Who Killed the Electric Car?
Posted April 15th, 2009 by Jeff Boyd
image:
North Americans love murder-mysteries. Evidence Exhibit 1: an episode of CSI airs almost every night of the week. Whodunit? What was the motive? Will the perpetrator be apprehended? Was there a cover-up or conspiracy? And most importantly, was it Colonel Mustard in the kitchen with a knife?!
If a coroner’s report were distributed for this "death-umentary," it might read something like this:
Deceased: Electric-powered EV1
Emergency Contact (Relation): General Motors (Parent)
Lifespan: 1996-1999
Cause of Death: Unknown. Suspicion of foul-play.
Who Killed the Electric Car? attempts to answer two broad questions about the demise of the EV1 and other electric vehicles—who is the murderer, and why does it matter? Here, I will also consider why this topic is relevant today.
EV1s were reportedly fast, fun, quiet and reasonably priced. Users apparently liked the cars but were forced to return them upon expiration of the 3-year lease. Despite consumer groups calling for continued production, GM literally crushed the EV1 while Honda shredded its own electric model.
GM claims the EV1 lacked sufficient customer demand because of the car’s limited range (70-120 miles per charge). Advocates and fans counter that GM did not market the cars effectively and that, in fact, there was adequate demand for continued and increased production. You will have to watch the film to see which of the usual suspects--automakers, Big Oil, aloof consumers, hydrogen fuel-cells, the California Air Resources Board (C.A.R.B.), battery technology or the government(1)--is deemed guilty. Spoiler alert: the producers directly contradict GM by claiming batteries were not to blame.(2)
The film presents three reasons why the EV1 story is important. First, burning fossil fuels creates greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. Every gallon of gas we burn produces roughly twenty pounds of CO2.(3) Second, pollution from car exhaust contributes to asthma and poor lung development. Third, we are dependent on oil that is imported from politically unstable regions of the world. Clearly, there is much more at stake than corporate profits and consumer satisfaction given that these risks are substantial and supportable.
But that was then, and this is now. The 90s are far behind us. The EV1 may have suffered a mortal wound, but GM healed perfectly. It kept the tactical advantage in electric technology and remains the world leader in this important area. Massive government tax credits for SUVs did not distort the market by artificially creating unsustainable demand. We are now in the midst of global cooling, and tax payers are not being asked to bail out the very corporations that refused to invest in green technology in the 1990s despite active consumer campaigns.
Unfortunately, those satirical statements reveal why this film is relevant today. During this time of economic uncertainty, major industrial changes are occurring quickly, and the ramifications demand careful scrutiny. The film begs corporations, consumers and the government to consider their influential roles in shaping the world of tomorrow.
GM purchased Hummer one month after closing the EV1 line in Lansing, MI. Now the Toyota Prius is the industry leader,(4) not the EV1, and GM is struggling to find a company willing to buy Hummer.(5)
Should the government step in and require tax payers to shoulder the burden for this and other costly business errors? There are no easy answers when the ripple effect could potentially be a tsunami. Personally, I hope GM survives long enough to bring us the Volt; after all, not everyone can drive a Tesla Roadster.
Regarding the government, it seems to me that one of its legitimate roles is to protect citizens when the market is not adequately doing so. This is why we have laws forbidding lead-laced petroleum and statutes requiring all vehicles to be designed with seatbelts.
Manufacturers resisted change until federal laws mandated changes. Two actions--tax credits to increase consumer demand for electric vehicles and the enforcement of a gradual increase of emission free vehicles--would have been important steps in protecting the environment and public health. Should Congress include these guidelines in the current restructuring plans? And just how much influence should the government have in the business sector? These are pertinent questions in a world where the federal government can fire a corporate CEO.(6)
Consumers must also consider the importance of their purchasing behavior. I have heard people say they will not buy a hybrid vehicle because the batteries are environmentally damaging or because the next generation of hybrids will be even better.
