FYI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSBykAngDpY

I would say that it is not who, but what. The answer would be greed.

I read where we are funding the terrorist with our money spent for foreign oil.
Seems like a contradiction.

Those dealing in oil are very powerful. The money is readily available to buy legislation.

I'll tell you what killed the electric car - the fact that they sucked. Not a lot of people can afford having a two seat car with a range of 60 miles (on a good day) that takes several hours to "fill up." The shocking revelation by one of the people in that clip that GM invested in the Hummer because they could make more money pretty much sums it up. GM couldn't make money on electric cars because people didn't want them, or at least don't want them in their current form.

Hybrids are rising is popularity. Who said the electric car is dead?

Hybrids are rising in popularity, but they're not the answer. Not just yet, anyway. In comparison tests, they lose out to newer, cleaner diesel technology. They also are not yet cost effective ... i.e. a Honda Civic Hybrid vs a Honda Civic sedan. Popular Mechanic's and Autoweek are just 2 publications that have explored this subject in depth.

Who said the electric car is dead?

The GM EV1 which seems to be the subject of this documentary definitely wasn't a hybrid, though.

Gee, I always thought it was the Stonecutters...

The last electic car that I heard about beat a Ferrari F550 in a 0-60 run. It's damn ugly (http://www.acpropulsion.com/) though. I think we need slightly better solar panels. It seems the way to go, stick them on top of your car and it'll charge while driving during the day. Just don't park in the shade...

Oh I just saw this and it looks pretty cool if it's true:
http://www.cyber-media.com/aircar/
Unfortunately their US site seems to be having problems.

I hope this movie plays in a theater near me. Though I think it is unlikely is a large conspiracy going on keeping electric cars off the market, I do have some questions. Its hard to believe there isn't enough interest to support one model of pure electric car. If I could buy an electric car that goes 100 miles a day (to school/work and back) then the cost savings would be huge, and very worthwhile in my opinion.

While hybrids, or it least plugin hybrids (electric cars) may be the future, hybrids as they are today stink IMO. They get only barely better milage than their gas counterparts, still do about the same amount of polluting, and still keep a strong dependency on foreighn sources of fuel. A technology that is a big waste of time and solves very little, especially with as much hype these vehicles carry.

Its hard to believe there isn't enough interest to support one model of pure electric car.

There's certainly interest from thousands of hard-core environmentalists, but once you eliminate those that are willing to buy but unable to put up with the compromises (range, mostly) and those that just use public transportation, you aren't left with many people. And when you have to spread the cost of research and development over a small number of cars, those cars get really expensive, which further reduces the number of people able to buy them.

A pure electric car at this point is a good second vehichle option. It could be useful for the shorter commute to work, and for local errands. It just isn't practical for any longer range travel. That doesn't mean it wouldn't sell. Conditions are changing as the price of gas rises, and as battery technology improves. What wasn't a big seller then, could be profitable now. Most days I travel less than ten miles in my car. On those days, an electric car would be practical. Other days I travel much further, and on those days I would need an engine. A plug in hybrid would be ideal for my usage, because most days I would never use the engine. What I would like to see is a flex-fuel hybrid, and a relaxation of the laws on distilling your own alchohol.

Who killed the electric car?


It was Colonel Mustard, in the drawing room, with the candle stick.

I noticed the film has the obligatory pictures of Bush, Cheney and Condi Rice as suspects in some supposed evil plot by the petroleum industry.

I noticed the film has the obligatory pictures of Bush, Cheney and Condi Rice as suspects in some supposed evil plot by the petroleum industry.
Well, the petroleum industry has plenty of evil plots, and those three (especially Cheney) are involved in them. And the petroleum industry hates the idea of alternative fuels, because they'd lose monopolies and business and all sorts of stuff. But the idea that they supressed the electric car is garbage. The only thing that supressed it is the lack of a breakthrough in battery (or even solar) technology. That's all.

Incidentally, my money is on biodiesel as a viable replacement for oil. No reason why you couldn't make a biodiesel hybrid, either.

It was the Butler, with the candle stick, in the rich guys pocketbook!

I still think it was the big oil companies and the Hummer coming out at the same time. They could be cashing in if they only hadn't gone with the hummer

Gee, I always thought it was the Stonecutters...No, they rig every Oscar Night.

Ps - You are now the coolest person on AllForums.

Brooks, you too?

Sheesh, everyone at allForums watches The Simpsons.

I think everyone in the US watches the Simpsons at the very least.

You guys are missing several points.

First off, these cars ARE electric. That means you will have to plug it into our electrical grid sooner or later. Which means power has to be produced somewhere along the line. Pick your poison; will it be coal? which is disparaged as dirty, nuclear power? with the images of Three Mile Island and the China Syndrome dancing in everyone's head, will it be hydroelectric? which is a great source of energy if you don't mind killing off migratory species of fish like salmon and extinguishing cold water species like trout. How about wind and sun, if you don't mind being stuck on days the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow.

