect their oil supply, not ours, since 90% of all oil shipped from Kuwait goes to Japan. So Japan is eager to find alternatives to the oil economy, but not so eager as to anger big oil interests, which are partly to blame for their current economic woes. What does this have to do with electric cars? Well, for one thing, were the Japanese free to design, develop and sell any car they wanted, we would have millions of electric cars on the roads in America today. They grew up watching Astro Boy. But they are constrained by the oil/car-tels. Little did Ronald Reagan know when he deregulated the electric utilities that he would open a can of worms which made it possible for the Japanese to re-introduce "reduced" gasoline consumption cars into this country. I think it never occurred to Reagan's Republican administration that cleaner and often cheaper alternatives to oil, coal and nuclear would loom over the horizon despite the fact that he shut down all solar energy programs. The utilities started finding it very attractive economically not to have to buy gasoline for their fleets of pick-up trucks and started putting pressure on Detroit to provide them with electric versions of the Chevrolet S-10 and the Ford Ranger, which have now sold thousands of electric vehicles since deregulation, not only to the utilities, but to military bases, national parks and corporate parks as well.”

[49] http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/WhoGetsWhat/2001.pdf –Page 2 – Chart shows the revenue for OPEC and oil taxes among the G7 nations for the years 1996 to 2000. The G7 nations make $1.3 trillion from oil tax revenue and OPEC makes $850 billion from oil revenue.

[50] http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?sect...le&storyid=750 -“An energy policy that favors FCVs almost to the exclusion of BEVs, when BEVs use 75% less energy, is an energy policy intended to avoid incremental progress that could threaten the status quo.” ~Tom Gage in response to Hydrogen: The 'Do Less with More' Fuel by Alec Brooks

[51] http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/usa.html “The United States is estimated to be consuming an average of about 19.9 MMBD of oil in 2003, up from 19.8 MMBD in 2002. Of this, 8.9 MMBD (or 45% of the total) was motor gasoline, 4.8 MMBD (24%) "other oils," 3.9 MMBD (20%) distillate fuel oil, 1.6 MMBD (8%) jet fuel, and 0.75 million bbl/d (4%) residual fuel oil.”

[52] Taken For A Ride: Detroit’s Big Three and the Politics of Pollution, by Jack Doyle, page 282 –“The auto and oil industries knew full well that New York was a key state in the larger Northeast battle; if New York did not adopt, it was likely that the other states would fold as well. “New York is not California,” said David R. Hayward, a Mobil vice president, suggesting California standards were inappropriate for the state. And when the topic of electric cars came up, the oil companies were especially empathetic. “Is the motoring public going to be willing to turn the clock back 70 years and drive without the comfort of heaters, air conditioners, and defrosters?” offered Texaco’s William Cummings, explaining that all of these items would not be included in EVs because they would reduce driving range.”

[53] Taken For A Ride: Detroit’s Big Three and the Politics of Pollution, by Jack Doyle, page 314 –“Part of the effort to put a negative spin on the battery panel report came from Mobil Oil in a November 1995 New York Times op-ed advertisement. Mobil’s ad said the battery panel found that batteries were not ready, suggested that cleaner gasoline was far less expensive than EVs, and that EV technology was less advanced than claimed. About ten days after the Mobil ad, the CARB battery panel wrote to Mobil’s chairman objecting the ad, “We, the members of the impartial advisory panel on battery technology quoted in the ad, strenuously object to Mobil’s distortion of our findings.” The panel members objected to Mobil’s negative characterization of a report that was generally positive on battery development. “Widely published, distorting, and one-sided opinion pieces such as yours,” continued the letter, “do a disservice to objective reporting and the informed decision of electric vehicles; they even could hinder the collaborative efforts and investments needed to realize them.” That, however, was exactly the point of Big Oil and the Big Three’s efforts—to paint the technology as not even close to viability to discourage investment.”