In the U.S. context where the government has not enforced strict fuel economy standards or offered significant incentives for drivers to purchase fuel-efficient automobiles, the primary motivation automakers have for investing in new technology is consumer demand.
Consequently, if we continue buying inefficient vehicles, we are voting for a world with few alternatives. While I am an advocate of walking, riding bicycles and using public transportation as much as possible, I do support purchasing the most efficient automobiles possible. We need to reward incremental improvements with our dollars (or move to Europe and drive a 74 MPG Ford Fiesta).(7)
At this point some might argue,“Electric cars may lower petroleum imports, but they can’t help the environment. We would just need more coal or nuclear facilities to meet the increased electricity demands.”
This is why I still advocate walking, cycling, carpooling and public transportation. However, at a recent Andrews University presentation, Peter Sinclair of The Climate Project claimed 84% of cars and light trucks could be recharged at night on spinning reserve, or the current slack in the system, requiring no additional power supply. Fact or fiction—what do you think?
--------------------------
Notes:
1. According to the film, the 2002 tax credit for electric vehicles was $2,000 whereas the 2003 tax credit for large SUVs was $100,000.
2. Retrieved April 1, 2009 from http://gmfactsandfiction.com/gm-killed-the-successful-ev-1-electric-car-program/.
3. Susan Trumbore, Scientific American, February 12, 2008. Retrieved from http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=experts-weight-ratio-co2-fuel on March 30, 2009.
4. If Warren Buffet is right, GM’s competition will soon include models from BYD, a Chinese manufacturer (Trading Markets. March 25, 2009. Retrieved April 1, 2009 from http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2239608/).
5. Tom Krisher, The Detroit News, March 29, 2009. Retrieved March 30, 2009 from http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GM_HUMMER_MIOL-?SITE=MIDTN&SECTIO....
6. John Crawley, Reuters, March 31, 2009. Retrieved April 1, 2009 from http://uk.reuters.com/article/marketsNewsUS/idUKN3036560520090331.
7. Global Auto Shows. Retrieved March 30, 2009 from http://autoshows.ford.com/247/2008/07/30/green-fuel-efficiency-ford-fies....
Search
- Bonnie Dwyer on Mt. Ellis on the Brink of Winning Big
- Donna Haerich on Fascinating Adventist Mathematics
- victor on Fascinating Adventist Mathematics
- Andre Reis on Hate Speech?
- Your Friend on Fascinating Adventist Mathematics
- Your Friend on Hate Speech?
- Donna Haerich on Hate Speech?
- Your Friend on Laughing in Church
- bevin on Hate Speech?
- David Read on Hate Speech?
Comments
Jeff,
Thanks for this review that hits on so many relevant topics. From the Big 3 bailout to the new green economy, Who Killed the Electric Car? still seems very current (if you'll pardon the pun).
Between my wife and me, there is one car (Honda Civic) and six bikes (that's bicycles, not motorcycles). The combined cost of the bikes is at least as much as the cost of the car. And we get waaaaay better mileage on the bike than in the car. On a good day, we get 33-35 mpg in our Civic. You give me a gallon of Gatorade or some carb/electrolyte drink and I can go probably three times that far.
One issue preventing us from getting an alternative vehicle is that even used, most of them are cost prohibitive for our one-income + graduate-school budget. But I don't imagine that that will be the case for too long.
1) As a driver of a 50 mpg (diesel) VW I have an interest in this. I bought it new in 2000 for $17,500.
2) I don't know if the story about GM killing the electric car is true, but the story of GM buying up the LA area streetcar system and converting it to busses is not.
3) I very much doubt Peter Sinclair's assertion in the final paragraph--that all these vehicles could be charged at no extra cost. It takes more fuel to spin turbines if the dynamos are loaded more heavily.
4) The added efficiency overall of running electric cars as opposed to internal combustion cars comes from the fact that large plants generate energy more efficiently than many small engines. There is also the option of using different fuels.
