• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Who Killed the Electric Car?

nemo

Critical Thinker
nemo
Joined
Aug 12, 2002
Messages
446
Just saw the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?". It was very thought provoking and I recommend it to anyone who's tired of paying through the nose at the pump. Basically, the message is that electic cars were mandated in California, but the car companies sued and got rid of the mandate. Then the car companies crushed just about every electric car out of existence. Hybrid cars are more acceptable to car companies because they still use a gas engine and require more maintenance than a pure electric vehicle. Range is a factor, but with better batteries a pure electric makes more sense to me - get rid of the gas completely and our dependence on oil. Hydrogen fuel cells were also discussed but they are a long way off and much more costly than electric. Comments appreciated, and if you have an alternative fuel vehicle I would like to hear about it.
 
nemo said:
...get rid of the gas completely and our dependence on oil.
Click to expand...

I don't know how much of the national grid relies on oil, but until coal power becomes much cleaner, or we solve the public and technical problems with nuclear power, or wind/wave/solar/whatever power becomes more feasible, we still need to generate the power to run electric cars.
 
Who killed the electric car?

...don't nobody leave this room!
 
This was addressed in the film. There are many ways we generate electrical power. Even with coal power plants, electric cars produce a net reduction in pollution. I think the time is right and the motivation is there to advance the electric car.
 
They had the film's producers and other commentators on last week's Science Friday. Pretty interesting. Since the vast majority of driving is short-haul commuting, a plug-in electric makes a lot of sense.
They are using this technology in Europe at present, while here the hybrids for sale do not even have the plug-in capability. There is a group or two offering conversions and trying to spread the word.

Problems, which they spoke of on the show, include cold weather. No heat on a pure electric, and reduced battery performance as well. Still, that's where a plug-in hybrid shines, as the gas engine can kick in as needed.
They also talked about designs wherein a highly-efficient fixed-speed diesel is used only to generate electricity, it does not power the vehicle otherwise. This is also a plug-in design.

If your electricity is generated by efficient means, overall pollution drops a lot.
 
There's a lot of talk about running diesel engines on vegetable oil. Here's a link about it: link that explains various systems, using different oils, biodiesel etc. From the link, it sounds like this has been tried in Germany.

The idea is you can go to the local greasy spoon, get the oil they use in the deep fat fryer (they throw it out regularly), filter it to remove impurities and there you go. I'm not sure how easy this is to do. Our mechanic is skeptical but willing to learn more, so we are in the early stages of educating ourselves about it.

We've heard tales of people that drive across the country on nothing but oil but we don't know if these are true or not. We don't know anyone personally. Perhaps these are on the order of urban legends. Anyway we feel it is worth investigating.
 
Senor_Pointy said:
I don't know how much of the national grid relies on oil, but until coal power becomes much cleaner, or we solve the public and technical problems with nuclear power, or wind/wave/solar/whatever power becomes more feasible, we still need to generate the power to run electric cars.
Click to expand...

I believe most new power plants (outside the midwest at least) are natural gas, not coal.

Even if we got rid of all gas burning cars we'd still need refineries to product the basics for all the plastics we consume. Not as many or as large, but there would still be an industry.
 
Amapola said:
There's a lot of talk about running diesel engines on vegetable oil. Here's a link about it: link that explains various systems, using different oils, biodiesel etc. From the link, it sounds like this has been tried in Germany.
Click to expand...

The ability to do this is real. However there aren't enough greasy spoons in the US to support all the cars we drive. The question becomes, would mass producing bio-diesel be more environmentally sound than mass producing regular fuels?

Also I've never seen reports on the emissions of bio-diesel burning cars. One of the reasons I went with my hybrid over diesel was the diesels (at least at the time) had higher emissions, especially in particulates.
 
kevin said:
The ability to do this is real. However there aren't enough greasy spoons in the US to support all the cars we drive. The question becomes, would mass producing bio-diesel be more environmentally sound than mass producing regular fuels?

Also I've never seen reports on the emissions of bio-diesel burning cars. One of the reasons I went with my hybrid over diesel was the diesels (at least at the time) had higher emissions, especially in particulates.
Click to expand...

Biodiesel is a different consideration than electric. As it happens, biodiesel has about the same greenhouse emissions as regular diesel. The major salespitch is that it liberates the country from foreign oil imports. (It doesn't, of course.)

The key problem with biofuels (ethanol and biodiesels) is that there just isn't enough energy from the sun landing on arable land to meet demand. If every Joule of energy landing on plants (forests, lawns, crops...) in the US were converted to fuel, it would meet less than half of automobile needs. (49Quads available, and shrinking, versus 102Quads required, and growing)

see:
David Pimentel



In terms of electric, if it was a matter of California regulations, we'd electric cars scooting all over China, tapped into those shiny new nuclear power plants. The big US/Japanese automakers not only have zero traction in China, but the Chinese are always looking for a way to beat them at their own game. Nevertheless, we don't see anything like that.



The appeal of hydrogen fuel cells is that they're a smaller, lighter, and more efficient battery. Standard batteries are incredibly large and heavy, and have very limited range. There have been threads on this before.
 
kevin said:
The ability to do this is real. However there aren't enough greasy spoons in the US to support all the cars we drive. The question becomes, would mass producing bio-diesel be more environmentally sound than mass producing regular fuels?