[54] Taken For A Ride: Detroit’s Big Three and the Politics of Pollution, by Jack Doyle, page 314 –“Mobil, in fact, was one of the most consistently shrill voices in the engineered controversy surrounding electric vehicles, both nationally and in California. The oil giant’s incessant drumbeat of ads in major newspaper and magazines contributed mightily to the negative air around electric vehicles and the ZEV mandate. Using headline themes for a series of ads entitled “Cleaning the Air” or “The Hidden Price Tag,” Mobil ran quarter-page ads filled with its arguments against the ZEV mandate, alternative fuels, or electric vehicles. In Time of December 1994, Mobil’s “Clearing the Air #6,” stated that everyone would be “forced” to pay for electric cars through higher electric rates for infrastructure, government tax subsidies, and increased prices on gasoline cars. “Cleaning the air #10,” appearing in USA Today in mid-January 1995, enumerated the costs and problems of using any alternative fuel other than gasoline. A May 1995 Newsweek ad opposed the California mandate, “Forcing the market to make the transition to alternative fuels prematurely will harm the economy, consumers, and taxpayers.” Oil sources, Mobil assured the readers of this ad, were quite abundant “and won’t run out in your lifetime or your grandchildren’s.” In “Hidden Price Tags #5,” run in June 1995, Mobil used the caption, “Electric Vehicles: A Promise Too Far.” A week later “Hidden Price Tags #7” opposed the California mandate.”

[55] The Car That Could: The Inside Story of GM’s Revolutionary Electric Vehicle, by Michael Shnayerson, page 247 –“The long summer and fall of workshops exposed the commissioners not only to more lobbyists backstage but more speakers and vocal audiences at hearings. Both were manipulated, on occasion, by the Oilies. One day, a flock of firemen came forward to raise concerns about EV safety. How crashworthy were EVs? Might their batteries in a crash release explosive hydrogen gas? In water, might drivers be electrocuted? The firemen’s concerns were legitimate, if easily addressed, but the Oilies, seeing an opportunity to scare the public, had co-opted the group, paying to send them around the state to local talk shows and prodding them to testify before CARB.”

[56] The Car That Could: The Inside Story of GM’s Revolutionary Electric Vehicle, by Michael Shnayerson, page 248 –“The shortest answer to the safety issue was that no major carmaker would be allowed, much less want, to produce EVs whose electrical components were not approved by Underwriters Laboratory, the independent group that tests the safety of all electrical devices sold in America. In Impact’s case, any failure in the electrical system, as in a crash, would shut down the system; so would any spillage of acid or release of hydrogen gas. The battery pack and wiring were also completely insulated; as a dramatic test, the batteries had been charged underwater. Because the pack and inverter transferred high-frequency watts, they were even safely certified and licensed by the FCC, as if they constituted a radio or television station.”

[57] http://www.publicintegrity.org/oil/report.aspx?aid=345 –“The United States is the oil and gas industry's biggest customer, slurping up fully a quarter of global production in 2003. Not surprisingly, the industry has lavished more than $440 million over the past six years on politicians, political parties and lobbyists in order to protect its interests in Washington, according to a new report by the Center for Public Integrity. This is the first of a series of Center reports that aim to identify the size and scope of the international oil and gas industry and measure its influence in the halls of government worldwide.”

[58] Sacramento News & Reviews, “Electric Smoke Screen”, by Nick Budnick, 7/6/1995, Page 19, –“You might have thought grass-roots political campaigns were supposed to spring up from the concerned masses. Not anymore. The rise of these so-called "AstroTurf" groups--cultivated by public relations firms using money, misinformation and phone banks--has been well-documented. Industry's attempt to kill the EV mandate using such groups was reported at least as far back as April 1994 by the Los Angeles Times and San Francisco's legal newspaper, the Recorder. One such group, electric car advocates say, is Californians Against Hidden Taxes, headed by Anita Mangels of Laguna. To turn out opponents for the June 28 Air Resources Board workshop, the group sent out a mailer beforehand (asking for help to stop "this bureacratic boondoggle!!!"), offering transportation by luxury bus, two meals and refreshments--all free. Mangels, who formerly was active in fighting Proposition 185, the gasoline sales tax initiative, is up front about where her paycheck comes from: the oil companies' lobbying group, Western States Petroleum Association. "I believe most, if not all of our funding comes from WSPA--that's no secret," she said. "We may get all our funding from one source, but we do have a broad-based coalition of groups of people across the state of California that think this [mandate] is a bad idea.”
[59] The Car That Could: The Inside Story of GM’s Revolutionary Electric Vehicle, by Michael Shnayerson, page 217 –“Baker met the press flanked by the heads of the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power and southern California Edison. The utilities would rewire drivers’ garages to accommodate chargers; they would help troubleshoot problems; already, they had begun building prototype charging stands and stations for the Los Angeles area. But even as GM reached out for their help in making PrEView a success, its lobbying money was spent to thwart the mandate that the utilities saw as their guarantee of an EV market. For Southern California Edison and the other investor-owned utilities, GM’s greater sin was in doing nothing to distance itself from the Oilies’ frontal attack on their bid to raise $630 million for EV infrastructure. Already, the Oilies has cowed the utilities into trimming their request to $425 million in a campaign of misleading print ads, op-ed pieces, and the like that seemed to sway public opinion. At an upcoming hearing before the Public Utilities Commission, the Oilies hoped to reduce that figure to zero. The carmakers had nothing to do with that campaign, they protested, and piously lamented the Oilies’ tendency to trash EV technology along with social policy. But as Richard Klimisch of the AMAA acknowledged, the interests of the Big Three and the Oilies were parallel. And as John White, a seasoned environmental lobbyist in Sacramento observed, it was hard enough fighting either the Oilies or the Big Three. Together, they were almost insuperable.”

