Boards > Pirate's Cove

Big Oil's Vendetta Against the Electric Car

(1/2) > >>

If you go to the link, check out the comments section. Ignore some of the political and global
warming comments and you will find some really good info. and links related to this topic.

This article from the Independent makes a few assumptions and contains a political jab
or two but overall, it does a good job of summarizing the documentary that I hope all
of you get to see. Rent it or order it on Netflix/Blockbuster.

Right after I saw the documentary, I posted a thread on it. Dalbuc immediately jumped
in and tried to point out why the EV1s died. It was related to the miles per charge
and price. While those were factors, there was so much more to the story. Since he
didn't bother to watch the film before commenting, he was at a disadvantage to
those who had.

Published on Saturday, April 7, 2007 by The lndependent/UK
Big Oil�s Vendetta Against the Electric Car
by Johann Hari

Somewhere out there, in the dusty basements of the Chevron-Texaco corporate headquarters, there is a technology that can - in one swoop - slash global warming emissions, save millions of people from respiratory illnesses, and stop us trashing the Middle East to seize its oil. Yet it is being deliberately left to rot, in the hope we will all forget about it.This sounds like the plot to a bad retro-episode of the X-Files, but an award-winning documentary released this week on DVD in Britain reminds us this technology is real and it is still there, waiting to save us. The film is called �Who Killed the Electric Car?�

Its story begins in the smogged-out state of California in the early 1990s. The people of the Sunshine State were waking up with a cough to a crisis: one-quarter of all 18-25 year olds in LA County had severe lung lesions or chronic respiratory diseases caused by air pollution. The state government realized they had to act - so they seized on news of a dramatic new technology.

General Motors (GM) had developed a prototype of an electric car with swelling consumer potential. It was a sleek, silver car that could drive at the same speed as a fossil-fueled hunk of metal - only with no exhaust fumes and no carbon emissions. You simply plugged it in at night, like a mobile phone, and drove off in the morning. The electricity costs the equivalent of 30p for a gallon�s worth of travel, as opposed to the �4 Brits pay at the petrol pump.

But GM seemed reluctant to push this extraordinary product onto the consumer market. So the California State Senate decided to give them a nudge. They passed a law that said if you want to sell cars for California�s roads, a proportion of them have to be electric cars: 2 percent in 1998, 5 percent in 2001, and 10 percent in 2003.

The state senators envisaged a day when electric cars would turn the old fossil fuel beasts into relics. They argued that since it took a law to get seatbelts, airbags and catalytic converters into cars, we also need a law to get toxic fumes and surplus global warming gases out of the atmosphere.

The car companies were immediately and irreparably enraged. They began a two-pronged strategy: the most grudging and stuttering possible compliance with the law, while lobbying fiercely alongside Big Oil to have the law scrapped.

The first electric cars appeared on California�s roads nonetheless, and a slew of celebrities like Tom Hanks, Ted Danson and Mel Gibson snapped them up and plugged them at every opportunity.

But the people working on selling the electric cars noted something odd: GM was deliberately underselling them. Chelsea Sexton, one of the company�s electric car specialists, explains that the team had to fill in vast questionnaires for every customer, only for most to be inexplicably rejected: �I had to fill in a resume for Mel Gibson listing his accomplishments and achievements, because they said he didn�t warrant a car.�

Instead of marketing them with sexy women draped over the cars, GM�s ads had odd opaque graphics and the voice of an elderly woman. Big Oil speedily joined this anti-advertising campaign. Exxon-Mobil followed its standard operating practice of setting up fake consumer groups to spread disinformation about the products, saying they were bad for the environment.

This corporate coalition finally succeeded in repealing the law - and GM immediately called in all their electric cars and sent them to the scrap heap. The drivers offered over $1.9m to keep the last remaining models - but the company preferred to destroy them. A bemused Sexton says, �There�s no precedent for a car company rounding up every particular kind of car and crushing them, as if they�re afraid one will get away.�

Their campaign almost complete, Chevron-Texaco came in with a final blow. The biggest drawback to the electric car had been its limited range: one charge lasted around 60 miles, then the car stopped. So the distinguished engineer Stan Ovshinsky created a battery that could run up to 300 miles at 70mph on a single charge - enough to get from London to Scotland, and make the car extremely popular. The oil companies bought the technology. It has not been seen since.

Why? Why would a string of corporations turn down cash and scrap a potentially extremely profitable technology? Isn�t that contrary to everything we are taught about how market economies work?

The oil companies had an obvious interest in stopping an alternative to fossil fuels. There is $100 trillion of oil left in the earth, and they plan to mine it - even if doing so will make the planet uninhabitable. Anything that could divert that cash away from them is a threat to be crushed.

But why did the car companies collaborate? Electric cars have no combustion engine - and it is in maintaining and replacing those engines that makes up a hefty chunk of Detroit�s profits. A transition to batteries, which require little maintenance, would be a disaster for their balance sheets.

Besides, marketing clean electric cars would mean admitting that their core product is dirty. Tom Everhart served on the board of GM for more than a decade, and he explains how the conversation about the electric car went there: �We said that [using the electric car] we can meet the zero emissions requirements. Then we said, �Do we want to show we can meet them? That means all our other cars���

Thatcho-Reaganites are always lecturing about how unregulated markets are the best way to stimulate innovation. The story of the electric car is a parable about how, to the contrary, unregulated markets often quickly descend into a corporate oligopoly that smothers new technologies in their cot. Only tough, democratic regulations - which they mock as �red tape� - keeps markets from devouring themselves. The California government�s regulations spurred innovation, until they were scrapped.

