Recent Comments:
Exclusive Q&A with Chelsea Sexton about the EV1, why the Prius gets a 'C', and who really killed the electric car {Autoblog Green}
Jun 3rd 2007 3:27AM To clarify my comment about not buying a hybrid...
When I had to give up driving EV1s years ago, I bought a Saturn. My intention is not to buy any car, until I can buy one that plugs in. Yes, a plug-in hybrid would qualify. It's not that I don't think hybrids are good- but the gasoline hybrids just haven't been good enough to make me buy a car when I haven't yet needed a new one- especially when what I'm already driving is relatively efficient (but by no means am I suggesting my car doesn't pollute.) I've seen what the industry can do...when they do it, I'll be first in line.
Additionally, the traditional auto industry attitude is, "as long as consumers buy what we're making, we're not going to make anything else". I know this first hand, but it was brought home w respect to hybrids when in 2005, a public tv crew told me of a (then) recent visit to Toyota: they gone to ask why, since there is so much grassroots enthusiasm for converting the Prius to be a plug-in hybrid, Toyota doesn't just offer that option from the factory. The response from the Toyota rep was "because so many people are buying the gasoline version, we don't need to build anything else." They're starting to come around, but it's because consumers have demanded it.
For those that have needed to purchase a vehicle in the last several years, hybrids are certainly a valid choice- one of the best choices available, in fact. I commend anyone who's put such conscious thought into their driving choices, whether it's a hybrid, biodiesel, CNG, or simply choosing the most efficient gas car you can for your needs. For those that need a car NOW, I'd still recommend a hybrid, though there are some regular gas cars that come close to hybrid mileage and are less expensive, making them better choices for some.
For those that can wait, I would. I think that in the next couple of years, you'll find yourself with more choices- but the flip side of the auto industry becoming more responsive to consumer demand is that it put more responsibility on the consumer- you have to actually ask for what you want to buy, or you won't see it in showrooms.
Lastly, I was only relaying my personal choice- not at all suggesting what others should choose. All along, we've been about providing people with more driving choices- whatever my personal preferences, I'd never tell a Hummer driver he shouldn't have the choice to drive one. Similarly, I want the choice to drive a car that is powered (at least partially) by electricity- and gets that electricity from the grid, not a gasoline engine or a hydrogen fuel cell. Until I have that choice, my little Saturn serves me well.
Exclusive Q&A with Chelsea Sexton about the EV1, why the Prius gets a 'C', and who really killed the electric car {Autoblog Green}
Jun 26th 2006 4:15PM Hey Steve!
I agree, there are many talented and passionate
folks who worked on the EV1 program for General Motors (and who had counterparts in the other auto companies) who did and do deserve better than to have their own company portray the best car they
ever built as antiquated technology. Luckily, however, many of those folks are still there- and while it's unfortunate that GM gave away their
lead and are definitely followers in the hybrid world, it's important to keep in mind that no one, even Toyota, has made a plug-in hybrid available to consumers. It's still a door that's wide open to
any carmaker that produces a credible product, and more importantly, sincerely gets behind it. We've been through enough to know not to believe anything until we see it, but I think it's a mistake to give
up on our own.
As to CARB, the ZEV mandate will be revisited this year through a technology review, and new decisions will be made next year as to what vehicle technologies the automakers can use to comply. If the mandate hadn't been eroded through the 90s and
ultimately gutted in 2003, there would be up to a million EVs on the road today- not including the states that follow CA's model. We are the constituents of the State of California, and it's up to us to make sure history doesn't repeat itself.
Exclusive Q&A with Chelsea Sexton about the EV1, why the Prius gets a 'C', and who really killed the electric car {Autoblog Green}
Jun 25th 2006 4:09PM Hi all,
I love that this topic has inspired this much discussion! Let me see if I can address some of the points raised...
The largest automakers produced and leased or sold vehicles because they were required to do so by a law in California, the Zero Emissions Vehicle Mandate. The ZEV classification was derived by the state, not the automakers or anyone else, and refers to tailpipe emissions, not well to wheels pollution. In theory, any zero-emissions car could have been built to meet the mandate, but the only ZEV technology that is currently viable is electric technology- in theory, hydrogen fuel cells would also qualify, but their viability is a whole other discussion.
While it's no surprise that an industry might not embrace it's regulations (who among us likes to be told what to do?), it's also important to note that as cynical as we may have become about the role of government, it took government intervention and laws to bring us some of our most important automotive safety and environmental advances- among them, seatbelts, airbags and catalytic converters. Had the CA mandate not been eviscerated after a lawsuit brought by the auto industry and the federal government, we'd have as many as a million electric vehicles on the road in California today- not to mention the other states that follow CA's air quality policy lead.
Several types of full performance EVs were produced- the two seater EV1 and Chevy S-10 pick-up from GM, a RAV4 EV conversion from Toyota, the Honda EV+ (which, similar to the RAV4, was a small SUV), the Ford Ranger pick-up, and the Nissan Altra station wagon. None of these vehicles were represented as "the car for everyone", just as there is no single gasoline vehicle on the road today that's the car for everyone. Yes, many people had a second car, though most didn't use their gas car nearly as much as they'd expected once they tried the EVs and found that they were not only efficient and convenient, but fun. These were, by and large, represented as commuter vehicles, with a range of between 60-140 miles, depending on the vehicle model and battery type. Battery technology continues to improve, however, and current lithium technology would make the EV1 a 250-300 mile range car. Alternatively, plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) are an excellent choice for single car households, or those that regularly need to drive further than a full battery electric car would allow. Yes, there are small companies developing kits to create PHEVs now (mostly for the Prius, though others are in the works), namely Energy CS(E Drive)and Hymotion. We applaud those companies as well as the smaller EV companies on their vision and willingness to take on the Goliath auto industry. Still, we would like to see the larger automakers make these cars because at their economies of scale, the incremental cost is much lower. We're getting encouraging news in that direction- just the day before "Who Killed the Electric Car?" premiered in Los Angeles, General Motors announced that they would display a PHEV in the next Detroit Auto Show, Toyota is doing R&D on a PHEV, and Chrysler is testing a few dozen PHEVs on the roads as we speak. We're excited to hear this- but the primary factor in getting these cars from concept to market is still consumers asking for it. Otherwise, we stand a good chance of repeating EV history.
