Fascinating Documentary: "Who Killed the Electric Car?"

[Brian Ellis]

And... Middle East oil costs... by comparison?

C'mon.

You can do better than that.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

This is a total non-sequitur: we're talking about emissions, not costs.

You will notice I said equivalent-sized car, and I understood by this, with ± equivalent performance and autonomy.

The comparisons in your article made no mention of the design of the EV. All EVs produced up to now have been short-production concept runs. Ask any Californian who scrapped his leased vehicle as soon as he could what he thought about it.

Please read the posts in the forum I cited. There is a guy there (Darin) who is an EV fanatic. Read what he has to say. His EV concept is not, IMHO, a practical one, but he cites an ultra-light two-seater for everyday use. You simply cannot compare this with a Prius, an SUV or a Hummer. And then he requires a conventional car as a backup.

If you have similar size/weight/performance EV and fossil fuel cars, you'll inevitably have more CO2, Nox, SOx, Hg emissions with a coal-fired electricity supply, taken holistically.

I don't have time to sort out facts and figures just now.

[Jerry Jones]

Ask any Californian who scrapped his leased vehicle as soon as he could what he thought about it.

Before you make misleading statements like this one, please see the movie.

Significant numbers of those who leased the electric vehicles from GM begged -- begged -- for the opportunity to keep them, but they were denied.

In the end, not even the museums were allowed to preserve a working electric vehicle!

I'll read your references, but much of what you've written so far seems to be quite incorrect.

Plug-in hybrids and more:

http://tinyurl.com/pgmqz

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

If you have similar size/weight/performance EV and fossil fuel cars, you'll inevitably have more CO2, Nox, SOx, Hg emissions...

Non sequitur.

http://tinyurl.com/zqk92

In fact, the studies (6) suggesting LESS CO2 from EVs appear to outnumber the studies (2) suggesting MORE CO2 from EVs.

"EVs reduce CO2 by 11%-100% compared with ICEs and by 24%-54% compared with
HEVs, and significantly reduce all other greenhouse gas emissions, using the U.S. grid
mix."

"If all U.S. cars were EVs, we’d reduce global warming emissions."

"Using electricity strictly from coal, EVs still would reduce CO2 by 0%-59% compared with
ICEs (one analysis found 0% change; six others found reductions of 17%-59%) and
might produce 30%-49% more CO2 than HEVs (based on only two analyses)."

"On the other hand, if electricity comes from solar or wind power, EVs eliminate all emissions."

"Using natural gas to make electricity, emissions fall in between those from coal and
renewable power."

This debate reminds me of the salmon tragedy here in Idaho and the rest of the Pacific Northwest.

There was a day when Idaho's rivers teemed with salmon.

Now we have a situation where we're lucky to have one or two individual salmon make it back to Idaho's native spawning grounds.

Yet, there are still those who argue "bad science" every time a sincere attempt is made to solve the problem.

By the way, I was reading about Cyprus on the CIA's Web site and it seems environmental degradation is significant on that island.

Plug-in hybrids:

http://tinyurl.com/pgmqz

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Dr Mordrid]

Jerry;

The main reason for EV's to even exist is to reduce carbon emissions; mainly CO2. Sure the EV itself is 'clean' at the tailpipe, but if the electricity used by it is produced in a dirty manner what's the use? As long as most all of the US's grid is using coal, oil or natural gas to generate power EV's will be anything but 'carbon neutral'. As it is now the 'carbon neutral' production methods (nuclear, hydro, wind & solar) amount to <30% of the total. Until this reverses (at the very least) EV's are more politically correct than environmentally relevant.

Yes, with newer Li Ion power packs like those in the Tesla charging is cheap & fast, but power isn't the only cost. Recycling/replacing those batteries will be expensive and you know who'll pay for it; the user. As such the end cost to the driver may actually increase unless this part of the mix changes.

Even pie-in-the-sky systems like fuel cells have problems; permeable membrane/matrix replacement, fuel storage & transport (at least for hydrogen) etc.

Yes, EV's are cool. They can also be fast as hell (100% torque from 0 RPM), but as a practical way to save money for transportation...only so long as only a few people are using them. If even 10% of the public used them the power grid would be strained and plug costs would skyrocket to pay for the extra fuel used to meet the demand.

As to why GM's EV1 was taken off the road; economics. Those cars were heavily subsidized both by GM and a Federal research grant that had a fixed lifetime. When the Federal contribution ran out GM was left with two choices; double their subsidy or end the program.

Given the state of the US car market at the time GM felt other projects with more immediate results was the better option. They were correct, and when the leases ran out the EV1's reverted back to GM, just like any leased car today. Not being re-leaseable they were recycled, again just like any unusable car today save for a few that were given to EV researchers.

Why not sell them to the leaseholders? Liability. The lawyers do rule after all.

[Jerry Jones]

but if the electricity used by it is produced in a dirty manner what's the use?