[60] http://www.flashscooters.com/gas_sco...1-12-2004.html –“A Solectria Force, entered by Ovonic Battery and powered by advanced Ovonic NiMH batteries, achieved a range of 217 miles, with most of the miles performed at highway speed. This represents the sixth consecutive year that Ovonic batteries have powered electric vehicles beyond the 200-mile threshold.”

[61] http://solstice.crest.org/discussion.../msg01023.html –““Energy Conversion has been reasonably consistent in saying that the GM/Ovonic Troy Michigan NiMh plant is currently producing 4 to 5 EV packs (30kwh each in their parlance) per week. Taking that number and the text above one gets a different number: "200 EV's per year...$450/kwh". Another data point is from a slide Bob Stempel (ECD chairman) made in a presentation to investors in the fall of 1996, in which he tied price per kwh to volume.

Volume
packs
per
year $/kwh
10 8,000
100 5,000
350 2,000
1000 385
6500 300
20000 150

If the Fleets and Fuels text above is accurate, then one can see the shape of the curve is beginning to change and they are no longer claiming $150/kwh in volumes of 20,000 packs per year. With people paying $130 to $150 (or more like us on the east coast) for Optima YT's at .78kwh each (65ah @ 12v) their price is $166 to $192 per kwh for less than half the energy density. (Yes, yes I know you Coloradoans pay less and some of you have blems, etc.) Whatever the number, GM/Ovonic continues to needlessly shroud themselves in a very porous secrecy. It has been widely posted on the 'net that they have a large plant, sized for better than 2500 vehicle packs per year, which is up and doing some production work now in Kettering Ohio (suburb of Dayton). Why the big secret? Who knows. If you believe their cycle life claims (I do) and feel the Fleets and Fuel numbers are accurate (I do) then the NIMh battery is beginning to come into the realm of buy-ability for all of us. Now they gotta make them.””

[62] http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/...e_20040708.htm –“ Energy Conversion Devices Inc., the Rochester Hills alternative energy company, will share in a $30-million settlement of a patent-infringement suit in federal court stemming from the use of its nickel metal hydride batteries. Under the deal, Energy Conversion and its subsidiary, Ovonic Battery Co. Inc., will receive a $10-million fee from Matsu****a Electric Industrial Co., Panasonic EV Energy Co., and Toyota Motor Corp. In addition, Cobasys LLC, a company co-owned by Energy Conversion and ChevronTexaco Technology Ventures LLC, will receive $20 million, according to documents filed Wednesday with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Upon receipt of the money, Cobasys will pay Ovonic Battery $8 million and ChevronTexaco $8 million as partial reimbursement of legal expenses. Cobasys and Panasonic will cross-license their patented designs to avoid future disputes. The companies agreed to collaborate on the batteries that are used in electric-gasoline hybrid vehicles. None of the parties admitted any liability, Energy Conversion said. The focus of the settlement relates to patents on the nickel metal hydride batteries and the use of those batteries in the Toyota Prius. Matsu****a and Panasonic supply the high-powered, rechargeable batteries to Toyota. In March 2001, Ovonic Battery filed a suit in U.S. District Court in Detroit claiming Matsu****a's hybrid electric-vehicle batteries, battery components and battery systems infringed on patents Ovonic Battery held. The complaint also alleged Matsu****a refused to pay millions in royalties.”

