Who Killed the Electric Car?

[Peskanov]

Ziggurat,

Such a capacitor has a number of very significant advantages, but the energy density limit would still exist.

True, but if I understood correctly you can recharge capacitors very fastly, so it could be possible to "fill" your batteries in long travels.
This is a meaningful difference, recharging energy would improve seriously the usability of an electric car.
There are proposals also for fast, mechanical exchange of common batteries, but it seems too complex (useful lead-acid batteries weight hundreds of kilograms).

Plus, manufacturing such a capacitor large enough to power a car for long distances would likely be fantanstically expensive for a long time to come. We've made some pretty darned impressive advances in nanotech research, but what we do NOT have yet (and probably won't for a good number of years) is anything approaching efficient manufacturing of something like carbon nanotube devices.

Who knows...Few years ago nanotubes where amazingly dificult to produce, but things started to change very fast.

 

[Peskanov]

dupe

 

[Anti_Hypeman]

The tired jokes about cars and penis size are not accurate. We only buy the guzzlers because women rate our value as a person based on our material possessions.

 

[Anti_Hypeman]

I went speed dating once it was a interesting experience. When women are give only 2 minutes to evaluate you every single one of them asks what kind of car you drive. Its on the short list of qualifications maybe even #1. Until that changes we will continue to but the penis cars at any and all cost.

 

[Ziggurat]

True, but if I understood correctly you can recharge capacitors very fastly, so it could be possible to "fill" your batteries in long travels.
This is a meaningful difference, recharging energy would improve seriously the usability of an electric car.

That would definitely help, though the range issue still exists. Road trips would be possible, but you'd still be making a lot of stops. And specialized infrastructure would still need to be put in place (an expensive proposition), because you can't draw the kind of power needed to charge such a capacitor within a minute or so from existing electrical infrastructure at gas stations.

 

[nemo]

I would like to thank everyone for this discussion - it's the first time any of my threads has taken off. One of the arguments posted here is that electric cars need to be profitable for the car companies. ICE cars certainly have that advantage right now. There are many more parts to replace (oil filters, spark plugs, etc) than on an electric vehicle. I still think that electric cars could be just as profitable, although it will take time for the accessory and after-market products to take hold. I hope the current gas crisis will spur more people toward electric cars, eventually reaching a critical mass that will make the car companies take notice.

 

[jimlintott]

I would like to thank everyone for this discussion - it's the first time any of my threads has taken off. One of the arguments posted here is that electric cars need to be profitable for the car companies. ICE cars certainly have that advantage right now. There are many more parts to replace (oil filters, spark plugs, etc) than on an electric vehicle. I still think that electric cars could be just as profitable, although it will take time for the accessory and after-market products to take hold. I hope the current gas crisis will spur more people toward electric cars, eventually reaching a critical mass that will make the car companies take notice.

Maybe the car companies are stuck in a certain paradigm that doesn't allow them to see ways to make money on electric cars, I'm sure they are working on it though, but your point about service is important. I sold cars at a GM dealer at one time and the sales manager basically told me that his mandate was to put cars on the road because all the money was made in service.

Luckily, the way people drive, means that the body shop is here to stay, no matter how cars propel themselves.

In regards to what I bolded. This is a bit of Catch-22. It's the car manufacturers who have the infrastructure and know how to sell, maintain and repair vehicles. How can it reach critical mass without them? It would be pretty difficult for someone else to step into this industry, market an electric car and set up the network of dealerships to spur the current car companies to take notice.

Not saying it couldn't happen, it's just hard for me to see.

 

[uruk]

What's really holding electric cars back is battery technology.
Batteries still have a bad output to recharge ratio. They're also expensive. Replacing the battery on a hybrid (civic, prius, escape etc.) runs about $7000.00. (I checked at a dealership for the current price.)

