Uncategorized

Movie Review: Who Killed the Electric Car?

10 Comments

I went to see the movie “Who Killed the Electric Car” the other night. It was a de facto private showing, since I was the only person in the theater, proving once again that I’m weird. Yes, I like to watch lectures on C-SPAN and documentaries on PBS, so going to a movie about the demise of the electric car is not unusual for me.

It was pretty interesting; I vaguely remember the electric car of the 90’s. I remember the buzz being that they were impractical because the battery life was too short. Well, according to the producers of the movie, it was much more sinister than that. Essentially, the movie claims that automakers (aided and abetted by the oil industry and the Bush administration) killed the electric car.

They pointed out that electric cars don’t need as much maintenance as their internal-combustion-engine counterparts. Oil filters, air filters, catalytic converters, mufflers, etc., are all eliminated in an electric car. If electric cars became successful, there’s a huge part of the automotive industry that would see big profit losses. And, of course, since they don’t use gas, the oil industry would also see huge profit losses.

The movie-makers conceded that battery-life was a hindrance, but added that that obstacle was easily surmountable as battery technology has improved in leaps and bounds over the past 10 to 15 years. With modern lithium-ion batteries, an electric car can go 100+ miles per charge. Considering the average person only drives around 30 miles per day, this is more than enough for a primary vehicle one would use to commute to work or get groceries. For long trips, one could use a secondary vehicle with a standard gas engine or a hybrid. You can even ask an electrician like MZ Electric or visit sites like xpertelectricllc.com/electrical/ev-charger-installation/ to get an EV charger at home.

The oil companies lobbied against the electric car, and (according to the movie) big-oil lackeys in the Bush administration have convinced the President to pursue unrealistic hydrogen power for motor vehicles which will take years to research, test, and make practical and marketable rather than electric cars, which could be produced immediately with existing technology.

General Motors, which took the brunt of the criticism in the movie, has issued a press release defending themselves. They claim that the cars simply didn’t have enough consumer demand to make it profitable for the auto giant to continue the program. They point out that “only 800 vehicles were leased during a four-year period.”

Critics counter that GM could have done more to make the program successful. They point out that advertisements for the cars were unlike any other auto ad campaign — and if the commercial they showed during the movie is any indication, I’d have to agree. It had an ominous, almost apocalyptic feel to it, with pictures of people’s shadows on the ground, but no people, and a female voice-over that sounded like the opening of the first Lord of the Rings movie. A far cry from normal car commercials that feature hip-looking twenty-somethings, speeding cars, and popular music.

And although GM claims that “a waiting list of 5,000 only generated 50 people willing to follow through to a lease,” critics point to a GM executive in charge of that effort who said on camera (this is not an exact quote, but close), “after we explained all the limitations of the vehicle, only 50 people were willing to lease it.” Some salesman. Ever gone to car dealership and had the sales staff explain all the limitations of a vehicle to you? Also, even though this wasn’t mentioned in the movie, I imagine the fact that you could only lease and not buy the car also had some impact. For example, I’d never lease a car; I want to pay it off as quickly as possible and then drive it until it dies.

I thought the documentary was well done for the most part, although there were several creepy parts that made you feel like these activists love their cars as much or more than other humans. When they showed the EV1s (GM’s electric car model, pictured above) being destroyed, it was like the filmakers were trying to make it look like a WWII documentary of suffering and extermination in concentration camps. When there were many activists holding vigil outside one of the GM plants trying to stop GM from removing/destroying the last hundred or so EV1s, I thought to myself, couldn’t this effort be put to better use protesting the genocide taking place in Darfur or something? Suffice it to say, the movie was a bit over-the-top at points.

Nevertheless, I walked away pretty much convinced that U.S. would be well-served by pursuing electric cars as a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil. And, I was equally convinced that auto makers have no incentive to make such cars, even if there is demand for them, because they can make a lot more money by keeping electric cars out of the marketplace. The only way it will ever happen is if the government demands zero-emission vehicles be built. And that opens a whole new can of worms.

