Chris Paine tells Green Hollywood Who Killed the Electric Car
Is the electric car really dead?Yesterday, I was at the Hollywood Goes Green forum, and one of the most interesting sessions of the day was one titled Easy Rider: Fuel Usage, Energy Efficient Vehicles and Freight Options. Chris Paine, a member of the panel for this session, and his movie Who Killed the Electric Car took center stage.
As a fan of electric cars, I agree with Chris that, if you drive an electric vehicle, then you know that electric cars are the cars of the future. Nonetheless, I don't agree with Chris that anyone killed the electric car, nor that the electric car was killed by "resistance to change" from consumers, automakers and energy providers. Read more....
Labels: electric cars, hydrogen highway
posted by Dahcredyns at
9:31 AM
4 Comments:
Full Story
Yesterday, I was at the Hollywood Goes Green forum, and one of the most interesting sessions of the day was one titled Easy Rider: Fuel Usage, Energy Efficient Vehicles and Freight Options. Chris Paine, a member of the panel for this session, and his movie Who Killed the Electric Car took center stage.
As a fan of electric cars, I agree with Chris that, if you drive an electric vehicle, then you know that electric cars are the cars of the future. Nonetheless, I don't agree with Chris that anyone killed the electric car, nor that the electric car was killed by "resistance to change" from consumers, automakers and energy providers.
The electric car is not dead.
While "resistance to change" is an important point, the electric car was stalled by a lack of cost-effective technologies, more than anything else. The EV1 might have been killed, but electric cars were not.
In reality, GM would have had to sell 100s of thousands of EV1's in order to achieve the economies of scale that would make such vehicles cost-effective for both producers and consumers. GM's Dave Barthmuss told the panel that GM had lost almost $2 billion on the EV1 program when it was dismantled, yet they had produced barely any EV1's.
Still, even if GM had continued the EV1 program, how many vehicles could really have been sold?
For instance, it took Toyota years to be able to purchase enough NiMH batteries to catch up to demand for the Prius hybrid car. The supplies just have not existed, and if the future of hybrid vehicles, plug-in hybrids and electrics is driven by NiMH batteries, it's a long, slow road ahead.
Because of real world factors, the EV1 would still be a money-losing operation today if it had not been dumped. Yet, GM didn't dump its electric vehicle program, just the EV1 program. Before, during and after, GM has continued efforts on another electric vehicle - fuel cell electric vehicles. Nonetheless, considering GM's current financial situation, is any one really surprised that the EV1 program was discontinued?
Sure, it would have been nice to see GM keep this program alive, even if just as a PR effort, and GM's Barthmuss indicated that many at GM felt the same. Even Bob Lutz has admitted that killing the EV1 was a mistake.
Still, if the EV1 program were still going, electric cars would not be taking over the automotive landscape because of the limitations and costs of today's technology.
But let's get back to hydrogen for a second.
When asked if global warming would be reduced by electric cars, Chris responded that it could if solar power, for example, was utilized. On the other hand, if coal power was used to power the electric vehicles, then there might be problems.
Yet, later in the session Chris reaffirmed his belief that hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles are a huge boondoggle because producing hydrogen isn't efficient. In fact, Chris claimed most are getting out of fuel cells and further stated that GM should immediately abandon their fuel cell vehicle efforts.
Really? Everyone is getting out of the fuel cell game, Chris? I guess everyone except every major automaker.
Ok, so hydrogen isn't efficient today, solar panels aren't yet efficient either. Yet, Chris has no qualms about solar inefficiency.
But more interesting, one of the most promising forms of hydrogen production is solar powered hydrogen production. Of course, Chris would probably respond, who needs solar-powered hydrogen? Just use the solar power to power electric vehicles, it's more efficient.
Maybe today, but what about tomorrow?
Ultimately, the key to hydrogen is not thinking of it as an automobile fuel for fuel cell cars, but rather as a part of the larger energy grid, especially since hydrogen can be used to power both electric cars and fuel cell cars. Moreover, as solar technology becomes more advanced, hydrogen enables solar power to become a more robust fuel.