Feul cells are still expensive and industry is still reluctant to set up hydrogen stations.
I saw a show on the Dicovery/Times Channel (I believe the show was called "Addicted to Oil") where a family volunteered to use a hydrogen car for a few years to see what the impact was on the family. The car cost $1mill (a prototype) and they used a series of refilling stations that used solar power to separate Hydrogen from water. The station could only produce one tank (the car's capacity) of hydrogen every 24 hours. And I think they only got about 200 - 300 miles on one tank.
They also intervied a representative for Honda who said that they purposly marketed thier hybrid to the american public on the basis that the hybrid does not need to be plugged in. A rep for GMC said that the American public has an aversion to cars that plug in. (the Japanese and european version can be plugged in)
The honda hybrid can actually be driven on the electic motor only. There is a switch, which is disabled on the American version, which can put the car into "stealth" mode or fully electric. The gas motor never engages.
There is a company, however, that will, for $10,000., re-engage the switch add a recharge circuit (or make it pluggable) and replace the battery with a more recharge friendly one.

You solve the battery problem and the electric car will dominate the roads.

 

[Peskanov]

Ziggurat,

That would definitely help, though the range issue still exists. Road trips would be possible, but you'd still be making a lot of stops. And specialized infrastructure would still need to be put in place (an expensive proposition), because you can't draw the kind of power needed to charge such a capacitor within a minute or so from existing electrical infrastructure at gas stations.

Well, that's the downside of all electric alternatives... But the same happened in the past with coal and steam engines. Steam locomotives lived longer than they should thanks to the big support systems built around coal. But this is not desirable, it's just market's inertia.
However the electric grid already reaches all gas stations! That's not enough, I know, but it's a beginning.

Also, there are several reasons which make electric cars interesting:
- Non polluting: I guess everybody would prefer cities without gasoline combustion gases.
- Long life, minimal maintenance. EV have few moving parts, and electric engines have really long lifes. Batteries are not so good, but some alternatives like ultracapacitors and high performance flywheels could fix that. I don't know about fuel cells using hydrogen.
- Cheap energy. Electricity is cheaper than oil,and we always have nuclear energy in the horizon in case of high prices for oil.
- Not so weak: EV are less powerful, much less in fact. But there is an important fact ignored by many people: the relation between speed and energy consumption for cars is not linear; reaching more than 100 mph is a terrible waste of energy. When keeping normal speeds like 60 mph, EV works quite ok.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The tired jokes about cars and penis size are not accurate. We only buy the guzzlers because women rate our value as a person based on our material possessions.

Correction, that would be the women you are attracted to?, the ones dripping makeup and Barbie clothes. The rest of us prefer the car that got the best crash test ratings and gets up the hill in the snow.

 

[jimlintott]

Ziggurat,

Well, that's the downside of all electric alternatives... But the same happened in the past with coal and steam engines. Steam locomotives lived longer than they should thanks to the big support systems built around coal. But this is not desirable, it's just market's inertia.
However the electric grid already reaches all gas stations! That's not enough, I know, but it's a beginning.

Also, there are several reasons which make electric cars interesting:
- Non polluting: I guess everybody would prefer cities without gasoline combustion gases.
- Long life, minimal maintenance. EV have few moving parts, and electric engines have really long lifes. Batteries are not so good, but some alternatives like ultracapacitors and high performance flywheels could fix that. I don't know about fuel cells using hydrogen.
- Cheap energy. Electricity is cheaper than oil,and we always have nuclear energy in the horizon in case of high prices for oil.
- Not so weak: EV are less powerful, much less in fact. But there is an important fact ignored by many people: the relation between speed and energy consumption for cars is not linear; reaching more than 100 mph is a terrible waste of energy. When keeping normal speeds like 60 mph, EV works quite ok.

Well they are not exactly non-polluting as there is a certain amount of pollution associated with the generation of electricity. However, even if all electricity was from oil fired generators then all the oil is burned in one spot and the polltution can be controlled at a single point. If new technology that reduces emmisions comes along it can be placed at that point and all cars benefit. So while it isn't non-polluting it is potentially much cleaner. The manufacture and recycling of batteries could be a problem pollution wise.

Electric vehicles are quieter which may be one of the most pleasant side effects.