10 thoughts on “Movie Review: Who Killed the Electric Car?”

  3. Seems like the electric car zealots didn’t even bother to get one themselves? GM leased them because of the battery issues of which there are many. That way, GM could retain legal ownership of the cars. The batteries would eventually fail and are very pricey. If the car was wrecked, GM could simply cancel the lease and destroy the car, properly instead of Jon Doe letting the car sit in his backyard, rotting away. Disposal of old battery sets is yet another issue. It goes on and on.

    Electric cars are NOT in any fashion, zero emission. How much pollution does the coal-fired power plant emit in order to produce the electricity for the electric car? The greenies don’t like to talk about that, and they wouldn’t let us build another coal-fired power plant in order to provide electricity for a huge number of the cars anyway. In any event, we need more electrical generating capabilities. Right now, the Sierra Club is trying to prevent a new coal mine near Canton and trying to block a new power plant near St. Louis. Blame THEM for future electric rate increases as supply and demand is what really makes pricind move up or down.

    BTW, what ever happened to the electric cars that the old CILCO had and were kept in the lowest level of the Bank One (formerly Jefferson bank) parking deck? The plug-ins are still there. They are 110 volt and active. During the last couple of winters, I used to plug in my diesel car during the winter to keep it warm while I was at work.

  5. I remember CILCO had a Renault in the early 70s that was electric, with the back seat and trunk full of batteries. It ran OK, but it was scary to get it stopped because of the weight. One of the guys who used to drive it for community events told me once you had to start braking a block before the stop sign. Fortunately, things have changed. Another “clean” alternative is Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), which is used a lot in Cananda. People re-fill their cars overnight right from their home gas meter. I think some of the Post Office vehicles are CNG and some buses in Springfield run that way, or at least used to.

  6. I actually drove one of the GM EV1’s on a test drive at an environmental journalism conference in 1997. At the time, the engineers told us the the cars were ready for full production.

    They also said the problem was getting people to make the sacfirice of having one vehcile in the family that had a limited range each day. Still, at the time, they said the car could travel 60-80 miles a day on an overnight charge. Think about it, how many people living in the Peoria area drive less than that in a day?

    (By the way, the EV1 was totally AWESOME to drive. An electric power source gives a car more pickup than ANY high-perforamance gasoline engine. The ride was smooth and even, it took the curves wonderfully, and handled like a dream.)

    An electric car is not a panacea, as pointed out by questions of more coal-fired power plants needed to charge a nation of electric cars. But clearly its an option that could work, if there was more commitment on the parts of the public and private sector to make it work.

    Ultimately, it will take $5 a gallon gas to make us dedicated to other options, whatever they may be.

  10. The Postal Service used to have 10% of their fleet running on CNG. Some postal stations had refill stations and there was a refill station on N Knoxville and one at the Persimmon St CILCO station. Federal law mandated that if your fleet was XX in size, then 10% had to be an alternative fuel vehicle. The Postal Service has the biggest vehicle fleet in the United States and when gas goes up by 1 cent, the Service’s gas cost goes up a million dollars. That is why the PO wanted an alternative fuel source.

    The Postal Service no longer uses CNG and has removed the tanks and special equipment from their fleet. CNG is under extreme pressure and because of the water content in natural gas, it diluted the oil. Some engines failed because of this but no one will admit that NG was the cause. Here in Peoria, there were 3 engines that threw rods through the oil pan.

    The other reasons the PO no longer uses CNG is because of the cost of Natural Gas. It went through the roof.

    There was also another minor problem with CNG vehicles. The system was designed with a switch. The switch had 2 positions, AUTO and GASOLINE ONLY. In the AUTO mode, the vehicle ran on CNG until the fuel in the tank (or pressure level) dropped to a low point, then it would switch to gasoline. Sometimes depending on outside temps and pressure in the tank, the vehicle would switch repeatedly from CNG to Gas. This was a problem if you were pulling out into traffic and needed to accelerate. The switch made for a slight hesitation as CNG didn’t quite have the “ummph” you needed.

Comments are closed.