Doc,

There are six (6) studies that suggest LESS CO2 would be produced EVEN IF WE GOT ALL OF OUR ELECTRICITY FROM COAL, which isn't the current reality.

See study summary:

http://tinyurl.com/zqk92

POPULAR MECHANICS recently *ran the numbers comparing all types of alternative fuel vehicles.

*LINK: http://tinyurl.com/hzhov

"A strong appeal of the electric car--and of a hybrid when it's running on electricity--is that it produces no tailpipe emissions. Even when emissions created by power plants are factored in, electric vehicles emit less than 10 percent of the pollution of an internal-combustion car."

The reality is we get our electricity from a mix of sources, including coal, natural gas, hydro, nuclear, wind, and solar.

Naturally, those who advocate EVs are suggesting we can increase our wind power generation in a significant way and even the most rabid pro-nuclear advocates concede that wind power is competitive from a cost/benefit standpoint.

There are only two (2) studies suggesting that MORE CO2 would be produced if we produced all our electricity from coal-fired power plants.

Now it seems reasonable to me that if there are SIX (6) studies suggesting LESS CO2 vs. TWO (2) studies suggesting MORE CO2, then I'm inclined to disbelieve the OIL COMPANIES and the AUTO MANUFACTURERS.

If you want to give them the benefit of the doubt, then you are certainly free to do so.

I admit I don't trust oligopolies.



Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

As to why GM's EV1 was taken off the road; economics. Those cars were heavily subsidized both by GM and a Federal research grant that had a fixed lifetime. When the Federal contribution ran out GM was left with two choices; double their subsidy or end the program. Given the state of the US car market at the time GM felt other projects with more immediate results was the better option. They were correct.

If you believe GM -- and I don't.

I gave GM a chance.

I bought the notorious Pontiac Fiero -- brand new -- in 1987.

Within two years, the dealer -- with a grave look on his face -- gave me the bad news.

"Your Pontiac Fiero -- only two years old -- needs an engine replacement."

I was in shock.

Incredulous, I asked the dealer "How could this possibly happen?"

"I've changed the oil every month for the past two years," I pointed out.

"I've never raced the engine," I said.

He couldn't explain it.

But then I read all of the news reports about the engine fires and the maintenance nightmares by other owners of GM's Pontiac Fiero.

Such a shame.

I really loved the outer appearance of the car.

The fact GM is going broke tells me the management of that company has failed to adapt to change.

1. My first car was a British car... disaster.

2. My second car was an American car... disaster.

3. My third car was a German car... disaster.

4. My current car is a Japanese car... NO PROBLEMS!!!

I gave all of the others a chance and they screwed me.

My current car has been SUCH AN AMAZING CONTRAST.

Virtually, no maintenance costs.

Simple.

It's a little Suzuki with great fuel economy.

That's been my personal experience.

If you watch the documentary, you'll learn that GM's EV marketing manager -- himself -- tells the interviewer that he was "cannibalized" by the marketing managers of the gasoline product lines.



Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

Tesla's new EV is simply amazing with the latest battery technology:

http://tinyurl.com/qn6um

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Dr Mordrid]

If you believe GM -- and I don't.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

I have a close relative who was involved in the program and I trust him, not GM, and he confirms the version I related. They were expensive to produce, a pain to maintain the batteries etc. etc. Yes, the drivers loved them, but only because they weren't footing the maintenance bills.

My relative had an EV1 so his/my experiences are real world, not theoretical.

[Jerry Jones]

I have a close relative who was involved in the program and I trust him, not GM, and he confirms the version I related. They were expensive to produce, a pain to maintain the batteries etc. etc. Yes, the drivers loved them, but only because they weren't footing the bills.

The film also features an interview with one of the GM EV mechanics.

He stands in front of a long banquet table covered with the parts normally associated with internal combustion engines... oil, filters, carburetors, etc... and he explains "All of this filthy crap was never necessary with the EVs."

Then he shows his hands to the camera.

The EV mechanic then smiles and says he could go home with no dirt on his hands.

The EV mechanic then smiles -- again -- and says maintenance was far easier with the EVs than with typical combustion engines.

Apparently the mechanic featured in the film holds a viewpoint that differs from the viewpoints of those with whom you are acquainted.

Fascinating interview by PBS with the fellow who produced the film:

http://tinyurl.com/elk8c

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Hulk]

As a Mechanical Engineer (and I state this with all humility as I know I'm not the sharpest blade in the drawer) I am so frustrated by the amount of misunderstanding that exists among the general population when it comes to electric cars, fuel cells, nuclear power, geothermal power, active and passive solar, wind power, internal combustion engines, hydroelectic power, tidal power, etc....

The issue is so much more complicated than electric good, internal combusion bad or vice-versa.

Perhaps we should move this discussion to the lounge and really explore it.