[63] http://www.metricmind.com/ac_honda/battery.htm –“NiMH battery. Not available for non-technical reasons and may never be to you and to me.”

[64] http://www.aaaworld.com/pages/articles.asp?id=9 –“As to the former, the U.S. Department of Transportation figures the typical car lasts 13 years and 145,000 miles before its rendezvous with the crusher.”

[65] http://www.eaaev.org/Forms-Docs/eaaf...nformation.pdf –Page 1--“In addition, fuel and maintenance expenses are significantly lower for EVs. And talk about lasting value, an electric motor provides as many as 1,000,000 miles of service.”

[66] Build Your Own Electric Vehicle, by Bob Brandt, page 45 –The chart comparing vehicle registration numbers by type of vehicle and year, whether it is steam-powered, battery-powered, or gasoline-powered, shows that about 3,000 battery-electric cars were on the road compared to about 1,900 gasoline cars in 1900. By 1902, there were 7,500 each of both gasoline and electric vehicles on the roads.

[67] Batteries For Electric Vehicles, by D.A.J. Rand, R. Woods, R.M. Dell, page 328 –“The first major breakthrough in sodium batteries came in 1966 with the discovery that sodium beta-alumina (a sodium aluminum oxide known since 1916) is highly conductive to sodium ions over temperatures of 200-400 degrees Centigrade as well as being a good electronic insulator. This discovery was made by scientists working in the Ford Motor Company’s laboratory at Dearborn, Michigan and encouraged them to demonstrate the concept of the sodium/sulfur battery wherin a ceramic tube of beta-alumina (the electrolyte) served to separate a liquid sodium negative electrode from a liquid sulfur positive.”

[68] http://www.evchargernews.com/miscfiles/ev1.pdf –Page 11—The evolution of GMs’ electric vehicles: “1966 Electrovair II, (a Corvair conversion) with 115 hp induction motor and 530-volt silver-zinc batteries.”

[69] http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog...zevchanges.pdf –Page 1---“In 1990, California embarked on a plan to reduce vehicle emissions to zero through the introduction of the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Program. At that time, the Air Resources Board (ARB) required that in 1998, 2% of the vehicles produced for sale in California had to be ZEVs, increasing to 5% in 2001 and 10 percent in 2003.”

[70] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../bradsher.html –“[Yes,] the cost of settling rollover lawsuits has been a cost of doing business for sport utilities. But because the vehicles have become such a fad, that cost just vanishes into the overall profit margins that the automakers earn on SUVs. These profit margins can reach $15,000 for a full-size SUV, which is nothing more than an old-fashioned large pickup truck with a longer cab that covers a couple extra rows of seats.”

[71] Taken For A Ride: Detroit’s Big Three and the Politics of Pollution, by Jack Doyle, page 316 –“John Dabels, former director of market development for GM’s EV program, says GM purposely distorted its cost accounting on the Impact to make electric cars appear much more expensive than they would be under more realistic market conditions. GM intentionally piled cost upon cost solely on the Impact. Yet traditionally, in other auto development programs, such costs would be shared with a broader base of products and other parts of the company. This was intentional, according to Dabels, to make the Impact appear very expensive and unprofitable—which the automakers needed to show CARB to discredit and undermine the mandate. All of the R&D costs for the Impact, as well as the Impact’s plant production costs in Lansing, Michigan, were attributed solely to that one car, contrary to traditional auto accounting. Others in the electric vehicle industry saw through this as well, calling the industry’s high-cost game a myth. “When smaller EV manufacturers like Solectria, US Electricar, Solar Car Corporation, and Renaissance Cars can produce and sell well-equipped limited production EVs in the $15,000-45,000 range,” charged the Electric Vehicle Industry Association in September 1994, “there is no justification for Detroit to charge $100,000-$135,000. These are artificial figures, based upon the immediate recovery of prototype development costs. Using the same accounting methods, any new car would cost $100,000 or more. Instead, Detroit spreads the cost over hundreds of thousands of cars to be produced.”

