Who Killed the Electric Car?

Karetyr

Cadet
It was the fastest, most efficient production car ever built. It ran on electricity, produced no emissions and catapulted American technology to the forefront of the automotive industry. The lucky few who drove it never wanted to give it up. So why did General Motors crush its fleet of EV-1 electric vehicles in the Arizona desert? Who Killed The Electric Car? chronicles the life and mysterious death of the EV-1; examining the cultural and economic ripple effects caused by its conception and how they reverberated through the halls of government and big business.

If you haven't heard of the new documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? or the GM EV1, you need to check out these links.

Who Killed the Electric Car?

About the EV1

I just found out about this today. If I'd known about the EV1 when it was still being produced, I would have been on one of those waiting lists.
 
*cough*
HEROSHALL.COM

;)

Electric cars don't work and won't work, and hydrogen cars don't work but will work. That's the biggest difference.

Also, regarding hydrogen fueling stations - no, they won't be nuclear. They'll simply store hydrogen gas - technically explosive, but so is storing gasoline.
I hope you don't still believe as much.
 
The EV1 was just so.... Ugly.... Slow! Homely! Blorch.

But, with gas prices around 3 bucks again.. *le sigh*

I think I am going to have to buy myself a Tesla Roadster. :smiley:
I've been following this car for a long time now. I like everything about the car and the company.
I would probably wait a year or two until after they start retail production, to work out any kinks, but, I think this is the way to go.

Tesla Motors

VIDEO

Their plan is to hook everyone with the sports car, then create a more practical Sedan next.
 
Personally, I dont think electric cars are all that cool... If you want to see something cool, check out the hydrogen "skateboard" GM is making. Now that is what I see the future being.

 
Very cool. The hydrogen is used to create electricity to propell the vehicle though, H2O for exhaust. Very nice with the four wheel motors for traction etc. I rellay like the fact that the designs for seating and the covering are left wide open. The only catch is whether or not the Hydrogen is going to come from petro.

If I remember correctly when Bush gave the thumbs up for the hydrogen feul cell there were those who noted that you can extract hydrogen from petro. So we'd still need some foreign oil for that.
 
This is kind of difficult. How do I pick the most environment friendly car?
Hydrogen is good, but its a very energy eating process to create and takes alot of space (in the car).
Hybrid, good option but still using gasoline.
Ethanol, use grain(food) to create fuel=bad?
Electrical car, seems best so far (as long its "green" electricity)

So both Ethanol and Hydrogen is still pretty energy consuming to create, and will probably not replace gasoline as fuel.

I've seen the documentary Who killed the electric car and I do recommend it. Although, its probably exactly what you expect, but still interesting. The same song over and over again; Big economic interests do everything they can to keep us focused on the stuff they want us to focus on.
 
Very interesting, WM. I would really like to see that car in action, though... and read some specs and reviews for it. It looks like all 'sales pitch' for the moment.
 
So both Ethanol and Hydrogen is still pretty energy consuming to create, and will probably not replace gasoline as fuel.

One of the key problems with our use of ethanol is where it comes from. The US is obsessed with the notion of using corn (to the tune of 95% of our ethanol coming from corn). Corn requires vast quantities of machinery and power to produce and transport. It is also not a very efficient ethanol fuel at all.

In fact, estimates range from saying that it nearly to completely cancels out its positive effects. Gasoline, for all its problems, is remarkably efficient. It only takes 6% of the energy produced by gasoline itself to get it out of the ground (94% effiency, excluding transport and refinement). Estimates put corn ethanol at using 3 gallons of the stuff to produce 4 gallons (25% effiency total). And for that small benefit we put food to the flame. As an actual statistic: corn prices in Maryland, USA have doubled since last year. Guess how many things we use corn for? Look on your lables and find how many products contain "corn syrup." Furthermore, corn requires large quantities of pesticides also and these enter local water systems, polluting them. And because it is now so profitable, farmers want to plant much more.

How does this all affect food supplies? Take Europe for example. If Europe were to convert every single one of their agricultural fields to producing corn for ethanol, they would only be able to supply themselves with something like 25% of the ethanol they would need (assuming a 100% ethanol use, not a blend).

Meanwhile other possible ethanol fuels, like sugar cane are being considered. In fact, President Bush just went down to Brazil a few weeks ago to talk to the President there about a sugar cane for ethanol deal. Guess where Brazil (legally or illegally) gets alot of its land to grow sugar cane? If you guessed "by slashing and burning rainforest" you're a winner.

Finally, there are plants that could provide cellulosic ethanol. Switchgrass is a plant in the Maryland area that can be used to produce ethanol... twice as much as the same amount of corn could. Switchgrass is also perennial, so there is no need for replanting, it is a native plant to Maryland and can grow in marginal land without competing with our food supplies.
However! Though it is cheaper to produce, less wasteful, and produces vastly more ethanol, there are no cellulosic operations in the US because it has a very expensive refining process and estimates say we are about 15 years away from any realistic use of it.

Ethanol isn't an all or nothing proposition. There are many choices to be made in its use.