Out here in the smog, we have never needed the electric car more. The Royal Commission of Environmental Pollution warned this week that the air pollution in London is now as damaging as the low-level radiation Chernobyl survivors were exposed to, knocking an average of eight months off your life. The daily carnage in Iraq is the result of our burning thirst for oil. And more important still, global warming is acting like a slow-mo carbon bomb dropped on the planet, destabilizing the climate in ways we cannot control and cannot predict.

But however much we cry for it, the electric car will remain moth-balled in the vaults of Chevron-Texaco - until we change our economic system to put the needs of people before the unhindered, unhinged preservation of profits.

� 2007 Independent News and Media Limited

The problem with this conspiracy theory is it doesn't work. The EV-1 was a bad product.

Here's the bottom line:
Only 800 were leased during a four-year period - about 300 less than the entire production run.
The waiting list of 5000 sounds impressive but of those 5000 only 50 actually converted to leasees.
The car cost $35,000 - 40,000 and was a 2 seater which limited appeal.
The car's range was low and in cold weather could get up to 50% lower . Peak performance was 55-to-75 on early cars and 75-to-100 on later. For a car in SoCal is this an issue even in warm weather.
Battery charge took 8 hours to charge which is an unacceptable factor.
Battery life was only about 35k and required an expensive replacement ($2500-$3500) that not many folks wanted to eat.
The leasees could not keep the car because, thanks to various consumer protection laws, GM would have had to keep making spare parts for the 100 leasees (that's it) who wanted the car.

The problem with the EV-1 wasn't GM or Texaco killing it but that they offered a car that no one really wanted, especially at the price they offered it. The Ev-1 was a first generation effort at an electric car so the fact that it failed, like most first gen technology, isn't a huge shocker. The growth of hybrids shows that that market is evolving for these sort of vehicles and the articles we've seen posted show that the technology for these cars is also evolving to the point where it is more commericially viable.

It would be nice if you sourced those facts. You obviously got them from somewhere.

There are so many other issues brought in the film but since you haven't seen it, you'll have
to comment from an ignorant standpoint.

Folks, see the film. You will like it. Very entertaining and eye opening.

Our government forced us to wear seat belts because it's safer. They forced car companies
to improve the efficiency on cars because it would help clean things up. Why not force
the car companies to put out an affordable electric car? The EV1 was the product of
the California Air Resources Board’s mandate that car companies doing business in
Cali. had to produce a zero-emissions vehicle.

The auto makers and their lobby successfully overcame that. And that is one of the factors
covered in the film.

By the way, the longest drive I make around la is 60 miles round trip. Most people don't even drive
that much back and forth to work. For many, the miles per charge was plenty. Most of my trips
are 5-10 miles round trip.

The cost was high but nothing like what we have now with these new electric cars.

All you have to do is watch the commercials that GM made for the EV1 and you'll see GM's lack of
zeal for this product.

I read an interview with T. Boone Pickens and he supports alternative methods such as electirc cars, hybrids, etc.


--- Quote from: ufojoe55 on April 09, 2007, 04:02:13 PM ---By the way, the longest drive I make around la is 60 miles round trip.

--- End quote ---

Great, now you've chewed up the EV-1's range and you still need to go to the grocery store, go drop off and pick up Timmie at baseball practice and then drop Janie off at her friends Jill's house and wow you are really pushing the range issue plus you need to finish that up, drop it back off at home and make sure it gets 8 hours on the charge or you won't have but about 80% of your range tomorrow. There's just not much margin for error with that sort of range and recharge time - not to mention you can't drive anywhere with it since the Holiday Inn isn't gonna have charging stands for it.

The car is practical for childless, singles who live and work close together and have an other vehicle for longer trips but for families or those who have longer drives (and BTW the idle charge isn't part of that calculation so if you sit in traffic you obviously get less) the car is not practical not to mention the demand for $40k cars is substanitally lower than for $20k cars to begin with.


--- Quote from: ufojoe55 on April 09, 2007, 04:02:13 PM ---All you have to do is watch the commercials that GM made for the EV1 and you'll see GM's lack of
zeal for this product.

--- End quote ---

The commericial is directed at a different audience than your usual girls draped on cars type ads. Watch Honda's first ad for their hybrid. Very not sexy, very calling all hippies but who is the target audience of these cars? Joe Six Pack? Johnny Fat Boy Date Rapist? No, the audience is higher education, more liberal and higher income. That group doesn't get the Whitesnake style ads pumped at them. They spent a billion dollars on this program, I doubt they didn't want to get any ROI on that.

The overall love affair with fossil fuel by some is quite disturbing. My neighbor just dropped off a DVD of the documentary mentioned.  I see no difference between the Tobacco Industry, Oil Industry, Auto Industry, and Pharmaceutical Industry. They are only about Profit nothing else.


--- Quote from: Runole on April 09, 2007, 04:45:40 PM --- I see no difference between the Tobacco Industry, Oil Industry, Auto Industry, and Pharmaceutical Industry. They are only about Profit nothing else.

--- End quote ---

...or the movie industry, recording industry, sports journalism industry. What industry isn't about making cash?

The problem is while some might argue that the entertainment industry are certainly about profit and I guess you could argue the social value of such things, I just don't see the effects of those industries on the overall health of the population.

All of my examples severely impact the health of the human population along with other living things.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version