[72] The Car That Could: The Inside Story of GM’s Revolutionary Electric Vehicle, by Michael Shnayerson, page 247 –“ With the Ranger announcement, Ford mentioned that the pickup would retail for $30,000, a whopping premium over the $11,000 price of the Ranger’s gas-fueled version. Somehow, an internal Ford memo outlining the truck’s specifications found its way to environmental advocates on either coast. The memo, with jottings from a strategy meeting, seemed genuine; the “target” price it set for the Ranger, the price Ford thought it could achieve by 1998, was $21,000. Over the summer of 1995, Ford wielded its $30,000 estimate like a club over the California commissioners. At that price, Ford lobbyists told them, no one would buy the truck. In private talks, the rhetoric took on a menacing edge. Though the lobbyists were careful not to be overt, the commissioners got the message: Ford would sabotage its own EV program, if necessary, to make the mandate fail.”

[73] Taken For A Ride: Detroit’s Big Three and the Politics of Pollution, by Jack Doyle, page 317 –“Although Ford was going through the motions with its announcement, environmentalists and EV proponents believed Ford’s price increase was calculated to dampen consumer interest and get the attention of CARB decision makers. The environmental groups pointed to Ford’s internal memos. And in contrast to Ford’s $30,000 price, one Burbank, California company, Battery Automated Transportation International (BAT), was already selling converted Ford Rangers at just under $26,000 each. Those prices could drop another $4,000, said a BAT spokesman, if the company could buy “gliders”—Ford Rangers without the EV drives—to retrofit. A day after Ford’s announcement, the California Manufacturer’s Association reached a survey paid for by the auto industry that said Californians didn’t want EVs when they saw the high cost.”

[74] http://www.nedra.com/records.html –The “Killacycle” achieved a 9.450 second ¼ mile drag time at 152.07 MPH at Woodburn Drags, OR, August 26, 2000.

[75] http://www.evcl.com/spiegelenglish.html –“"If the automobile companies gave their customers the choice of either buying a car with a range of around 60 miles at the current price of gasoline cars or paying an additional $53K for sophisticated versions, it would be clear beyond the shadow of a doubt where the real market is," says Dubé.”

[76] http://www.emagazine.com/view/?411 –“Most frequently cited by anti-electric advocates is a scientific study by Lester Lave, an economist at Carnegie-Mellon University (written with three engineer collaborators), that was published in Environmental Science and Technology in the summer of 1996. "The new car is no longer much of the smog problem," Lave told The New York Times, "and therefore can't be much of the solution." Add 500,000 electric cars in Los Angeles, the study concludes, and the ozone level is only reduced from 200 parts per billion to 199 (a safe level is considered to be 120 parts per billion). The study also concluded that production in mass quantities of the lead-acid batteries used by electric cars will release dangerous amounts of lead into the air, destroying all the gains made (roughly $100 billion in reduced annual health costs) by taking lead out of gasoline. "A 1998 model electric car is estimated to release 60 times more lead per kilometer of use relative to a comparable car burning leaded gasoline," the study said. But the study's findings have by no means gone unchallenged. The International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA), in a detailed refutation of the Carnegie-Mellon findings, charged that the report "reached its conclusions [about lead] by using erroneous quantitative data up to one thousand times greater than the actual figures; failed to address the significant advances in the environmental protection policies regarding lead-acid battery production; [and] overlooked the great strides made in the development of more efficient battery technologies for EVs." Most troubling, CTA reported, the study's objectivity was in question. It was funded in part by grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF), which noted that "the Ford Motor Company will work with us in transferring the research results." Other support came from The Green Design Consortium of the Carnegie-Mellon University Engineering Design Research Center, whose membership is "open to industrial partners"-including (and paying up to $20,000 a year for the privilege) Daimler-Benz, General Motors Delco Chassis, British Petroleum America, Exxon Research and Engineering, Mobil R&D and Shell Development.”

[77] The Car That Could: The Inside Story of GM’s Revolutionary Electric Vehicle, by Michael Shnayerson, page 203 –“”They tried to stop us from going to California,” Ovshinsky railed later about the USABC. “They threatened us! I said to them, ‘Look, the Communist Party no longer runs the world. A party line cannot be imposed upon people who don’t believe in it. The consortium is set up to make sure the American public has an electric car. It was not set up to fight the mandate. We are a battery company, and we’re not going to lie to the public’” John Williams, the churchgoing GM head of the USABC’s management committee, deeply resented Ovshinsky’s implication that the USABC had deceived anyone, and that he, Williams, was slanting the facts.”