Don
Don
CORRECTION TO THE LAST POST
In part 2) I meant to say "I don't know if the story about GM killing the electric car is apocryphal, but the story of GM buying up the LA area streetcar system and converting it to busses is not.
Sorry, Don
Don, your comment about GM buying the LA streetcar system recalled to mind that more than 50 years ago I worked for a large school bus builder in East L.A., the largest builder at that time (their buses are still transporting students). One of several salesmen working there told the same story of how GM was able to "sell" L.A. on the idea of using THEIR buses rather than street cars. Of course, it was a big coup for GM and helped to establish the use of their buses in many large cities. Oh, the power of the purse!
Jeff,
Thanks for the review. I've wanted to see the movie, but haven't yet.
Still, I'm not certain that I agree with what I understand to be the movie's premise. I almost wish it were true that for some greedy, nefarious reason they took a potential electric car off the streets; that would show at least a bit of evil intelligence! I suspect the reason has more to do with a very bad miscalculation of the economic landscape. Old fashioned incompetence and stupidity.
Loren
By the way, I believe that 74 mpg European Fiesta is diesel. I've not heard of a gasoline car with that level of economy. (Although some news sources are saying that they're aiming for a 100 MPG gasoline Fiesta—no indication of how they'll achieve it.)
http://www.theirearth.com/index.php/news/ford-fiesta-econetic
Loren
I'd heard the bus story, but I didn't know if it was accurate or not. Interesting.
About the efficient Ford, here's a dated article describing why we can't get it in North America -- The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have.
Yes, Loren, you speak of the motive (sort of). That's always important in a criminal case. Incompetence, idolatry of the internal combustion engine, etc. Yet without hard data it's hard to even know if there truly was sufficient demand to provide a return on the investment or establish a sustainable project. At this point in time and for whatever reason, it sure seems like a poor business decision.
Don, what model of VW do you drive?
Whether there was collusion defeating the electric car may not be clear, but when we consider a similar proposal: universal government-single payer health insurance, the huge entire insurance industry fights it. It will dry up their profits, forgt that it will be far more cost effective for both health care providers and patients, the government cannot deprive an entire industry of their profitability. Repeatedly, Medicare-like health insurance for all has been shown to save more than 10-12 percent of present costs, but, nevermind, the powerful insurance lobbyists have loads of $$ to dump on congressmen.
from the article footnote:
--
1. According to the film, the 2002 tax credit for electric vehicles was $2,000 whereas the 2003 tax credit for large SUVs was $100,000.
--
Now I am sure we could find people we know who got a tax credit for a car, probably a hybrid. I bet we could not find one that got a 100K for buying an SUV. That suggestion is a conflation of two completely different things.
The reason consumers were not buying or not clamouring for Electric cars is that they have such short ranges. That means that you would have your electric car for your short commute and a gas or disel for all your other travel needs. thus the demand is for hybrids. Of which if I recall the ads GM says they have 8 now.
Of course the bankruptcy of GM sort of gives the lie to the idea that the corporation killed the electric car. Surely if it was such a good idea then people would buy it and the company would make it and they would stave off the demise of the company. But we do like conspiracy stories and they make interesting movies. And movies as we should know are powerful propaganda tools.
Ron
Ron,
"Surely if it was such a good idea then people would buy it and the company would make it and they would stave off the demise of the company."
Regardless of the other issues, consumers can't buy the cars unless they are first made.
The point of the movie is that people did want the EV1s and did not want to return them when their leases were up. But GM refused to renew their leases and sent the cars to the junk pile. Thus the conspiracy theories had fertile ground, whether true or not.