Did I mention that our electrical grid is already stressed as it is? With aging infrastructure that isn't being updated? Have I told you about the fact that people suffer from a massive case of the N.I.M.B.Y. syndrome whenever a power plant on the scale of Three Mile Island is proposed? Hell, ANY power plant causes the N.I.M.B.Y. syndrome. Look to New York for problems with electrical power AS IT IS, dammit. NYC ran short of juice during a heat wave a couple of weeks ago. In spite of the electrical shortfall, people in NYC OPPOSE building electrical plants in the city. People in Upstate New York don't want massive power lines running THROUGH their back yards to deliver power to NYC, it would mess up the lovely landscape. Then there was the debacle of those massive windmills that were proposed for the coast of Cape Cod. That little proposal got killed. In short, we don't have the power we need as it is and people want to add electric cars to the burden. You guys are crazy.

Then there are batteries. We'd need them for electric cars. Zillions of them, dammit. Thousands of thousands of lead acid batteries. Lead and acid. Can you guys spell environmental disaster? The other kinds of batteries like Nickel Cadmium are just as bad if not worse. Then there is recharge time. Batteries take HOURS to recharge, care to wait? Then there is the fact that batteries don't like cold weather, run short on juice on some cold, dark night and you will be in a world of hurt.

Then there is weight, batteries are heavy.

If you wish to convince me that electric cars are the wave of the future, you will have to show how such obstacles can be overcome. We'd need more electricity and the infrastructure that goes with it. We'd need to find batteries that are lightweight, non toxic, can be recharged in minutes and will deliver gasoline like performance. THEN you'd have to convince people that yes, a power plant will have to built in YOUR backyard so the good citizens of America can have cheap access to power.

That a rather tall order, I think, dammit.

Have I told you about the fact that people suffer from a massive case of the N.I.M.B.Y. syndrome whenever a power plant on the scale of Three Mile Island is proposed?
Wouldn't roughly the same volume of oil refineries be closed? Maybe you just build the power plants where the oil refineries are. It's not new energy, it is one form displacing another.
People in Upstate New York don't want massive power lines running THROUGH their back yards to deliver power to NYC, it would mess up the lovely landscape.
As opposed to gas pipelines, trucks, and trains? Again it is about one form of transmission displacing another.
Then there are batteries. We'd need them for electric cars. Zillions of them, dammit. Thousands of thousands of lead acid batteries.
Use the power to separate hydrogen from oxygen. Transport and store the hydrogen the way we currently store and transport gasoline. There's a few years of research ahead on stabilizing hydrogen for such storage and transport, but being as "safe" as gasoline isn't that big a stretch.
If you wish to convince me that electric cars are the wave of the future, you will have to show how such obstacles can be overcome.
Cool! Welcome aboard :)
We'd need more electricity and the infrastructure that goes with it.
And we'd have less oil and the infrastructure that goes with it.
We'd need to find batteries that are lightweight, non toxic, can be recharged in minutes and will deliver gasoline like performance.
Hydrogen.
THEN you'd have to convince people that yes, a power plant will have to built in YOUR backyard so the good citizens of America can have cheap access to power.
AND you'd get to tell the good citizens of America that they can shut down that refinery in THEIR backyard.
That a rather tall order, I think, dammit.
I think that is because you are looking at it as new energy. Think in terms of displacement, and it becomes far more reasonable.

Wouldn't roughly the same volume of oil refineries be closed? Maybe you just build the power plants where the oil refineries are. It's not new energy, it is one form displacing another.

You would have been better off suggesting that closed military bases be the site for new power plants. As it is, the U.S. isn't really producing enough power to meet its needs. Electric cars would kill our current power grid, PLUS what are you going to use to power those electrical plants?




Use the power to separate hydrogen from oxygen. Transport and store the hydrogen the way we currently store and transport gasoline. There's a few years of research ahead on stabilizing hydrogen for such storage and transport, but being as "safe" as gasoline isn't that big a stretch

There are two problems with hydrogen. First off the membrane that seperates the electron from the hydrogen atom costs about 100,000 dollars right now. Most people don't have 100,000 dollars to blow on a car part.

Secondly, hydrogen is very, very hard to store. It escapes. You know how a helium balloon goes flat after a few days? It's because the helium escapes through the balloon. Hydrogen is worse when it comes to that. You could fill a hydro-car up and in a couple of days the tank will be empty, even if you don't drive it.

I'd love an alternative to petroleum, especially with all the troubles we're having with oil producing countries. But between environmental infighting and the fact that technology like fuel cells aren't mature enough yet to be on the market, the immediate future is looking rather grim for alternative energy, dammit.

There are two problems with hydrogen. First off the membrane that seperates the electron from the hydrogen atom costs about 100,000 dollars right now.

Secondly, hydrogen is very, very hard to store.

Three problems. The third being that it currently takes more power to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen than you get back out of it when you burn it.

Three problems. The third being that it currently takes more power to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen than you get back out of it when you burn it.

Yes, there's that, too. *sigh* It's not that I'm against a cleaner source of energy, it's just tough to make atlernatives to petroleum PRACTICAL.