- Mark

[Jerry Jones]

As a Mechanical Engineer

As a journalist, I've noted -- with disturbing frequency -- there is vast disagreement and internal strife EVEN WITHIN THE MECHANICAL ENGINEERING PROFESSION.

The same is true within the medical profession.

The same is true within the legal profession.

Consensus within scientific fields is often elusive.

Yes -- there is also tremendous disagreement within the journalism profession.

For example, I believe the "wheels are falling off" of the private sector, commercial journalism outlets in the United States.

Here in Idaho, I was arguably the TV reporter with the most longevity at a single network affiliate with the most daily beat reporting experience.

I observed all manner of pressure from private sector corporations to SILENCE those within their own companies who were attempting to warn us about management incompetence, anti-consumer corporate behavior, etc.

And when I attempted to report many of the ABUSES within the corporations, the corporations would hire lawyers who would pounce on my managers -- frighten them -- and force me to back off.

It's a cycle that happens again and again and again and again and again.

Yet, many of my own colleagues -- most of them anchors who never spent any significant time actually REPORTING (digging for facts, interviewing key people, seeking truth) -- would stare you in the face even today and insist there's nothing wrong with the journalism profession and that all is well and we should all smile and be happy.

Well, those types of "pure anchor" journalists -- with their relatively high salaries and low workloads -- are phonies, in my view.

There are lots of phonies in the journalism business and especially in the TV journalism field.

I think John Stossel of ABC is a phony, for example.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

Quote from the PBS interview with the creator of "Who Killed the Electric Car."

INTERVIEW:

http://tinyurl.com/elk8c

INTERVIEWER DAVID BRANCACCIO:

"I mean, given the price of gas these days -- given the uncertainty in the Middle East and so forth -- one wonders if these car companies are having second thoughts about their decisions involving the electric car."

FILM DIRECTOR CHRIS PAINE:

"I think they really are."

"I mean, car companies have all of these big cars sitting in their lots right now."

"And even last week, Rick Wagoner at GM said that axing the EV1 was probably the worst decision he made on his watch."



Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Dr Mordrid]

Perhaps we should move this discussion to the lounge and really explore it.

- Mark

Agreed and done.

[Hulk]

Okay I guess I'm going to allow myself to be dragged into this.

Jerry, there is some amount of disagreement in every field but it's not that hard to find the truth when science rules the day.

Just a few facts about the movie.

Let's review the greenhouse effect which has everyone up in arms as of late.

The atmosphere is basically composed of 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen, 0.93 percent argon, and 0.04 percent carbon dioxide.

Nitrogen are not greenhouse gases and do not contribute to global warming. In addition the Kyoto Protocol rated other contributors and carbon dioxide as the lowest warming ability according to Kyoto. It's relatively high concentration makes it responsible for 78 percent of Kyoto warming.

In addition, nature contributes about 30 times more carbon dioxide than from man made sources.

Finally, according to Richard S Lindzen of MIT carbon dioxide and methane account for less than 2 PERCENT of the greenhouse effect. Lindzen is a world renowned climatologist. The rest and most significant portion of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor in the atmosphere.

So when put in perspective man made carbon dioxide accounts for less than 0.1 percent of the total global warming effect!

As for the GM EV1 electric car.

GM spent approximately $1 million per car into the program and was unwilling to put more money into a program that appeared to have little chance for sucess. But they did put A LOT of money behind it and did try to make it work.

The EV1 had a range of less than 100 miles. In addition you have to take into account the long charge time and the fact that on a cold day when heating, defroster, lights, and windshield wipers might be needed the range would probably be less than 15 or 20 miles.

Now don't get me wrong. I do NOT want to imply that we should drive around 3 or 4 tons of steel just to carry a few kids to soccer practice. I personally will not buy a car that can't get at least 25mpg average. But we do need to keep things in perspective. There is no conspiracy out there hiding the workable electric cars or 200mpg carburators.

The fact is that manufacturers will sell what people want to buy and most people will buy as big a vehicle as they can afford, not what they NEED. And I think that is the real problem.

Electric cars will most likely have niche uses, just as hybrids, and fuel cell vehicles will. There will probably be a diversification of the transportation marketplace to accomodate a variety of transportation needs.

Perhaps hydroelectic, wind, active solar, and nuclear can be use to extract hydrogen from water to make fuel cell vehicles more appealing? Of course there will always be the problems of safely storing hydrogen but it does have a much higher energy density than current battery technology.

- Mark

[Gurm]

Yes -- but as the film explains -- burning coal would still be more efficient than burning Middle East oil and we still have vast American supplies of coal.

BITUMINOUS!

But the film also points out that we haven't even begun to tap the power of wind.

And we won't, as long as it remains ridiculously expensive and inefficient to do so.

In addition, the charging of the electric cars would take place largely at night when demand would -- in theory -- be relatively low.

Unless everyone got an ... electric ... car. D'oh!

Nuclear waste is still the elephant in the room that no country -- not even France -- seems able to resolve.

We can ship it all to RedRed.