Peace, Jeff
If I'm not mistaken, the EV1 lease program was similar to current hydrogen fuel cell lease programs currently in operation by GM and Honda. The way it works is as follows. A group of people apply to be part of the lease program to get one of these cars. Typically these lease programs are only offered in certain areas of the country, which with the current hydrogen programs are those certain areas where hydrogen stations are prevalent. It is stated up front that the consumer must turn in their car at the lend of the lease, with no option to purchase. What these programs are in reality is real world evaluations of how these cars perform, as well as to provide market analysis for the feasibility of mass production. After all, if manufacturers always got everything right from the factory before the first car is sold, we would never have recalls. In the case of the EV1, the cars were offered in California and Arizona on a 3 year/30,000 mile lease. These programs are not designed for the consumers to purchase their vehicles, and that is an up-front term when you sign up. These people knew they wouldn't be able to buy their cars. For whatever reasons, maintenance and quality problems during the program lost likely being a big one, GM chose to discontinue the program. They stated that it didn't offer enough profitability for mass production. The price used to compute the lease payments for the cars was between $33,000-$43,000 during the program. Remember, those are 1990's dollars as well. That's a very expensive new car for most people, especially one you can only drive a short distance. Industry officials say the cars cost GM about $80,000 each to produce. Sounds like the profitability argument holds water to me. Rick Wagoner, the CEO of GM at the the time who only last month last that job, now admits that axing the program without building on it and putting those resources into hybrid technology immediately was a mistake. The conspiracy theorists would like there to be a big conspiracy, would like you to believe GM took these cars back from consumers against their will, and would like you to believe the cars could easily have sold well and been profitable. Remember, this was the 1990's. Hybrids didn't exist, global warming to most people was still some wacky theory, and the boom in electric car interest in the 80's had faded for the time being.
In short, while the wisdom of GM's business decision can be debated, the made their choice based on real world data gleaned from a lease program designed to be one big real world test with lessee's who knew up front they would never be able to purchase their cars in the end. GM chose to end the program, but the electric car is hardly dead. But the reality still today, is that their development for mass production is still hindered the the two big challenges GM gave as reasons for ending the EV1 program, namely costs and battery life. Costs for electric cars are still very high, with the $100,000 Tesla Roadster a case in point. Battery development is still moving slowly, although the move to lithium-ion technology offers much better possibilities. Those issues are why the move to hybrids was made, because hybrids mitigate both factors. New electric car prototypes are still being developed by many companies however, and we may still all eventually own one within our lifetimes.
Jeff B:
I own a 2001 Golf (2 door)TDI; it now has over 175,000 miles on it. The last trip my wife and I took in it, about 3000 miles, we got 50.7 mpg, driving at legal highway speeds. Good thing, because at that time we were paying something near $5.00 a gallon.
If I put on the carriers and drive around town I get more like 43-45 mpg.
Don
Thanks for the input, Nick. And for the Golf info, Don. I didn't realize they got such high MsPG. Nice.
Funny things about diesel VWs is that I have heard "experts" on public radio talking about new efficient autos in the works and they seem to be unaware of the mileage vw currently achieves.
Why one charcoal cars? The Koreans had em back in the 1940"s
Wny not natural gas cars? There is enough natural gas under the deep aquafir under the Mississippi river to last at current rates of use for over houndred years. If we can build a road to the Artic Circle==we can drill two miles down? We also can build catalytic converters better than the present models. After all electric cars simply moves the pollution source further away from the user not further away from the Ozone layer. Tom
Jeff, The Golf (now Rabbit) does not seem to be available as a diesel at the present time. The new "clean diesel" is available in the Jetta, but it claims only 41 mpg highway mileage. I think mine claims 48 or 49.
Tom, powering cars from natural gas has been proposed by T Boone Pickens as a transition to non-fossil fuels. Sounds good to me.
There was recently an article in the news about a Ford model that is sold in Europe, which gives 65 mpg. But Ford won't import it because Americans are supposedly down on diesels.
Well, they wouldn't be down on them if they'd drive one. My car is very peppy. It's not a hot rod, but it really lunges forward when you put the foot on it, especially at low rpms. It's the best running car I've ever owned. I've driven VWs, Mercedes and Fords pretty much all my life.
Don
Post new comment