For example, today excess solar energy can be sent back to the grid. Still, if that excess energy isn't needed at the time, then it is ultimately being wasted. Sadly, the energy cannot be efficiently stored for later use. In fact, the electric grid is one of the biggest obstacles to the cheapest possible solar power. Even as solar technology becomes more powerful, it's potential will forever be limited because the grid is horrible at storing excess energy.
Solar powered hydrogen could be the perfect solution to this problem.
Yet, what possibly bugged me most about this whole session was Chris's solution, the government. Government regulation, according to Chris, was key.
Well, isn't the government already the problem? If the government didn't hide the real cost of gasoline wouldn't automobiles be far more efficient today? Yet, when an audience member tried to a bring up a gas tax, he was told that this wasn't the forum for a policy discussion.
Not the forum? The real electric car blocker - cheap gasoline - wasn't a suitable question for this forum? Sad, how the moderator allowed Chris to talk about policy but attendees were denied the ability to ask questions about policy solutions.
In the end, however, as critical as I am of Chris, I applaud his efforts. He is having an impact, creating a discussion, and supporting vehicles like the Chevy Volt. He's also keeping pressure on automakers to accelerate these efforts. More important, however, Chris is tapping into the perception of consumers. "Resistance to change" will eventually be an important part of this story, and filmmakers, such as Chris, are playing an extremely important role in breaking down this resistance and changing perception.
Wrong.
Wrong.
And wrong again.
GM NEVER marketed the EV1. How would I buy a EV1 if I lived in the mideast? IMPOSSIBLE.
The technology was there. Panasonic EV-95 NiMH batteries powered the EV1 up to 160 miles.
For emphasis and clarity, allow me to reiterate:
The Panasonic EV-95 NiMH batteries powered the EV1 up to 160 miles.
Bring it on.
All I need is 160 miles. Each and every day. Put the EV1 back into production.
Put the Toyota RAV4 EV back into production.
Do it today.
Do it with Panasonic EV-95 NiMH batteries.
Let me PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE buy one of these FABULOUS vehicles this very instant instead of proferring me mendacities.
Jabroni-
It would be almost IMPOSSIBLE to build 1,000,000 vehicles today with any combination of NiMH batteries. There just isn't enough nickel, for one thing. Nor are there enough suppliers.
So, let's deal with reality, please!
If it so clearly possible to build cost-effective NiMH plug-in hybrids or full-electrics for a profit, why is NO ONE doing it ANY PLACE in the world?
Are Japan, Korea, Germany etc, colluding with American automakers?
Moreover, "How would I buy an EV1 if I lived in the Mideast?" without marketing?
Are you kidding me?
Gas costs almost nothing in much of the Middle East, so why would anyone in the Middle East care about an electric vehicle when gas is cheaper than electricity?
"All I need is 160 miles. Each and every day. Put the EV1 back into production."
Again, this isn't about YOU Jabroni. Much research has been done and today Americans expect to achieve almost 300 miles between fuelings.
But let's forget reality because Jabroni doesn't care about reality.
I LOVE electric cars, but we still have to deal with reality. In reality, a significant percent of Americans don't give one crap about an EV1 or a RAV electric.
More important, those that would consider such a vehicle, will only consider such a vehicle if it is as cheap as anything else in its class.
We're not talking about what Jabroni, or I, would do, but what millions of Americans would do, because without millions of Americans there are no economies of scale.
Without economies of scale, it doesn't matter what Jabroni would do. It doesn't matter what I would do.
Yay for progress!
Some similarities between the oil industry and the tobacco industry: They both exploit people's addictions (nicotine in tobacco, the convenience of gas). Also, both industries have stifled better alternatives (not smoking is healthier than smoking, not using gas pollutes less). People have successfully resisted tobacco companies...
Post a Comment
<< Home