Also I've never seen reports on the emissions of bio-diesel burning cars. One of the reasons I went with my hybrid over diesel was the diesels (at least at the time) had higher emissions, especially in particulates.
Click to expand...

Your first point is a terrific point. At this time, in my area, I could concievably drive my truck and tractor on what the local restaurants produce (all two of them) but if this caught on, two restaurants in this area would not be enough.

On the second point, I found this: link on emissions but I have not had time to read it all yet. Just glancing through, there does seem to be some good info here. It will take me time and research to figure out what all this means, as this is sure not my area of expertise! :)

eta: Thanks Blutoski, I will look up your link. We posted at the same time, apparently!
 
Last edited:
Amapola said:
On the second point, I found this: link on emissions but I have not had time to read it all yet. Just glancing through, there does seem to be some good info here. It will take me time and research to figure out what all this means, as this is sure not my area of expertise!
Click to expand...

The one true benefit from using biodiesel is that the emissions smell like popcorn. Yay.
 
blutoski said:
<snipped stuff about biodiesel>
In terms of electric, if it was a matter of California regulations, we'd electric cars scooting all over China, tapped into those shiny new nuclear power plants. The big US/Japanese automakers not only have zero traction in China, but the Chinese are always looking for a way to beat them at their own game. Nevertheless, we don't see anything like that.



The appeal of hydrogen fuel cells is that they're a smaller, lighter, and more efficient battery. Standard batteries are incredibly large and heavy, and have very limited range. There have been threads on this before.
Click to expand...

Well, they would be, if they lived up to the potential. Looking at them as a battery, they're somewhat lighter, but actually not as efficient as, say, lead-acid. A lead-acid cell will give back about 75% of the energy you put into it.
A Lithium-ion gives back 90 to 95% of the energy you put into it.
The absolute theoretical limit for fuel cells is about 80%. That limit is sort of like the Carnot limits for heat engines.
I think the appeal is that you refuel instead of recharge, and that's just a whole lot more convenient.
I think the little methanol fuel cells could have a huge market in laptops and such. Methanol has its difficulties, but it's much easier to handle than hydrogen.
 
The Stone Cutters not only held back the electric car, but they made Steve Gutenburg a star.
 
As I understand free markets, if a company does something that earns a profit and then stops doing it for non-financial reasons, another company will go after that profit. Did the EV-1 actually earn a profit, or was it something they only did for legal reasons? It would be very odd if there was money to be made selling electric cars, and no business wanted to make it.

--Scott
 
Changing technology will be less of a challenge than changing attitudes, I think. People are married to the idea of having a vehicle for long distance transport.

Only in recent years since I got rid of my car and have had to walk or PT it have I realised just how little I really need a vehicle. It would be nice sometimes, but more 'convenient' than needed. I'm not saying that everybody should reduce their car use, but I think a lot of people can.

I'm looking at getting a small Vesper or something when I return to London, if not just a bicycle. Maybe both, the former for those days when the weather makes cycling less appealing.

Athon
 
I don't know about the electric car, but it was a U.S. Cavalry sergeant who shot that Willys jeep with the busted front axle in the famous Bill Maudlin cartoon.
 
Scott Haley said:
As I understand free markets, if a company does something that earns a profit and then stops doing it for non-financial reasons, another company will go after that profit. Did the EV-1 actually earn a profit, or was it something they only did for legal reasons? It would be very odd if there was money to be made selling electric cars, and no business wanted to make it.

--Scott
Click to expand...
That's what I don't understand. Yes, we all know the oil and gas industry is very powerful, but so is the automotive industry. Even if the oil industry was giving them millions in incentives (Which I doubt they are), what would stop the automotive industry from saying 'Keep your millions, we'll take the billions from selling cheap electric cars'?

Lots of good information at Wikipedia about the EV1.
 
The Science Friday show I mentioned (weekly 2-hour science show on NPR) has an ongoing series of shows on energy use.
It was a couple of weeks ago that they had a panel describing a vision for providing at least 25% of our fuel needs by investment in a highly-efficient factory system for producing ethanol.

Essentially, the same idea used presently on small Chinese farms, writ large.

Large-scale agriculture of highly sugar-rich crops (certain grasses far outperform corn) adjacent to factory-sized distilleries. The distilleries are powered by methane collected from attached beef-raising operations which are set up to capture the flammable gas.
Mash and vegetable waste products are recycled into fodder for the cattle. Cattle wastes ditto for fertilizer for the agricultural sector.

An interesting notion that would require large-scale investment/subsidy to start.
On the same show, proponents of wind power indicate that wind alone could provide 25% of electrical energy needs in the US. Again, the kicker is investment and/or subsidy. The show pointed out that while the oil industry in general recieves huge subsidies, tax breaks, and government assistance, alternative industries recieve scant or sporadic interest. Maybe you'll get some research money this year, maybe you won't.

Certainly politics rears it's ugly head here, and the oil lobbies are powerful and influential. Note the oil connections of much of our present administration. Still, the private sector, and the states are both moving ahead with such plans despite the lack of federal largess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom