Babes in EV-land 6

Last night on NPR (she sayeth, firmly establishing her nerd credentials), I heard a story about protests intended to save GM's electric car, the EV-1. About 80 of the cars have been sitting on GM's lot, destined for the scrap heap. The highlight of the civil unrest yesterday seems to have been the arrest of "Baywatch" actress Alexandra Paul, who intoned in that screechy celebrity way, "This is about clean air."

Apparently these protests have been going on for a couple of months. But the GM flak made a reasonable-sounding claim: there wasn't all that much demand for EVs, and the industry is putting its energy into more promising technologies like hydrogen.

I'm all in favor of clean cars. But without knowing all the intricacies of EV history, I'm wondering if GM might have a point. Sometimes prototypes just suck.

Katharine Wroth is a senior editor at Grist.

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. Emily Cunningham Posted 3:50 am
    16 Mar 2005

    And?Ya, so prototypes aren't perfect.  Does that mean we should scrap 80 of them?  I think Daily Grist, on January 19th, says it well:


    Lessees David Raboy and William Korthof say they're ready to purchase the vehicles, which cost very little to maintain, require no gasoline, and have no direct emissions. But Ford is ready to (ahem) pull the plug on these EV Rangers because, according to a spokesflack, "we've moved on from electric vehicles and our focus is more on hybrids." Raboy understands that cars are sometimes discontinued, but he wants to know why his truck is to be demolished and why the company can't sell it to him instead. "How about the Excursion -- it's being discontinued," he said. "It gets 12 miles per gallon. Why not go back and crush all of those?" Indeed.


    If Raboy wants to purchase the truck, why in God's name do they need to scrap it?  
    Sarah reported back in January that they had reversed their decision to scrap the EVs. Seems as if they're back to their old tricks .  <Sigh>.

    Permalink

  2. Japhet Posted 4:26 am
    16 Mar 2005

    No Demand? Ha!The no demand argument that GM is currently using is complete BS.  Here are the key points...
    -Out of the 800 that were made, all 800 were sold.  

    -GM has admitted to having a waiting list of 4,000-5,000 names for the EV-1s. And this is when they decided to scrap the EV-1 factories and toss a very successful program out the window.

    -When GM went public with the decision to scrap the program, over $1.2. million was raised to save the vehicles.  
    So my question is, how can GM say there was no demand?  It looks to me there was PLENTY of demand!  And, not to mention all of this demand WITHOUT any significant advertising. Think about it...when was the last time you saw a commercial for an EV-1? Never. Why would a company that depends on oil shy away from an EV-1 program? All I can think is because they want to keep us addicted, keep us coming back for fuel inefficient vehicles.  These car companies, especially GM and Ford, refuse to allow Americans to get off their dependence on oil.  Well I don't know about you, but I am through with addiction. I want my independence.  
    Check out some other startling facts at http://www.jumpstartford.com