[78] Taken For A Ride: Detroit’s Big Three and the Politics of Pollution, by Jack Doyle, page 313 –“Dan Sperling, a professor at the Institute for Transportation Studies at the University of California, told SCLDF he believed the Big Three used USABC to limit or suppress battery technology development. He also said he thought GM used its Delco subsidiary to suppress technology development and information about battery technology advances. He pointed to Valence company, funded by GM through Delco, which was bound not to reveal any technology advances, like Ovonic. Yet another conflict arose between GM and Ovonic over the public dissemination of battery progress, more specifically, over a proposed advertisement in a business magazine.”

[79] http://www.ocweekly.com/printme.php?&eid=43975 –“ Stan Ovshinski, president of Energy Conversion Devices of Troy, Michigan, the creator of solar-energy cells, the holder of 250 U.S. Patents and Time magazine’s "Hero of the Planet" for 1999, told Nguyen, “The people who are saying that battery technology isn’t ready are absolutely wrong. It’s part of the party line. It’s self-perpetuating. It’s very sad. You tell a lie big enough and long enough, and people start to believe it. The fact of the matter is volume. That’s the only reason batteries are the cost that they are.””

[80] http://greencars.com/newsreleases/sept7.html –“Some 33.4 percent of those polled said they would buy an electric vehicle as their next car purchase if that vehicle were priced close to the same price as a gasoline vehicle.”

[81] The Wall Street Journal, “Californians Show Potential Demand for Electric Cars”, by Jeffrey Ball, 09/05/2000, page B12 –“The poll, conducted in July and designed and funded by California environmental groups, concludes consumers in the state would buy between 151,200 and 226,800 electric vehicles annually if they were "available at reasonable prices." That market would amount to between 12% and 18% of all new cars and light trucks sold each year in the state.”

[82] Taken For A Ride: Detroit’s Big Three and the Politics of Pollution, by Jack Doyle, page 316 –“In November 1994, Ford began telling its prospective fleet buyers—government agencies and utilities required and/or given incentives to buy certain kinds of vehicles to boost technology—that the company’s 1998 Rangers would be sold for “under 20,000.” In March 1995 the price target was still at $21,000. But three months later, in June 1995, Ford announced its Rangers would cost $30,000 each.”

[83] http://www.ocweekly.com/printme.php?&eid=43975 –“Well, so many drivers apparently didn’t want electric cars that there was a waiting list that meant Korthof would not take delivery of his EV1 for six weeks. Can you name another car that auto dealers don’t want to take money for, don’t let you drive off the lot and then make you wait six weeks for? Talk about a cooling-off period!”

[84] http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/...d/message/1032 –“So when we took a test drive in the Honda EV Plus I was sold in about 20 seconds, even though the "salesman" was the lot boy, and perhaps did not want to show his ignorance about how to take the money I offered. He refused to lease the EV! This showed how un-serious and un-anxious Honda was about placing the cars. They dodged my attempt to lease one for week after week. Finally, after innumerable telephone calls they parted with an EV, after hearing "Honda does not care what you think, the deal is take it or leave it". Never seen a car dealer act that way, it was very strange. Slowly it dawned on me that they HATED anyone who wanted an EV, and did whatever they could to DISCOURAGE you from "taking" one, even on a lease.”

[85] http://www.commondreams.org/news2000/1031-03.htm –“ Leading companies and groups in the auto industry have spent more than $112.6 million to lobby Congress and the Clinton administration from 1997 through June 2000”

[86] The New York Times, “White House Joins Fight Against Electric Cars”, by Katharine Q. Seelye, 10/10/2002, Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 22 , Column 4 –“The Bush administration went to court today to support the automobile industry's effort to eliminate requirements in California that auto manufacturers sell electric cars. President Bush's chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., was the chief lobbyist for General Motors, one of the plaintiffs in the case. Mr. Card was also head of an auto industry trade association when California proposed to require electric vehicles, and has publicly opposed such a requirement.”

[87] www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/alertv6_45.asp –“During the 1999-2000 election cycle, automotive interests—mainly car dealers--gave $1.3 million to the Bush-Cheney campaign, making it Bush’s 14th biggest industry contributor.”

[88] http://www.evworld.com/databases/sho...=news251103-02 –“In the 1990s, Big Oil and automakers spent over $10 million on anti-EV ads and disinforming editorials.”