Regarding electricity generation, only 2% of the electricity generated nationally comes from oil. Nationally, just over half of our electricity comes from coal. While it's true that coal generates pollution, several studies have shown that even given the consideration of coal-fired plants, electric vehicle are approximately 45% less polluting than gasoline cars when it comes to global warming gases (mainly CO2). Additionally, it is estimated by several utility companies that, because most electric vehicles charge at night with off-peak power, the national grid could accomodate tens of millions of vehicles on our current generating capacity. In the time it would take to get that many electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids on the road, more renewables will be added to the grid, and cleaner coal technologies will either prove themselves or not- but either way, the grid will become cleaner with time, making electric cars the only kind of cars that will get cleaner with time. But even today, electricity is a viable choice- it is cleaner, cheaper and domestic.
(As an aside, I find it interesting that people tend to compare the overall pollution of EVs taking into consideration the generation of electricity, with the tailpipe emissions of gasoline vehicles- without holding them accountable for the generation and refining of gasoline...)
Electricity is not, however, mutually exclusive from other alternative fuels. Between the national security issues and the potential for natural disasters, we have learned that relying on any single fuel for transportation has the potential to leave us vulnerable. Using electricity does not preclude anyone from using ethanol, bio- or renewable diesel, gasoline or even hydrogen; in fact, many people see the ultimate vehicle as a plug-in/flex fuel hybrid, whereby one would have enough electric range for a standard commute, and also have an integrated fuel tank that would accomodate two or more different liquid fuels. It's not an either/or debate at all.
Similarly, yes, there are many people who are able to travel primarily through walking, biking, or public transportation- and we're all for that too. But those that want or need a car should have a choice of fuels to power it with. The case for electric vehicles is not about the people who didn't want them; it's about the folks that do.
Regarding the business decsions to continue to make these cars, in this case, it actually wasn't up to the companies themselves. The California mandate (which was also adopted by several other states) dictated that zero-emission vehicles be offered on the order of 2% of all vehicles offered in 1998, 5% in 2001 and 10% in 2003. More importantly, after the automakers and oil companies successfully lobbied the state to give them a pass on the 1998 requirement, the State decided that the automakers had to "build and market electric vehicles in accordnace with market demand". Both industries had a stake in making that demand appear as low as possible. The cars were, hands down, their own best advertisement, and the more they were on the road, the more people wanted them. But for those that truly believe that the programs were killed simply due to lack of demand, how would that have been helped by spending additional time and money, not to mention squandering owner loyalty and goodwill, to literally round up all of the leased cars and destroy them? And yet, each automaker did. This was not an issue of liability- there is inherent liability in every car built, if you're going to use the argument of "what if it crashes into someone and that person sues the company", etc. The full performance electric vehicles were all crash tested and NHTSA certified- not to mention UL rated. The fuel we're using today is a lot more volatile than batteries.
In the end, the biggest factor of consideration was not whether or not they could make money on the EV programs, it was what impact those programs would have on the rest of their businesses. Suffice it to say that it's more complicated than it appears, and became the reason that the film needed to be made- no one else was telling the story. In that story, however, everyone was allowed to speak for themselves, including politicians (from several administrations on both sides of the spectrum), auto companies, oil companies, etc.
Regarding the automakers investment (i.e., GM's "billion dollars")... there is some debate as to the validity of those numbers- as in, how much was spent on the program vs the lobbying to kill the CA mandate, but even if... the largest initial costs- r&d, building a production line, etc., had already been spent when the program was killed. Continuing to make the vehicles would have only helped to recoup that cost- especially as, when the program ended, there are 4,000-5,000 people on a waiting list to get an EV1- which had been poorly advertised and was only available in two states and built in batches of roughly 500. It's not hard to imagine the potential if it had been widely available and sincerely marketed on a corporate level- even moreso now that gasoline is nearly double the cost of what it was back then. There are roughly 100,000 auto workers losing their jobs in the country- I'd much rather see them builing the cars we're working so hard to get to buy, and their companies becoming healthy again in the process.
To put the billion dollar number in some perspective, GM spent $3 billion dollars last year in advertising last year alone- three times the amount spent over the fourteen total years of the program. There were numerous technologies invented or refined and patents documented that are now being used in hybrids, fuel cells and gasoline cars today- various regenerative braking, drive-by wire, tire pressure monitoring systems, etc., were all created or advanced during the EV programs, and the auto companies are indeed making money off of those programs by implementing those technologies into other cars. The automakers did not "lose" billions of dollars on the EV programs- not to mention a significant amount of public funds were spent developing these technologies and infrastructure- and yes, they were incentivized in the market, although, at a maximum federal incentive of $4,000 per car, nowhere near the all time high of $100,000 made available to those who purchased a 6,000lb+ vehicle in 2003. Nevertheless, the case can be made that since we collectively helped fund the EV programs, we should at least still be collectively enjoying their environmental benefits, and that the automakers didn't have the right to crush the cars.
The reason that there is so much discussion around these issues is because there is no one simple answer. But, people make better decisions when they have more information available- which is the whole point of telling stories like these. Sometimes truth is indeed stranger than fiction.