 

[Pidge]

Just carrying on with the tzero, there's a result document for the 2003 Michelin Challenge Bibendum which the tzero participated in - and scored the highest GPA.

http://www.acpropulsion.com/ACP_Bib_results.pdf
or http://gestdoc.webmichelin.com/repo...epository=CHALLENGE&codeRubrique=DOSSIERS2003 for the complete official grades.

Highlights:
Efficency run used 21.7kWh over 101 miles, or 153.2 mpg using 33.8 kWh per gallon energy equivalent.

Range of 240 mile (miscalculated) - although the car was driven 260 miles between charges on the way to the challenge...

"Well-to-Wheel " CO2 (min) 0 g/mi (electricy can be generated from renewables)
"Well-to-Wheel " CO2 (max) 23.09 g/mi (I've not got a comparitive number for ICE or hybrids)

 

[Peskanov]

Looking for the energy densities of different technologies, I found this rather nice page. Enjoy:

http://www.thewatt.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=926&mode=nested

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
What do you mean, disseminating the information that the cars are impractical? They ARE impractical if you want to go long distances, and a LOT of consumers want the ability to go long distances. Are you advocating tricking customers into believing something to the contrary?


Red Car Line was a competitor. Why would GM dismantle their own car if they thought they could make money off it? It simply doesn't make sense as a conspiracy. And if there IS a conspiracy, chances are it will come out, just like the campaign against Red Line Car was uncovered. But accusations of crushing electric cars have been around for a VERY long time, and yet nothing substantive ever comes out. Why is that? Maybe because there really isn't a conspiracy, the technology simply cannot compete.

The Red car Line wasn't a competitor once Firestone bought it.


The image of a trilateral commission out there fooling the masses is not a correct description of what occurs. It's a complicated picture but the basics are, messages that go out as news, docutainment programs, and advertising. Some is direct and purposeful, some is indirect and purposeful, and some results from the first two and takes on a life of its own.

Suppose there is the niche market you speak of. That would indeed be what was expected with new technology such as a radical change in the automobile fuel source. Marketing could act as a catalyst to expand the niche, or as brakes to limit the niche market. If you can market something successfully, certainly you ought to be able to kill it with marketing messages just as well.

Consider now big auto makers either want no electric car competition, or they want to be the producers of the electric cars, they don't want to compete with new auto producers. So the big car producers have R&D going on in the field of electric cars. They determine it is going to take a big investment to produce these cars. They don't want to invest, (short sighted bad decision, not unlike many made in the corporate world). But they also don't want someone else to invest because that could lead to competition. What to do? Make sure you get the message out that it is a waste of time to invest in the R&D for electric cars.

There is a continuum of scenarios here. On one end the message was not manufactured and the R&D issues were 100% real. On the other end of the continuum it was discussed in the board room and a conscious effort was made to discourage the niche market from gaining any ground.

You can add to the equation a continuum of how in bed the oil companies and car companies are with each other. How many of the board members and CEOs are interchangeable at the top (the revolving board room doors) and how much cooperation between the top people pad each others' stock portfolios, pay checks, and other various bonuses?

I don't think the real world would have either of these continuums at either far end. In other words it isn't a trilateral commission conspiracy but it isn't completely innocent either.

Maybe the car companies didn't need to do much to kill the electric car. Or, maybe they really have buried plans for working autos that get fantastic gas mileage because there is so much money to be made in the oil industry and the tentacles are incredibly far reaching.

After recently watching the movie, "Why We Fight" about the far reaching tentacles of the military industrial complex and the oil companies, after seeing the corruption revealed in the Enron trial where employees were caught on tape taking power stations offline to fake an energy shortage and increase prices, after the top officials of Tyco have been caught cooking the books, after the Abramoff confession and other recent events which revealed corruption in Congress is at an all time high, after our current administration which clearly has ties to the oil industry took the country to war based on manipulating the information about WMDs and Iraq's connection to 9/11, after watching the news media become corporate poodles over the last decade not investigating much of anything the administration has done, the evidence certainly suggests killing the electric car could have easily been the result of actively manipulating the market rather than just reacting to it.

Note: I'm not going to hijack this thread with arguments refuting the above political statements. If you want to argue those, feel free to PM me. I have lots of specific examples I'll be happy to share.

 

[Ziggurat]

Maybe the car companies didn't need to do much to kill the electric car. Or, maybe they really have buried plans for working autos that get fantastic gas mileage because there is so much money to be made in the oil industry and the tentacles are incredibly far reaching.

If that were the case, why would they allow hybrids? Well, if you believe in conspiracy (or even ill intent), the only possibility is simply that the price premium for hybrids exceeds the gas savings, so they can still make a net profit. But by that logic, the lost gas revenues from other advanced technologies can also be made up for with a price premium on the vehicle. And that's rather easy to do, since gas really isn't that expensive, and oil companies are often involved with electric generation as well so they're not likely to be cut out of the equation entirely anyways.

After recently watching the movie, "Why We Fight" about the far reaching tentacles of the military industrial complex and the oil companies, after seeing the corruption revealed in the Enron trial where employees were caught on tape taking power stations offline to fake an energy shortage and increase prices, after the top officials of Tyco have been caught cooking the books, after the Abramoff confession and other recent events which revealed corruption in Congress is at an all time high,

I'm not familiar with the movie "Why We Fight", so I can't comment. But I am familiar with Enron. And I'll note that Enron didn't stay secret. Conspiracies don't stay secret if they involve more than a handful of people, and what you're suggesting (even a subtle marketing campaign alone) would take a whole lot of people. But a conspiracy to suppress, or even discourage, advanced car technology has never been uncovered. And the most likely reason is simply that such a thing never existed.

after our current administration which clearly has ties to the oil industry took the country to war based on manipulating the information about WMDs and Iraq's connection to 9/11, after watching the news media become corporate poodles over the last decade not investigating much of anything the administration has done,

That belongs in the politics forum, not here.

the evidence certainly suggests killing the electric car could have easily been the result of actively manipulating the market rather than just reacting to it.

What evidence? You haven't presented any evidence evidence that this actually happened, and the claim that it "could" happen is vague and meaningless. Your argument basically rests on your perception of how you think things operate, and your assumptions about why things have turned out the way they have. There has never been anything more. All it takes for your argument to come tumbling apart is one simple thing: an actual technological limitation that we cannot overcome yet. That's all it takes to produce every instance you can cite about how electric cars have been squashed, with no malice or conspiracy on the part of automakers or oil companies. Is there a candidate limitation? Yes, I already gave it. You've claimed, with only reference to a TV show, that this isn't a limit, but it really is.

 

[Ziggurat]

Looking for the energy densities of different technologies, I found this rather nice page. Enjoy:

http://www.thewatt.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=926&mode=nested

Interesting. And it pretty much shows my main point: the only contender to internal combustion engines for sufficient energy density is the hydrogen fuel cell, which is an advanced fuel technology rather than a battery technology. Add some supercapacitors to boost the peak transient power output and you've got a contender (provided you can solve the storage problem). There's a reason the car manufacturers are investing heavily in fuel cell vehicles and not electric-only vehicles, and it's not because of any conspiracy: the former have some promise, but the latter have been a dead end for over a century.

 

[Ziggurat]

Suppose there is the niche market you speak of. That would indeed be what was expected with new technology such as a radical change in the automobile fuel source. Marketing could act as a catalyst to expand the niche, or as brakes to limit the niche market. If you can market something successfully, certainly you ought to be able to kill it with marketing messages just as well.

No, marketing cannot expand a niche market. Products that start in a niche market can sometimes break out of that niche, but only if the product itself manage to serve the needs of the larger market. Marketing cannot do this for the product. And the reason electric cars are a niche market is because they cannot serve the needs of the larger market, because they're too short ranged and take too long to recharge. Those are genuine technological limitations which consign all-electrics to obscurity. No amount of marketing can change that, and if you try you're just throwing money down a hole.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If that were the case, why would they allow hybrids?

No one allowed hybrids, the electric car could only be discouraged while the oil supply wasn't in crisis which it now is or will be soon. Killing the electric car was short sighted.