[89] Sacramento News & Reviews, “Electric Smoke Screen”, by Nick Budnick, 7/6/1995, Page 19, –“Another publicity campaign, titled "Short Circuit," is funded by the California Manufacturers Association and run by the Sacramento firm McNally Temple Associates. It consists of a series of articles and editorials that are skeptical of electric vehicles and California's mandate that are sent to decision-makers, organizations and the media. Critics say the articles are based on studies that use bogus or dated information. "We are not opposing electric vehicle technology development, we are not opposing clean air technology," said the CMA's Martha Alcott, echoing Mangels, the AAMA and WSPA. "We are opposing a mandate being issued for one particular technology. ... We are coming from a philosophical standpoint that the private sector and consumers should be the ones to decide how to best meet air standards."”

[90] http://www.dailyrepublic.com/article...news/news4.txt –“An electric car club Web site has a photo of where some of the EV1s end up: a desert location in Arizona where they are crushed and stacked. General Motors said other cars are going to its employees, state and local governments and even museums.”

[91] http://cleanup-gm.com/ev1.html –“ This summer, at least 58 EV1 drivers sent letters and deposit checks to GM asking for a lease extension at no risk or cost to GM. Specifically, drivers would be responsible for maintenance costs and repairs, and GM would have the right to terminate the lease if expensive repairs were needed. GM refused the offer and returned the checks, totaling over $22,000, on June 28. (In contrast, Honda extended the lease on their EV+.) In November, GM will begin reclaiming the cars, possibly to destroy them, as it has done with their past electric vehicles that were popular with drivers but provided embarrassing contradiction of GM's claims that nobody wanted EVs. While a minority of EV1s will be donated to museums and educational institutions, GM has allegedly received government permission to crush EV1s [Adams 2001].”

[92] http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?sect...=2290&end=2289 –“Ms. Bell's thought on why GM is crushing the EV1s seemed to jibe with the answer I'd been given by a GM employee a month or two previous, who was trying to help me understand that situation a bit better: This person observed that by GM retaining ownership of the vehicle, which it can do in a lease situation, at the end when the company is able to take those vehicles back, that essentially removes the vehicle from the road. This removes any kind of liability issue GM might have down the road in case there was an electrical problem that caused a fire, which has happened two or three times EV1's. In two cases the car almost burning down the peoples' houses, he commented "By taking it off the road they're is negating any chance of liability issues, so I just think it made the legal department at GM feel much more comfortable by saying let's make this a lease situation and not a sales situation."”

[93] The Car That Could: The Inside Story of GM’s Revolutionary electric Vehicle, by Michael Shnayerson, page 47 –“Cocconi had designed a charger that used the inverter’s circuitry- simplicity itself. That way, a driver could recharge by merely plugging a cord from the wall into a socket on the car. But Hughes’s engineers had found that Cocconi’s charger tripped the ground fault interrupters of nearby wall sockets. Also, the charger itself added mass, which cut into range. The answer, it seemed to Hughes, was obvious: take the charger offboard. Now the engineers would have the freedom to design a system that was both safe by Underwriters Laboratory Standards and could be coded and packaged more easily. Cocconi was furious. He felt that with time he could easily design an onboard charger that avoided tripping the ground fault interrupters. Why squander the economy of a design that used existing parts? The reason, Cocconi felt, was that Hughes wanted to corner a new market in offboard chargers. Make people buy something they don’t need and charge a lot of money for it, he scoffed. Capitalism at work.”

[94] http://www.dontcrush.com/nytimes.html –“Although Mr. Levinson's lease ran out on Feb. 25, he has refused to return his 2000-model truck. He said that before the lease expired, he sought to buy the truck for the $7,000 residual value indicated on his contract. "The next day," he said, "I got a call back that said, nope, no option, turn it in."

[95] http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...ck=1&cset=true –“The decision to order the return of the dozens of leased electric pickups spawned an ongoing protest in Sacramento, where a few Ranger owners launched a curbside vigil in front of a downtown Ford dealership in a last-ditch attempt to save their beloved vehicles. ’This gives us some hope,’ said Dave Raboy, a Mariposa County rancher who wants to buy the electric Ranger instead of seeing it sent to the scrap yard. ‘I'd like them to restart their EV [electric vehicle] program, but this would definitely be a step in the right direction.’ The protest attracted statewide media attention last weekend. A Ford spokeswoman told The Times in a story published Tuesday that the company's decision to demand the return of all remaining electric pickup trucks came because the federal government didn't renew a waiver needed to keep the Rangers on the road. But on Tuesday, electric vehicle foes raised an outcry over the statement, saying the electric Ranger trucks were never subject to a federal highway safety waiver.”