As Darth Be'lal posted, batteries have many problems, Add to that batteries have to replaced every 2-5 years at a cost of about $2,000, say 10cents/mile.

Natural gas and propane are possible fuels, but are not very efficient and there is no supporting infra-structure. They are cleaner burning than gasoline, but the explosive hazards are also much greater.

Despite decades of research, fuel cells are not yet practical or cost-efficient for most transportation uses. Hydrogen is expensive to make and difficult (read expensive) to manage.

Unfortunately, for now, despite all its disadvantages, petroleum remains the only cost-effective source of energy for most transportation vehicles. Let's hope that hybrid cars will continue to become more practical.

What about those cars manufactured in the States but run in Brazil that run on alternative fuel sources. Cars have two tanks and gas stations carry gas and the alternative...?

What about those cars manufactured in the States but run in Brazil that run on alternative fuel sources. Cars have two tanks and gas stations carry gas and the alternative...?

I BELIEVE what your referring to is ethanol, it's made from sugar cane by products. It's great for the Brazillians because that nation produces a LOT of sugar canes. It costs about 60 cents per gallon and cars run just fine off of it. Before you get too enamored with what the Brazillians are up to, keep in mind that they are using agricultural waste products, which they produce zillions of tons of. We in the States COULD use corn, but that is a valuable food crop for one thing, for another a crop failure would reek even worse havoc on our economy.

I BELIEVE what your referring to is ethanol, it's made from sugar cane by products. It's great for the Brazillians because that nation produces a LOT of sugar canes. It costs about 60 cents per gallon and cars run just fine off of it. Before you get too enamored with what the Brazillians are up to, keep in mind that they are using agricultural waste products, which they produce zillions of tons of. We in the States COULD use corn, but that is a valuable food crop for one thing, for another a crop failure would reek even worse havoc on our economy.
Thanks for the update Darth. I saw it quite a while ago on Dateline or 20/20 or something. It did show promise though. They were taking about even using leftover orange juice pulp from Minute Maid etc.
We have to find something and soon. It kinda of seemed ironic that the cars were produced in the States, but hardly anyone I have asked knew what I was talking about and even googling got me nowhere.

We could buy ethanol from the Brazilians but there's something like a 50 cent per gallon tax on importing it to protect domestic sugar and corn farmers. I'd rather give money to Brazil than Saudi Arabia, but I guess Congress doesn't agree.

I just heard this on the radio, actually. Apparently making ethanol out of sugar cane is roughly twice as efficient. And if we used that method, it would help the economies of all of the poor Caribbean nations that can grow sugar cane. But nah, the corn farmers are suffering. Oh wait, no they're not.

Coolest electric car ever:

http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1

Nice ride, but way expensive. I'll wait until they've built a half million or so. By then the price will have fallen to barely reasonable. I'll keep on driving my old (18 years, 1 owner) F-150 until it does a "blues-brothers" self destruction somewhere. With luck & given its' history to date, it'll not leave me stranded. It will die in my driveway.

That looks f*!#'n awesome

Yeah, it's built on a Lotus Elise platform, which was subsequently lengthened for added room, but it's really cool, nonetheless.

anyone ever hear the rumor about a diseal engine that got 100-130 miles per gallon...and a gas engine that got 70-80 miles per gallon...all street milage...wonder if its true or not.....ive heard tons of rumors...but the thing that most of you arent pointing out is that making electricity is highly pollutant...i dont have the figures but i believe that car emissions is not the highest source of human pollution (im ignoring natural pollution....itsnt that a funny thing..natural pollution) ..i believe the creation of electricity through the burning of fossil fuels is a bit worse then what Cars produce...but that could only be for america...its been awhile since i did this debate...1998..wow...8 years ago...ok...i may be overly dated on this subject..hehe

That is a good point, the electricity has to be produced somewhere and burning fossil fuels is the cheapest way. Plus a fair amount of energy is lost when converting the energy from the fuels into electricity, then transporting the electricity to the stations, then when using the electricity to recharge batteries. So, there is a significant amount of wasted energy and, depending on the efficiency of a normal cars' motor vs the factory, I would bet that an electric car would use more energy overall and subsequently produce more pollution.

An interesting trivia tid-bit is that one of the first ‘cars’ ever made was an electric car, which predated even the infamous model T. Yet, all those years later, the same challenges still face ‘electric’ cars, as they do the combustion engine models. While it’s great to point a finger at some guy behind a large desk sitting in an oversize chair, the reality is that ‘price’ sells. People want ‘value’ and they also have a high expectation of ‘reliability’, both are the two greatest challenges. Yet, ironically, the ‘mobile’ industry will soon be a parallel driving force, and the same technology that will power an iPod for weeks, will come in with a needed assist.

There is a new electric car out there now. It is Expensive and 2 seater but 200 miles on a charge. A regular outlet can charge it. These cars are just a start as the battery technology gets better these cars will be more viable.
check out the Tesla (http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1)

well i hope they can produce a larger car then that....as im a big person..and though i like to go fast..id rather be comfortable then speedy.. this is the reason i normaly drive large cars or trucks... large interior for my large body