I'm not familiar with the movie "Why We Fight", so I can't comment. But I am familiar with Enron. And I'll note that Enron didn't stay secret. Conspiracies don't stay secret if they involve more than a handful of people, and what you're suggesting (even a subtle marketing campaign alone) would take a whole lot of people. But a conspiracy to suppress, or even discourage, advanced car technology has never been uncovered. And the most likely reason is simply that such a thing never existed.

The movie, Who Killed the Electric Car is out isn't it?

That belongs in the politics forum, not here.

Only trying to give examples of documented conspiracies. People often simply disbelieve this kind of stuff is possible.

What evidence? You haven't presented any evidence evidence that this actually happened, and the claim that it "could" happen is vague and meaningless. Your argument basically rests on your perception of how you think things operate, and your assumptions about why things have turned out the way they have. There has never been anything more. All it takes for your argument to come tumbling apart is one simple thing: an actual technological limitation that we cannot overcome yet. That's all it takes to produce every instance you can cite about how electric cars have been squashed, with no malice or conspiracy on the part of automakers or oil companies. Is there a candidate limitation? Yes, I already gave it. You've claimed, with only reference to a TV show, that this isn't a limit, but it really is.

The evidence I referred to was the documented evidence of the examples I gave. I was only referring there to the evidence such practices are common for corporations.

As for evidence specific to killing the electric car, that is in the movie and in the SAFrontier program.

I understand you and I have a different perspective here. That's why I described the continuum of possibilities. I think the real story is in the middle of that continuum. I don't think in this case, the conspiracy is deep. I suppose it wasn't hard to portray the electric car as infeasible. But I also don't buy the decision to shred the cars that were leased out instead of selling them was an innocent decision.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, marketing cannot expand a niche market. Products that start in a niche market can sometimes break out of that niche, but only if the product itself manage to serve the needs of the larger market. Marketing cannot do this for the product. And the reason electric cars are a niche market is because they cannot serve the needs of the larger market, because they're too short ranged and take too long to recharge. Those are genuine technological limitations which consign all-electrics to obscurity. No amount of marketing can change that, and if you try you're just throwing money down a hole.

Zig, you defined this car market as Niche, then set parameters. Such parameters may or may not apply to the actual market for electric cars.

Marketing can create markets for lots of things you never knew you needed.

 

[Ziggurat]

No one allowed hybrids, the electric car could only be discouraged while the oil supply wasn't in crisis which it now is or will be soon. Killing the electric car was short sighted.

Sure someone allowed hybrids. Those vehicles cost a lot of money to develop. Someone high up in the company, as in the CEO, had to say yes, let's spend all that money developing a new, more fuel-efficient car. The CEO's of Toyota and Honda allowed hybrid cars. And the reasons they allowed hybrid cars apply equally to electric vehicles, PROVIDED that they can be sold at a profit and in sufficient quantities. But there's no reason to think that they can. Was it short-sighted to kill off the electric car? I don't see why: they won't become viable until a better battery technology comes along (if ever), if such a battery technology is developed it will be easy to reintroduce electrics, and hydrogen fuel cell cars might pass them in the mean time anyways.

But I also don't buy the decision to shred the cars that were leased out instead of selling them was an innocent decision.

All that takes, though, is a tiny bit of stupidity on the part of some middle manager, and stupidity has never been in short supply anywhere. Suppose you're the GM CEO and you want to kill electric vehicles. What do you do? Nothing. You don't research them, you don't build them, that's it. It takes no more than that to kill them off, because none of your competitors are willing to take the financial risk. GM only ever took the risk because of the peculiarities of California law (since negated), not because of actual market demands. Destroying the cars? You don't need to bother. I find it more plausible that some middle manager just thought that it would simplify their book keeping if they didn't have to worry about this strange, low-volume, high-cost vehicle was still floating around, presenting possible liabilities or repair demands.

Why was it done? I don't honestly know, but it doesn't really further any conspiracy to prevent electric vehicles, and no such conspiracy is necessary to come up with a possible explanation.