[96] http://www.jumpstartford.com/news/ne...1283&area=ford –“San Francisco – As a Sacramento ‘car-sit’ enters day seven, Ford Motor Company has committed to reverse its unpopular decision to repossess and destroy its last zero emission Ranger EVs. Ford’s abrupt u-turn follows a statewide public outcry that forced it to recant misleading misstatements about the legality, popularity and viability of EV technology. In a conversation late this afternoon with Jumpstart Ford coalition partners Global Exchange and Rainforest Action Network, Niel Golightly, Ford’s director of sustainable business strategies, agreed that the auto giant would keep its original promise to sell the pollution-free pickup trucks to loyal lessees. Ranger EV drivers Dave and Heather Bernikoff-Raboy, Bill Korthof and their supporters intend to remain in vigil at the downtown Sacramento dealer until Ford formally follows through.”

[Caciss]

Re: Why the electric car failed

I'm not sure this was addressed, but what about all those employed by the oil industry? What about those who own gas stations?

[Rain]

Re: Why the electric car failed

*claps*

I too am a fan of the electric car, and Terr, you have just given every reason known to man. You are a genius

[The Toecutter]

Re: Why the electric car failed

I'm not sure this was addressed, but what about all those employed by the oil industry?

Which ones?

What about those who own gas stations?

Gasoline isn't their only source of revenue.

Terr, you have just given every reason known to man.

Hardly. This was shrunk down from over 200 pages in material to be presented. I shrunk it to about 11 pages. One day, I'm going to post the LONG version of this, essentially an entire book. Beware.

[Rain]

Re: Why the electric car failed

He makes a point. The people who own oil companies are mainly evil anyways.

And..I don't know whether to glorify or be terrified of the whole version. But you're an incredibly great person to have here. You bring in some controversial piece of news EVERY SINGLE DAY

I love controversial issues

[Caciss]

Re: Why the electric car failed

Those who work in the transportation industry, distribution, one who work in oil refinery plants, etc.

[Valkysas]

Re: Why the electric car failed

almost every time he posts, the bandwidth consumption has a small, but noticible spike.

[Rain]

Re: Why the electric car failed

Surely somebody working in transportation, even if in motor cars, could transfer to another vehicle.

Same with distribution.

[Caciss]

Re: Why the electric car failed

Switching industries, isn't that easy. Especially ones of this size.

Don't get me wrong or anything I'm all for electric cars, I'm just asking an actual question. I'm not trying to spur debate.

[Ryner]

Re: Why the electric car failed

Terr's gonna break the internet one day.

[Rain]

Re: Why the electric car failed

Unless you work specifically in the oiling or gas of a car, I don't think it'd be TOO hard to switch to the electric car industry.

Don't get me wrong or anything I'm all for electric cars, I'm just asking an actual question. I'm not trying to spur debate.

Questions are great Of course you should ask any questions that you can. Skepticism is a good thing.

[highwind]

Re: Why the electric car failed

almost every time he posts, the bandwidth consumption has a small, but noticible spike.

[Kefka Jr.]

Re: Why the electric car failed

It was the Stonecutters.

[MasterSlowPoke]

Re: Why the electric car failed

Same deal with the martians.

Terr, if I was interested in making my own EV, where would I look?

[LordBobR]

Re: Why the electric car failed


Good research Terr, however I disagree that the electric car has failed. We are merely waiting until the oil totally runs out and then we have to rebuild the entire oil and auto industries at the same time from the grounds up. Only then they will start to produce new and innovative ideas but in the mean time the fat are trying to get fatter upon the oil and auto industries as they are. You know as well as I that they don’t give a damn about three years down the road, the heads of these industries will retire and watch it flush down the drain and what do they care they have their millions. In the end as it is now it will be the consumers and poor who suffer the brunt of this burden as the country will most likely as this time spiral into a second depression due to our own stupidity and greed. However who’s worried about that, it’s several years down the road.


Caciss, which do you think is better a gradual change from oil to electric industries or the possibility of a total collapse when they realize there is no more oil?

To change this one must change consumerism for money is the only thing understood by these industries: Consumers have the power to fight back.


May the blessings of Bob be with you all.


Ich bin Gott,
LordBob®