So just who did kill the electric car?

It wasn't the Stonecutters, despite their claim of responsibility.
The film documents the electric car's brief ride on California's roads as part of the state's now-defunct zero-emissions quotas and GM's simultaneous manufacture of and destruction of the EV1 electric coupe. Apparently zero-emissions, gas-free vehicles are such a threat to the republic that GM not only rounded them all up and destroyed them when the lease terms were up -- no one was allowed to actually buy one -- but the one surviving EV1 parked in the Petersen museum in LA was "disabled" by GM, presumably to keep the car's hardcore devotees from springing it from its underground lair.
When I say hardcore, I mean a multiple-week vigil outside the lot where the cars had been impounded, small protests throughout California, offers to buy the cars outright en masse. These folks loved the EV1 and were thwarted in their efforts to do right (and spend their money) by GM. It's baffling and heartbreaking to watch. So much for the invisible hand of the market.
I left wanting to walk home just to spite big oil, a nonstarter in 100-degree weather ten miles from the house hauling rabbit hay and enormous chew bones. But it did get me thinking about some of the options shown at the end of the film. WKEC makes hydrogen fuel-cell technology look damned weak -- prohibitively expensive and more costly in energy terms than electric. Gas-electric hybrids are the working compromise for now, with the possibility of plug-in hybrids getting about 100 miles per gallon and recharging in your garage overnight. This ties in nicely with efforts to green electrical power, as illustrated by Tim Walker's article on Austin's renewable energy program:
The wind blows strongest at night, when electricity needs are lowest. Which is where Austin Energy's Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle initiative could help. (See "Austin Plugs Into the Next Hybrid Revolution" in the March 2006 edition of The Good Life.) Owners who plug in to recharge overnight would be in effect storing that cheap energy as well as reducing pollution by not driving conventional cars.
It's a great idea -- reducing coal-fired power-plant pollution and cutting car emissions in one move. But Austin's plug-in hybrid electric program right now seems to consist mainly of petitioning manufacturers to make plug-ins, to demonstrate consumer demand. Who Killed the Electric Car shows, unfortunately, that consumer demand isn't the issue for carmakers. After all, the film includes Phyllis Diller (!) reminiscing about the electric cars that were popular during the early days of the auto industry. The big carmakers could have been cranking them out and refining the technology for decades, but they chose not to.
If you're carbound and greenminded, that leaves settling for a regular hybrid like a Prius, which ain't gonna haul two kids and two big dogs. And let us not speak of Ford's hybrid SUV. I'm familiar enough with Ford's products to know that I would sooner walk home with my rabbit hay in the heat than pay money for a Ford.
If you or someone you love is a total gearhead, you can convert a car yourself, either from gasoline to electric or a hybrid to a plug-in hybrid that can just about do without gas. It takes a lot of money and time, but it might be worth it.
Or we could develop a sensible national fuel-economy and energy policy and make the technology GM literally threw away available to all car buyers. Sure, it sounds like crazy talk, but after seeing the way GM moved the goalposts on crazy, it makes sense to me.
Bonus: Amanda's review is here. There's an interesting discussion in the comments thread about whether going from gas- to electric-powered cars is just shifting the environmental burden rather than lifting it.
Labels: eco-geekery, politics




