"What happened to the Electric Car?" they now ask on CNN

[question everything]

(and other places)

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ELECTRIC CAR?

Go watch the movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/

See how GM literally repossessed and destroyed all of them!

Frankly, I think that GM deserves whatever comes its way - sorry DUers who are GM employees.

They did not have to shift their production lines for the EV1s, but they did not have to take them back and destroy them.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. We showed that movie as one of our county Dems public movie night features.

A great expose'. Everybody should see it.

[wtmusic]

2. Do you have a link to the CNN story?

TIA.

[question everything]

10. It is a video 2:19

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2008/07/17/obrien.electric.car.cnn?iref=videosearch

Hope you can watch it.

At the end of this report, which is not on this video, the anchor and Miles O'Brien (the reporter) asked: yes, what did happen to the electric car?

[Brotherjohn]

3. Re electric cars, don't they just indirectly use whatever fuel your power plant burns?

i.e. you plug in to get the juice, and your local power plant supplies the juice. If your plant burns natural gas or if it's nuclear, then the resulting emissions from you driving your car create much less pollution and contribute less to global warming. But if your plant burns oil or, most likely, coal, then aren't you doing MORE to harm the environment than if you had an internal combustion engine using gasoline?

Or is it that they're much more efficient for amount of fuel used (i.e. burned at the source), so the car can travel further with less negative impact on the environment? Or that a power plant itself is more efficient? (but then you'd have to determine the net efficiency of the plant and the car)

Not trying to start a flame war. Just asking a question that's always nagged me about electric cars.

[Prefer]

4. depends where the power comes from

the point is that they are not a one trick pony like hybrid or hydrogen. As we harness more sources of natural energy, there is no conversion technology needed for these vehicles to start reaping their green payoff. And there are no emissions to run them. So if you have wind or hydroelectric, solar or tidal sources, they are purely clean.

[Brotherjohn]

5. Okay, I see that benefit. It DOES at least move the automobile sector...

... out of the emissions equation (at least directly). But the benefit seems more long term than a lot of people seem to portray when talking about electric cars. "Hey, why don't we use zero emissions cars!" Well, they're not, really.

[lumberjack_jeff]

6. EV's are better than ICE cars, no matter where you plug them in.

Myth: EVs don’t reduce pollution, just move it.

Fact: EVs do reduce pollution. Even if you consider effects from non-renewable forms of generating electricity, EVs reduce emissions by well over 90% – even over the cleanest SULEVs (and that’s not counting political and environmental effects from oil drilling, oil transport, refining, and gas transport to gas stations, and all of the little spills when filling up at the gas station). In addition, electricity can be generated by a variety of sources, including renewable methods such as solar, wind, hydro, geothermal. So the generation of electricity can become “greener” by converting from burning natural gas or coal to these renewable methods. There is legislation pending in California to force at least 20% of electric generation to be from renewable resources.

Most Californian households own and operate two or more vehicles. If the primary commute car (80% travel less than 40 miles per day; 50% travel less than 20 miles per day) were swapped for an EV, we would have many more days of beautiful, clear, blue skies rather than the smog, spare the air days, and all of the heath consequences associated with poor air quality.

By the way, it is the everyday driving that accounts for most of the pollution. Using those big, giant, gas-guzzlers for daily travel is far more expensive than driving a fuel-efficient car and renting the big, giant vehicle for those less common road trips.

According to CARB (California Air Resources Board):

* SULEV vehicles are 98% cleaner than cars sold in 1972, but population growth and increased driving will soon overwhelm pollution control efforts, unless Californians turn to new cleaner types of vehicles.
* Roughly 50% of smog-forming pollutants still come from gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles.
* Even when factoring in emissions from power plants generating electricity, EVs reduce pollutants by more than 90% when compared to the cleanest gasoline-powered cars (without considering the emissions associated with producing gasoline). EVs are roughly 98% cleaner than the average 2002 new car; roughly 95% cleaner than a SULEV.
* EVs also eliminate the evaporative emissions that escape gasoline vehicles.

CARB studies have also shown that more than 95% of Californians live in areas that fail to meet federal or state air quality standards.

http://www.evdl.org/docs/powerplant.pdf

[Brotherjohn]

7. Well, slightly better in the case of all coal plants (from which we get 55% of our power mix).

Thanks for the link. It does seem to me that the case is overstated in the "MYTH" language, using numbers like 90%; although this seems geared to CA and the power mix their is substantially tilted towards lower emissions fuels. But the paper you cite points out the reduction using all coal-fired plants for energy is 17-22%.

It appears even in that paper (reading through it briefly), they're saying that the main advantage (as we discussed above) is still gained in cases where and when the ultimate power source switches to lower emissions. Admittedly, that's not very plausible with the ICE.

BTW, I like your ribbon.

[scheming daemons]

9. The main benefit is that it makes the Middle East not matter one whit to us anymore....

...so we can get the hell out of there.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. for the first time in decades GM was ahead of the curve -

and they blinked in the face of the power of the oil companies.

Fuck em.