*Some statistics and facts here are estimates, though only because I didn't want to look up exact numbers- however, they are reasonably accurate. Most are right on having been pulled from The Bay Journal, April 2007
 
Hydrogen is good, but its a very energy eating process to create and takes alot of space (in the car).

autonomy_skateboard.jpg


That takes up alot of room in the car? The whole purpose of it is to be extremely flexible with layout and design.. And well, the obvious use of hydrogen, but thats a given! And to be honest, I dont see why its a concern at all that hydrogen takes alot of energy to process. More than likely, more efficient ways will be found before this thing even hits the market.
 
I do take a hellovalot more "space" in the car, compared to gasoline (volume Vs range between refill). But its not really a concern, you just have to refill the tank more often.

The concern about energyconsuming process is more a question about what we really gain of changing energy source (sure we get no exhaust, but its for no good if we pollute somewhere else). And I still don't think hydrogen will (or can) replace gasoline as fuel for cars. It might help us think different, and will probably be an alternative for awhile. But I think other sources of energy will replace gasoline more efficient, pure electric cars is probably one of the best examples so far...

But the thing is, technology wont save us in this matter (perhaps help us), but a change of living, attitude and thinking will.
 
I just don't see anything that can beat the electric vehicle if/when it gets to the point of being a good, solid, reliable form of transportation. Especially if solar panels and/or some form of a wheel inertia based alternator is used to charge the battery so that the thing is relatively self sustaining. Save for maybe the occasional Li-Ion battery replacement.

But you know what's going to happen. Computer models will demostrate that the excessive moisture from all of those cars will then cause desserts to receed, general temperatures to fall, and worldwide humidity levels to rise inducing expansion of the polar ice caps and we'll be looking at a premature ice age.
 
I just don't see anything that can beat the electric vehicle if/when it gets to the point of being a good, solid, reliable form of transportation. Especially if solar panels and/or some form of a wheel inertia based alternator is used to charge the battery so that the thing is relatively self sustaining. Save for maybe the occasional Li-Ion battery replacement.

I know only layman's worth of knowledge when it comes to energy but don't batteries require energy too? I mean to charge the battery, they need electricity. Where does electricity come from? Hydroelectric from dams, nuclear power or fossil fuels. If everyone goes electric, would that really make such a huge impact on pollution?

And batteries die eventually and must be disposed of and from my understanding, they are basically toxic and not very environmentally friendly.

I also read Lithium-ion batteries are pretty much at their technological peak. The engineers can't pull more juice out of them so I'm not sure if they are a viable alternative.

I don't think electric cars are the answer. Right now hybrids are pretty good and most likely will dominate the future until something else comes around. I'm banking on hydrogen fuel cells but the technology isn't there yet. Burns clean and there's tons of hydrogen (although how the ambient hydrogen is converted to a cheap reliable source of energy is beyond me).

Just throwing out some layman's questions using common sense.
 
One of the key problems with our use of ethanol is where it comes from. The US is obsessed with the notion of using corn (to the tune of 95% of our ethanol coming from corn). Corn requires vast quantities of machinery and power to produce and transport. It is also not a very efficient ethanol fuel at all.

In fact, estimates range from saying that it nearly to completely cancels out its positive effects. Gasoline, for all its problems, is remarkably efficient. It only takes 6% of the energy produced by gasoline itself to get it out of the ground (94% effiency, excluding transport and refinement). Estimates put corn ethanol at using 3 gallons of the stuff to produce 4 gallons (25% effiency total). And for that small benefit we put food to the flame. As an actual statistic: corn prices in Maryland, USA have doubled since last year. Guess how many things we use corn for? Look on your lables and find how many products contain "corn syrup." Furthermore, corn requires large quantities of pesticides also and these enter local water systems, polluting them. And because it is now so profitable, farmers want to plant much more.

The use of corn is political. Corn farmers were concerned with big financial hits because well, they produce too much and makes corn too cheap. They lobbyed and got the government to subsidize the price. And yes, they pushed for "corn syrup" too even though it's not any better than sugar.

I also heard somewhere ethanol is harsher to car engines than fossil fuels thus reducing their longevity. I'm not sure if this is true or not but I know I read that somewhere and no it wasn't The National Enquirer.
 
Computer models will demostrate that the excessive moisture from all of those cars will then cause desserts to receed, general temperatures to fall, and worldwide humidity levels to rise inducing expansion of the polar ice caps and we'll be looking at a premature ice age.

I have trouble accepting computer models as convincing evidence since there hasn't been one, I mean one computer model relating to climate change that has accurately predicted weather patterns in long-term scenarios. Computer models are notoriously unreliable when making these kinds of predictions.

Is the earth getting warmer? Most definitely. Is fossil fuels the main reason? Possibly and I'm sure it's a factor. The question is: how much of a factor is it?

I really don't think (just my opinion) that fossil fuels are the main reason for warmer weather. My guess is, it's a combination of numerous effects such as fossil fuels, urbanization, water pollution and the natural warming cycle of the earth.

The whole idea of global warming has become too political and hollywood. Too much hysteria and doomsayers. I mean all the numbers are laced with opinion and bias. Heck, how can we even trust the scientists when their grant money is sponsored by either big oil or liberal environmentalists? It's a pity too because this is a major study that requires complete unbiased research without special interest involvement.
 
Back
Top