    Jay Els

    Educate, Motivate and Bring About Change. http://www.ran.org

    Permalink

  3. draboy Posted 6:04 am
    16 Mar 2005

    It's not just about car'sHi,  
    This is David Raboy, mentioned in the post below and now proud owner of a Ford Ranger Ev saved from the crusher.  It's charging outside my window as I write.
    But, it's not really about the cars per se, even though yes they are cool and practical and I have had ZERO problems, Zero maintenance(rememember its electric) and ZERO dollars to run it since I have solar panels.  Economically it's basically cost me zero dollars to run.
    The over-arching problem is oil addiction.  The environmental community has to begin to realize that over 50% of the stuff you/we all fight for can be directly tied to oil and the beasts that utilize oil, cars and trucks.  These electric cars and trucks are a symbol of what could have been and still can do.  Others can speak towards dispelling the myths surround the B.S. from the car companies regarding demand, marketing etc.  Basically they lied and did everything they could to not make the vehicles.  They only were forced to do and were damn sure they weren't going to have make it their business.  
    Thinking beyond the minutiae of these types of arguments however is where we must travel.  The overall goal for us all should be, is get us the hell off of oil!  Forget whales and trees and spotted owls for a moment.  Don't we realize that the world's problems all relate back to oil including the forementioned?  The corporations have most environmental organizations and politicians running around trying to fight this or that little pet project in a scattershot fashion when the real damage being done is right in front of your gas tank.  Get it?  It's called distract and attack and for the last 30 years environmental organizations have all fallen for it.  
    So now instead of forcing the issue of electric vehicles you have the Sierra club and others advocating hybrids, etc due to "budget limitations".  Way to go, you didn't do anything!  Sure you bought some new park space,(which is great by the way), but what good is that with more oil being used and global warming problems coming down the line.  Hopefully that park land won't be treeless due to drought.  With rising oil demand you simply are advocating more of the same.
    Republicans, evangelical Christians and I sure as hell hope environmentals can agree on oil being the root of many of our problems.  For Republicans it's national security.  Evangelicals are supposed to be good stewards of the Gods Creation and so on.   Since oil is our addiction and the car is our delivery device I think we must go after the car companies and force them to change for their own survival and ours.  
    So, it's about time we all came together in one unified voice telling the car companies and politicians, either get with making the EV's and securing our future or we'll stick with our used cars until you do.  Or something like that.  Without our prodding and this shift in the environmental community way of thinking what use will your work be when the really nasty effects of global warming come because you advocated a bunch of hybrids instead of addressing the real oil problem?
    David.

    Permalink

  4. jdham137 Posted 12:03 am
    17 Mar 2005

    A disgusted sailorThe destruction of the EV1 is a personal issue with me. I am angry and disgusted at GM's insistence on destroying the EV1 because I'm a sailor in the US Navy and have been sent on four six-month deployments to the Persian Gulf and Mid-East. No matter what you believe about our current involvement in Iraq, ALL of our involvement in the Middle East has its roots in oil. GM, Ford, Toyota and Honda had great vehicles that worked. They had a solution RIGHT NOW to a problem we have RIGHT NOW. But what they have chosen to do is insist that there was no demand (wrong), that the technology didn't work (wrong, electric cars are actually more reliable than internal combustion cars), and that the range of the cars wasn't up to par (wrong again, NiMH, Nicad, and Lithium batteries can easily get 100+ mile ranges which is more than sufficient for what most people drive in a day). Instead, they say the future is in fuel cells (far future that is, the first fuel cell cars won't be on the road for at least 10 years, maybe more). I believe they have thrown up the smoke screen  of fuel cells to keep doing business as usual. Why else would they choose a technology that is more complicated, tens of times more expensive than either EVs or ICEs, just as range limited as EVs due to hydrogen storage issues, no hydrogen distribution infrastructure, and hydrogen will be obtained mostly from petroleum. And in the meantime, polution will only increase, China and India will continue research in EVs and will surpass anything GM did with the EV1 eventually losing even more jobs to China, America will still be dependent on oil, and troops will continue to deploy, fight, and die for that oil.
    GM and Ford was able to convince the American public that they would love a vehicle that is more dangerous to its occupants and those outside it, that drinks fuel like there is no tomorrow, that is not as comfortable to ride in as a car, and doesn't hold as much stuff or as many people as a minivan. They could have done the same with EVs but they didn't. They wanted business as usual and they got it.
    What I've done in the meantime is put my money where my mouth and politics are. I drive a Volkswagen Jetta which I fuel with biodiesel. Last year I began commuting on my mountain bike and put over 300 commuting miles on it, I am learning to make my own biodiesel, and I recently purchased a VW Rabbit converted to battery power.
    GM, Ford, etc., in the words of our president, you're either for us or against us. You've made it clear where you stand. Thanks a lot GM, I'll be thinking of you when I'm back in the Sand Box.
    John S.

    Permalink

  5. David Roberts's avatar

    David Roberts Posted 1:59 am
    17 Mar 2005

    John,Don't worry, hydrogen fuel-cell cars are right around the corner!  In, uh, 2012.

    www.grist.org

    Permalink

  6. amazingdrx Posted 8:05 am
    15 Nov 2005

    Yep dave"So, it's about time we all came together in one unified voice telling the car companies and politicians, either get with making the EV's and securing our future or we'll stick with our used cars until you do."
    And convert those used cars to plugin hybrid on our own.  Good tactic.  The oily auto board members and execs will never do this voluntarilly.

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement